All right, it is two o'clock.

So we're going to call our November 12th meeting of the Rules and Open Government Committee to order.

Let's start with roll call, please.

Candelas.

Here.

Duan.

Here.

Foley.

Here.

Kemi.

Here.

Cohen.

Here.

Maybe of Corn.

Welcome to the Rules and Open Government Committee meeting.

As a reminder, we expect all attending to follow the code of conduct located in the agenda.

Failure to comply with this code of conduct and behavior, which will disturb, disrupt or impede the orderly conduct of the meeting may result in removal.

Okay, we're going to start by reviewing the agenda for Tuesday, November 18th.

Meeting has a 9:30 closed session and a 1.30 afternoon session with the evening session canceled.

Consent starts on page six.

We have the Climate Smart Zero Waste Element Report.

Section 8, an easement agreement for the Santa Clara San Jose Wastewater Facility.

8.2 RFQ for the backup develop for the developer and backup developer with the regional wastewater facility, 159 acres, 8.3, the 2026 major events status report, 8.4 inclusionary housing ordinance municode update.

And we have two items on land use consent, which are noticed to be heard immediately after regular consent.

We have any public comment on the agenda?

Yes, we do.

We have uh four speaker cards right now.

As I call your names, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Emily, Kyra, Alison, and Blair.

Hi, my name is Emily Ann Ramos from SB at home.

Um we're asking you to defer agenda item 8.4 amending the inclusionary housing ordinance.

We're asking for this deferral to get more clarity on why the city is considering this change.

In the fourth sentence reserve for the IHO and the council adopted Mayor's March 2025 budget message, the stated purpose of the proposed changes is to produce workforce housing for working families.

But nearly 70% of San Jose's house renter households, in the vast majority of whom are certainly in the workforce, fall below those median incomes.

The rental market reflects this as San Jose's apartment's average rent is affordable to people earning about 70% of the median income.

Now San Jose has historically been at the forefront of inclusionary housing on both the state and national stage, fighting for its ability to implement the ordinance through the Superior Appellate and California Supreme Courts, as shown in California Building Industry versus City of San Jose.

The current IHO was implemented in 2019 with support from a broad coalition ranging from housing advocates to Bills business groups and championed by then former mayor Sam Licardo, he's now Congress member now, and former council member now State Senator Dave Cortez.

It was crafted with extensive stakeholder outreach, rooted in robust analysis from both consultants and the city itself and developed in partnership with the developers of market rate housing to provide flexibility to help them achieve feasibility, all elements that are missing from the process that has led to these newly proposed changes.

The IHO continues to produce benefits today.

Just last month, the Mercury News covered yet another project delivering more affordable housing under the IHO, the Facino project near the Barry SF BART station with 260 new affordable homes.

So we hope that you will defer item 8.4 to allow more time for analysis and stakeholder outreach.

Thank you so much for your time.

Hi, I'm Kira Kazanzas from Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits.

Good afternoon.

I'm also representing the Real Coalition.

Also asking for a deferral of item 8.4 and hoping that that would be heard sometime in January, definitely after the cost of development uh study session and hopefully the holidays.

Um we also would like to see some specific um guidance for staff in terms of what data should come with the cost of development study so that all the questions that need to be answered to analyze the IHO proposal are heard by a council and by the community.

Um engagement on this item was very anemic compared to what we saw in adopting the original IHO and even changes made subsequent to that.

Um there was a out specific outreach made to developers.

There was one community meeting which we got two days' notice of.

I was in error in my letter.

I said same day notice, it was two days, um, but nonetheless not enough.

And there wasn't specific outreach to the community of people who need affordable housing to understand the full impacts of the I any change to the IHO.

Uh, thanks for considering uh our request.

Good afternoon, Alison Cingalani, Director of Policy with SV at home.

Um we are pretty much always going to oppose taking a tool that is intended to produce housing that is affordable to San Jose families and shifting it to serve the housing needs of people who are wealthier and can compete in the open market.

However, that is not why I'm going to ask you to defer item 8.4.

Um, City Council has a really difficult job of making a lot of really consequential decisions that affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of people.

Um the IHO produces at least three an average of almost 300 uh units of affordable housing every year.

Uh, that almost doubles the city's share of affordable housing production uh since the city subsidizes about 300 affordable units every year directly.