All right, it's 2 o'clock, so we will call today's meeting of the Rules and Open Government Committee to order and start with roll call.

Candelas.

Here.

Duan.

Here.

Foley.

Kamei.

She's here.

And Cohen.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We will start with the review of next week's agenda for the January 27th City Council meeting.

There is an ad sheet with one item on it.

We have a 9.30 closed session and a 1.30 regular session.

Consent starts on page 5, continues on pages 6, 7, 8, 9,

10 and ends on 11.

In section 3, we have our annual report on city services.

In section 8, we have SB79 implementation, downtown residential incentive program expansion for commercial to residential conversion,

multifamily housing incentive program update or extension.

We have the inclusionary housing ordinance update, soft story seismic retrofit pilot program,

and proposed amendment to the mobile home rent ordinance.

No land use, and we will start with public comment.

Blair?

Hi, everyone. Blair Beekman. I've almost, after like five months now, I almost kept my storage locker all cleaned up,

and I moved from a larger space to a smaller space. I'll travel back down to San Diego this February,

and I'm going to do some whale watching in Hawaii and Maui, so I'll be looking forward to that.

Hearing their sounds underwater is quite a thing to hear in one's life.

I wanted to speak to the item, eight items.

First around, slow, slow, slow, almost there.

Senate Bill 79 issues.

In being from San Diego these days, they are working diligently on new proposals of housing development

in large neighborhood areas.

One is in their state college area near,

that's more inland, San Diego,

and one is near, more near the coast.

They're large neighborhoods.

They're trying to find new ways to implement Senate Bill 79.

They're going to be using different ways to understand it

and how it can be applicable and what can work in one place

may not fit in the other place and vice versa.

They're going through quite an undertaking in this future housing

that I think you can probably learn some good lessons from

that I thought it would be nice to mention at this time

for reference for yourselves in future buildings.

They do have construction costs that are way lower than here.

Thank you, Barry.

Back to the committee.

okay we'll start with council member duan

thank you chair on item 8.6 we'd like to move that to 6 p.m starting time

and if everyone agree with that then i'll uh i'll move to

approve the agenda including i believe it's the ad sheet

Second.

Okay.

Go ahead, Council Member Condellis.

Thank you, Chair.

I've also heard from certain stakeholders about the mobile home rent ordinance,

which I think is 8.6, to moving it right after consent, actually sooner on the agenda.

I don't know if that's something for that.

Yeah, I'll clarify that.

What I heard from them was they wanted immediately after ceremonials.

Okay.

But then when I asked them, they thought ceremonials were, for the evening session, it's at 5.30.

Fantastic.

They thought that that's what it meant.

So when I confirmed with them, that's why we got confused last week at rules.

Okay.

When I confirmed with them, they said, no, we want 6 o'clock.

6 p.m., perfect.

So that's what we've heard from several stakeholders.

Great.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Chair.

Vice Mayor Fuller.

Thank you.

I just, I always hate to put a time certain on an agenda when we already have an agenda that seems like a long agenda, and this is the last item.

So it's possible we might get to this item at 6 o'clock anyway, or we might get to this item at 5 o'clock.

If we finish the agenda at 5, then we adjourn the meeting for an hour and we come back at 6 o'clock.

and that's not a good use of our residents time who are here in the

audience and I realize some will be watching this on virtually but I I would

be an advocate for just keeping the agenda is good as is because we have a

lot of things on the agenda and they're big items we're we've got inclusionary

housing we've got the multifamily I mean it's all housing plus we have the audit

on city services that we'll be discussing for a while

that tends to take a little bit more time than we project.

So, or predict.

So, I always hate to move the agenda around like that

or say we're going to stop and then start at 6,

but I'm just one out of five votes.

Yeah, I mean, what you're saying makes sense.

My thinking is in this meeting we're probably not going to finish

and get to 8.6 by 6 o'clock anyway.

I think with the city services audit and the SB 79 item and the IHO item

and the multifamily housing item, we're probably going to be getting past 6.

I guess the real question is, would we want to stop where we are

and pick it up at 6 for time certain,

or do we want to just say not to be heard before 6,

run the risk of potentially having to take a break for a little while,

but make guaranteeing for the folks who are coming out

that they don't have to be here before 6,

which is their concern for the people who work and want to be here for the item.

So we could just change it to not to be heard before 6

and still have it be last, and if it goes at 7 instead of 6,

then they'll have to wait.

Is that a—

Yeah, I know.

So the question is—I mean, just for conversation,

I don't know the best approach on this one.

Lee, you probably don't have any idea about time for what you expect

because this is just one of those meetings

where there could be all kinds of public comment throughout the day.

I don't.

I don't, and either of the solutions are obviously available to you as a rules committee.

It depends on what you guys are most comfortable with.

I just know the majority of the resident expressed to have it at 6.

Yes, hopefully we'll get it, you know, either at 6 or after 6, but not before that.

Yeah, I mean, I guess my concern is not that—I guess the question would be,

how can we can we redo the order so that it's after 8.4

so that soft story wouldn't go before

setting it I'm concerned that 8.4

could be starting at 5 and go till 7 and we would have to interrupt it to start

the other one at 6 I guess that's the that's the bigger fear I have well that's my concern

so saying not before 6 but changing the orders

or making well this is the last one anyway 8.6 is at the end so

Right, but if 8.4 goes until 7, then we could go straight to 8.6 and have 8.5 come last.

So I'm just thinking that we could change the order to have 8.6 be 8.5, but have it say not before 6.

And that way, if we get done early, we can go skip over to seismic and then come back to it.

But if we don't, we don't have to have them wait even longer for another item before we get to it.

Does that seem like a good compromise?

Yes, to me, I'll accept that compromise.

So can we redo the order, Lee, to make the...

I think it's been posted.

I think we can mark down in annotation the technical, like the annotated order for the public and for the mayor,

but the actual item numbers need to stay the way they are because it's already been posted.

Okay, so we could change orders of the day.

At the orders of the day, I guess we could also clarify that we're going to hear 8.6 before 8.5.

but not before 6 o'clock.

Okay.

So I think that's what we'll say.

The words we'll put on here are not to be heard before 6 o'clock,

and then next week we'll try to change the order

to make sure that it gets heard as soon,

close to 6 o'clock as possible.

Okay.

Okay.

Just to be clear then,

if we get through the agenda through 8.4,

and it's 5 o'clock,

are you going to

do 8.5?

No, because the way all these agendas work is if something

says not to be heard before a certain time, we skip

ahead to other things. Well, that's what I'm asking.

So the motion

is to not before 6 o'clock.

Not before 6 o'clock, but change it.

But not time certain 6 o'clock.

Yeah, because of the danger of the others running so long.

I'll accept that.

It's the time certain part that's

always difficult to manage.

I'll accept it

as the seconder.

Accept it.

Okay.

That sounds like a good compromise.

All right.

Let's vote on the motion.

That motion carries 5-0,

and we're going to move on to our first review of the council agenda

for Tuesday, February 3rd.

That one has 9.30 closed session and 1.30 regular session,

and consent starts and ends on page 5.

section 4 we have an amendment to the gaming control municipal code section 5 actions related

to the taxiway at san jose airport section 8 story road business improvement district

also the alum rock santa clara street business improvement district

and the alameda business improvement district no land use on this agenda let's go to public

comment no public comment okay back to the committee move for approval all right we have

motion in a second let's vote motion carries 5-0 so we're on to our consent calendar for

today's meeting there's two items on consent do we have public comment layer

I actually, I do not think I have public comment on this item.

I think I just filled out a card just to be ready, but I don't.

So sorry about that.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

Move for approval and second and calendar.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second on consent.

That's what.

Okay.

carries 5-0. Item C-1 is a joint memo authored by Councilmember Ortiz and myself and Councilmembers

Mulcahy and Casey. Just let Councilmember Ortiz do a brief introduction and then move

on to our discussion. Great. Thank you so much, Chair, and respected

roles committee members. I want to thank my colleagues who co-signed on to this memo.

Councilmembers Mulcahy Casey and of course our Rules Committee Chair Cohen.

One of the most spirited debates regularly on this Council is concerns

regarding the barriers to development projects that are essential to our

city's growth and prosperity. This memo hopes to address building in San Jose as

we've heard from both the development community and our residents. We all agree

that housing production is essential for our city's growth and I think this memo

can play a major role in allowing us to move forward with sustainable and

community-centered direction towards development there are three strategies

that are being proposed that came directly out of the cost of development

study session that occurred last year first a scale development fee framework

that aligns fees with project characteristics like size affordability

public benefit and location so that we're not treating all projects the same

when their impacts and community value and subsequent

Difficulty to build are very different

Second is deferring development impact fees and public works off-site fees

allowing payment at certificate of occupancy instead of that entitlement or permit and

Issue this doesn't waive the fees to be clear

It simply improves cash flow and feasibility at a point when projects are most financially

constrained and then third aligning our notice of funding availability with the state's business

cycle so affordable housing developers aren't forced to navigate mismatched timelines that

create unnecessary delays and barriers so i believe this memo uh bridges the existing divides

on issues and removes barriers uh to projects that need the most help to promote our development here

in the city so i respectfully ask for your support to place this on a future council agenda thank you

all right thank you we will start with public comment blair followed by gene

hi thank you uh blair beekman wow this sounds like a really interesting good item uh good luck in in

the work on this item. I've been attending San Jose Council meetings for 10 years now, and

these sort of fee issues and in-loop fees have been a real source of figuring out.

Flexibility and versatility has always been the norm, and it has a certain thing that it works

towards. But I mean, it looks like you guys are going to be trying to address some forms of

consistency and I think people will be really interested in that concept

developers and community alike that it just really could work good luck on how

you can be developing this thank you I hope it can be good lessons for San

Diego as well thank you good afternoon my name is Jean Dresden and I am a park

advocate and proposals like this come with consequences across the city for

example the park system is already underfunded in breaking down careful

consideration should be made across all impacts before changing this source of

capital funds park fees are already discounted to the 2017 land value and

deferral of fees to certificate of occupancy lowers their value when

collected even years later. Consider the impact transparently with all stakeholders. San Jose

and other cities have experimented with obtaining fees at certificate of occupancy. Other cities

and San Jose have been burned. Ask staff to provide a full report. Consider what fees

would not have been collected from San Jose park projects that entered bankruptcies. Park

fees didn't push them over the edge.

Both items should go to priority setting where the workload can be weighed in the context

of the general plan update and the phenomenal amount of work staff is required to do for

SB 79 in order to protect employment lands.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

I think Vice Mayor Foley, you wanted to say something.

Sure.

I believe this has to go for workload analysis,

so I would move approval subject to,

I would move that we move it to workload analysis.

Okay.

So it will come back to rules in, what do you think,

a couple weeks for us after the workload analysis?

Yeah, a week or two.

Okay.

As a co-author on this memo,

I'm just going to say one of the big frustrations I've had is that we've been having the same conversations year after year after year about making projects more affordable without overburdening the city.

And it feels like we're spinning our wheels.

And so these are some ideas that I think we've heard multiple times.

I remember meetings with developers six years ago when I was first running for council where they said if there's one thing you can do, it's to fix the planning process and help make it more streamlined for us.

And I feel like we hear that every year.

So I do like the fact that we have some concrete proposals in here to do that.

On the fee side, obviously we want to see what the effect of any of these fee deferrals might be.

Having said that, at least most of the projects that I'm aware of,

park fees are collected at certificate of occupancy currently and not at building permit moment.

And the idea is to have some of these other fees that are currently collected at building permit

to be collected at building occupancy.

Now, sometimes we get agreements with developers to front load their park fees to help us,

and we can still do that.

We would still be able to do that under any proposal that comes forward.

But anyway, we should be looking at all these things and figure out how to make it most

cost effective for developers to get the capital they need to build projects.

So thank you for leading the group to bring this forward, and I'm happy to, I'm looking

forward to hearing what the workload analysis says.

So let's vote.

All right.

That motion carries 5-0, and we are on to our second memo.

This one is the mayor's memo just laying out the process for our forecast and budget priority study session,

which is scheduled for February 5th.

Do we have public comment?

Yes.

Blair?

Thank you.

I'm sorry that San Jose has run into a little budget problem here at this time.

In living in San Diego, we've had a major budget problems.

Um, the mayor of San Diego really wants to cut back on services in order to fix the deficit

issues.

The city of Oakland, I think, only has a larger deficit than San Diego.

They're the one, too, of problems, budget-wise.

And Oakland, I feel, has tried to take a more balanced approach, and that we can take time

to work on the, on budget issues.

We keep, the progressive community in San Diego keeps trying to say that, that as important

as fixing deficits are, possibly we can take a few years.

It doesn't have, we don't have to do everything all at once.

And that's my feeling.

That's what tries to be worked on.

And that as you are, because the, in keeping our social services is incredibly important.

And that has to be priority one, I feel.

And in your memo, it tries to offer a sense of choices of what you describe as like a

specialized few services for a small few compared to more broad services for a few more.

It tried to state a good way to talk about the issue.

I don't think there's ever a small number of people who need services a lot compared

do a broad number.

Services are needed by people, and we've got to figure out ways how to do that.

And that's what's key.

And good luck how you can be doing that.

I know it is a tough balance.

We're trying to figure out how to say that.

As long as we have a good spirit and good connection, we're trying to go towards a good

course of this.

Good luck how you can be doing that with your upcoming issues.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

Okay.

Back to the committee.

any comments questions or motion all right we have motion in a second no

further discussions so let's vote motion carries 5-0 and we are back on we are

open forum there hi thank you uh blair beekman uh items to get off my chest uasi um they've been

helping with your super bowl stuff a reminder that they may be changing their administration

models soon. Always be asking them questions. Don't be afraid to ask them questions.

And really, I feel they were built after the era of 9-11. And they were based, especially in the

Bay Area, on the practices of open public process and public review, public oversight. I don't

think they should lose those things in their future as how they work. They want to change

those things drastically. And you can probably get a sense already, they don't want to be

very talkative about this stuff. If you are talkative with them, you do ask them questions,

they will answer. And that will break the ice. Let's hope we can do that and just have

a good open process. They can have changes in their future. It just has to be, I think,

an open process and really work towards a public process. That's my goals and how to

develop that future. With that all said, I'm upset with the Trump administration a lot right now.

The Bay Area, Mayor Mahan, the mayor of San Francisco gave awesome ideas on more than just

the Super Bowl, I think, about what is really going well in cities of the Bay Area, what we're

working on with crime issues. All of us have been doing a really good job, all the cities,

and they took that to heart at the federal level.

We really need to communicate that with other cities

and with the federal government that through dialogue

we can come up with answers and solutions.

Our current Trump is creating war on our people.

It's shocking and he has to stop.

He has to pull back.

He has to engage in dialogue for answers,

not artillery and warfare.

Good luck how we can be working on that in the coming weeks.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

All right.

We are adjourned at 2 24 PM.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you.