welcome it's my pleasure to call to order this meeting of the San Jose City Council for the

afternoon of December 2nd Tony would you please call the roll campos present tortillas here Cohen

Here.

Ortiz.

Present.

Mulcahy.

Here.

Duan.

Here.

Candelas.

Here.

Casey.

Here.

Foley.

Here.

Mahan.

Here.

Give a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

Now, if you're able, please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you and welcome to all of our guests and constituents here.

For the month of December, I have the pleasure of selecting our invocators to help us start

our city council meetings and to kick things off.

I'm excited to invite Vanessa Roget of the Trash Punks to do today's invocation.

Let me say a word more about the Trash Punks.

They are a nonprofit organization that has become one of our region's strongest champions

for environmental stewardship.

Founded in 2017 by Justin Imamura, the Trash Punks have engaged thousands of volunteers

from across our community.

Students, families, neighborhood groups, and partners all working together to beautify

and protect our local creeks, parks, and natural spaces.

Thanks to their work and partnership, more than 1 million pounds of trash has been removed

from our environment, helping to keep San Jose cleaner, healthier, and more vibrant.

They've joined our office many times, and many of my colleagues' offices here, for cleanups,

and we're always happy to partner with them.

Their work goes beyond cleanups.

Through the local stewardship program, they partner with schools to teach our youth about

environmental responsibility and empower the next generation of environmental leaders.

And their impact now extends globally through Project Pickup, a worldwide anti-litter initiative, and through a community-run upcycling center in Owasso, Nero, Kenya, which transforms plastic waste into useful products.

We each got one at the dais here and creates opportunities for locals living there.

So we're very honored today to be joined by Vanessa.

And I see Justin joined us as well.

Thank you both for being here.

As a fun fact, Vanessa has also worked for 25 years at Happy Hollow Park and Zoo.

Thank you for that.

So, Vanessa, Justin, the floor is yours.

Thank you for being our invicators today.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, City Council members, and everyone gathered here today.

My name is Vanessa Roger, and I'm here on behalf of the Trash Punks.

Thank you for inviting me to open today's meeting.

At the heart of Dr. Jane Goodall's mission is a motto we hold close.

Every individual matters.

Every individual has a role to play.

These words have guided so much of the Trash Punk's work,

especially in moments when the challenges around us feel so heavy.

Because the truth is, we all see what's happening to our environment.

We feel the strain on our neighborhoods, our creeks, our communities, and in our world.

But Dr. Goodall reminds us that hope isn't something we wait for.

Hope is something we choose.

And she never spoke of hope as something soft.

To her, hope is responsibility, a call to act,

a commitment we make to each other and to the planet we share.

We've walked besides creeks where the water can barely move under the weight of trash.

We've seen parks scattered with the remnants of everyday life.

and yet what stays with us isn't the trash.

It's the people who show up.

The volunteers, the families, the youth who choose to care.

Dr. Goodall often spoke about the strength of the human spirit.

That quiet, steady force within each of us that refuses to give up on the world.

She taught us that nature can heal if we give it a chance.

That communities can rise if we walk alongside them.

that compassion is not weakness, it's wisdom. At the Trash Punks, we stand in that belief.

We act because we love this city. We teach because we believe in the next generation,

and we clean again and again because every piece picked up is a promise to the future.

As you lead today, may Dr. Goodall's message guide this room. Hope asks something of us.

to look honestly at the world and still choose to act,

to protect what cannot speak for itself,

to lift up the places and people who need us the most.

May that hope be present as we gather today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Vanessa, thank you for that inspiring invocation,

and thank you to you, Justin, and all of the trash punks

for the incredible contributions you've made to our community.

We're on to our ceremonial items.

I want to first invite Vice Mayor Foley and Council Member Tordios

to join me at the podium where we will recognize and proclaim World AIDS Day.

Good afternoon. I'm Vice Mayor Foley and I represent Council District 9.

Today I'm honored to recognize World AIDS Day in the city of San Jose. Created by the World Health Organization and beginning in 1988 and recognized annually on December 1st,

First, World AIDS Day is a global event to remember those who have lost their lives to

AIDS-related illnesses and to honor and support those living and affected by HIV AIDS.

Sadly, for the first time since World AIDS Day was created, our federal government has

chosen to ignore this day, minimizing the impact of this horrible disease that has killed

so many.

But we will not forget.

We will continue to remember those affected by HIV-AIDS and work to advocate and support

them.

World AIDS Day unites people worldwide to show support for the more than 1.2 million

people living with HIV-AIDS in the United States and the approximately 40 million people

living with HIV-AIDS worldwide.

This proclamation is deeply personal to me.

I've told this story before, but I'm going to continue to repeat it as long as I have the bully pulpit to do so.

And that is that my brother Tim died in 1996 from AIDS-related diseases.

At that time, I actually didn't know how sick my brother was.

I was told that he was fine by my family, but he really wasn't.

I wrote him a letter and said, please hold on, because I was pregnant at the time,

and I wanted him to be able to meet my child, his niece or nephew.

Didn't know at the time whether it was a niece or a nephew for him.

When Caitlin was born, I decided that I wanted to name my child after Tim.

Well, Timothy's not really an appropriate name for a girl, although it could be,

but I gave her his name as her middle name.

So she is Caitlin Timothy Foley.

And she actually carries a lot of his qualities, and so I see in her so much of him.

His creativity, her passion, her theatrical nature, her love for life.

I'm truly blessed that Tim lives on in everything around me and us.

So this day is deeply personal to me and deeply personal to many people who've lost so many through the AIDS epidemic.

Over the last few decades, there have been many advancement in drug treatments for HIV AIDS

that have reduced the transmission and acquisition of HIV AIDS,

transforming it for many into a manageable chronic condition.

It makes me proud to see the remarkable progress that has been made, as Tim likely could have

benefited from the treatments that allow many to see near normal lifespans today.

The City of San Jose recognizes the essential role of the advocates who continue to fight

the HIV-AIDS epidemic, such as local organizations working to destigmatize the disease and community

health care providers working to treat those in our community. Yesterday and earlier this afternoon,

I partnered with Councilmember Anthony Tordios, Nicole Denson, and Gabrielle Antalovich to host

a candlelight vigil and a flag raising ceremony here at City Hall. Yesterday we also displayed

six panels of the nearly 50,000 panel AIDS Memorial quilt, which stands as one of the most

powerful symbols of the AIDS pandemic and serves as a living memorial to those who we have lost to

AIDS-related illnesses. This project is considered the largest community arts project in history,

and we are so proud to display the touching tributes that help us remember the unique lives

and stories of the over 110,000 individuals we've lost to HIV-AIDS.

As we honor the 37th annual World AIDS Day today,

we use this day to remember those who have been impacted by HIV-AIDS

and recommit ourselves against the disease itself

and against the stigma and discrimination that have been tied to it for far too long.

Before Mayor Mahan presents this year's proclamation,

I'd like to invite Nicole Denson to say a few words.

Or Gabrielle, I don't know.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Pam Foley,

who's been a champion of the HIV AIDS movement.

And it really is a movement because way back when nobody cared

about the gay men who were dying of HIV AIDS because there was a stigma attached to it.

It was part of the backlash against the gay movement.

Ah, let's get those gays, you know, and we will stigmatize them with the gay disease.

And what happened is us lesbians were freaking out that this was happening to our gay brothers.

And because so many of their friends and lovers were dying, we stepped in to help out in whatever they needed during that time in the 1980s.

And it was a way that the movement united.

So I was one of those lesbians in Los Angeles that had a best friend who died from AIDS.

And many of my gay male friends were dying.

And so I am personally touched by all of this because I've always loved our gay brothers and watched them dying and watching that nobody cared about that.

So I got involved in the movement.

And even here in Santa Clara County, I became an HIV AIDS outreach worker in the nine gay bars that were here in San Jose that are no longer here.

And what happened is that you don't have to be a gay man dying of HIV AIDS to care about this issue.

It's about doing the right thing.

And I'm very proud that San Jose City Council still acknowledges World AIDS Day, which was declared by the World Health Organization as World AIDS Day, not by any government.

And just because a government somewhere outside of the Bay Area is not acknowledging World AIDS Day,

I love the fact that San Jose City continues to acknowledge this special time for us to remember.

And part of what has happened is that we actually have an AIDS grove that's at the back of the Children's Discovery Museum

that has been neglected since 1995 when it was first inaugurated.

And so the Billy DeFrank Center is taking the lead to make sure we can do fundraising

and making sure that the AIDS Grove comes back.

And Vice Mayor Pam Foley has already installed rainbow benches in the AIDS Grove.

And so you can find where it is because of that.

And we really appreciate that.

And at the flag raising, we acknowledged Pam Foley's support as an ally

and gave her the Billy DeFrank Fabulous Ally Award

for being a big supporter of the HIV AIDS movement.

And so, you know, I often want to say,

you would think a gay man would be speaking about this,

but, you know, many of us are vested in the issue, and that's the thing that we all have to remember

about the issues we are passionate about, and even if you don't care about an issue,

it's about doing the right thing, because people are forgetting to do the right thing,

and so I really appreciate that, and on Sunday, this coming Sunday from 1 to 3,

we are doing a tour of the AIDS Grove.

Even though there's nothing much there except for the rainbow benches,

we want to tell you the plans we have in the hope that you want to support it,

and we will be launching a fundraising campaign about that.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Now I'd like to invite Councilmember Mulcahy to join me at the podium.

We will recognize Joseph Rodriguez.

So I'll start talking while some of our friends come on down.

After more than five decades of public service, Joseph Rodriguez is retiring from his role

as the Federal Security Director for the San Jose Mineta International Airport and the

Monterey Regional Airport.

Since 2017, Joe has provided oversight for federal security operations across Santa Clara

County and Monterey County, ensuring the safety of millions of travelers each year.

Before this role, Joe served in the U.S. Navy and later with the California Army National

Guard, where he retired with the rank of Major in the Military Police.

During his military career, he served his country with honor in both Vietnam and Operation

Desert Storm.

Joe has also served for 30 years in municipal law enforcement, a testament to his enduring

commitment to keeping our community safe.

He devoted 23 years to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, where he served

as the Acting Federal Security Director for Oakland Airport and the Deputy Assistant Federal

Security Director for Kahuli Airport.

In retirement, Joe has made his home in NorCal's Placer County with his wife, Victoria.

Together they now enjoy spending much more time with their four children and seven wonderful

grandchildren.

Before his military service, his career in law enforcement, and his work with the TSA,

Joe's life is emblematic of a career dedicated wholeheartedly to public service.

We present this commendation today as a small token of our appreciation for the millions

of people he has worked to keep safe.

Now Joe, I'll invite you down to say a few words in just a moment, and then the mayor

will present your commendation, and then we will have yet again another photo shoot here

at City Hall with you and all your colleagues who've been coming here to support you today.

Joe?

Good afternoon.

Again, thank you for the recognition.

I very much appreciate it.

and thank you for the service award.

You know, as a federal security director

for the Transportation Security Administration

at San Jose Mineta Airport,

I have a workforce of about 350 federal employees,

dedicated employees.

During the shutdown, the government shutdown,

these professionals came to work.

They were dedicated, they had a mission to accomplish,

and they did so.

A little known fact is they did so at a rate that they had the lowest call-out rate of

any airport in the nation.

That's how dedicated they were.

Many do not live in San Jose.

They live in other outside areas.

But they look at San Jose Mineta Airport as their own, and they consider San Jose to

be their own.

And that is why they kept coming to work.

They ignored the shutdown, per se, and they did their job.

And they did it in an excellent manner.

I am very proud of them.

I'm proud of my replacement, Brian Hamilton, for the work he did to keep the workforce going.

And I would also like to commend your leadership for the council, Mr. Mayor, at the airport.

I would like to commend Airport Director Mookie Patel, Assistant Director Patty Singh, Director

of Aviation, Deputy Director of Aviation, Rosalind Bond, and Deputy Director of Operations,

Matt Kazmierczak.

So again, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember, congratulations, Joseph Rodriguez.

And like a true leader, you notice he didn't say one thing about his own accomplishments.

He celebrated his team, and we're so proud of our TSA team for running the best mid-sized

airport in the United States.

Thank you all.

We're on to our third and final ceremonial item.

I'd like to invite Councilmember Ortiz to join me as we recognize Enrique Arguello.

All right. Hello, everyone, and thank you, Enrique, for coming down. And I don't know

if anybody else from your family or team would like to join us, but please feel free to join

us. What's going on, brother? Good to see you. Hello, everyone. Today we are here to

honor a man whose life story embodies everything that makes our labor movement strong. Our

immigrant communities resilient and our East San Jose proud.

We are here to recognize Enrique Arguello, a leader, a fighter, and a pillar of justice

for working families across Northern California.

Enrique's journey is the story of so many in our community.

An immigrant who came to this country and worked the fields, worked in restaurants,

and later worked as a laborer.

He understands the struggle because he's lived it.

And through grit, heart, and unshakable belief in the dignity of workers, he rose to lead

La Una Local 270, a local union known for its strong community partnership and proud

record of service and engagement.

Under Enrique's leadership, La Una 270 didn't just fight for better wages.

They showed up for families when they needed it, from supporting dumpster days and backpack

drives to workforce development programs serving our youth and, of course, community cleanups.

This is the real boots-on-the-ground work that strengthens neighborhoods and lifts our

community up.

That's Enrique's vision, and that has been his legacy.

He fought wage theft, protected immigrant workers, defended prevailing wages, and helped

build true civic power in communities too often ignored, like East San Jose.

And his impact goes far beyond San Jose.

During his term as chairman of the La Una Latino Caucus, he strengthened Labor's connection

to immigrant and working-class communities across the United States and Canada, making

ensure our voices were heard at every table.

Enrique is Eastside through and through.

He's a proud District 5 resident, a neighborhood champion, a Measure T oversight member, a

city task force member, a leader on multiple labor boards, and a manual catch out in the

neighborhood cleaning up his local park because he believes in leading by example.

Enrique, your life shows what happens when courage meets purpose.

someone who understands struggle chooses to spend a lifetime fighting and serving for

others.

On behalf of the City of San Jose, my colleagues and the families whose lives that you have

personally touched, we thank you.

Your work has built opportunity, strengthened communities, and inspired a generation of

labor and community leaders.

Congratulations Enrique, Si se puede.

Thank you.

I'd like to invite Enrique to share a few words,

and then following that, the mayor will present the commendation.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, honorable City Council member Peter Ortiz,

honorable San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan,

and honorable San Jose City Council members.

Thank you for this recognition.

It is an honor for me to accept with deep gratitude

on behalf of the working families who have been part of my journey.

My story begins long before me, and my story is the story of millions and millions of immigrants,

in particular the Mexican agricultural workers.

My grandparents and relatives immigrated many decades ago.

I believe my grandfather came 1942 and my other grandfather came at the beginning of

the 1950s.

But they came and worked for nine to ten months and then returned to Michoacan, Mexico for

two or three months.

So I was born and raised over there in Michoacan, but eventually found my way back here.

the path my ancestors had started with the hard work.

Like many immigrants, I work in the field, I work in factories, I work in a restaurant,

and later as a labor in construction.

Those years taught me that dignity, respect, and opportunity are not privileged.

They are rights.

And that belief has guided me and guided my work for more than 40 years.

As a business manager of the Labor's Local 270 and a resident of District 5 East Side

San Jose, I have always believed that labor and community are inseparable.

Whether it is fighting for workers' protection, supporting small businesses, partnering with

neighborhood association or helping lead cleanups and community improvements efforts I have seen

the stretch of the East Side when we come together I want to thank my wife my kids and members of my

local 270 for trusting my lead city council member this commendation means a great deal for me because

It comes from the city that I live and work.

It comes from the neighbor that I live.

And it comes from a leader who shares the same values and commitment to justice.

I am proud to stand with you in service to Eastside San Jose.

I accept this honor and I recommit myself to work ahead.

Our fight for fair wages, safe jobs, a strong neighborhood,

and dignity for all workers continue.

And I will keep showing up side by side with all of you

to build a better future for our community.

Viva San Jose.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right, we are back and on to orders of the day.

We did have one recommended deferral from the administration.

administration would like to defer item 4.1 that's amendment to title 16 gaming

control of the San Jose municipal code are there any other requests from

council change the printed agenda not seen any could we have a motion to

defer item 4.1 approval second thank you Tony do we have any public comment on

orders of the day we do not great thank you let's come back to the council and

vote please great thank you we're on to the closed session report Susanna yeah

just that button that'll do it mayor and council did not have a closed session

today okay no report on a closed session because we didn't have one thank you

next is the consent calendar are there any items council would like to pull

from the consent calendar not aware of any do we have a motion okay so one of

those is a second thanks all right Tony do we have public comment on consent okay

and maybe Susan Brandt come on down

Great you can all come down and just speak in whatever order you arrive and you'll each have two minutes

Good afternoon council members

My name is Marika Buchholz and I am the nominee for the housing and community development commissions district third district 3c

I want to first thank councilmember tordeos as well as the rest of the council members for the opportunity

San Jose is my home and my career has centered on homelessness and housing in the Bay Area,

from working in San Jose shelters to now managing multi-million dollar housing and homelessness

contracts and leading system improvement work within government and nonprofits in my professional

role with San Mateo County. As a longtime renter, I understand firsthand the urgency

of addressing affordability while ensuring that we maintain a diverse and vibrant housing landscape

for all residents.

And as someone who's worked both on the ground

and at the systems level,

I care deeply about helping our city make thoughtful decisions

that strengthen communities and expand opportunity.

I would be honored to serve as a housing

and community development commissioner

for the city of San Jose.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, next speaker.

Almost 50% of homeless people are disabled

as opposed to 5% of people who have homes.

Your ADA curb spend clearly benefits

those with houses and sidewalks, not the homeless.

Your directive to immediately tow vehicles

for income-related violations

is specifically harming disabled people.

It's one thing to give somebody a ticket

for sleeping in a public park.

It's a whole nother level when you destroy people's lives

because you can't find an innovative or creative solution

to your parking issues.

You have police officers believing that there are enough safe parking spots for everyone

and that those not in them are refusers who need to be punished.

In reality, San Jose has about 1.9 million parking spaces

and almost two for every resident, but only 128 are designated as safe,

leaving hundreds of lived-in vehicles threatened with destruction every day.

There's a confused look that people get when they've suddenly lost everything.

I've seen it on friends whose homes burned down in the fires, and I see it on homeless

people whose RVs have been destroyed.

I never thought I'd live in a world where people knowingly do that to other human beings,

but here we are.

Real power is measured by how many people you lift, not how many you crush.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mann and members of the Council.

I'm Susan Brandt-Hawley, and I'm the lawyer for the St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation

and the one who litigated the case involving the Levitt Pavilion and the park.

I wanted to speak briefly about the extension of time and especially the increased funding

for landscaping for this project.

One thing that the main reason I wanted to just speak for a moment about it is that it

isn't clear from the memoranda before you and the reports that the project for the Levitt

Pavilion is not fully approved.

The court has ordered it not to proceed because there's no compliance with the historic preservation

ordinance.

And now today we have before you the ordinance itself.

So this has to go back to the Superior Court when the city complies with the Historic Preservation

Ordinance.

We believe that that is going to require supplemental environmental review before the city can go

forward for a lot of reasons.

And we've submitted a lot of paperwork about that and we'll be talking more about it this

afternoon.

But to go forward with the project by continuing to commit millions of dollars before it's

actually the whole of the action has been approved violates the California Environmental

Quality Act.

Even though the city's EIR was found in compliance with CEQA, I guess it's five years ago now,

things have changed, the phasing of the project and what's going to be happening, the discussion

about what happens with the park itself, if the pavilion is built without funding for

any of the things that are to actually help the park and improve the situation in the park so

i think it's an improper uh i would just

back to council that's your time back to council thank you do we have the timer should be up here

yeah it's above you thank you all right we're coming back to the council we have a motion on

the floor which is passing the consent calendar as a whole Tony let's vote

motion passes unanimously with Ortiz absent okay thank you want to land use

consent do we see I don't see any hands do we have a motion move approval

thank you Tony do we have public comment on land use consent I have no comments

no I have no comment cards for this item okay not for the records item 10.1 a and

10.1 B all right let's come back to the council still not seen any hands so let's

go ahead and vote okay motion passes unanimously with Ortiz absent okay thank

you we are on to our regular agenda starting with item 3.1 report of the

city manager thank you very much mayor and City Council I do have a report

today today I'd like to share about all the hard work that goes into preparing

the city of San Jose for the winter storm season and it's been getting colder and a little rainy

here and so we want to share with you what we're doing. Our work begins long before the first rain.

Each summer teams across the city prepare our infrastructure, train staff, and help residents

understand what they can do to stay safe. Our goal is to stay ahead of storms and reduce the risk of

flooding. We monitor more than 60 locations that are prone to minor flooding or minor landslides.

All major storm retention basins and drainage channels in the foothills have already been cleared of debris.

Crews clean our 35,000 storm inlets every year and will return for a second round as leaves build up.

All 31 storm pump stations have been inspected and maintained to ensure they are functioning properly.

Portable backup pumps are staged in areas around the city and more are ready to deploy during storm events.

Transportation Department staff monitor our system around the clock and respond to flooding or other hazards.

Our communications team sends preparedness information before storms and emergency messages during storms in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

And additional translations are provided in neighborhoods that need them.

reach people through alert SCC, wireless emergency alerts, social media, and as necessary through TV and radio, street signs,

powerful speakers driven through affected neighborhoods, or door-to-door notifications.

Our Housing Department works with outreach teams to share safety information with encampments near waterways.

During storms or cold weather, the Housing Department operates overnight warming centers at Evergreen Branch Library

and Roosevelt Community Center to provide a safe place for our unhoused residents to

sleep. During normal operating hours, all city libraries and community centers are open

to residents to dry off, warm up, use restrooms, or charge devices. Information about locations

and hours is posted on social media and shared through the outreach teams that work with

the unhoused community. We meet with Valley Water regularly throughout the season, and

together we coordinate on creek monitoring and sandbag deployment as needed.

Our coordinated plan with Valley Water for severe storm and flood response is also updated every year.

Recent updates include new guidance for Berryessa Creek, support for encampment safety, and changes related to Anderson Dam operations.

So the bottom line is I want to assure everyone that San Jose is ready for our winter storms,

and all our city departments and partners continue to work together as one team to keep our community safe.

thank you very much thanks Jennifer appreciate that update and all the good

work our city teams are doing to keep everybody safe let's continue on to item

3.3 this is California Community Choice financing Authority clean energy

project revenue bonds also known as green bonds we do have a staff

presentation so we'll give folks a moment to settle in

I am Maria Oberg, I am the Director of Finance and I have quite the crew with me here today.

representing the hard work that went into this transaction.

So with me in the presenter box today is Chen Yu Sun, Deputy Director of Finance.

We also have Lori Mitchell, Director of Energy, and Zach Strike, Assistant Director of Energy.

And in the back, we have representatives from our city attorney's office,

PFM, who served as our financial municipal advisor on this deal,

as well as Oric, who served as our bond counsel.

And with that, I'm going to hand it to Zach to start the presentation.

Good afternoon.

Again, Zach Strike, Assistant Director for the Energy Department.

Really excited to be here today.

It's another significant step for San Jose Clean Energy and our power procurement strategy.

We've been thoughtfully building our portfolio for the last seven years, which currently

stands at approximately $3 billion.

And today's recommended action builds on the work over the last two-plus years, which culminated

in our first clean energy bond prepayment transaction late last year.

Today's proposed clean energy project utilizes the same structure as last year's.

There are three main pieces of the project.

First, and this is the third bullet there, sorry, going out of order.

First the city assigns some of its rights under select power purchase agreements to

our partner Morgan Stanley in this transaction.

Next, the California Community Choice Financing Authority, or CCCFA,

prepays for a 30-year supply of that assigned energy from Morgan Stanley, and then

CCCFA sells that energy to the city at a discount.

Chen Yu-Sang, Deputy Director of Finance for Debt and Treasury.

So to facilitate the project financing, the CCCFA will issue a 30-year tax-exam bond in

not to exceed amount about $1.25 billion.

The bonds will have initial term between six to nine years.

After the initial term, the bonds are subject to mandatory tender and will be remarketed

multiple times throughout the life of the bonds.

The city requires a minimum annual saving of 8% over the cost of the energy during the

initial term.

Beyond the initial term, when the bonds are getting marketed, there will be a negotiated

minimum annual savings amount.

This time we estimate that minimum annual discount amount for the remarketed period

will be about $5 per megawatt hours.

The bonds are not city's bonds.

The bonds are issued by CCCFA.

The debt service obligation are limited obligation of CCCFA.

So the bondholders have no recourse to the city of San Jose.

All the energy delivered to the transaction are compliant with emission performance standards.

So the bonds are certified as a green bonds.

This is a complex financing chart for this transaction.

Indeed, this is a very complex transaction.

Most of the complexity of the transaction are handled by the issuers, CCCFA, and the

energy, prepaid energy supplier, Morgan Stanley Energy Supplier.

The city of San Jose is the project participant.

Our involvement in the transaction mainly carries two parts.

Part one is we assign certain rights and obligations in our power purchase agreement to the prepaid energy supply, MSES, for the prepay.

As the transaction sets in motion, Morgan Stanley will deliver the prepaid energy through CCCFA to the city on a monthly basis,

and the city will pay those energy delivered at a discount.

We will collect the discount throughout the life of the bonds.

As this project participant of the bonds,

the city will face certain risks in this transaction.

The first kind of risk is a volumetric risk.

It is a risk when the PPA supplier fails to deliver the required amount of energy into this transaction.

To mitigate this kind of risk, the city will assign only a portion of the PPA into this transaction, never 100%.

Additionally, the city can substitute and assign additional power purchase agreements into the transaction

to make sure there is sufficient energy will flow through.

And if all CPPA fails to perform adequately, then Morgan Stanley is required to provide base power

to ensure there's enough energy and revenue flow through the transaction to pay for that service.

The second kind of risk is a market risk.

It only exists during the repricing.

So there is a risk happening on the market during the repricing time

that we're not able to achieve the negotiated minimum required discount.

If that happens, the transaction will terminate,

and the PPA will go back to the city and will revert back to status quo.

The third kind of risk is a counterparty risk.

We are dealing with a few counterparties in this transaction,

commodity swap counterparties and our banking counterparties.

All those counterparties are highly rated by the rating agency.

They're all investment rating at the eighth category.

But there is a small, very minor probability that some of the counterparty would fail.

To mitigate the risk, we install two commodity swap parties into the transaction.

If one fails, the other can pick up the remainder of the transaction.

However, if anything happens, the risk should assume and then the prepayment transaction

will terminate for any reason.

Morgan Stanley is obligated to make a termination payment to CCCFA to pay off the bondholders.

The city will just go back to the status quo.

All PPA will go back to the city at the original price.

We will forego any future earnings.

There are over 60 documents in this transaction.

Most of the documents will be executed by CCCFA and that's the issuer.

The city is a project participant in this transaction.

For the city, we are responsible for drafting and executing five documents as listed here.

They are Appendix A, power supplier contract, PPA payment custodial agreement, lead agreement,

and prepaid energy project administration agreement.

We asked the city council to approve these documents.

With the help of our autorider and administrative advisor, we generated our good faith estimate

as of October 28th.

This estimate is based on the forecast, the amount of energy to be assigned into the transaction.

As of October 28th, we estimate we probably will sell about over a billion dollar in bonds

to make sure all this energy will be able to be signed into the transaction.

The true interest cost on that day is estimated about a little bit over 4%.

The majority of the bond proceeds over a billion will be set aside for Morgan Stanley to prepay

all the energy to be delivered into the transaction for the next 30 years.

We'll also set aside a portion of the bond proceeds, roughly about $41 million for capitalized

interest.

Additionally, the bond proceeds will be used to pay for the financing costs, including

cost of issuance and underwriter discount for a total of $6.2 million.

The key financing team members including the issuer, CCCFA, municipal advisor, PFM, our

bond council is Auric Harrington and Sutcliffe, and our disclosure council is Ensel Gavon.

Our underwriter is Morgan Stanley, of course, and then trustee.

going to maintain the same trustee as a 2024 transaction with U.S. Bank, and the green

bond review will continue to be the Castro.

When the City Council approve this transaction today, we are going to seek CCCFA board approval

in a couple of days on the 4th.

We had hoped to price and close the bonds this month in December, but the market has

shifted.

We are a little bit concerned that we may not be able to price and close the bond during

the market in the month of December, but exactly when we will do the pricing and bond is depending

on the market condition.

With that, I'll give the presentation to Maria.

Thank you, Chen Yu.

So because these are bonds, we need to remind you again of the importance of securities law.

The Securities Act of 1933 requires disclosure of financial and other significant information,

and it prohibits fraud in the sale of securities, including municipal bonds.

Section 10B of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.

and SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibits the making of any untrue statement of material fact

and omitting to state of material fact in the offer or sale of securities.

So after you have reviewed Appendix A, you should consider a few elements.

Have identified material risks and events been brought to the attention of staff, bond counsel, and other professionals?

Have such risks and events been disclosed?

And if not, what is the rationale of the non-disclosure?

If any council member has any personal knowledge that any of the material information in Appendix A is false or misleading,

the council member must raise these issues prior to the approval of the distribution of the documents to potential investors.

And then to sum this up, there are two recommendations for City Council today.

The first is to adopt a resolution to approve in connection with the issuance and sale of the California Community Choice Financing Authority Clean Energy Project revenue bonds in the not-to-exceed principal amount of $1,250,000,000 to finance the acquisition of a long-term supply of electricity on a prepaid basis for the City of San Jose in substantially final forms.

Appendix A to the official statement, a power supply contract, a custodial agreement, a letter agreement, and a prepaid energy project administration agreement.

And the second recommendation is to authorize the city manager and other authorized officers of the city to execute and deliver these documents and any other related documents in connection therewith.

And with that, we are happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you.

appreciate the all the work that's gone into this and the presentation Tony do

we have public comment we have no cards for this item okay let's come back to

the council appreciate again all the work that's gone into it obviously it's a

complex a financing structure slide five kind of tells you I need to know about

the complexity of this but I think I get the general sense we're buying in bulk

we're buying a long duration, we're getting effectively locking in what we think will be a lower price that creates savings for us as the purchaser,

but then we can pass that on to the consumer, which sounds great.

So I'm generally supportive, but just want to make sure I understand risk.

And you talked a lot on slide six about different types of risk.

And so just to put it in plain English, because there was a little bit there I didn't fully follow.

So if we have a scenario in which we have locked in this long-term agreement

and the cost of power on the market starts to, for whatever reason,

consistently be lower than what we had locked in, help us play out that scenario.

So we're not achieving the expected savings.

What are our options there and what is the total risk?

I think you said it and it's on the slide, but I just want to make sure I get that again just as simply as possible.

Yeah, thank you, Mary, for the question.

So just to reiterate, these are power purchase agreements that we've already signed and council approved,

and they have fixed price contracts, and it's always a risk that market conditions could change.

Like, for example, and I'm just using this as an example, a solar contract that was approved a few years ago, maybe in the $20 per megawatt hour range, you know, market prices could change.

Like, for example, we're seeing much higher prices now.

But the reverse could be true as well.

We could enter into a long-term agreement, and then the market could come down.

So that's a risk that we manage every day at San Jose Clean Energy.

and the way we manage that is through a diverse portfolio.

So we have a mix of long-term agreements.

We have short-term agreements and medium-term.

And the reason that we leave some of the portfolio open

is so that we can take advantage of more favorable pricing in the future.

And so that's how we manage this risk.

As this transaction, the real risk is if one of these counterparties would fail.

And in that case, we're really just back to the status quo.

So we're back to those original fixed-price contracts.

We do not obtain the savings that we're anticipating here.

And then, of course, the sunk costs are sunk along with the transaction, but those are pretty minimal.

Got it.

Okay, so that was an important clarification.

So this is just the savings generated by prepayment of the existing contracts.

Right, exactly.

All right.

So it's no additional risk then over what we've already,

and we've already contracted these.

Okay, that's helpful.

Okay, let me turn to colleagues

and see what other questions folks have.

And we'll start with Council Member Kameh.

Thank you so much.

I wanted to thank you so much, Lori and staff,

for briefing me on this very complex issue.

And thank you for your hard work on it.

I know that this is going to save us some money hopefully and and I think it's

it's going to be a good thing and as you've already mentioned the power

purchase agreements are already signed so that's you know hoping that we get

savings on that and with that I'd like to move approval of staff's

recommendation thanks councilmember let me turn to a council member Mulcahy next

Thank You mayor just a couple of kind of quick ones can you talk about the

timing assuming this passes today what's the timeline on bond sale and then where

do we see the impact coming back to ratepayers in San Jose the timing of sale

can happen anytime after this the City Council and the CCCFA board approves

through the transaction it can you know we hope to complete the bond sale no

later than January but it's really market dependent. Originally we have

planned for the bond sale to be in December but at this point we we are a

little bit doubtful but the market is quite fluid it could the condition can

change quite quickly. And the other part of that question is when do we think that

then that comes back to positively affect our ratepayers? Yeah I can take

that one so um almost immediately so we're we're receiving savings each month

and so the first year the the volumes in the transaction ramp so the first year

round numbers the savings probably something like two million and again

we're achieving that month by month by month cool and I think Laura you might

have already answered this question but one piece of this is does this

transaction limit our capacity to do more I think you based the projections of

you know what we're bonding based on 50% of you know the market share I guess you

could say does that then does this give us more opportunity in the future or does

this kind of close us out on bonding at this level and you know like if other

renewable opportunities come up? Yeah that's a great question. So yes, so the

portion that we're assigning into this prepay that does close the door if

there's you know a change to the tax code or some new opportunity in the

future that we wanted to take advantage of you know we wouldn't be able to. The

way we're mitigating that risk is it's just a portion so we did a transaction

very similar about a year ago represented about a quarter of our power

supply this one is roughly the same a little bit less we think we maybe have

one more of these you know to get to about 75% obviously that could change as

our load grows and you know we may need more power supply contracts in the

future but for right now you know it's about half of our load and so we still

think there's plenty of opportunity if something else came up that we could

still take advantage of that but we aren't aware of any other opportunities

in the future at this time okay thank you thanks councilmember appreciate the

questions I don't see any other hands up Tony let's vote

motion passes unanimously great thank you all

appreciate it okay on the item 3.4 acceptance of the retirement plans

comprehensive annual investment fee reports for calendar year 2024 and I

understand we have a brief presentation

John Flynn, CEO, Retirement Services.

Joined in the box today with Jay Kwan, our Senior Investment Officer, who will be presenting

the Retirement Plan's Comprehensive Annual Investment Fee Report for calendar year 2425.

Good afternoon.

Jay Kwan, Office of Retirement Services.

Mayor, Council members, and members of the public, thank you for the opportunity to come

before you today and present our office's annual report on investment management fees.

I'll start with a quick bit of background. The Office of Retirement Services, or ORS,

administers the two defined benefit pension plans sponsored by the city. The police and fire

department retirement plan and the federated city employees retirement system combine to provide

retirement benefits for thousands of former colleagues that have worked for the city.

These benefits are funded by a combination of contributions from the city as a sponsoring

employer and from participating employees through payroll deductions.

Those funds go into the investment portfolio, which in turn generates investment returns,

and those are used to then pay out retirement benefits.

The portfolio itself is invested in a diversified manner across a number of different asset

classes, ranging from stocks and bonds to real estate and infrastructure.

In each of these asset classes, the investments are managed by external investment managers,

people that we hire because they are experts in their respective fields.

So as part of hiring and overseeing these firms, ORS is charged with monitoring, controlling,

and negotiating the fees that we pay these managers.

This annual report is intended to fulfill our obligation to provide a comprehensive accounting

of the plan's fees and expenses.

Now these fees and expenses are a function of the asset classes that we invest in.

Some asset classes are more expensive to invest in than others, but our retirement board trustees

take into account the net of fee return expectations when selecting an asset allocation.

So the fees and expenses have several components.

Management fees are typically flat fees based on the size of the investment.

In contrast, incentive fees are generally calculated based on performance and are used

to align the interests of the investment management firms with hours.

Operating expenses are the administrative costs of the investment.

Management fees, incentive fees, and operating expenses collectively sum to the expense ratio

or the management cost of the investment.

A separate fourth category labeled other expenses can be thought of as the internal costs of

monitoring these external managers.

So over the most recent calendar year, the expense ratio for the plans, including their

associated healthcare trusts, was 98 basis points, not quite 1%.

So we paid 98 basis points to the external investment managers.

The additional other internal costs were 6 basis points, meaning it cost 6 basis points

to monitor the external investment managers.

Now, because we've been reporting this data for a number of years,

we're able to show a time series of costs.

Here you can see management fees and operating expenses are generally stable

over time, while incentive costs vary with performance as expected.

Of the three components of the total expense ratio,

the management fee is the most predictable and, in a sense, controllable.

So I'm happy to report that over the past decade, we've been able to grind down management expenses by almost a quarter of a percent.

This was accomplished through a combination of negotiations, moves to cheaper investment vehicles, and taking advantage of different discounts.

In 2024, these savings amounted to almost $17 million.

For context, please remember that the internal monitoring costs of these external managers were under $6 million.

So, in summary, ORS monitors, controls, and negotiates the fees that we pay our external investment managers.

Management fees have declined over time.

Internal monitoring costs are relatively small compared to the fees paid out to external managers.

And, in fact, these internal monitoring costs have paid for themselves three times over through cost savings.

So I'm happy to take any questions now.

Otherwise, the staff recommendation is to accept the police and fire retirement plan comprehensive annual fee report for calendar year 2024

and the Federated City Employees Retirement System comprehensive annual fee report for calendar year 2024.

Great. Thank you for the report. Appreciate it. Appreciate the work you and your teams do.

Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards for this.

Okay. Coming back to the council. See if we have hands.

Second.

Great.

I don't see any other hands Tony let's vote

motion passes unanimously with Cohen absent okay thank you very much all

right colleagues we are on to item 3.5 actions related to the 10 400 park

bundle 91 11 North San Pedro Park and 9102 Bassett Park project for the

Elizabeth P Boyer Park and City Gardens Park that was a mouthful there's no staff

presentation but you have the memo let's go to public comment I have no cards for

this I know cards okay back to the council councilor Torre Diaz would you

like to comment I would just say that I've been following the development of

these parks for several years they're part of a series of three parks so it'll

be great to finally see the final two parks in these series completed with that

I will move to accept the staff recommendation here here okay motion a

second I don't see any other hands Tony let's vote

okay motion passes unanimously with Cohen absent great thank you on item 3.6

annual merit increases and additional executive leave for council appointees

per state law I need to read the following recommendation out loud this

is to adopt a resolution approving a 2.5% merit increase for the city manager

city clerk city auditor and independent police auditor retroactively effective

July 1st 2025 and granting an additional 40 hours of executive leave to each of

these council appointees for the payroll calendar year 2026 to a public comment

I have no cards for this item move approval great thank you I don't see

any other hands Tony let's vote

I'm still waiting on one

but who are we waiting on motion passes you okay great thank you all right a

reminder that item 4.1 was deferred so we're on to item 6.1 climate smart San

Jose semi-annual status report and updated plan once again we have a staff

presentation so we'll give the team a moment.

Good afternoon Mayor and Council, Lori Mitchell, Director of the Energy

Department and very pleased today to be joined by Julie Beneventi. She's our

deputy director in the energy department as well as Anne Ballish. She's our

supervising environmental services specialist and we also have Ramses in

the Department of Transportation today to answer any questions on the

transportation side. So with that, I'll provide a little bit of background today.

So we're going to provide some background on the Climate Smart San Jose

plan, our 2023 greenhouse gas inventory, and how we are tracking against our goals.

We'll provide some updates for this period, which is March through August of 25, and then

look at some items that will be coming forward to Council and our recommendation.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Julie.

Good afternoon.

In 2018, the Climate Smart San Jose plan was adopted by Council, and that plan aligned with the greenhouse gas reductions with the Paris Climate Agreement.

In 2019, Council declared a climate emergency, and in 2021, Council adopted a resolution setting San Jose's goal of achieving community-wide carbon neutrality by 2030.

In 2022, Council approved the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2030, which identified the four priorities that currently lead our work.

Those are expanding zero emission vehicles, reducing vehicle miles traveled by 20 percent, electrifying buildings and appliances, and providing 100 percent carbon neutral electricity.

Good afternoon, Anne Bayless.

I'm a supervising environmental services specialist with ClimateSmart.

So I'm going to start discussing our 2025 ClimateSmart plan update.

This year we're bringing forward the first administrative update to the ClimateSmart San

Jose plan since it was adopted in 2018.

This update is administrative in nature.

It maintains the core strategies and long-term goals of the original plan while formally incorporating council-approved actions,

such as the carbon neutrality by 2030 goal and the natural and working lands element.

This update streamlines metrics so that we focus on the most impactful actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

and use data that's readily available and can be reported regularly.

Instead of a static city action plan, we are transitioning to annual departmental work plans

that will connect climate actions with both greenhouse gas reductions and the cost of implementation.

This will provide council and the public with a clearer picture of progress and resource needs throughout the year,

though the exact reporting format and process are still being developed.

It is important to note this is not a full rewrite of the plan and does not introduce new long-term goals,

and it does not add new major financial commitments beyond what council has already approved through the budget process.

It's important that we recognize the great achievements that San Jose has made over the last several years.

Since the city's approval of ClimateSmart in 2018, city staff have completed biennial community-wide greenhouse gas inventories

and tracked progress on ClimateSmart metrics annually via the online data dashboard.

San Jose City Council has also taken many landmark actions, and city departments have put several precedent-setting programs into place.

These include San Jose Clean Energy, Electrification and EV Infrastructure Building Reach Codes for New Construction,

the Bike Plan 2025, the Climate Advisory Commission, and Building Electrification Incentive Programs.

Most recently, San Jose was named the greenest city in America by WalletHub for 2025.

We've also earned both the mitigation and adaptation badges from the Global Covenant

of Mayors for Climate and Energy for our climate action progress.

San Jose was also named to the Carbon Disclosure Project's A-list, one of only about 120 cities

worldwide recognized for climate leadership.

And our community choice provider, San Jose Clean Energy, ranked sixth in the nation on

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Green Power Program.

This year we're bringing forward the first administrative update to the Climate Smart Plan since it was adopted in 2018.

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this update is not to set new goals, but to keep the plan aligned with Council's adopted carbon neutrality by 2030 goal, recent policy changes, and updated data.

Key changes include incorporating the Council-approved carbon neutrality by 2030 goal and strategies

from the natural and working lands element, streamlining metrics to focus on the most

impactful actions for reducing greenhouse gases, replacing the Old City Action Plan

with annual departmental work plans, which are more flexible and align climate actions

with budgeting and priorities each year, aligning with new state and regional policies, including

100% clean electricity by 2045 under SB 100, the transition to zero emission vehicles under

California's Advanced Clean Cars 2 regulations and planning for growth in ways that align with

the Plan Bay Area 2050. Adding new interim milestones for 2027 and updating some 2030

targets only in areas where the city has already surpassed the original 2030 goal

while the 20 and 40 and 2050 goals remain unchanged. Importantly, the update also adds

language acknowledging that the city of San Jose is not currently on track to meet its 2030 carbon

neutrality goal and that accelerated action will be needed. Engagement on the ClimateSmart 2025

plan update included both community and internal input. Public engagement reached residents through

events, multilingual outreach, ads, webinars, and the Conveo platform, generating over 200 comments.

At the same time, we worked closely with more than 40 staff from eight city departments to ensure

the update reflects citywide priorities and operational realities. Together, this feedback

strengthen the clarity transparency and direction of the plan now i'll pass it back to julie

ahead of the plan update we released the san jose 2023 community-wide inventory

currently san jose is emitting approximately 500 million metric tons of co2 equivalent

Our two largest fractions of emissions, let's get back to this one, our two largest portions

are transportation, which is approximately 51%, and building natural gas, which is approximately

21% of our emissions.

The inventory measures total emissions across all sectors in the city and provides data

we can use to track our progress towards our goals.

In 2023, San Jose's total gross emissions, as I mentioned, were over 500 million metric tons.

In terms of our progress, our 2023 emissions are 16% lower than our 2017 baseline.

We did have a slight increase since the last inventory, which was done in 2021.

We're currently doing annual inventories starting in this calendar year to be able to track our progress more closely.

We would need a much steeper trajectory in emissions reductions to stay on track with our carbon neutrality goal by 2030.

I want to highlight that we shared in the memo over 40 significant initiatives that are currently

have been taking place in the last reporting period that support our climate smart goals and

these are across various city departments over six departments in the city and some of those

highlights include the deployment of 500 new bike share e-bikes as well as 7.4 miles of added

bikeways. 50 ports at 11 properties are in progress as part of the multifamily EV charger

pilot. The city launched a battery storage incentive for residential customers, and the

EcoHome program funded installation of over 600 heat pumps and 55-0 interest loans for building

electrification in San Jose. We also wanted to take a moment to highlight some of the equity work

that happens throughout the Climate Smart initiatives that occur across the city.

Typically, we are translating materials in multi-languages.

We also often offer multilingual customer support.

We have increased and reserved incentives for equity communities,

and there's a list here of some highlights of the programs that we have

where we are either adding incentives for equity communities for these various programs.

We also have expanded services and our pilots that are serving equity communities, and we

highlight some of that work that's happening here from the initiative, the Climate Smart

initiatives.

We also are targeting engagement in equity communities to inform city initiatives.

In terms of external funding, while there certainly has been a decrease in federal grant

opportunities there are still many opportunities and we're pursuing as many as we can so this

highlights some of what was submitted in the last reporting period march through august nearly four

million dollars worth of grants for applications were submitted there was also several that were

awarded even in this last reporting period again over four million dollars and we also executed

some grants that we had been awarded so a lot has happened even in this last six months and

we continue to see opportunities for external funding and pursuing those as much as we can

so just looking ahead there are several items that will be coming to council as well as launches

and other programs that will be rolling out still much of the work across various departments

happening and lots of really great work happening here. So one of the things I wanted to highlight

is that one of the future items we're bringing is the city's first climate adaptation and resilience

plan which will come to T&E in February and we hope to bring that to council in March as well.

So that will be coming forward, kind of be the second, the back side let's say of the coin for

climate where we have mitigation measures we're trying to reduce our emissions but we also

recognize that climate change is happening and we need to try to adapt and be more resilient

to to adapt to climate

so our recommendation is that we accept the semi-annual update for climate smart as well as

approve the updated 2025 climate smart plan and also transition to annual climate smart updates

to align with our changes in the transportation and energy,

transportation and environment committees change in schedule.

So those are our recommendations and we're open to any questions.

Great. Thank you.

Tony, do we have public comment on the side?

Yes, I have two cards, Lena and Lyndon.

Come on down.

You don't have to speak in the order that you're called.

um you get two minutes and the timer will be above you again that's lena and linden

all right good afternoon mayor and council members lena ein with the santa clara valley open space

authority i am pleased to share our support for the incorporation of the natural working lands

element into Climate Smart San Jose and its meaningful integration into city goals, policies,

and decision-making moving forward. In 2018, the approved Climate Smart Plan recommended further

research and analysis on the role of natural and working lands in sequestering carbon and their

value in the city's overall greenhouse gas reduction goals. The authority was eager to

co-fund and co-lead this effort, along with the Environmental Services Department and Cascadia

partners in collaboration with DOT, Office of Economic Development, PRNS, Planning Department,

and with technical expertise from over 20 public, private, and non-profit experts.

Upon your council's approval of the natural and working lands element and technical report in

2023, San Jose became the first city in California to adopt a natural and working lands greenhouse

gas reduction plan at the local level as part of its greater climate action and resilience strategies,

the type of bold action that is called for by the Paris Climate Agreement.

This work produced several key findings.

First, our natural working lands are capturing and storing carbon

and therefore play an important role in our city's greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Restoring and enhancing these lands is a generational investment

that protect our communities from the effects of climate change,

buffering against wildfires, capturing stormwater, mitigating urban heat island effect,

and providing critical habitat for biodiversity that we as humans need to survive.

How we grow matters, and as stated in the report, sprawl development is the number one contributor to natural and working land conversions in San Jose, contradicting the city's own growth policies, eliminating important carbon sinks, and directly driving up emissions by increasing VMT, inefficiently spreading out utilities, and overburdening already strained public services.

Lastly, the city's investments in natural and working lands, like those made in Coyote Valley, can and should advance its equity commitments.

Thank you to city staff for their important effort for their effort on this important work

Thank you next speaker

Hi, my name is Lyndon Shea and I retired from ESD last year

Did you know that California happens to be one of the world's 36 biodiversity hotspots?

These days I work to foster biodiversity and native plants in San Jose

by serving on the local CNPS Conservation Committee.

I volunteer in the Master Gardeners' Native Plant Grow House

and most germane to the natural working lands.

I coordinate a volunteer group of city park staff, CNPS, and Valley Water Reps

to identify and map existing native landscapes in city parks

as well as other parks that, with the addition of native plants,

could help create pollinator corridors through San Jose.

connectivity being a major challenge for pollinators.

I'm gratified to see natural and working lands incorporated into the cap,

but native habitat restoration could have gotten more emphasis with its

tremendous opportunity to support biodiversity in San Jose. The element

notes that NWL should benefit all human communities. I would propose expanding

this to native non-human communities as well, which in turn support us. Focusing

Living on San Jose's 100,000 acres of open space ignores the thousands of acres of lawn

that are ubiquitous to the city's 230,000 single family homes, which is a vast wasteland

for local pollinators but with great connectivity and habitat potential.

I'd like to see the city's general plan incentivize and encourage people to minimize turf and

non-native landscaping and maximize native plants, which could increase San Jose's carbon

sequestration potential as well. Having done this recently, I can attest to its effectiveness.

This year, my narrowleaf milkweed patch hosted about 40 monarch caterpillars, which netted at

least 20 monarch butterflies, which is testimony to how little habitat there really is. So truly,

if we plant them, they will come. Thank you. Denise, come on down.

Denise back to council okay thank you coming back to the council we'll start

with Councillor Cohen thank you and I want to thank the climate smart department

for all the work that you've done over the years you know there was a division

of people who were here before us to set up to create the Climate Smart San

Jose plan I don't think anybody actually nobody on this dais was on the council

when 2018 when when that was adopted and it's it's helped make us you know it's

given us the framework for what we've done and obviously our 2021 vote to adopt

be carbon neutral by 2030 also was a significant action or the first large

city in the United States to do so. It's helped us achieve recognition. This year we were

just named WalletHub's number one greenest city on their list of green cities in the

United States, and so I think we should be proud of the work that we've done and the

work that your department's done. I get nervous when I see the graph on page nine showing

that we've been making progress, but we did all the easy things and now we've kind of

leveled off. And so that should be a wake-up call for all of us that our 2030 carbon neutrality

goals are not just going to happen, that we're going to have to keep working for them and

find ways to push even further because we're halfway through this decade to get to that

point.

And I just want to just remind people of the graph on page 8 or the pie chart on page 8

that shows that 21% of our, well, 51% of transportation, so we have to continue to push on transportation,

electrifying our fleet and helping facilitate the adoption of EVs by the members of the

public but also 21% of our of our greenhouse gas comes from natural gas

and so we're going to have to figure out how to encourage incentivize and drive

our residents to phase out their use of natural gas and continue to be on the

cutting edge of making sure that our new developments in the city are natural

gas-free. So I just wanted to make those comments in addition to just saying that

you know I I try to be optimistic on this topic given the what the

unfortunately currently many things that we all believe in the federal

government's push to go in the opposite direction. Local action will be more

important than ever and it's even more of a place for a city like San Jose to

show what's possible in achieving the goals that we know are necessary. I was

just watching an interview this morning which made it hard to be optimistic with

an expert who wrote another book talking and starting to believe that we're not

that there's not necessarily a path to to saving a lot of what we hope to save

on our planet especially as sea levels rise so we're gonna have to continue to

be vigilant but I'm really proud of what we're doing here in San Jose and want to

thank thank the team and move acceptance of this report thanks councilor

appreciate that in your comments I don't see any other hands Tony let's vote

motion passes unanimously great thank you and now we're on to item 6.2 San

is a clean energy pilot program options and we have a brief staff presentation

Thank You mayor and council Lori Mitchell and I am director of the energy

department and very pleased today to be joined by Kate Zamba again she's our

senior environmental program manager. And you may recall that back in April of 2025,

council directed staff to return with options for a pilot program and encouraging the adoption of

commercial electric leaf blowers instead of gas-powered leaf blowers. So in response to that,

we evaluated two programs actually, and we looked at their greenhouse gas reduction,

their market impact, their staffing needs, and their cost effectiveness.

So we looked at an electric leaf blower pilot program and implementing that as a point-of-sale

incentive for small landscaping businesses.

And then we also looked at contractor incentives for contractors that are completing their

first heat pump installations.

And based on our analysis of those two pilot programs, we are recommending that we proceed

with a contractor incentive, but not the electric leaf blower pilot program.

And I will pass it on to Kate to talk a little bit more in detail about those two programs.

But I also wanted to remind council that typically we bring our programs as part of our program's

roadmap first to the Transportation and Environment Committee in the spring and then to the full

council.

So both of these programs are sort of off of that cycle and pilot programs in nature.

And with that, I'll pass it over to Kate.

Thank you.

I'm the senior environmental program manager with the energy department.

So the goal for the contractor incentive pilot program is to increase the number of contractors

who are able to install heat pumps for San Jose residents.

The Bay Area air district regulations limiting the sale of gas powered water heaters and

furnaces will go into effect in just 13 months.

There are more than 800 contractors in San Jose that hold the relevant licenses to install

heat pumps, but we're seeing 72 participating in our EcoHome programs.

And just two of those contractors are responsible for 40% of our EcoHome heat pump installations.

These contractors have built a business around heat pumps and have influenced their customers

to install them.

So we believe that offering contractors a $1,000 incentive for their first six heat pump

installations will provide critical support as contractors begin to master the technology

and encourage them to build a successful heat pump business.

The pilot cost of $100,000 will provide enough funding for 15 new contractors to install

six heat pumps each, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while supporting San Jose's

readiness for the transition to electric appliances.

And as Laurie mentioned, we also evaluated a program that provides incentives up to $1,500

to commercial landscaping companies to purchase an electric leaf blower.

We recommend not pursuing this pilot program at this time because it would have a low impact

relative to its cost and staff time requirements.

Flores are responsible for less than 0.1% of San Jose's greenhouse gas emissions.

Through our outreach to businesses, we heard several barriers.

It would be challenging for small businesses to front the cost of the electric leaf blower,

charger, and batteries, which can total more than $2,000.

Workers aren't satisfied with the performance of electric leaf blowers and said it takes

more time to do the same job.

And there is a lack of awareness of fuel and maintenance savings and the health benefits

from electric leaf blowers, which are significant.

And so because of these barriers, we determined the pilot would need to provide the incentive

at point of sale, and we would need to provide extensive education.

And so this would make the program very staff intensive.

Another concern we heard from companies is that they would only use electric leaf blowers

for jobs in cities that have noise ordinances.

And because the equipment is mobile, we don't have a guarantee that it will be used here

in San Jose.

And so to wrap up, here is a summary of the two pilot programs we evaluated.

We found the contractor incentive will have 10 times more greenhouse gas reductions than

the leaf blower pilot for less staff time and funding.

And so our recommendation is to adopt a resolution approving the development of a contractor

incentive pilot program with a cost not to exceed $100,000 to encourage local contractors

to install electric heat pumps.

And with that, we'll take questions.

Great.

Thanks, Kate.

Do we have public comment?

Let's move to that next.

Yes, we have two speaker cards for Linda Hutchins-Knowles and Blair Beekman.

Please make your way down to the podium.

You will each have two minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Council Members.

I'm Linda Hutchins-Knowles with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley.

I'm writing to follow up my letter that I sent this morning.

We are in strong support of this memo, or of the proposal, and we also support the memo

from the Mayor, Council Members Candelas, Cohen, Mulcahy, and Tordios.

These would direct the City Manager to include in the Spring 2026 SJCE Programs Roadmap Status

Report recommendations to improve the EcoHome Program and assess the contractor incentive

programs to inform potential reach code policy updates for single-family homes and also conduct

enhanced engagement.

We think these are really good ideas and we appreciate staff's work on these proposals,

the pilot programs.

We've seen in our own efforts to educate the community that the number one reason people

don't get heat pumps is because their contractor tells them you should just get a gas water heater

or just keep a gas furnace and so incentivizing and educating contractors is a very key part of

this and very wise to do and for only a hundred thousand dollars that's a really good investment

we also want to encourage you to as it says to please support considering the reach code policy

update for single-family homes. In the past couple of months, many of the surrounding cities have

adopted AC to heat pump ordinances, including Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, Los Gatos,

Saratoga, Portola Valley, Los Altos, and Mountain View. So all of these cities see the wisdom of

supporting residents to be able to get heat pumps so they can have more resilience in the space of

the climate crisis it will help them cool their homes heat their homes and save a lot of money

as the mayor himself has experienced on his electricity bill which is really inspiring

to hear last time so again we encourage you to support this proposal and the memo

and thank you for your good work thank you next speaker

hi Larry Beekman making an appearance hi to everyone today um i just wanted to um

I want to quickly ask that in my usual dim and slow way,

that it's always been my feeling in learning

about community energy practices that working on infrastructure

at the local level is a really important concept.

Does what you're doing on this item fall

under community energy infrastructure ideas and thinking?

It seems a real simple way to do that.

And so thank you for this item and that we really can be considering

about infrastructure and what that exactly can entail

and for our future of community energy.

I think it's an important concept and I just wanted to mention it.

Thank you.

Back to council.

Great. Thanks.

Come back to the council.

Let me turn to Councillor Cohn.

Thank you for bringing this forward and for the mid-year update to our programs.

I think it's a really good follow-up to the conversation we had a couple months ago.

And after that conversation, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and upgrade

my HVAC and furnace and got a heat pump just a few weeks ago.

And it was a really good experience and much less expensive than I expected and much smoother

than I expected.

And interestingly, I had just talked to Lori and found out that there were only two companies

that do about 50% of our installations in the city, so I went with those two companies

to get quotes, and they do them really well.

But based on the mayor's story at the last meeting, it was clear that not all contractors

are trained and prepared to do the work, and so it's great to offer an incentive to help

get more of them prepared and trained to do that work so that we don't have to rely on

just a couple companies that really do it well.

They interfaced with the city beautifully.

They did all the work that was needed to be done and have helped make sure that I receive,

which I'm looking forward to receiving, my rebate from San Jose Clean Energy for the

work that I did.

So, you know, it's really been great and just in time for the cold weather.

And so I'm not burning gas this month as the weather turned cold.

So anyway, I'm excited about this program.

Obviously, leaf blowers had a variety of reasons why we were interested in phasing them out,

just about greenhouse gases, but clearly from a straight San Jose clean energy perspective,

it's not the best and highest use of our resources.

I will say though I want to thank the team for the outreach that was done.

I went to one of the demonstrations that happened at one of our community centers where about

a dozen or more contractors came out to see presentations on how to use electric leaf

blowers, had demonstrations of all the modern electric equipment, and I got to try out some

of the new electric leaf blowers.

very powerful just as you I was pretty impressed by by what I experienced and I

hope that we'll continue to do that kind of outreach and training and and lessons

to make sure that our contractors understand that this is a viable

alternative now and that it's also one of the things that we where they were

told is it's better for the health and well-being of the of the operators who

don't have to have you know wear things on their ears to protect their hearing

and they don't have to breathe fumes all day as they do their work so hopefully

we'll get more people to voluntarily make the switch.

And I would expect that over time,

there will be pressure on our city

to follow along many of our neighboring cities

to ban the leaf blowers,

not necessarily from a climate perspective,

but because the noise nuisance

that gas leaf blowers do provide in our communities.

There is a Bay Area Air District does offer rebates,

but only in certain cities at this point,

in Oakland, Richmond, San Pablo, parts of San Francisco.

So hopefully we can advocate to have some of those rebates

come into parts of our city, particularly East San Jose

and other parts of our city that have,

that would benefit greatly from better air quality.

So with that, I will move the memo that I co-authored.

I wanna thank my co-author partners, Mayor Mahan,

Council Member Mulcahy, Council Member Turios,

Council Member Candelas for jointly working on this

and forward to the report coming back in the spring.

Great.

Thank you, Councilman Cohen.

Appreciate all your work and your passion

about our Climate Smart Plan.

And glad to hear you're enjoying your new heat pump.

It's worked out great for us.

I also have been impressed with my electric leaf blower

for the record, but, you know,

appreciate the thoughtful recommendation.

It's balanced, it's targeted.

What I like, and I think Councilman Cohen

basically said it all, but I think it's great

that we're targeting one of the big gaps in the market

by creating an incentive for contractors

to see this as a viable option

and not whether through preconceived notion

or a slight cost differential be,

see some impediment or be biased against offering the option

and giving people a real sense

of what the long-term benefits can be.

So I think it's targeted and smart to do it as an incentive

and look forward to seeing how it goes.

I don't see any other hands, so Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

All right.

Thank you all.

We are moving right along.

And we are now on to item 6.3.

We've got a lot of energy items today.

This is a Clean Energy Customer Bill credits.

That's something we all are excited to hear about.

Do we, I don't see a staff presentation here.

Hopefully everybody read the memo.

People are getting some money back.

Good job.

That's great.

Tony, do we have public comment on item 6.3?

Yes, Linda Hutchins-Knolls, come on down.

All right.

Hello again.

I want to make a point that my letter this morning was pretty quickly written and I've

since checked with Lori and I know that it's not very practical to make this change at

this point.

However, I still want to give this comment because I want you to think about this option

in the future.

These credits are going to be costing the program $25 million.

And when I saw that number, my thought was, wow, what could $25 million do for our community

to help our residents be more secure in face of the climate crisis?

I also recognize that many of our residents are struggling to pay their energy bills.

They are overburdened, and they deserve and need a credit.

So Mothers Out Front supports very much this credit for low income and moderate income

residents.

But we also recognize that there are many in our community for whom a $40 one-time credit

back will not make much of a dent or be much appreciated because they make a lot of money.

And so rather than giving back money to people who didn't request it or need it, imagine

if just 10% of people were to opt into saying, let my $40 go to a heat pump resilience fund

or a heat pump or a resilience fund,

and so that this money could be used to help people

who don't have that ability to afford that

to be able to purchase them.

When you guys have decided not to go forward with the reach code

last month, whatever that was,

it was because they didn't show there was not enough money

to help cover the difference for residents.

Here's $25 million.

So again, I realize talking to Lori

that it's probably not possible to make this change so quickly,

but please think about how we can find that money

being creative and if it's a voluntary fund like on our taxes you can say yes I

want a couple dollars to go to a good organization I would happily give my

$40 to start a heat pump resilience fund so that more residents can get these

life-saving devices I want to remind you that heat is the number one climate

killer and our seniors and our youth our children are the most at risk

thank you that's your time back to council

Great we've got a motion from Councillor Cundellas second from Kamei.

Thank you at a time when California's number one concern is cost of living.

I am glad I mean I agree with appreciate the public comment but I am glad that we are showing

that when we achieve savings we can return those to folks and do our best to keep rates

low.

It's very top of mind for working families in our cities so appreciate this action and

motion and we'll take a vote motion passes unanimously great thank you thank

you staff we're on to our final agenda item for today and that's item 10.2 this

is amendment to the title 13 historic preservation of the San Jose Municipal

We'll start with a staff presentation.

Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor and Council, Maniur Sandhir, Deputy Director of Planning.

I'm joined by Chris Burton, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement,

our Historic Preservation Officer, Dana Peake, and Daniel Zazwera from our City Attorney's Office.

So just to provide a little bit of background for the item before you today,

so the amendments that are proposed before you today are in direct response to the 2024

or 6th Appellick District decision associated with the Levitt Pavilion project proposed in the St. James Park.

In that particular case, the court found that the city's historic preservation ordinance lacked a mechanism for the city to override detrimental impacts,

and thus staff is here before you today to propose some amendments that address that issue.

I do want to clarify that the Levitt Pavilion project itself is not under consideration for today,

and these amendments that are proposed would apply citywide.

So to provide a brief overview of our historic preservation ordinance,

which resides in Chapter 13.48 of the San Jose Municipal Code,

this ordinance provides the framework by which the city preserves its historic resources

and provides process and definitions tied to the historic resources inventory,

the designation process, how these projects that can impact these resources are reviewed,

and then also incentives tied, tax incentives tied to the Mills Act program.

This chapter is separate from Title 20 of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates land use.

An important component of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to preserve the historic character

and significance of a historic landmark or a district in the city.

And thus, projects that impact a historic resource or a district are subject to a design review

or a historic preservation permit process.

Projects that meet the Secretary of Interior standards for treatment of historic properties

are considered compatible and can move forward.

However, projects that are incompatible with these standards or demolish or cause an impact

to historic resource may be considered detrimental and can be denied unless a hardship provision

is acknowledged that can show that rehabilitation is infeasible.

The current ordinance only allows for this hardship provision as a path to approve projects

that can cause an override.

The hardship provision or the ordinance in general does not distinguish between public

or private projects, and since it's the only path, it can be difficult for public projects

that do not face economic or structural feasibility constraints to use this provision to move

forward with the HP permit.

Separate and apart from the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the requirement to receive an

HP permit when historic resource is affected, the projects are also subject to the California

Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and thus you know there is a parallel

analysis that is conducted with the HP permit review. The City Council if you

know it determines that there are impacts under this environmental review

process to historic resource that are unavoidable and significant can adopt a

statement of overriding considerations that can allow the project to move

forward and the CEQA statute has been in place since the 1970s it's well

researched and tested in the legal environment, and thus the proposed HP

ordinance amendments that staff has before you today mirror that CEQA

override to present an alternate option to City Council in addition to the

hardship provision that already exists. The proposed amendments also seek to

clarify certain definitions in the ordinance, specifically for defining

what constitutes a detriment, looking at historic integrity, substantial

alteration, and also clarifying definitions for historic district and

landmark. The most critical change in this ordinance is tied to the finding

that allows the City Council to override detrimental effects if social,

economic, legal, technical, or other benefits of the project outweigh the impact, and this

is as an alternative to the hardship provision.

Staff did look at other California cities to determine, you know, what happens outside

San Jose, and most California cities do not have this kind of a broad override provision,

although CEQA does allow for that.

And three identified cities had provisions that went above and beyond the override for general plan of community goals.

Pasadena had language associated with allowing for these projects to move forward if there was a compelling public interest.

And San Diego allowed for overrides only for capital improvement projects.

The proposed amendments from staff provide the council maximum flexibility and alignment

with CEQA and also surgically respond to the issues that were brought up in the court

case.

The staff proposed amendments were also heard before the Historic Landmarks Commission and

the Planning Commission over the last couple of months.

The HLC recommended modifying some of the definitions that were in the draft and also

applying different findings for public and private projects.

The Planning Commission ultimately decided that it's a policy decision on how the Council

wants to approach public versus private projects or if Council wants to pursue additional changes,

that the staff recommendation is focused on responding to the court cases, the Planning

Commission recommended approval.

To address the environmental review of the proposed amendments, staff prepared an addendum

to the certified Envisioned San Jose 2040 General Plan EIR as well as the Downtown Strategy

EIR.

Both of these EIRs were adopted by Council, and they're programmatic documents that do

identify that there could be significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources.

However those would be evaluated at the project level and would require override considerations

in very limited circumstances.

Before I conclude with staff's recommendation, I would like to note that several public comments

have been received over the course of the last few days, and most of them are either

in support of the amendments and the Levitt Pavilion project, which is not under consideration

today, or they seek distinction between public and private projects and how the ordinance

applies to them.

With that, staff wants to conclude that previously the ordinance only allowed one path for approval

of projects, which was under the hardship provision, and in response to the cases proposing these

amendments that allow the council maximum flexibility to approve a project with the

override provisions that aligns with CEQA and thus staff recommends the

council adopt the resolution approving the addendum and approve the ordinance

that amends chapter 13.48 thank you great thank you all right Tony we'll

start with public comment how many cards do we have I currently have 27 cards

received. I'm going to call the names in the order that I received the cards. You do not have to come

down in the order I call you, so if you walk a little faster than the other person, you can speak

first. You each get two minutes. The timer will be above you. Susan Brandt-Hawley, Sean Atkinson,

Suzanne St. John Crane, Marie Peterson, and Song Traw.

Come on down.

Good afternoon again.

Susan Brandt-Hawley for the St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation.

I'm just going to talk legal in the little time that I have.

Currently, your ordinance, the Historic Preservation Ordinance,

ordinance gives greater protection to these city landmarks than CEQA does because it doesn't

allow any detriment, any harm from a project to a historic resource.

And that's why this Levitt project violated the ordinance because it's going to cause

impacts to the historic resource, the city agrees, and then it couldn't be approved.

Now the city is responding to the court order by amending the ordinance.

And the city has the power to do that, of course, but it's reducing, because it's reducing

current protections, it's causing, it's going to cause more impacts to the city's

resources, and therefore you need to do additional environmental review.

I already mentioned that there's other reasons as well.

It's solely from taking this current ordinance and reducing its protections lower, in fact,

than what CEQA allows.

CEQA will still be there, but there will be impacts to historic resources to a greater

extent.

And when you have a project, and this ordinance amendment is a project, we all agree on that,

when you have that kind of a project that may cause an impact to historic resources,

You need to look at all in a public process, which we haven't had the comments and responses

that CEQA allows in a public process.

You need — you can't do an addendum.

You have to do a supplemental EIR on this issue of the ordinance.

And I hope you'll do that.

And I also hope we can talk about some solution to this project, which is certainly possible

without —

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon Mayor Mahan, Councilmembers.

I'm Sean Echison with the St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation.

We're right on the park.

Been there in that building since 1892.

You know, we've been a club since 1888.

We're a foundation, so we have a separate foundation which has been confused.

prior meetings that foundation is in charge of keeping our historic building looking historic

pretty i go out there and prune roses all the time and i'm talking to people about our historical

marker taking pictures with them and doing our part it was a partnership that started back in 1979

to be a historic district a nationally recognized historic district now with this plan which you

know it jumps way ahead on levitt so i don't i don't want to discuss that but we're putting

things in jeopardy by reducing the protections of the historic ordinance allowing this first

one to happen there was a city attorney in one of our meetings that said hey if they make a mistake

on this ordinance just vote them out and one of the commissioners said gosh but the damage will

already be done and that's that's our concern is that where are we going with this if you want to

meet with the stakeholders on the park about a project after you figure things out then I think

that's a really good thing but to right now to change this ordinance so drastically and reduce

its protections makes no sense for a city of San Jose who just talked about all being green and all

these other wonderful things well we should worry about our historic resources as well and I thank

you for listening to me i hope you at least continue this so we can have more dialogue

and um save the vote um but if you have to vote i hope that you vote no and i and i do

i read all the letters it seems like a large majority of them were against this ordinance

change and um i don't know about for it but i saw a lot against but thank you so much

thank you next speaker i'd also also like to call down mark biogeny and linda ramsden

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers.

I'm Suzanne St. John Crane and I'm Director of Strategy for the Levitt Pavilion San Jose.

I'm here today to urge you to vote yes on the changes to the City's Historic Preservation

Ordinance as recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission and as recommended by

staff.

We're here today as the result of a 2020 lawsuit filed against the City by the St. Clair Historic

Preservation Foundation serving a men's only club called the St. Clair Club involving the

Levitt Pavilion project. As a result of that suit, the Court of Appeal directed the City

to include language in its historic preservation ordinance that clarifies the override power

the City already holds regarding projects being proposed in historically designated

areas. Per the City Attorney's history and legal lesson at the 1119 Planning Commission

meeting, which I encourage anyone concerned about this ordinance to read, the language

Language being proposed does not give the city more authority, it simply makes the authority

the city already has more transparent by putting it in writing.

And more transparency is a good thing.

I appreciate our colleagues at PACSJ and their concerns, but I want to be clear here that

the city must keep the language broad in order to mitigate future litigation that has already

cost all of us taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It has been through a 13-year design process, public input, vetting process.

It's taking longer to get Levitt built than the Shark Tank.

So let's stop handcuffing great public benefit projects that will help enrich and restore

our historic spaces.

Let's give St. James Park the love and activation it deserves by filling it with diverse, free,

family-friendly live music for all.

providing a state-of-the-art plug-and-play stage for local schools

nonprofits and community activities let's make st. James Park a downtown

destination that we can all and I mean all be proud of thank you thank you next

speaker good afternoon Mayor Mahan and council members my name is Mark

I rise today to express my deep concern about the proposed revisions to the city's historic

preservation ordinance.

First, the process itself has been flawed.

The public was not given adequate notice in violation of both the Brown Act and the city's

own Sunshine Policy, which requires more advance notice than state law.

is the foundation of trust and this process has fallen short. Second, the revisions lack

a sound legal basis. The city cannot override state law. Declaring that alteration or even

demolition of a historic landmark is not a significant environmental impact directly

contradicts CEQA and the Court of Appeals findings. These changes would require an environmental

impact report, yet that step has been ignored.

Third, the ordinance revisions would dismantle long-standing protections for our landmarks

and historic districts.

They would only protect city-designated resources, leaving national and state-recognized landmarks

vulnerable.

You've already seen this erosion with the voluntary delisting of St. James Square from

the city's directory of nationally recognized historic landmarks.

Finally, the timing and substance of these changes suggests retaliation against the St.

Clair Historic Preservation Foundation's lawsuit victory.

Retaliation has no place in public policy.

members these revisions are not just technical adjustments they represent a fundamental weakening

of this thank you next speaker

sharon yazowski come on down and camille yeah camille come on down

good afternoon mayor mahan and council members i'm the reverend lindy ramston a long-term

resident of District 3. And from 1985 to 2003, I served as senior minister of the First Unitarian

Church of San Jose located on North Third Street directly across from St. James Park.

Built in 1892 and designated as California State Historic Landmark, the church has served the

community for generations. In 1995, the church suffered a devastating fire. Community support

and affection were essential to the rebuilding of our historic church building.

Indeed, historic preservation is fostered by community engagement and concern.

With the senior center removed from the North Third and St. James corner of the park

and the vacancy of the high-rise next to the church,

there has been less constructive activity in the park.

Levitt concerts have been a joyous and community-building addition

to St. James Park and Neighborhood.

I support amending the San Jose Historic Preservation Ordinance as necessary to proceed with the

construction of the Levitt Pavilion, fostering public benefits and including the revitalization

of St. James Park.

Levitt is helping us to build a more connected, resilient, and safer community.

St. James Park needs more champions, and I believe Levitt's concerts will foster that

community care.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

As a resident who lives right next to St. James Park, I want to personally testify

how much concerts at the park directly affects us. It's not just an inconvenience. Often

the loud noise and bass from the speakers rattle our windows and reverberate through

my entire apartment. It's been bad enough to affect my heart rhythm and give me palpitations

and an overall feeling of unwellness.

It makes my apartment completely unlivable

for the duration of the concert that I have to leave

and find somewhere else to go for the entire day to avoid it.

Currently, concerts are seasonal and infrequent.

I can't imagine how we would manage

if this was constant and year-round.

I want to ask the council to think about how you would feel

in our shoes if an open-air Leverett Concert Pavilion

was being built in your front yard.

I don't understand why the council is adamant about bulldozing this proposal through, literally

and figuratively, against many voices of protest and legal issues.

Why they want to ignore the suffering and adverse effects to the quality of life to

the residents adjacent to the park.

Besides our apartment building on the north side of the park, there's residential homes

on the northeast corner and the large senior living residence building on the south side.

Currently, the six main Levitt pavilions in the U.S. are all located in commercial or

industrial sites or on large vacant swaths of land with no adjacent residential neighborhoods

like ours.

Why break the mold and violate our historical, environmental, and residential peace now?

Have you looked at alternative sites that would better meet our needs without such

a detrimental impact?

What about Guadalupe River Park, just a mile away?

It's a huge, accessible, vacant lot of land over 20 times larger than St. James Park.

You've already built the popular and successful children's Rotary Play Garden there.

Why not add to that unused and underutilized open space, one that would be celebrated and

face less pushback and protest and with less historical, environmental, and legal red tape

and negative impact?

Can't we find a happier compromise?

I urge you to reconsider and think about this with logic, empathy, and dupe.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Denise and Laura, come on down.

Hi, I'm Sharon Yazowski, President and CEO of the Levitt Foundation.

We partner with communities to transform underused challenge parks like St. James Park into thriving

community destinations.

We have been on this journey with San Jose for 13 years and we remain committed because

we believe that St. James Park is an ideal place for our investment and for the Levitt

mission of building community through music for social and economic impact.

We have seen the incredible dedication of this community to make Levitt Pavilion San

Jose a reality, and by the unanimous approval of this city council earlier this year, we

know this city will be a committed partner to the long-term success of the Levitt Pavilion

here in San Jose.

Every city needs a central gathering place where people of all backgrounds, all ages,

socioeconomic circumstances can come together, feel welcome, feel safe, have a sense of belonging,

and create pride of place. We believe St. James Park is an ideal gathering place for the city of

San Jose, where people can connect, feel pride of place, and belonging. This builds social capital,

which leads to healthier, more vibrant, and safer communities. Levitt Pavilions in downtown parks,

in downtown neighborhoods across the country have elevated public safety, have buoyed local

businesses, and have attracted new investment. Sioux Falls has seen $310 million of new development,

and so has Dayton, has seen $560 million of new development. That has created opportunity for

residents and local entrepreneurs. The Levitt Foundation is a long-term partner

and we look forward to your... Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is

Camille Chihate and I am the owner of the new Hobies location that just opened a

block away from St. James Park. I'm gonna give you a little my personal history

with music in San Jose. When I finally turned 21 in the 80s I used to hang out at all the clubs

downtown and go to the concerts at Spartan Stadium. In the 90s and 2000s when I started a family

we would hang out at Music in the Park for Smash Mouth and the Beatles cover band,

go to Tapestry and Talent to see San Jose Taiko or all female mariachi bands, something we look

look forward to every single year. From the 2010s until now we've frequented the

Fountain Blues Festival, Sub-Zero, Levitt Pavilion, and now my adult children are

hanging out downtown to go to raves. Who would have thought? My point is what's

the point of having a historical district downtown if no one is visiting

it? We actually, one of the reasons we opened our San Jose location near the

park is because of all the potential of the upcoming development and activation in that park.

So although I really respect the need to maintain historical relevance,

really the way to show that off in all those buildings and all those fantastic architecture

is to bring people down and actually know that that part of the city exists.

I grew up near El Paseo. That thing rose and went up and went down a couple of times.

I didn't even know there was a historical district in San Jose. So now I do know I'm a part of it

My business is there because of it and we want to see it vibrant. So that's my two cents

Thank you next speaker Sally come on down and Michael Michael McDermott

Go ahead

Good afternoon mayor and council members. My name is Laura Wolford

I live in downtown San Jose for nearly or actually over 40 years and I serve on the board of

Levitt Pavilion San Jose. I'm here because I share the vision that you all have repeatedly

articulated and that's that we want a vibrant and active San Jose where public spaces are welcome,

safe, and filled with life. At St. James Park, one of those spaces and right now it's waiting for

movement. Levitt Pavilion is a proven national model just like you heard Sharon Yosowski talk

about. It's turned parks into beloved gathering places through free family-friendly concerts.

These concerts have created a safe environment. They support the local businesses and give

residents a reason to be proud of their community. Unfortunately, one private men's club continues to

throw up roadblocks, and they're doing it with fear, fiction, and more legal threats.

From the St. Clair Club, we keep hearing claims about 300 concerts per year and crowds of over

5,000 people every night. That is simply not true. Levitt San Jose will produce 50 concerts a year,

just like every other Levitt in America. And while the pavilion is designed to accommodate 5,000

people for occasional major events our typical attendance will be closer to

like a thousand or two thousand guests we know that that we know this because

we have plenty of years of data over 20 years of data from National Leavitt

Network these are exaggerated numbers and are scare tastics not facts so I ask

you all to please do what the Court of Appeals ordered and what the Planning

Commission unanimously support. Thank you that's your time next speaker. Thank you for your time.

I'm here to urge you to accept the staff recommendation for the changes in the language

of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This statement was written by Phil Moresca who is

sick unable to be here. He's the current board chair for the Friends of Levitt Pavilion San Jose.

He lives and works in the St. James neighborhood and his company has produced scores of events

and activations in St. James Park over the years. Phil writes, St. James Park is on the cusp of

something big, something exciting, and something entirely doable. Today's language update to the

Historic Preservation Ordinance is a huge step in bringing a Levitt Pavilion to St. James Park.

Our city has invested millions of dollars into a beautiful new plan, a plan that not only respects

the heritage and history of the park, but creates something new that will bring the vibrancy and

activations needed to transform this non-neglected amenity. We need your help to make that plan happen.

You are here tonight to approve corrected language that a higher court requested in order for this

beautiful new plan to move forward and to bring St. James neighborhood the safe, vibrant park it

deserves. The non-profit Friends of Levitt Pavilion will be the full-time operators of this free music

menu and future stewards of this grand park we can commit to being good

neighbors to all neighbors businesses residents high schools and even private

clubs levitt pavilions around the country of a history of community and cultural

collaboration within their immediate surroundings our mission is simple to

build community through music thank you thank you next speaker

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is Sally Schroeder, and I've been a resident of downtown San Jose for over 22

years.

I've raised my children here.

We've played at the St. James Park after service at Trinity Cathedral, and I serve on the board

of Friends of Leavitt Pavilion San Jose.

For the past three years, I've volunteered my time to help bring the Leavitt Pavilion

to St. James Park.

And during this time, Friends of Levitt has produced free, family-friendly concerts in

the park so our community can experience what the future Levitt Pavilion will offer.

Each performance has a welcoming, inclusive energy that reflects the diversity and spirit

of San Jose.

As part of our work, I randomly survey about 50 audience members per concert to understand

who we are reaching.

And the results are clear.

At least 30% of attendees come from the surrounding 95112 neighborhood.

Across every concert, 70 to 80% of the audience is from San Jose zip codes with representation

from all 10 council districts.

The remaining attendees come from nearby cities like Campbell and Santa Clara and occasionally

from across the Bay Area, depending on the artist.

We have demonstrated that a Levitt Pavilion at St. James Park will serve all San Joseans,

Anyone who attends our concerts can feel the beauty of the historic park, the mature shade

trees, the expansive lawns, and the historical architectural landmarks, and can see how activation

creates safety, vibrancy, and community connection.

Preserving St. James Park must include activating the park so residents can enjoy spending time

in the park without fear.

I urge you to approve the new historic preservation

ordinance language as recommended unanimously

by the Planning Commission and supported

by the majority of the Historic Landmarks Commission.

San Jose deserves a St. James Park.

Thank you, that's your time.

I'd also like to call down Ben, John Ball,

and Mark Tercini, come on down.

Good afternoon, my name is Michael McDermott,

I'm yet another board member from the Levitt Pavilion, the Friends of Levitt Pavilion San Jose.

I'm also a resident of District 3.

We are here today following a court of appeal decision that directed the city to clarify language in our historic preservation ordinance.

The proposed update does not grant new powers to the city.

It simply clarifies and aligns existing authority that the city already holds, addressing the specific concerns raised by the court.

The proposed language brings our ordinance into alignment with the established CEQA practices

and mirrors how other major cities handle projects in historic districts.

This is a refinement of existing policy, not an expansion of power.

The City Attorney has confirmed this approach protects our community from ongoing litigation

risk.

This ordinance update benefits all future projects by providing clarity and consistency

and how our city exercises its existing authority.

The proposed change provides the clarity needed to fulfill this Council's responsibility

to weigh preservation values against community benefit while maintaining full accountability

to our voters.

I support this change because I support revitalization of St. James Park.

The Levitt Pavilion represents 13 years of community collaboration, public input, and

neighborhood stewardship. As neighbors in the St. James Park District the Friends of the Lubbock

Pavilion are honored to partner with the city to create a safer more vibrant park that our entire

community can enjoy together. This council unanimously approved our partnership and agreement

August of this year demonstrating strong support for this transformative

transformative public benefit project. This ordinance update moves that forward and further

voices your support for the evolution of our great city in closing I respectfully

ask you to approve the historic preservation ordinance language thank

you next speaker also come on down Alexandra and Thomas Aguirre mayor

council members staff Ben Leach executive director of the preservation

Action Council of San Jose. I just want to start first by saying that if this agenda

item was about the Levitt Pavilion, it would be a very different discussion. I really want

to reiterate that this is an agenda item about the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which

is a foundational document of preservation policy and planning in the city. The purpose

of the ordinance is to preserve city landmarks and that decision has been made by yourselves

as council by previous councils this was an affirmation that these are the buildings these

are the districts that the city should try to preserve unless under various specific

circumstances they can't so PACSDA's main concern is the the overridingly broad definition of

of overriding considerations that is in the section D. I do want to reiterate something

that staff mentioned. There really is no other city in California that has such broad language

in their local ordinance for overrides. The idea that this could be in parallel with CEQA

I think makes a certain amount of sense, but CEQA is meant to guide a process and to identify

potential impacts, not to assume preservation.

The ordinance assumes preservation, as it should.

And so I really want to highlight the memo that District 1 Councilwoman Rosemary Kamei

put forward.

We think it articulates our main fear about if we look at this outside of the public interest

and the public good, what are we really opening the door towards?

I think that at the Planning Commission a commissioner asked the right question

what's the next project that this is going to affect and I thank you that's

your time next speaker good evening everybody John Ball here today I'm here

to speak in opposition to the proposed 10.2 agenda item I also want to express

how the city got into this mess and why this is now in your lap.

You can thank two entities, PRNS and the Levitt Foundation.

Thirteen years ago, Levitt came to town to pitch their offer to help create a concert venue

after having built similar ones elsewhere.

After some discussion with the city, they picked a site after being provided a list of possibilities.

They chose St. James Park, stating this meets our criteria.

The city anxious to gain the benefit of financial input from outside the city somewhat blindly said yes

Let's put a concert pavilion in st. James Park

Many including the st. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation questioned the appropriateness of this site along the way

Including in the lawsuit in which the judge agreed the city was in violation of its own historic ordinance

the st. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation

Foundation

participated in steering committee meetings and expressed their concerns and despite providing alternative ideas were consistently and summarily dismissed

The St. Clair Historic Foundation said

We prefer the pavilion not position its back of house backed up to our main entry

Can we discuss lack of definition on sound levels the city said we know what we're doing?

Don't worry about it

What really stuck with me was your staff being dismissive about the club

requesting a schedule so we could plan for quiet dates for celebrations of life

without a garage band creating the ambiance.

Are you kidding me? Is that what we do here?

Please vote no on this item 10.2 or at least defer so PR&S's heavy-handed approach can be corrected.

This item does need your leadership.

Thank you next speaker Larry Ames come on down and Denise actually I think I already called Denise

And Michael Rio

Mr. Marin members of the council of March or Ciney with Katie Urban

I'm opposed to the

ordinance amendment

if the amendment was intended to assist

Japan town

with some of their historic obstacles,

I would be in favor of the ordinance going forward.

If the ordinance is intended to allow the Levitt Pavilion

to move forward in the St. James Park,

I'm opposed to that.

And I put a letter to the council and the mayor

about my concerns about the Levitt.

I know you're not voting on the Levitt tonight,

but I wanted to put it out there,

and I made a mistake in my letter.

I said it would not it wouldn't harm the quiet enjoyment of the st. James Park and that was a mistake

It would definitely harm the quiet enjoyment of st. James Park st. James Park has needed

Maintenance it's needed new landscape

It's needed police protection for those residents that want to utilize the park as it was intended

Most of the current members in the City Council were not around in 13 years ago when this came up.

They may have been involved in Planning Commission. They may have been a concerned citizen, but they weren't on this in this room.

And so what I'm asking for is that I'd like the current Council to continue this item and direct staff to actually look at Discovery Meadow Park.

It's a perfect park for this type of venue.

It's not in a historic district.

It has light rail right there.

It has an abundance of parking.

It would not have any sound concerns.

So it solves this opportunity to provide a space for people to enjoy concerts.

It's not, it does not belong in the St. James Park.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and members of the City Council.

I'm Alexandra Urbanowski.

I'm CEO of SV Creates, which serves as the Arts Council for Santa Clara County.

I'm also a downtown resident and live just a few blocks from St. James Park.

I'm speaking in support of the Staff and Planning Commission recommendation related to the ordinance

amendments which will allow appropriate San Jose City Council oversight and discretion

related to historic preservation and community best uses and benefits.

ESFI creates funds and supports arts groups and artists in San Jose and the surrounding

region including groups who will have an opportunity to use the new Levitt Pavilion once completed

in St. James Park.

We support this ordinance change to advance long-term planning and benefits to our city

in general and specifically are strongly in support of moving forward with the next steps

to be able to build and open the Levitt Pavilion in San Jose.

The Levitt Pavilion will provide more access

to music to local residents.

It will provide opportunities for work for local artists,

and it will activate our public park

through arts and entertainment.

This is a game-changing project for our city

whose completion is long overdue.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon.

Sorry, your microphone is off.

Feel free to start again.

Downtown San Jose stands at an important crossroads, one where cultural activation,

thoughtful urban design, and community-driven investment must work hand-in-hand to shape

the city's future.

Few projects embody this vision more fully than the proposed Levitt Pavilion at St. James

Park.

And I'm here in support of the amendment.

As someone deeply engaged in the life and evolution of downtown San Jose through real

estate, arts advocacy, and civic participation, I have seen how public spaces can either divide

or unite a community.

The Levitt Pavilion represents an opportunity to transform one of our city's most historic

yet underutilized parks into a welcoming, inclusive gathering space for all residents and people

of all backgrounds.

The pavilion's mission to offer free, high-quality live music and cultural programming aligns

perfectly with San Jose's broader goals, supporting local artists, creating family-friendly outdoor

spaces, and encouraging economic activity that benefits small businesses and neighborhoods alike.

Its impact will extend far beyond its stage, revitalizing St. James Park and reaffirming our

downtown as the cultural heart of Silicon Valley. While it's essential that the project move forward

in full compliance with CEQA and local environmental regulations, I think the current review process

should be seen as a chance to strengthen, not stall, this community vision. I have personally

taken my three young children to St. James Park on many occasions for the Levitt Pavilion, free

concerts, and they have been able to enjoy the playground and natural surroundings in a safe

setting with our neighbors and community members. The Levitt Pavilion promises an inspiring civic

landmark that honors its past while embracing our city's future. This is more than a concert venue,

It's an investment in our city soul where music community and culture converge in a more vibrant and connected downtown. Thank you

Thank you next speaker. Um leah tennis getter come on down and kim wallish

Hi, my name is thomas aguilar

I'm a board member of Friends of Levitt,

volunteering my time and experience for the past five years.

I was born and raised in the east side of San Jose,

where I currently reside.

I lived downtown for 17 years

and have been contributing my blood, sweat, and tears,

and money as an artist, curator, producer,

and DJ for the past two decades.

I've lived and somehow survived the lack of spaces

to present live music in this city.

The hope of Levent Pavilion for me

is that it will provide a professional stage

for the local music scene, to plug and play,

planting the seeds to build a thriving music scene.

It brought me joy to bring my 16-month-old daughter

to her first, second, and third concerts

on the St. James Lawn this past series.

Seeing her light up and dance to her favorite music,

Cumbia, is something I'll never forget.

This is what Levitt is all about.

When we say building community through music, it's representation, accessible, fun, diverse,

and safe.

Let's move ourselves into the future.

I ask you to approve the new Historic Preservation Ordinance language as recommended unanimously

by the Planning Commission and by staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Yes, hi.

Larry Ames speaking for myself about the ordinance.

Some decades ago, speculators thought they could make a few bucks by buying a grand old

house on Lincoln Avenue and replacing it with some soulless boxy bank building.

We in the community pushed back.

The house was recognized by the city as a city landmark.

The speculators backed away, the building was restored, and now the Buffington House

is an active business in the heart of a vibrant Willow Glen.

Historic places like this contribute to the fabric of the community, making it an interesting

place to live and to come visit.

You and the City Council already have the ability to override the Historic Landmark

Commission on public projects for compelling reasons.

The court has asked you to confirm this language, and that's all they are asking you to do.

They didn't ask you to broaden the requirements, to broaden the policy.

Please do not loosen the policy so much that you give away the ability to preserve our historic

structures.

It is human nature to try to make an extra buck, even at the detriment of the community

as a whole, and it's the purpose of the government and council here to push back on that and

to preserve the general welfare.

So please help preserve the history of the area here, keep San Jose an interesting place

to live and work, and support the proposed tightening of the language as proposed by

Councilmember Kamai.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council.

My name is Michael Brio, and I'm a long-term downtown resident, an urban planner, and someone

who's worked for many years to create a vibrant arts and cultural scene in downtown.

Throughout my career as a planner, I've been passionate about creating a great city in

San Jose.

With that aim in mind, I am coming to you tonight, or this afternoon, excuse me, as a board member

of the Friends of Levitt San Jose to urge you to approve the Planning Commission and

Historic Landmarks Commission recommended ordinance changes to the Historic Preservation

Ordinance particularly as they relate to public projects.

The recommended changes are a needed step for the development of the Levitt Pavilion

in St. James Park.

St. James Park is one of San Jose's oldest historic treasures.

However, it is often underused and neglected.

One of the challenges for St. James Park is that there is no reason for many people to

go there.

It needs a use that will bring people to appreciate this treasure.

The Levitt Pavilion is such use and will act as a catalyst to revitalize the park.

By attracting people to up to 50 free concerts a year, the pavilion will build community

connections and pride in San Jose and its downtown.

The pavilion will also support the economic vitality of downtown by bringing in an estimated

$14 million annually in spending, contributing to thriving restaurants and other businesses

in the downtown.

Furthermore, the pavilion will support the local live music ecosystem, giving local musicians

an opportunity to showcase their music in a city that currently has limited opportunities

to perform.

Thank you in advance for your support for the proposed changes to the historic ordinance,

for public projects such as the Levitt Pavilion.

Thank you, next speaker.

I'd also like to call down Steve and Rob.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon, council mayor, vice mayor.

Leah Tennesketter, president and CEO

of our San Jose Chamber of Commerce,

and I'm here in support of the proposed amendment

to the historic preservation ordinance.

San Jose's history is one of our greatest assets.

The Chamber itself operates out of a historic building that we deeply value, and this amendment

would not enable us to make any changes outside of your approval.

We appreciate that the City's proposal clarifies language without changing or diminishing any

of the public process that safeguards community input, their CEQA review, commission and public

recommendations and finally City Council that ensures all remains fully intact.

Clear and consistent definitions give residents, property owners, and businesses the certainty

they need to invest in San Jose.

Importantly, this clarification is in the ordinance's wording, allows the Levitt Pavilion project

to move forward.

Strengthening our entertainment economy and elevating downtown's vibrancy, our goals

broadly shared across this city, and Levitt is a meaningful step forward for both.

With the authority you hold comes great responsibility to ensure the clarity, predictability, and

progress while honoring our history.

For these reasons, the Chamber urges your support of this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Kim Wallisch, Longtime Downtown resident.

Afternoon, I'm Kim Wallish, longtime downtown resident and retired deputy city manager.

Yeah, retired deputy city manager.

The St. Clair Club's six-year litigation effort to stop the Levitt Music Pavilion

gave us six years to show that in San Jose, you can't keep a good idea down.

In six years, we have proved that San Jose residents will joyfully attend free family-friendly concerts in the park.

We have proved that our Friends of Levitt nonprofit will activate the park as good neighbors,

and we have strengthened our collective resolve to realize our vision.

Please support the recommendation of the city staff and city attorney.

While I understand preservationist concerns, when it comes to development projects, San

Jose has extremely robust processes for community input, has active citizen advisory commissions

to council, and a very robust vetting of city staff analyses and recommendations.

This ensures extensive input to your council decisions and shines a spotlight on council

accountability to the common good.

In my view, this prevents the kind of blatant disregard for preservation values we've seen

in the White House with the East Wing or the doomsday scenarios painted by the St. Clair

Club's PR consultant.

So please clear the way for Levitt to build.

Build trust in community that we will persist and not keep a good idea down.

Last, we'd really welcome members of the St. Clair Club to shift from being opponents

to being allies.

The members I know include developers and business people who regularly do business

with our city and seek our community support.

I also know them to be men who care deeply about San Jose.

By joining us, club members personally like us.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Next speaker, Alexandra and Blair, come on down.

Good afternoon, Council members and Mayor Mahan.

My name is Steve Paulson.

I'm a 25-year resident of San Jose.

It's my understanding that the Levitt Pavilion project has already been reviewed several times

and approved by Landmarks Commission, the Planning Commission, and City Council following

an extensive multi-year process.

What we're discussing this evening or this afternoon is whether or not to approve the

clarifying language to the HP permit approval process.

I support the language recommended by city staff and here's why.

As a former two-term landmarks commissioner and design professional, I have reviewed hundreds

of development proposals that involve securing HP permit approvals in San Jose and other

cities in the Bay Area.

I believe that the appellate judge, the one ruling on the Levitt Pavilion project, has

made a reasonable suggestion by asking San Jose to clarify its municipal code in order

to avoid the ambiguity surrounding HP permits.

The ultimate authority to approve HP permits for demolition and alteration still rests

with City Council.

It has always been this way, and this action clarifies that ambiguity.

To be clear, any updates to the HP permit policy should support the goals and activities

of our city's Office of Historic Preservation and not hinder them.

In my opinion, this policy clarification is something that is long overdue and should

be approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

All right.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members, staff, team, everybody.

My name is Rob Lindo, and I am Chair of the Board of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce

and also Chair of the San Jose Chamber of Commerce's Sports and Entertainment Committee.

And I am here today to express my strong support for the proposed amendments because they allow

for the Levitt Project to move forward, something that will bring meaningful long-term benefits

to both our residents and our downtown.

pavilion is more than a music venue it represents a major step toward reactivating and reimagining

st james park free family-friendly concerts community events create the kind of consistent

positive foot traffic that improves safety supports local businesses and restores confidence in our

public spaces as a long-time resident of downtown myself i cannot emphasize how important that is

i can see this part from my window and another place where they have a lot of great outdoor

our concerts. I can see Cesar Chavez as well. Still have a minute. We're doing good. The economic

benefits, though, are also substantial. You've heard other speakers mention it, but the programming

that come from the Levitt Pavilion will generate $14 million in new annual local spending. At a time

when San Jose is facing projected budget deficits in future cycles, that surge in economic activity

is both timely and also necessary. It strengthens the city's revenue base without relying on new

taxes and directly supports restaurants, small businesses, artists and local vendors.

And beyond Levitt, these amendments provide clarity and that's important for businesses

and developers who want to invest in our historic areas. Predictable, well-defined rules create

confidence. Confidence leads to investment and investment leads to economic growth.

And importantly, the amendments maintain full CEQA review, public process, city council authority,

and community input. In other words, they clear unnecessary barriers while preserving every

safeguard that matters.

And for these reasons, and on behalf of the Chamber and our Sports Entertainment Committee,

I respectfully urge that you all support.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Also Sally and Mike Sodergren, come on down.

My name is Maria Peterson.

I live on 97 East St. James Street.

I'm about five yards away from St. James Park.

There are two issues.

One is the addendum to the historic ordinance, and the second one is the construction of

Levitt Pavilion.

We heard many from the Friends of Levitt say how much the pavilion will benefit them and

how it will enhance their lives, but not one person said how much it would benefit us,

who live on 97 East St. James Street, as well as the St. Clair's Club and the other buildings

around the square of St. James.

So, none of the Friends of Levitt mentioned how the loud concerts would enhance our lives,

How the trash resulting from all of these concerts would benefit us.

How the possible devaluation of our properties would benefit us.

The problem is that the pavilion issue at St. James Park has pitted the Friends of Levitt

as well as other people against the St. James residents, the people that live actually in

the St. James Park area.

This is not community building.

It is pitting one group against another.

So why not build the Levitt Pavilion in the Meadow Park that somebody else mentioned,

or in the Guadalupe River area?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi.

Thank you.

I was very moved by those last words.

Thank you.

I'm not fully understanding this issue, yet I'm here.

A public comment, time to offer my feelings, thoughts, and ideas.

Thank you.

I wanted to quickly offer that this has been a very old issue.

It's so old that, I mean, I was still living here when this item first arrived to city council,

and now you're still addressing it.

That was back, I left in 2022, and it was here way before that.

So I am, as I said, I was very moved by the previous words.

I was also moved very much by Kim Waelish's words, who I haven't seen for a while.

her and she offered how can we work with the men's club,

St. Clair men's club group towards some sort of middle ground.

And I really, I'm really interested in that concept and how

to build middle ground with issues for our future at this time.

Thank you to Mayor Mahan for his previous work with working

with the Trump administration on ICE agents to not arrive in the Bay Area.

That's an example of how I really want to be thinking.

And so I hope in what Kim Willis has mentioned, there's an importance,

and from what the previous person just mentioned, in that mediated process,

can a new pavilion site be created overall?

You've created some interesting new ideas for historical preservation based on current corporate standards.

Good luck how it can be far reaching and eternal for all of us.

And a good negotiation process continues.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Mark Schroeder come on down and Tamiko and Evelyn.

Go ahead.

Hi, Sally Zarnowitz.

I'm speaking with PACSJ today, Preservation Action Council San Jose.

We've been following this item, of course, because it affects the historic preservation

ordinance.

The Landmarks Commission had concerns about separating public and private.

We are so thankful to Councilmember Kameh for putting forward a memo that acknowledges

that.

That language didn't make it through from Planning Commission.

So what's before you today includes public and private equally.

And the project before you, which we do, or it's not before you, I apologize, but the

Levitt project, you know, the court said it could go forward as noted in the memo with

just allowing for these overrides for public projects.

And that's what we're really looking for, the support of the memo in that.

Also keeping in mind embodied energy, since you had this discussion on greenhouse gases

today we believe the way the ordinance has changed would allow demolitions of landmarks

which is different than an infill project in a city landmark park.

So you know activating a park is one thing, demolishing landmarks is another and we feel

that just adding that simple language of you know that it's a project that provides a public

benefit as the memo before you does is addresses that concern and also allows the city to go

forward with any with the approvals that they have in mind so thank you very much

thank you next speaker hi good afternoon council and mayor my name is Tommie

Karast I am the president of the Japantown business association business

owner and fifth generation resident of Japantown I reached out to council

member Tordios and his staff because of decades old issues in our neighborhood

related to historic preservation and we do support the city's amendment. The

historic resources inventory and the rules surrounding historic preservation

have left nearly a dozen buildings in condemned condition in Japantown and

have literally bankrupted families who are willing to renovate them. The needs

of each district should be considered individually without undermining the

intent of the original historic preservation ordinance. Any additional

inflexibility around the ordinance will cost us time we cannot afford and leave

our neighborhood even more vulnerable to decay. We would like our own community

and residents to make these determinations and we hope the City

Council will enable us to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi good afternoon Mayor and City Council members. I live in the Lake House

historic district in San Jose. I'm a 30-year resident of San Jose. I've seen

great times thriving downtown and not so much. The attention seems to be paying

to the Levitt Pavilion project. My question about the site that's been

selected, St. James Park, is what happens to the unhoused community members that

populate that park and how do we get them housing and a better place to

to live. I sympathize with the young lady who said that the sound level from live concerts is so

disruptive. I'm now experiencing that due to the lot at Creekside development. I literally, like

she said, have to leave home to able to have some peace. With regards to preserving historic

structures and spaces. I think when you think about relocating, demolishing,

don't do that because when you erase history you erase the opportunity for

future generations to experience what we all have experienced. So I am opposing

this amendment. I think when you lose sight of history you lose sight and you

don't you forget so i just think it's super important so thank you for your time thank you

next speaker i'm going to call the last two cards dan orloff and michelle i have now called all of

the speakers if you turned in a card and did not hear your name you may have missed it so go ahead

and line up thank you go ahead hi council persons and the mayor my name is mark schroeder i live in

downtown San Jose, Negley Park. I've lived here since 2003. I urge you to strongly support the

change to the historic code, Title 13. St. James Park has a history of evolving, and I think it's

important to think about that. It doesn't have any big structures. It's got the McKinley statue,

And other than that, it's really an open ground.

In the 1950s, we ran 2nd Street through the park because it was to benefit the city,

and the city needed that transportation.

Think about the St. James Center that was in the north corner of St. James Park,

where Levitt will be.

There was a retirement or a senior center there from 1973 until about 2010.

If you look at VTA, they decided that we should run light rail down 2nd Street, added the

light rail, added restrooms.

And finally, you know, the children's playground is new.

And my children play there after Sunday school at Trinity Cathedral.

And the thing is that parks need to change as our society needs to change because it's

not just looking at the past, it's how we make the past help our next generation. And

that's what we're here for, is the next generation. You know, this happens around the country

where people have to make changes to make society get better and live and prosper. I

serve drinks at Levitt. I've done that for two years now. I volunteer Sundays on the

concerts. Frankly, the concerts are not loud. I've been to nearly every concert. The people

People are so happy to be there, and they always want to talk, and they want to talk

about how fun it is to be there, and the music is so diverse.

I see...

Thank you, that's your time.

Good afternoon, and thank you.

Excuse my voice.

I've been promoting the downtown condition since 1977.

I have co-produced and marketed live music events since 1984 at St. James Park and a

plaza to Cesar Chavez.

The home to the Doobie Brothers, Los Tigres del Norte, Stevie Nicks, Lindsey Buckingham,

and so many others should also be the home to more live entertainment to create tomorrow's

rock stars.

I am in favor of the amendment.

I would really like to see the resources opposed and for it devoted to solving the mitigation

problems that might be of concern to those in that neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Drayband.

I'm the vice chair of the Levitt, Friends of Levitt Pavilion San Jose.

I'm also a resident in the St. James Park neighborhood and on my local HOA board.

And I just want to urge you to please accept these changes to the ordinance.

I'm going to be a little off the cuff as today is Giving Tuesday, and I'm a professional fundraiser, so it's been a busy day for me.

But I just wanted to address a few of the concerns I've heard today, mainly trash and sound,

that Levitt Pavilion is going to be operated by our nonprofit,

and we will be directly responsible for working with neighbors, being a good neighbor,

making sure that sound levels are reasonable, that the sound is pointed towards the lawn,

not towards the communities that are there.

And of course, cleaning up after all the trash, I think we can all agree that the trash that's

in St. James Park now is not ideal.

And that is something that I think we would actually be able to really help with.

And as others have said, this is part of our local history.

This park has always been a place for community building, a place for people to gather.

and I think we want to restore that vibrancy to this park and this project is just so important

I think to this community and to the neighborhood so I just want to urge you to please do whatever

you need to do to make this project happen and to also stop the weaponized litigation that's

been happening against the city regarding this project I think that it is causing delays it's

causing money it's causing the taxpayers money and i think that that's unacceptable and i really want

to see anything that you can do to change the language to make it so that that litigation can

stop and that this project can move forward for the benefit of our community thank you thank you

next speaker mike sadegren president of preservation action council of san jose

Mayor and Council members thank you for hearing us. Activation is preservation

so that is why we do not oppose the Council's consideration and likely

acceptance of the proposed amendments to the historic preservation ordinance. We

hope that Council will seriously consider the amendment proposed by

Councilmember Kamei today. We think that that solves the issue that we are most

concerned about which is the distinction between a public project and a private project which the

current the current text does not do per staff you're hearing this item due to the ongoing legal

dispute involving a public project a public project that cannot be approved without the

city having the power to issue a statement of over any consideration for public projects so

So, please confirm with the City Attorney, as we have, that inserting the word public

or compelling public interest into Section 13.48.240 in no way prevents going forward

and approving, with a statement of overriding consideration, the Levitt Project.

Unfortunately without emphasizing the public interest, the revised text reduces ordinance-based

accountability by private owners of San Jose's historic city landmarks that the

ordinance was created to protect. I attended every public meeting on this

matter and never heard a discussion of project private projects as being one of

the issues as to why the ordinance needed to be updated. It was singularly in

response to the litigation. The fate of over 200 iconic landmarks rests with a

decision to include a distinction between public and private projects.

There were at least five projects were approved by

um

Thank you that's the final speaker back to council.

All right well thank you all very much for taking the time to be here and weigh in during

this important public comment opportunity.

Thank you to my colleagues for listening intently.

There were a lot of compelling arguments made all around.

Most of the comments I heard this evening

really revolved around the merits and demerits

of the proposed Levitt Pavilion

and the future of St. James Park.

And in terms of my comments, at least,

I'm going to maybe surprise and certainly disappoint

many of you by not weighing in on that debate because to me that is actually not what is at

issue in this vote. I know it is relevant and I understand for many of you, you came tonight

because that is what has motivated you and that full respect for that and I hear the arguments

on both sides and there will be, as there have been many times in the past, additional opportunities

to discuss the merits of that specific project.

But the question tonight, and what the council's being asked to vote on,

is really a question about the appropriate authorities of the council acting on behalf of the community

and the legal pathways we have for determining whether or not a project that has historic impacts

provides an overriding benefit or rationale for the council to be able to move it forward.

And as the court has made clear, the city has that power, but we have tied our own hands through our own ordinances

and said that we don't outside of this hardship provision, which at a time where we talk a lot about sequel reform,

and we see state leaders finally seeing the light on the extent to which very onerous CEQA restrictions

has helped produce a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis,

and we look locally at how to have better processes.

This particular ordinance, as currently written, stands out like a sore thumb

because it doesn't even give us the discretion to do the kind of override we do in all other

secret cases where you're talking about other kinds of impacts.

So I support the amendment because I think what's before us tonight is simply the question,

and it's an important one.

I understand it can have profound implications, and we'll continue to debate individual projects

as long as we're all here, and I'm sure far beyond.

But I believe fundamentally that this council and the elected leaders in our city who are the most accountable to the people, not an unelected administrator in a department, not a judge weighing in from afar on the arguments being made by two opposing legal teams,

But this council, on behalf of the community, should have the discretion to weigh the benefit of a given project against the impacts.

And through a very, as has been noted, robust public process with many steps ought to ultimately and clearly have the sole authority to determine that over.

For that reason, I also will just say, and I appreciate the comments made by PACSJ, and I understand I have a lot of respect for the group and Ben and his leadership and their work, particularly work they've done to help facilitate adaptive reuse.

I do have concerns with the blue memo, we call it a blue memo, the memo that came in this afternoon from Council Member Kamei.

I appreciate it's in good faith, certainly well intended.

There's a lot of detail here I appreciate.

process-wise I've said it many times I'll say it again well we have the

ability to bring these memos this late in the process I don't find that it

allows for the best process doesn't give us a lot of time to consult with city

attorney's office with our teams with external stakeholders to really deeply

study these issues and the recommendations that come forward but

setting aside the process concern that I generally always raise around blue

memos, sometimes they are necessary. I believe that the suggestion of adding a

new term of art of compelling public interest undermines the entire point of

what we're here to do today. The question before us is do we want to update the

ordinance, amend it, so that we address the legal uncertainties from lawsuits and

do we believe that the council should have this authority or not? By adding

this new term, I think we actually inject more uncertainty and create a new gray area

where there's going to be a lot of debate over what is compelling public benefit.

And again, I fall back on, do we want the council to ultimately have the authority to

have that discussion in public and weigh pros and cons, or do we want to create grounds

for potential legal challenges?

Now I know it was said by, you know,

that adding that language wouldn't prevent

a particular project from going forward,

but Susanna, as our city attorney,

I'll just ask you very simply,

does adding additional language over and above

what staff recommended create some additional uncertainty

or interpretation that may need to be worked out

in the future, and if you wouldn't mind

just sharing with your mic on.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mayor.

Obviously, it's within the council discretion to add the language,

and it's the council policy decision here.

It would add some additional, I think, complication,

because there was no definition of a compelling public interest,

and so it could act to curtail the council discretion,

which is currently the matter in front of you right now,

is to make sure that the council has the discretion to make the decisions on these historical properties

that it is determined to be historical.

Thank you, Suzanne. I appreciate it.

So I won't, well, it's well intended and well written, and I appreciate the debate that I'm sure will ensue.

I won't be able to support the blue memo because I just, I think at the end of the day, it's kind of a binary choice.

We either want to amend the ordinance to give the authority to the council and we can have the discussion and debate about what constitutes a compelling public interest and when it is and isn't right to override.

I really don't want to water it down.

I think staff put a lot of time and effort into writing this a specific way to reduce the uncertainty from future lawsuits.

And again, my concern has been more around the, frankly, the property owner, the small, long-time, multi-generational property owner in Japantown than Levitt Pavilion.

But setting aside any individual project, the question remains, who gets to decide?

And if we start adding new terms and more complexity and uncertainty, we, I think, are undermining the direction we gave to staff to come back and give that authority clearly to the council.

and I would trust us being elected and accountable to the people and our future

councils to make a better decision to weigh those trade-offs more effectively

than any administrator lawyer or judge frankly because we know our neighborhoods

best with that I'm going to turn to councilmember come a thank you so much

and thank you also to the city attorney's office especially Daniel says

Azueta whom we conferred with back and forth and thank you to the staff for your extensive

work on the update and bringing forward these changes.

My intent is not to restrict our override authority but to ensure that when the Council

uses it we do so with clear principle standard that the public can understand.

By adding compelling public interest requirement it provides that structure and it ensures

that the overrides are reserved for situations where the public benefit is truly meaningful.

We can determine what that public benefit and whether it's meaningful or not and make

this decision here.

So it doesn't, the intent is not to change that.

This approach is also far less restrictive than the standards used in many cities, which

often require extensive technical findings, hardship analysis, or limit overrides to narrow

categories of public projects.

Our proposal preserves flexibility while still adding the needed clarity.

And the clarity is that public versus private.

A compelling public interest should involve a specific, demonstrable and significant public

benefit such as meeting legal obligations, delivering community service infrastructure,

meaningfully advancing adopted city policies or addressing a substantial source of blight.

standard builds guardrails without removing the council's discretion so I

respectfully disagree with the mayor in that this does not take away council

discretion council we return the ability would retain the ability to determine

what qualifies but now must articulate those reasons transparently and on the

record and with that I respectfully remove staff recommendation and my memo

Second.

We turn to Councilmember Tordias.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you also to all of the members of the public who wrote letters

and came in to speak today.

As the Mayor said, obviously a lot of folks have strong feelings about the pavilion itself.

I have my own feelings about the pavilion, its potential to activate St. James Park and

incentivize some additional economic activity and development, but as was said, that's not

really what we're voting on here today, which is the technical update to the historic preservation

ordinance. I am sympathetic to a lot of the sentiments expressed in Councilmember Kameh's

blue memo, and I really do agree with some of the information that's put in the background

there about the importance of having accountability, of having a transparent process for making

these determinations. But I don't know that I'm sold that the recommended language changes

are actually necessary to achieve all of those ends. I was looking through the staff memo,

and it already has mentioned there that the amendment, quote,

adds an alternative approval path and allows council the ability to document specific considerations

justifying approval despite negative impacts on landmarks in historic districts.

So I guess a quick question for staff.

If we were to move forward with the proposed language in the staff recommendation,

would it still be the case that when we want to make these determinations of overriding considerations

that council would make findings that explain the decision-making process?

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

I think that's, you know, an important thing to just have on the record there, that regardless

of what we move forward with today, there will still be a process for Council to weigh

the potential pros and cons between historic preservation and some of the other goals that

we are trying to advance here in an open forum where we can have documented findings on the

record.

I share some of the concerns that, you know, the proposed language may be overly broad.

you know, it's been mentioned that this has been a long time coming, this project, the pavilion itself, stretching back over a decade.

And multiple years of that delay were specifically because of litigation and then multiple rounds of appeal.

So while I respect my colleagues' point that the proposal in which there would not remove the council's ability to make a finding of compelling public interest,

My concern is how that might be interpreted in the courts.

It may give additional latitude for outside groups to come in with litigation that would then further delay projects until they can be settled by a court that won't have the same degree of local context and accountability that we have on this council.

And that that will then have the potential to further delay projects at additional costs, both for project applicants and for taxpayers, if it's a public project like this one.

Historic preservation is a worthy goal.

I've said many times I live in a historic home.

It is something that is near and dear to my heart.

But I will note that historic preservation is not the city's only goal that this council

has been charged with advancing.

In my opinion, it is appropriate that the council should be able to, in a public forum,

weigh these different and at times competing goals in order to make an objective decision

that is in the best interest of the city as a whole.

For that reason, I would like to make a substitute motion to approve the staff recommendation.

thanks councilor we have a substitute from councilmember Tordillo second from

councilmember Mulcahy do we have additional questions or comments or

shall we vote not seen any hands Tony let's vote

the substitutes for the staff recommendation motion passes 9 to 2

thank you Kim a and Casey voting no great thank you okay thank you all that

concludes our agenda is our items that were on the agenda but we are moving on

to open forum this is an opportunity for members of the community to comment on

city business that was not on today's agenda do we have any comment cards for

open forum yes I have three Bob Palacio Blair Beekman and Susan Bassey come on

down you do not have to speak in the order you're called first person of

the microphone go ahead and speak and the timer will be above you good

Good afternoon Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, Council Members, City Staff, Bob Palacio.

I'm here speaking on behalf of Nancy and Raymond Rosenden, property owners at 985 Timothy Drive.

Currently there is a large and growing unhoused vehicle encampment located on Timothy Drive.

This encampment is having a profound negative impact on our current tenant who is a substantial

city of San Jose tax revenue generator.

members and patrons of our tenant elemental wellness are being subjected

to unsafe and unhealthy conditions caused by this encampment drug use drug

sales fires trash physical altercations off-leash aggressive dogs and

prostitution are frequent occurrences that are a danger to the vehicle's

inhabitants as well as the staff and patrons of the surrounding local

businesses we understand the challenges the city faces associated with addressing

illegal encampments. However, those challenges do not relieve the city of its obligation

to assure its residents and visitors safe living and working environments. Our governor's

executive order N-1-24 encourages you to act with urgency to address dangerous encampments

which subject individuals living in them to fires, predatory and criminal activity, and

widespread substance use harming their health safety and well-being and which

also threaten the safety and viability of nearby businesses we are requesting

and again doing so in a public record that the city of San Jose removed the

vehicle encampment on Timothy Drive with urgency and humanity while we do

appreciate the responsiveness of district 3 councilmember Tordillo's

office we have yet to see any action or results to remedy this unsafe situation

I should also note that repeated calls for service to police dispatch and multiple 311s

have been filed with details and pictures of the ongoing unsafe conditions.

With that, I'd like to thank you in advance for your attention to this urgent, serious, and dangerous matter.

We can be reached by email at rnb32724 at gmail.com or by phone 650-787-4945 for any additional information.

We look forward to giving you any assistance you might need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi. Thank you.

Blair Buechman.

To ask simply and honestly are Bay Area local governments

and communities currently satisfied

that the future direction of Bayawasi can simply continue

to be determined by only a small number of local, state, and federal administration and

officials. As I personally feel the current choices by Bayouasi management and how to

consider the future of Bayouasi should be very concerning and should be more openly reviewed

and questioned by everyone of the Bay Area community at this time. A well-structured and

focused Bayouasi subcommittee process can quite possibly better invite local Bay Area

government and communities to help develop a more clear cooperative effort towards organization,

information, idea sharing, and consensus building, and working to define what can be the best practices

for both future Bay Area emergency planning needs and how to help better shape and define the future direction of Bayouasi as well.

A notion may be creating itself at this time that new Bayouasi planning ideas can be better leaving the era of 9-11 continual war

and its large federal government projects, but this future promise may also have a very specific goal

to end public oversight and the public meeting process for the future of Bayiwasi.

I feel there are already well-established good ways to leave the era of 9-11 and continual war

that is the open public process, open participatory democracy, and public oversight.

I feel these concepts simply have to continue to have an important role and good purpose

in the decision-making and choices in what will be the future direction of Bayiwasi.

Please continue to ask questions and for open conversation

and dialogue with this item.

Thanks for your time.

Nice seeing everyone again.

Good luck towards tech accountability practices.

We're really trying to work on the future of flock issues.

There is an overabundance of tech.

We can reduce our tech numbers a bit

and still practice good public safety.

Good luck how San Jose can work on such things.

Thank you.

Next speaker and Mike Sodergren come on down.

Good afternoon my name is Susan Bassey and I'm a local social media investigative reporter.

I report on the courts, I report on police, and I report on local government.

I'm currently actively reporting on the restraining order lawsuit that Peter Ortiz filed against

the social media reporter Eastside San Jose Times,

and I'm covering that case, including the appeal

where he has retained the McManus Law Firm.

Today I came to the city in order to get records.

I've previously been here to get records

related to Mr. Ortiz's and Omar Torres's political campaigns,

which I do as part of my news gathering activity.

I have always found the staff here to be incredibly helpful.

I have sent compliments to you, Mr. Mann, at your office

after I had been with the clerk's office last week,

she helped me.

I have really, it's a city you should all be proud of

and all of the employees.

Today, I went to the city attorney's office

because I am actively investigating complaints

that San Jose PD is not enforcing

CLET's restraining orders and domestic violence cases.

I've been investigating the nonprofit Women SV

and a number of attorneys,

including divorce attorney Nicole Ford,

who represented a city employee,

Jeff Scott in a restraining order.

Okay, Jeff Scott works for the city

and he got a restraining order against him

when he was going to a public meeting in Los Gatos.

His attorney is Nicole Ford

and she sits on the county's domestic violence council.

She's appointed to that council

and she helped influence funding of over $250,000

to a nonprofit by the name of Women SV.

After I made my records request, I left

and I remembered that there had previously been a sign

on the door that said something about First Amendment auditors

and I wanted to ask the police officer on duty

about that sign and the policies and what applied.

I have never been treated by a police officer

so badly in my life than that officer.

I have already posted it to Instagram.

I did a live stream.

Thank you, that's your time.

Next speaker.

I wanted to try to end on a light note.

I

PAC San Jose watched with all of the rest of the city the sort of falling apart of the

downtown west project and what that meant to all of us in terms of employment opportunities,

commercial development, and whatever.

And so this is a little thing, but to us it's a big thing.

This week we're going to have a rummage sale in the 57 Bracobama Boulevard warehouse,

which is a part of the Kearney Pattern Metal Works facility,

which has a great story to tell.

But we truly do believe it's not a slogan that activation is preservation.

And so until such time that Google comes back, and we pray that they do come back,

and they do activate that space to the plan

that you all approved.

We are gonna activate that space with a store

that's a reuse store, so hopefully it contributes

environmentally, not too much of our stuff gets stolen

and ends up in the creek bed.

But we will be hopefully a great neighbor to Hoppus,

local color, and the other establishments

that the Creekside Social Group has worked so hard

get in there so we will have you know official reveal in January we hope that you will all come

you all shop Pat will give you a great deal I'm quite sure and then I just had one last comment

which is it's still first and foremost on our mind 35 years ago we were formed to try to save and

activate the first Church of Christ scientist on St. James Square. We are

totally committed to that. You tell us how we can help, we will help. Thank you

very much. Thank you. Back to Council. All right, thanks everybody. We are adjourned.

Have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.