Okay, it is two o'clock.

So we're going to call the February 18th meeting of the rules and open government committee to order.

We will start with roll call.

Candelas.

Foley.

Here.

Come here.

Here.

We have a quorum.

And we apologize that we don't have video today, right?

Or um the computer system, so we're going to be.

We're going to do voice votes and um follow along with our paper copies of the agendas.

We will start on pay uh start with our agenda for the February 24th council meeting.

And that one has a uh 9 30 closed session and 1 30 regular session, and consent starts on page five and continues on pages six and seven.

Section three, we have an annual summary of labor negotiations, public hearing on the status of the city's vacancy recruitment and retention efforts.

Section five, we have a funding agreement with affirmed housing.

In section eight, we have the establishment of two business improvement districts and actions related to East Santa Clara Senior Affordable Housing Project and Trillion Senior Apartments Housing Development on Santa Clara Street.

And in land and oh, in section eight, we also have lower income voucher and equity program.

There are two administrative hearings on land use appeals under land use that we heard at the end of the agenda.

And we have an ad sheet.

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay, no public comment on this item.

So approval with the ad sheet.

And I think there was a well before just to there was a request that we talked about last week about time certain for item 3.4.

And after speaking with uh council member Ortiz, we would like to just move make that item time certain for 3 o'clock.

So is that okay with the makers of the motion?

Yes.

I'm on the maker motion.

Time certain.

I I really prefer not time certain because that means we are in the middle of an agenda item and we have to stop and start with item 3.4.

Yeah, I've always wondered about the wording of this.

Is it possible to say it'll be the item first item heard after 3 o'clock or something?

Is there a wave of Lee?

How do we can we phrase that so it's not going to interrupt an item but goes first after 3 o'clock?

And why is go ahead, Lee?

Sorry.

I'll let you answer.

No apology, needed advice, mayor.

I was gonna ask Rochelle.

I think we could change that wording to first item to be heard after 3 p.m.

I think that's fine.

Yeah, let's do that because that as I said, time certain means we stop whatever we're doing in the middle and then we break up a conversation when we could be well within the middle of a presentation.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I would accept that.

Okay, so that's okay with the mover and motion and this.

Make it a motion in the second, or I think that's it on discussion on this.

So all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oh anybody opposed?

No, that motion carries five zero.

And now we're going to review our agenda for the March 3rd council meeting.

Closed session starting at 9 30, regular session at 1 30, and one page of consent.

Section 3, we have our sewer rate setting audit report.

Reasonable accommodation process and personal property impound handling item.

And uh community oversight committee annual report on measure T.

Section six, our climate adaptation and resilience plan and no land use.

Do we have any public comment on March 3rd agenda?

No public comment.

Alright, back to the committee.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion in a second.

All in favor say aye.

Any posed?

All right, that motion carries five zero.

So now we're on to our consent calendar today.

We have, I think six items on consent.

Do we have any public or five items on consent?

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of approving consent.

Say aye.

Aye.

All right.

I didn't hear any, I don't think there's any opposition, so the motion carries five zero.

And now we're on to item C1, our discussion item related to the Coyote Valley corridor study.

So I think, oh, Councilmember Compost, you want to uh give a brief introduction.

Thank you.

I am here to submit this memo to the Rules and Open Government Committee on the Coyote Valley Corridor study to be placed on a future city council agenda as a consent item recognizing the work that city staff has and our community has been involved in and recognizing that it is put on an indefinite pause.

It's an opportunity to commend the great work that has been done and acknowledge that it is at a pause now.

So I submit this memo for that.

We'll start with public comment on this item.

We have three comment cards.

Norm, Jerry, and Chris.

Please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

We each have two minutes to speak.

Good afternoon, honorable committee members.

My name's Chris Marcese.

I represent my family, the Marcese family, and the Jung family.

I want to first and foremost thank the city staff for all the hard work that they put into most of the Monterey Road Corridor study, realizing now that it has been put on indefinite deferment.

I think it's important for the staff to memorialize the work that has been done and be recognized for it because quite a bit of effort went into it.

In addition to that, I would just hope that once it gets to the city council with your support of this memo, we're able to assist those longtime landowners along the Monterey Road Corridor that have been long time annexed into the city of San Jose, and we're giving zoning for their agreement to be annexed into the city.

And this goes back 50 years.

For 50 years, various parts of Coyote Valley have been planned.

But this specific situation is really the east side of Monterey Road Corridor, the southern gateway to the city of San Jose.

And we were on the right track of discussing hard decisions, but we were working towards something that was really great, unfortunately, only to have the study solved installed indefinitely.

So I thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your decision.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Jerry DeYoung.

I'm a planning consultant working with the property owners on the corridor area.

Um it's very unfortunate today that the majority of you sitting there have no idea what we're actually talking about.

Councilmember Foley and I believe Council Member Cohen were part of the decision to have the staff do the study on the corridor.

It's very, very unfortunate that this that the study was begun, has gone probably a little more than halfway through, uh, and has been pended.

I want to say terminated, but I won't use that.

I'll end in in parentheses identify that.

As a planner, the unfortunate part of this was that the city council, in approving the contract uh with the consultant and authorizing the work to be done, uh at the same time uh changed the zoning on the properties to a plan development zoning.

The purpose of that planned development zoning was to hold everything in a static situation while the study was being done.

When the study was stopped, and if it's never initiated again, then the landowners are actually left in a different and perhaps worse condition than they were uh previous to the study being uh undertaken.

So it's it's we hope that when this comes back before the council that actually the council might be interested in hearing a little bit more about the study, why the study was undertaken, the outcome of the study to date, and to understand what the additional work might be necessary to bring the study to a conclusion in the manner in which the original council approved the project and to be studied.

So I know there's no action for you today other than to accept the council member's uh request to hear this at the point in the future, and I hope when we come before you again that perhaps.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

Norm Mattione, on behalf of the property owners, I've represented several of the property owners along the corridor as their attorney through the process, and I recall the the meeting where the motion was made to authorize the study.

It was based on the distinct character of the eastern side of the Monterey Road Corridor.

It was distinct from the Coyote Valley, and that was the thrust of the study to look at what might be valuable, viable for uses.

The uses are a mix of uses, some fallow ground that used to be ag that's no longer ag and county development that it was allowed over the years.

But a great portion of the property is annexed to the city of San Jose.

And so when the study, the owners were looking to the viability of uses that would sustain their ownership.

I'm particularly aware of Kenny Sasso and his family that have lived there generations and still persist on holding the land for their family, looking for perhaps the opportunity for residential development that was one time promised to them, not for subdivision, but for family use.

So it's a frustration to get to this point, but I understand staffing issues and uh look to the bottom line that really isn't it's suspended, but it's not terminated, because it's still worth looking at the property and its distinct character, and the distinct character is parcels 90 90 plus percent of which don't come close to the 40-acre minimum of the Coyote Valley, don't even come close to 20 acre minimums.

There's five, seven, and eleven acres.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Back to the committee.

Okay, well, thank you for providing uh comment and Vicemar Foley will start.

Thank you.

Thank you for the memo, which I uh Council Member Campos, which I jointly signed along with the mayor and uh and myself.

I guess that's the three of us.

This has been a long study in coming, it was uh paused last year to come forward uh on the advice of staff.

We we were hoping to move it forward at least to have it submitted in the record to the to the corridor study, uh, but I understand we may need a workload analysis in order to do that.

Um I really thank the community members for coming.

I've been living with this issue for a long time with uh with council member Jimenez and also with council member campus.

So I I certainly understand your frustration and where we are to this point, and we were hoping to move it forward a little bit.

But Lee, do you want to address the workload analysis?

Yes, I I do think we would need to do a workload analysis.

The recommendation before you is for us to bring our draft study forward to the council.

There actually is no draft study.

Um there's some very preliminary survey work that was done, and then it was um stopped with manager's budget attendum number three.

So I think at a staff level, we would need to figure out if we were to come forward how much work it would take to get a draft study in place, which could be considerable, but I think time or staff needs time to figure that out.

So we would ask for if the rules committee wants to entertain this that we do the uh the week or two workload analysis.

Okay, in that case, I would uh move approval of the item with pending the workload analysis to come back in how much time you think you need for the workload analysis.

We can probably bring that back next week.

Okay, for next week.

So just so I understand that the workload analysis would tell us what it would take to draft to create a draft study.

It but I but I felt like I the spirit of what was being brought forward was just to sort of memorialize what's been done to date, but what you're saying is there's not enough that's been done to date to have a memo and to memorialize that.

I think what we'll be asking staff to do is to outline what it would take to finish a draft study.

Um because that's the direction of uh what we would need to bring forward to.

I think the additional week will also give staff and PBCE an opportunity to reach out to the author's office as well as some of the stakeholders that spoke today and see what if anything in the way of an alternative could be brought forward.

Um but I know sitting here in front of me today, it would take considerable resources to get a draft study in place.

Okay.

Uh council member commit.

Yeah, I um I guess I'm uh I'm surprised to hear that uh there is no draft and that uh there isn't enough work to create a draft.

Um is that the case?

That is the case.

The council paused this work with the budget process last year very quickly after the original work was initiated.

I see.

Okay.

I'm also curious as to um why it was suggested to be a consent item.

Was there thought that more work had been done or if that question is for me, the consent item was because we know that there is no more work that is going to be done.

So it's more of an acknowledgement that the work has been paused and that we don't anticipate uh further analysis or further work being done.

So that's two different things.

So it sounds like we're gonna get the workload analysis to complete the work, right?

But regardless, we want this to move forward without the work.

I mean, I'm a little bit confused.

No, the the whole idea of this memo was actually to memorialize the corridor study that has already been done and to file it in the public record that the study had been completed.

We asked for a draft because we're not asking for a formal work to go forward because there's still a lot that needs to be done.

CEQA analysis, a lot of things need to occur in order for individuals who own the property in the Coyote Valley area to do anything with it based on the study.

And under staff recommendation last year, we paused the CEQA study because they didn't have the staff bandwidth to create the SEQA study and uh work with work with CEQA, the SQL report.

So this was an intention, which isn't it's not as easy as we thought it was going to be.

We thought we could simply request a draft report and have it filed in the consent as part of the public record.

So just just so I understand what workload analysis is we'd be looking at.

It would be looking at what it would take to write a draft of what's already been done, or is it about going further and complete and doing more study itself?

It's about it in my mind, it's doing the work that we've already done to this point and not going forward.

So the issue here is that we've there's been some work done, but nobody's written up a draft of what's been done, and that there's some work that it would take to actually write a draft and bring it to council in a in a form that can be published.

That's I believe that's what this is about.

That's correct.

Just writing up what's been done before.

Okay.

All right, that makes sense then.

Okay.

All right.

Since that's clear, I guess we move on.

I have a quick question for Vice Mayor.

If SEQA wasn't done, then it's just only partially done.

Am I correct?

Or is it completely study is not done.

Or the study is the quarter study has been done.

The next step is CEQA.

There's a lot of recommendations in the report that say subject to CEQA analysis, subject to this, that, and the other.

There's no the report doesn't give any of the property owners the ability to go forward with anything yet.

The CEQA analysis would, but that's what was stopped last year based on really a workload analysis that staff didn't have this the staffing to move forward with it.

Based on all the priorities that PBCE has on its plate.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

So it seems to me, I mean, I feel like I'm a little bit nowhere.

So it seems to me that there are two things, right?

There's this possibility of having whatever has been done to date, whatever that body of work is, whether it's a draft or whatever it is, where you could specify and say, this is what has been done already.

This is what we know already.

And then there's a subsequent body of work which would include the CEQA and the this and the that.

That could take a very, very long time.

And it sounds like the community members have waited for a while.

So I think that when this comes back, it would be great to know, hey, this is all of the stuff that has been done and that we know, and you know, that we can write up whatever it is that we're gonna write it, whether it's a draft or whatever you want to call it, this is what we know, and this is what is yet to come where it would require CEQA, it would require this amount of work that it would require blah blah blah, whatever it is, right?

So that we have clarity on what we have and what we don't have, because I'm a little bit confused here as to what this is, right?

If we have any body of work, we should complete that to know this is what we have, and if there's additional items that need to be done, so that the community knows this is what we will need.

So that to me, to try to like separate it a little bit, when this stuff comes back, it seems to me that we need to know these things because if not, we're sort of floundering into whether it's a draft or not a draft, what are you gonna need?

Not need and no, let's let's be a little bit more clear.

But but there is no direction going forward.

We're not asking for any direction going forward on the study and what can be done with the study.

We're not saying the work, this the plan, the second step that you're talking about, we're not looking for that in this memo.

This memo is intended to memorialize the work that has been done thus far, and paused with with no movement forward.

So for staff to come forward and say these are the things that need to move it forward, that's gonna take a lot longer workload analysis, and that's why it was stopped last year because they didn't have the time to move it forward.

They didn't have the staff to move it forward.

And I think they're gonna say the same thing that we don't have staff because we're working on the uh general plan amendment, and we're working on all of these other uh arena goals and housing issues and things like that, and we don't have time, we don't have the staffing to address this particular issue.

So any the workload analysis will tell us how much time it whether what whether it's possible, how much time it would take to write the report of what's been done in the past, presumably that report would include information about what next steps would have to happen to to re pick to restart the work.

Just of sort of that would be in the report.

So I I think that that makes sense to sort of codify it because that report already says here's the next steps.

And so I I would imagine that that would be in that report, but right now, all we're asking for is come back to us next week and tell us, well, is it something that within two months you can do or it would take till the fall to get us a report of what where we are and how much has been done.

Sound right?

Okay.

Alright, well, we'll have another crack at it when we get that workload analysis next week.

So let's vote on this motion.

All in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

No proposition, any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries five zero.

Thank you for being here, and we'll.

No public comment.

Okay.

Thank you.

We're adjourned at 2 23 p.m.

I don't know.

I don't know how to do it.