Alright, it's two o'clock.

So we're going to call today's meeting with the rules and open government committee to order and start with roll calling.

Candelas.

Here.

Duan.

Foley?

Here.

Come here.

Cohen.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Alright, we're going.

Oh, Duan's here.

Duan's coming down the stairs.

First thing is to review the agenda for next week's council meeting May 19th.

It's scheduled for 9:30 closed session, 1.30 regular session, evening session cancellation.

And the agenda starts on page five.

And we'll be all about our district people.

It's not working out.

It continues on page six.

Seven.

Section three, we have our citywide customer experience transformation update.

And section five item is deferred.

Section six, our San Jose Clean Energy Programs Roadmap Status Report.

And land use item 10.2 environmental review policy.

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Second.

All right, I don't see any hands, so let's vote.

Can you vote verbally?

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions?

All right.

Motion carries five zero.

Now we're on to we don't have a meeting to review for the week after.

Happy Memorial Day.

Consent calendar has six items.

Do you have any public comment and consent?

Ms.

Rain, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Okay.

All right.

Back to the committee.

Verbal vote, please, yes.

Motion carries 5-0.

We're on to item C1.

The ministerial approval memo, Tordillos, Campos, Cohen, and Kamei.

Um I think we already had a presentation last week.

We have our early consideration form, so I'll turn it over to Lee to review early consideration form.

I know Chris is here as well if he wants to win.

Sure.

Uh the administration has deemed this a yellow light.

I will ask Chris and his team to come in the box in case the rules committee has any uh detailed questions about the analysis and why it's a yellow.

Okay.

Do we have any public comment?

Yes, Alison, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

Good afternoon.

Alison Cingalani, Director of Policy with SV at home.

Speaking in support of the memo from Council Members Tordios, Compost Cohen, and Kamei.

Recommending the expansion of ministerial approval processes citywide for housing development applications that qualify for CEQA exemption under AB 130.

We agree with the memo authors that the eligibility standards established under AB 130 are carefully crafted.

These projects must meet clear requirements related to location, environmental protections, and consistency with local planning goals.

Larger developments must also comply with strong prevailing wage and skilled workforce standards.

These are exactly the kind of infill housing development San Jose should be encouraging.

Projects in existing communities near jobs, transit, and services, where new housing can have the greatest benefit and lowest environmental impact.

Expanding the ministerial process the city already uses is also a practical governance strategy.

It can help move eligible housing projects into construction more quickly while allowing planning staff to focus their time and expertise on more complex applications and long-range planning efforts that require deeper analysis and public processes.

At a time when San Jose faces both a severe housing shortage and constrained public resources, this is a thoughtful and effective way to streamline housing production, improve administrative efficiency, and advance the city's housing goals.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

Okay, thank you.

Let me ask a question first on this one.

Um, Chris, I see obviously a recommendation of deferring this to next year's budget cycle or make making a later date.

Can you talk a little bit about the impacts of this and how it would impact other things in your workload and whether some kind of longer timeline than September, but maybe not deferring a whole year could possibly be worked in?

Uh yeah, happily.

So uh Chris Burton, director of planning building code enforcement.

Um, as we recently reported out to the community and economic development uh committee.

Our current citywide work plan, which includes work that's related to this item but not the same as this item, um, is somewhat packed.

Um so we have a significant body of work that's currently underway related to requirements from the state, in addition to other council priorities.

And so by sort of our tracking mechanisms, we're sitting at about 130% of capacity for the next fiscal year, and then at roughly a hundred percent going into the following fiscal year beyond that.

And so the challenge is how do we continue to balance all of these work priority items?

Obviously, the largest body of work we see over the next 24 months is ultimately the four-year review that includes again some related items to this, but not specifically this work item.

Um, we will be through this budget process releasing an MBA that talks about sort of citywide planning a little bit more broadly and discusses sort of where that entire work plan is and you know, kind of what the opportunities for trade-offs are right now.

Um, I think there are, you know, potentially some trade-offs, but they're challenging ones.

Um, when you think about the types of work that we would have to put off, it's like the work related to we I mean, we're already proposing deferring some of the work related to the smoke and vape shops just because you know we're packed.

Um the other impact if we don't just defer items, is that everything starts to spread out.

Now, the reason we've stacked our work plan sort of in somewhat the way we have is that we've created a pathway to compliance with our next housing element in 2031.

So that's the four-year review, the environmental clearance associated with that, then the next housing element.

Um, if we weren't to get all that work done in time, um, then ultimately we create sort of additional liability with builders' remedy um throughout the city.

So there's a sort of a defensive strategy in some of this, um, but there's also a lot of other work coming.

I think the other piece that um has taken up a significant amount of capacity in this last year, has obviously been the work related to SB 79.

Um so you know, I think there's just uh a lot in there and not many good trade-offs as we see it right now.

Okay, thank you for that explanation.

I'll uh turn to Vice Mayor Foley next.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh and and thank you, Chris.

Actually, that was my question.

What what's the trade-off?

What do um the uh workload analysis is recommending looking at next year's budget cycle to see potentially I guess if you could hire more staff to handle the workload, is that the number one thing standing in the way of the that's the trade-off.

Yeah, that's the trade-off right now.

Is we'd we'd have to stop doing something else to expand the scope that we're already doing on ministerial.

Yeah, thank you.

I I've heard this report a few times in CED, and we've uh heard it regularly that your department, your workload is huge, particularly with all the legislative requirements, and we never know what more requirements are coming forth for development.

Uh so I'm uh while we don't usually receive yellow workload analysis.

I have to be respectful of that when it actually comes in.

So I would move that we defer this to budget cycle twenty-seven-28, I guess.

So, yeah, sorry.

All right, we have a motion in a second.

Um I know that I think Councilmember Tordias wanted to say something.

Um I think normally since go ahead, come on down and make make two minutes of comment.

Well, thank you, rules committee members members, and also thank you, planning staff for the workload analysis.

Uh, I will just say that this is obviously a topic that is of significant interest to the council.

Uh, you know, in addition to the four signers on this memo, I know recently uh Mayor Mayhan, Council members uh Candelas, and Casey have also spoken in favor of investing more in ministerial approvals.

And I think that given how much priority this has been shown from members of the development community, members of council, housing advocates like we saw today, that it would make sense to get this in front of the full council for a full discussion in terms of how this stacks up against some of the other priorities on the existing PBCE work plan.

I know that I can point to things in the PDC plan, but I think this would have a more immediate impact in terms of addressing some of our housing and economic development goals.

And I think if we look at what has been happening in some of our peer cities, I have frankly some questions that I would love the opportunity to suss out further about you know some of the projected work for accomplishing this item notably Mountain View in January of this year, late January moved forward with staff direction around a ministerial approval process for AB 130 compliant projects and they were able to complete that work in under four months.

It's coming back to council at the end of this month for adoption.

So given that I think that it would make sense to be able to probe a little bit some of the estimated work that is slated for this item here in San Jose.

Obviously PBCE here has different constraints in terms of their capacity but I think allowing the council the opportunity to dig into that a little bit more thoroughly would be productive and also to see how this fits in against other priorities on the PBCE work plan.

You know, looking at some of the elements of that work plan we don't necessarily see this as you know competing with existing items so much as complementing or even superseding existing items if you look at things like the downtown ministerial ordinance which is still not scheduled to complete be complete for another six months or more I think this program would accomplish similar goals but in a broader manner and potentially making a little bit more efficient use of city staff's limited time.

And at the same time we can see that in Mountain View they were starting from a much worse baseline.

They did not have a local ministerial program to build off of we do both for our affordable housing programs but also for our growth areas in North San Jose as well as our existing urban village and specific plan ministerial process.

So I think the questions that I have open about the workload analysis and the fact that we're already starting so much further ahead than other cities like Mountain View combined with the fact that I think this is a valid policy that council has shown interest in that there are real reasons to believe could have even more impact in terms of addressing our housing needs and our economic development goals than some existing elements of the work plan.

I think it would make sense for the full council to have the option to deliberate on this and see if there are any things in the work plan that should be pushed back work streams that should be merged together like this proposed work and the downtown ministerial work or other items on the work plan.

So I would humbly request that opportunity.

I know Chris pulled your microphone over I think you want to respond to that but I I uh I'll just ask in context of that I mean obviously we we've been throwing a lot on your plate and it's not you know your fault there's a lot happening and it's a very important area of the city that you know a lot of the important things that are happening how how what what would be a the mechanism going forward for us as a council to sort of evaluate that entire package of work and what things are the right priorities and which ones would have the most impact because it seems like you know we we've we we have a lot of things we want you to accomplish they may all be important and good things and in some sense and this this is one of those cases where there's work up front to make it happen but in presumably it could save work later by having it in place, right?

Is there some kind of holistic review that we or process that we can have to holistically review all those different things and decide how to prioritize them.

Yeah I think that's uh a great question and one we've wrestled with over the I think pretty much all the years I've been with the city is how to sort of prioritize this workload.

I think the way we think of it is that we come to see the either usually in February or April as a lead in to the budget conversation right and so last year you'll recall MBA number three gave us that opportunity to holistically look at all of the work items including council referrals and make recommendations on what we thought should be dropped, what should be deferred and then what should be prioritized.

Again I think we're using the citywide MBA that's intended to be released to provide some of that context.

And I think the intent is that that conversation occurs in the budget process because it is a question of capacity, right?

And so the ability to direct and shift resources is based on what we approve annually through the budget and how we use those dollars.

And so that's the intent is that it lines up with that conversation.

Certainly, you know, we're always available to kind of uh continue that conversation in any way that's necessary.

Obviously, we did the work going into CED, so you know, if that's the conversation that needs to be had at council, we're happy to kind of bring that forward.

Yeah, because it I guess so something that it's a conversation that prioritization is happening at CED then is and I know in the past we had that imperfect process of prioritization where we looked at the entire list of 130 referrals or whatever it was, and we said we can only handle 50 of them.

Which of the 50 we should we should do?

We don't really do that as a council anymore.

Um, and while there was there while the process was a bit unsatisfying, we don't really have a replacement process for that.

So I guess I'm just curious, but I'll turn to council member Candelas.

No, thank you.

I that was actually along the questions that I have.

Uh Chris, in August um or September, I believe PBC is coming your your your department's coming to the council for um uh like weighing a few of a few uh uh workload items.

Can you or is it is can this somehow be included as part of that conversation on reprioritization or or a prioritization conversation in September?

So the body of work in August will be the follow-up on the four-year review, so the task force recommendations, which really sort of sets the the largest body of work going into the next sort of probably two fiscal years, um I think there's definitely a way to sort of reference how this sits within that sort of overall body of work.

I don't know that that I mean I think there's gonna be a fair amount of discussion that needs to be had no idea.

No, thank you, Chris.

And the reason why I say that is you know, obviously, I think the overall recommendation is to there's a there's a substantial investment that needs to happen based on based on the workload proposed, and and you know, I I did see some impacts to community engagement and robust um uh staff analysis that that even under a ministerial approach needs to happen.

Um, and so that that is a um a significant concern for me, uh, but but I think that to tee up the conversation in August for us to have that as a council for the following year, whether it's January, February, or March, where we have this this conversation or or the study session, um, I think I think is is a good is a good starting point rather than you know kicking it off completely by nearly a year.

That's just my recommendation, but obviously I seconded the motion and if I can just jump in.

I mean, I think you know the council always has discretion.

What we've tried to build in with the council focus areas and bringing those back to council and back to committees is you know that learning opportunity and what is working and what is not.

So I also think you know the I think the the manager's budget addendum for for building more housing is at um is out now, and there is you know work that overlaps with this direction here.

I certainly think um those are also a chance where you know if the rules committee wants to defer this into next year's budget process, which seems appropriate, but there's also check-ins at committee and council around those focus area is our problem statements and our work around that really working, and if it isn't, or if there's opportunities, you know, to broaden this work, you know, that's already happening around in ministerial processes and kind of the growth areas to more of a citywide approach and a timeline that's um you know not of aggressive, you know, not as aggressive as it is here.

I think those are also opportunities where the council can give further direction um based off of staff analysis.

So I don't necessarily think we have to wait until say priority setting next year to see what is working and what isn't, and and make changes in some of that prioritization.

No, that's f that that's fair.

And I I appreciate that, and and and obviously we have a focus area that's intended to do, you know, the goal of of the council members' uh memo to rules is is to build more housing.

And so I I look forward to that and I and I appreciate that recommendation uh Lelett.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um just um following up on what you just said, um, I um I'm wondering how we can overlap what's already uh being worked upon, which is the downtown ministerial, and how perhaps it could be folded in.

I I do see that it's problematic that 90% of PBC's time is spent on those mandatory things, and we only get 10% every year it gets worse.

And so I think that at some point you've squeezed so much that there's nothing left uh to do the things that you know council has directed or or that we've prioritize.

So I'm wondering in terms of how we would be able to bring forth uh some of the things that sort of overlap a little bit as you mentioned, Lee.

Yeah, so I just want to sort of contextualize the work and Councilmember Todios is absolutely correct with starting from a great point.

Um the city's already made huge strides in in sort of how do we adopt a ministerial process um that allows us to advance housing development and is absolutely something that's been a core part of our current housing element and there's more work to be done.

Um the next focus area was the downtown.

We think there's an opportunity there to really drive near term development.

Um but to give you a sort of a contextual sort of idea of of the work is while we have the ordinance in place, we do have to go through and do analysis on what the potential impacts look like.

So right now, um, you know, our downtown approximately you may know better than I do, but it's somewhere between three and four square miles, right?

Reasonably.

Um when you think about what this would apply to, the biggest area to think about is ultimately we think all of the SB 79 eligible areas.

So the half mile radius around the 54 stations are largely uh AB 130 eligible.

So there's over 36,000 parcels in that area.

It probably represents something close to 50 square miles.

So that's the kind of order of magnitude by which you're increasing the volume of analysis and work that needs to be done.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Mayor Foley.

Thank you.

Uh as I finish out my year as chair of CED, we will be we just submitted the work plan for the next six months, and included that was PBCE coming to uh our committee in October.

That usually you're that's when you provide an update as to what you're working on, what the trade-offs are, and the count the CED committee usually has a robust discussion around that.

We can cross reference that to the full council, so then council can have a discussion around it in uh octo late October, early November.

So that's an amendment to your um, sure.

That's an amend yes, because I moved it to the budget pro cycle, so we will include it in a cross reference to our October CED meeting.

And that's okay with the seconder.

Oh, I don't remember who seconded it.

Okay.

Um that sounds like a good compromise and that we have a chance and we should put it on our calendars to maybe attend that CED meeting and give our input at that time, and but um appreciate that that compromise and make gives us a chance to have this conversation sooner than next spring about how to prioritize these different um different things that are happening.

All right.

Uh so let's uh vote.

All right, the motion carries five zero.

I shouldn't have said abstained before now we have the option in there.

I shouldn't have that.

All right.

Motion carries five zero.

Thank you so much.

And uh thanks, Anthony.

Um we are on to our second item, which is a memo with Candelas Ortiz, myself and Casey, um, regarding remote public participation at meetings.

So I'll let uh Councilmember Candelas kick us off.

Uh, yeah, thank you, Chair.

Uh, you know, I just wanted to uh thank uh my co-authors on this memorandum um to uh see how we can uh accelerate the essentially the implementation of SB 707, you know, especially in time uh for the budget process.

Uh you know, yesterday we had our first hearing, um, which we know was well uh attended-ish, but historically we've had um uh dozens and dozens of of folks from our community calling in, or not calling attending in person before that actually calling in, but um but I I think it would it would be helpful for um accessibility for our community and and not just uh for those who who work and can't necessarily take the physical time off, but but also for those with um you know physical um and or differently able abled who may not uh make it to City Hall um as easy as as those of us who you know can just hop in our car without without any other uh um issues.

But anyways, uh so I I uh I guess uh Tony Um uh I know we are coordinating with the city attorney's office to try to uh get this implemented.

Uh any thoughts, comments, and or um movement on this to see when we can see this implemented and by which council meeting.

Um we can bring it back to council for approval on June 2nd, along with updates to policy 039, which is the code of conduct and how we handle public speakers.

So that's already drafted, just need to write the memo.

Um, I think it's got one last attorney to look at it.

Um, but that's already drafted.

So if we can bring both of those back on June 2nd for implementation for the June 8th budget hearing, okay.

And then I guess the direction would be is it just for the budget, or would it be for all council meetings?

Um, I believe it was the intent of the council meetings for for the rest of the year.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that was clarified for the record.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, with that um I'll I'll move our memo.

Is there a second?

Well, a second.

Um I know we have 10 hands, 10 cards, so let's move on to public comment.

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

Alex, Michelle, Karen, and Rachel.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thank you, Councilmember Condelas and Councilmember Cohen for your memo on this item.

This is a long-standing priority of the organization for which I work, catalyze Silicon Valley.

And we know that there are so many people, as you stated, Councilmember Condelas who want to participate in city council meetings.

Uh, this is a uh car-centric city, it has traffic, you have to find parking downstairs, you have to come up and go through security.

There are all kinds of barriers to participation, even if they're not ill-intended, but those barriers can make it very hard for members of our community, particularly those who are underrepresented, to be part of this process, and allowing them as other cities do here in the South Bay, to be involved in council meetings and give that public comment remotely is a very, very valuable part of our democracy, and catalyze SV would like to see that returned.

We do not believe that going backwards and only doing it for this year.

I know Councilmember Candelas, you were just talking with the clerk about this, but we think that this should be continued uh forever going forward.

This is a best practice in terms of inclusivity and accessibility, and we don't want to continue to confuse members of this community uh whether this does become accessible again and then does not.

So we're hoping the clerk can put in place measures to make sure that the dialogue is respectful, that there isn't xenophobic or racist or bigoted comments that come to you because we know that those are upsetting for all of us, and yet uh democracy is messy and it requires protections to make sure everyone can be included.

So thank you again, Councilmember Cohen and Candelas for your memo.

Love to see this and very very supportive.

Hi, I'm Karen from uh district three and um showing up for ASOS Justice and the real coalition, and also um I want to basically say the same thing.

First of all, thank council members Candelas, Ortiz, Cohen, and Casey for bringing forward this memorandum, and we fully support reinstating remote public comment as soon as possible for the budget conversations as well as ongoing civic engagement takes real commitment, and our city's richer for it.

But coming to City Hall is a luxury and a privilege.

Making public comment should not be.

Remote comment makes democracy more accessible, and that supports our city's commitment to equity, inclusivity, and transparency.

And I'm gonna read testimony from two people that would be making their own comment if they could do it remotely.

Um Laura Lopez, who's a parent advocate, says bring back remote access to San Jose now, please.

And Perr, who is a self advocate, says remote participation in civic meetings matters to me because of transportation needs and the time required to attend long meetings in person.

Without the ability to attend in person to listen and to speak, people with disabilities and their support networks are effectively shut out of decision making, continuing a long pattern of exclusion simply because access needs differ from the norm.

Many cities have already made remote participation standard, and San Jose should do the same to ensure access isn't conditional but guaranteed.

Reinstate repo remote participation in San Jose to prevent exclusion of people with disabilities.

Thank you.

Remote participation is essential for robust public engagement with city policy.

Requiring people to be in chambers privileges the people, the voices of people who already have privilege, people like me who can easily come to City Hall in the middle of a weekday.

It excludes people with weekday jobs they just can't afford to miss, people who lack robust transportation options, many people with disabilities, and caregivers of loved ones who can't be left alone.

I have a statement to read from someone who, like many, could not be here in chambers today.

From Kelvin Yo, ally slash advocate.

Remote participation in civic meetings matters to me because I have work and family commitments that prevent me from attending in person.

And without it, people with disabilities and their support networks are effectively shut out of dish out of decision making, continuing a long pattern of exclusion simply because access needs differ from the norm.

Many cities have already made remote participation standard, and San Jose should do the same to ensure access is not conditional, but guaranteed.

Reinstate remote participation in San Jose to prevent exclusion of people with disabilities.

Thank you.

Calling the next set of speakers, Alison, Sandra, and Rebecca.

Please go ahead and make it ready to podium.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rachel Stratman, and I'm here with the real coalition as well as I'm a D3 resident.

I want to thank the council members for bringing this forward.

And I'm here to just state my full uh support, both personally and upon community who can not be here today.

I want to say that I find it important that it's actually done by the June 8th deadline to be able to be for budget.

Obviously, we know that the important uh discussions that are gonna be had each year over budget, and the people who are gonna be most impacted by those discussions.

We want to be able to participate, and that includes people from the disability community, our working families, our caregivers, and we want them all to have the opportunity to be here, and we've seen such a decline since this access was taken away.

And I'd like to also share a statement by somebody who is not here today.

Uh, Darcy McCain, a self-advocate.

Uh, she they said remote participation in civic meetings matters to me because I'm a wheelchair user and it is very difficult to go to meetings.

This is very important for individuals with disabilities who need to also share our voice via Zoom.

Transportation limits my availability.

Many cities have already made remote participation standard, and San Jose should do the same to ensure access isn't conditional but guaranteed.

I want to thank the committee and urge you to pass this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

Rebecca Armandares with uh working Partnerships.

I'm also here to read this on behalf of somebody who could not be here.

Laura Desbest, she's a guardian and caregiver of someone with IDD, and also uh working partnerships is in support of this memo.

So Lourdes asked me to say that she strongly advocates for the immediate reinstatement of the comprehensive remote participation option for San Jose City Council meetings.

Current in-person mandates inadvertently exclude many residents.

Financial burdens from transportation and high living costs, coupled with demanding work, caregiving duties or health issues make physical attendance challenging for a significant portion of our community.

This exclusion disproportionately affects low-income families, individuals with disabilities, and seniors, silencing crucial diverse voices.

When segments of our populace cannot participate, our city's decisions become less representative and equitable.

Many forward-thinking cities have already adopted robust remote access as a standard for democratic engagement.

Song Jose must embrace these modern inclusive practices.

Reinstating remote participation is essential for fostering true equity and enriching our governance with a broader spectrum of lived experiences.

I urge the council to prioritize this vital step, ensuring that all residents can actively contribute to San Jose's future.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Alison Cingalani, Director of Policy with SV at Home and D5 Resident.

Speaking in support of the memo from council members Candelas, Ortiz, Cohen and Casey.

Recommending full council consideration of the reinstatement of remote public participation for city council meetings and time for the June budget deliberations.

I'm very happy to hear the update from the city clerk that we can do this on this timeline.

San Jose is one of the most diverse cities in the country, and nearly half our residents are low-income households.

Many of the people most impacted by council decisions face real barriers to attending long in-person meetings, especially the budget hearings that we know can last late into the night.

Parents working multiple jobs may not be able to leave work early or secure child care.

Seniors and residents with disabilities may face transportation or mobility challenges.

Workers with long commutes, caregivers, students, and residents without reliable transportation are often effectively excluded from participating in person.

Remote public participation when we have had it in the past helped expand access to local democracy.

It allowed more residents, especially those historically underrepresented in civic processes, to share their experiences directly with council.

For many people, calling in remotely is not a convenience.

It's the only realistic way they can participate.

Budget decisions shape whether families can afford housing, access services, and remain stable in our community.

The residents most affected by those decisions deserve a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

We urge the rules committee to bring to council this recommendation to reinstate remote public participation and time for the June budget deliberations and to support a more accessible, inclusive, and representative public process.

I'll also read a statement from Graciela Franco, direct service coordinator at San Andreas Regional Center, who was not able to attend in person.

Remote access is essential because it helps those with intellectual and developmental disabilities integrate into the community and it provides them motivation to want to further develop their independence.

Thank you, that's your time.

Calling the next set of speakers as well, Gianella, Ms.

Rain, and Jordan.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sandra Asher, longtime resident of D10, member of the Real Coalition, and board member at Parents Helping Parents.

I'm here to express my support for the memo by council members Candelas, Ortiz, Cohen, and Casey to return remote participation, commencing with the June 8th budget hearings.

As a disabled resident, sitting and standing for the extended periods required in order to give public comment is frequently a barrier to participation and access needs.

As the self-proclaimed capital of Silicon Valley, it should be a no-brainer that we are using technology to increase community participation in our government.

Furthermore, allowing remote participation aligns with the city's 2023 disability inclusion equity pledge, which commits the city to disability inclusion as a human right.

And now, as others have done, I would like to read statements by others who could not be here today in person.

The first is Penny Hunter, parent of a son with disabilities.

Remote participation in city civic meetings matters to me because it will allow those that are unable to attend because of their disabilities to have an option to voice their concerns.

And Kate Weber, parent advocate, says, Dear City Council of San Jose, hello, and I want to advocate to bring remote access back to San Jose City Council meetings.

Removing remote access disproportionately affects particular groups.

May I suggest you could use a remote access vetting process where the remote access would be granted based on a person demonstrating they belong to the affected group, special needs, the elderly, working parents, etc.

Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Janelle Ardonias, and I'm here with SBCN, uh co-convener of the real coalition, and I'm also a D1 resident.

I want to thank Council Member Candelas, Ortiz, Cohen, and Casey for bringing this memo forward, and we are fully in support of reinstating remote public participation to council by June 8th in time for the June budget deliberations.

The removal of remote participation has made it challenging and nearly impossible for people with disabilities, working families, and caregivers, immunocompromised individuals, and anyone who isn't consistently able to attend in person to weigh in on the important decisions being made by this council, leaving out a significant portion of our community from being able to participate in our democratic process.

The budget process requires robust engagement and input from the communities that will be most impacted by the critical decisions that are going to be made and in need of equitable investments.

We have read testimonials from members of the community today who couldn't be here with us, and they deserve the opportunity to be heard now and forever.

Thank you.

Hello, how are you?

How are you guys doing today?

Ms.

Raim Mendoza, I live in D7, I work in D5, and I live in the City of San Jose.

I'm so glad that this item is coming up because so many people has been disenfranchised of public comment in the city of San Jose since the public comment went away.

I remember when I first started advocating and speaking uh here in the city council.

I started doing a uh over Zoom in 2021.

And then all of a sudden it went away.

I think that's a shame because they're taking a voices away.

So many of our communities are afraid, as you as you can tell, and as you can see, so many people do not come here to give public comment.

And we need to make it possible for the immigrants communities that they're being attacked right now as well, okay, and for the working families, because remember, we're trying to uh uh be active civically in our city, but with barriers, it's impossible to do that.

So I hope this goes forward and uh and I hope it stays for the long term because we need it.

And um with immigration purposes, more news are coming up in the next couple of years, and then in the next couple of days.

So let's keep our ears open and our eyes open as well.

Okay, thank you guys.

Jordan Moldow, district three resident and also chair of the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee speaking on behalf of myself.

Needless to say, I agree with everything that's been said so far, so I'll try and make some slightly different points.

Um, I'd like to see the memo be supported and adopted.

I'd like to see it move forward today, given that we know that this is already in the work plan because it's due by July 1st.

I'd like to see this move forward to council faster rather than slower.

Um, this benefits yourself as well.

Do you want to be the council member who gets sick and misses an important budget vote or comes in and gets their colleagues or their staff sick?

If you have Zoom comments, you can participate remotely with just cause.

So this is in your benefit too to adopt this.

Um I'd also like to address the standing committees and the advisory committees.

Uh SB 707 only requires Zoom for the council itself, but I'd like to see the uh memo broadened to include the advisory committees and the standing committees so that they can participate remotely.

Uh, some people mentioned the cost of coming into council in terms of time and money, uh, rather than you know trying to save on expenses by getting rid of taxes that fund our roads.

We can make it so that people don't have to jump in a car in the first place and can attend remotely.

Um I'd like to mention that uh advisory committees are allowed to request that they able to use the additional provisions of SB 707.

Uh and the BPAC has previously sent in a letter, which should have been uh received by all the council offices requesting the ability to use the additional provisions uh to give us additional flexibility because we want to be able to get members participating from all over the city, and the flexibility would help.

And again, if we get sick or have a work commitment.

Hello, Gia with Housing Choices.

Um thank you so much for bringing this um back.

Um, it's extremely important for folks with disabilities.

I was the one who personally cold call all of our clients in our um sales forest database to see their perspective on why remote participation is important for them.

So the testimonies you heard is the ones that I collected from parents and folks with lived experiences of disabilities.

And I've been coming to the city council um quite often, so it's really glad that this is bringing um more opportunities of better access for folks with disabilities to participate in their civic leadership.

Um a lot of folks with intellectual and development disabilities, maybe they um don't have transportation here.

Um so being able to participate remotely is going to really benefit um them and their inclusion in the community for their voices to be heard.

So I really appreciate each and every one of you city leaders on um choosing to keep in mind of access for the disability folks.

Um and thank you so much for city staff.

Back to the committee.

All right.

Well, thank you to every for everyone who came out and spoke about the importance of public comment.

Uh let's turn to Vice Mayor Foley first.

Thank you.

Thank you for the memo for my colleagues and for the community members who came to spoke on speak in person.

Um this is a law that goes into effect as of July 1st.

We have to conform to this anyway.

Uh so I'm glad to actually support it going forward for the budget session.

I think the hearing on the 8th is really critical that we hear from as many folks as possible.

So uh just uh a follow-up question for you, Tony.

A couple of questions actually on uh currently you believe the memo that you have we can implement at the June 2nd council meeting.

Is that your thinking?

Yes.

So if we approve it at the June 2nd coming up.

We're ready to go immediately out.

In June on June 8th, okay.

And uh, and you already stated council member Candelas that that your intent is for the rest of this fiscal year, July 1st is when we'd have to implement it.

Right.

Anyway, we don't have any council meetings in July.

So effectively it would be August 1st.

I have a question for you regarding the commission standing committees and advisory committees.

Many of them or some of them have expressed interest in having hybrid meetings.

Is there flexibility on that?

How do we will your memo address that capability?

I know BPAC in particular is very interested in having hybrid meetings, but will that allow the committees themselves to make that decision or the commissions?

The current recommendation is to just bring it back for council.

I am not opposed to coming back and recommending that we open it up for everybody, but we kind of thought there should be a few months to make sure we've got everything settled, make sure the technology's working.

Um but if council wants to bring it back for boards, commissions and committees sooner, um, or to give them the option.

Typically, we've done all of one or nothing.

If it applies to council, it applies to everybody else.

Um that's what we've done in the past.

SB 707 says we only have to bring it back for city council, not city city subcommittees, not boards of commissions.

So we were gonna just bring it back for council.

Um, but it's kind of up to you guys.

Okay.

Well, I can I mean, traditionally we've brought it back for everybody.

Okay, I I guess I would like to see that occur.

Uh but I guess more importantly, what you're saying is it's all or nothing.

That's what we've done in the past.

Okay, so the uh committee standing committee or advisory committee cannot make the decision currently on their own or or or ask us to make the decision for us.

We are bringing back changes to policy zero four, probably in August.

Um there is budget direction to reduce the number of boards and commission meetings, possibly consolidate or eliminate boards uh and commissions and committees.

Um we can't add that to 04.

We can um add a provision into 04 that would give them the flexibility to go virtual, and then it would be their choice.

Um, or we could put that in the staff memo as a as an option instead of having it in policy zero thirty-seven, and I misspoke earlier, I said 039, but it's 037.

Okay, so I I guess that is that decision doesn't need to be made at the moment, but we uh if we're concerned about it, we can bring it up either as a memo on June 2nd or wait till August till your memo about consolidating commissions and uh maybe eliminating and changing the amount of meetings, that sort of thing.

That might be the time to appro uh.

Yeah, we could easily add that flexibility into zero four.

Okay.

Um so those who feel they can handle it, because again, I mean it's I have a lot of staff you could see that sit with me.

That's how we're able to handle it.

Um for some committees um and commissions, it just might be too much work for their staffing levels.

So I think it's better to give them the flexibility than to force them.

I understand, but there are commissions like the planning commission, it would be really critical, and BPAC wants it, so I know they would vote yes, uh HCDC probably should have.

I mean, there's critical forward-facing committees that have a lot of attention that well I I don't need to continue to debate this.

I could debate this much much longer.

So I'll just wait for the discussion on June 2nd and see if it's appropriate to wait until August or to address it at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Duan.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, I think it's uh we we can't avoid it because uh SB 707 in July, we're gonna have to implement it anyway.

So I would like to uh ask for friendly amendments to adopt this all the way through until um you know July 1st because we're gonna activate it anyway.

I think that's in the motion, that's in the motion.

Basically for the three for three or four council meetings in June.

Correct.

Yeah, just only in June, but it what about it goes in August and then we should come in.

By law, we have to do it.

Well, we have to by law by July first.

But I thought it was July 1st of 2027.

No, 2026.

Yeah.

There might be, um, I think I was just told there may be a typo in the memo, but SB 707 goes into effect July 1st, 2026.

Okay, so thank you because it there is a typo in there, is it 2027?

That's our bad.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There we go.

It is this year.

Okay.

Uh Council Member Kamei.

Thank you so much.

Um civic engagement and access is really important.

So um I thank you for for bringing this forward.

Um my understanding, Tony, was that we were going to have a new system in place.

Is it going?

So my question is if it gets implemented for the in time for June budget, it won't.

Okay.

No, no, no, but I mean, what we will have is not the new system that we are anticipating having in the future.

Yeah.

So you'll have something.

It'll be the same thing that we did before.

So we've already done this.

People will sign up onto Zoom, they'll raise their hands, we'll give them permission to speak, and then we remove their permission to speak.

Um they can also phone in to Zoom.

So if they don't have a computer or prefer to do it by phone, but it'll be the same system that we use during COVID.

Um the new system that the new software that we're trying to get before the end of June, um, at least get the an agreement with it, is more robust, more exciting, um, makes things a lot simpler for staff, makes things better for the the community, but right now we have it the way we've had it before.

And we've we've been testing it.

We've actually been running Wordly through Zoom.

So we have the interpretation on Zoom for people, people who speak on Zoom, the interpretation will be heard or will be seen on the captions unless you have your headset and you can hear it on your headset.

Um so we all of that's running, but it's it's just through Zoom like we had before.

Okay, but we will have something different later on.

We hope to.

We have to we have a lot of we I think we have three more three more levels of approvals to get through, but we're working on it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, you know, uh, I I know that you're bringing different things forward to us.

Uh do you think that the provisions that you've made for what's coming back in June would take care of some of the um sort of uh um problems that that we were experiencing, not from local community but from the outside.

Um the attorney's office.

Um I'll name drop Neilam.

Neilam and I have been working on a script um to handle that.

We're we're not gonna be able to eliminate it entirely.

There's suggestions on well, you could have a five-second delay and everything, but you still need to have staff who monitors the five-second delay and hears it, and I'm just I don't have that capability.

So um unless another department has that capability to have somebody else screening it.

I don't have that right now.

Um, what we do have is uh before everybody's it'll be it's in the policy 037 that's coming back, but we also have our own separate script.

So giving the warning every time we call public speakers, so you know if I have five speaker cards for an item, I'm gonna say this is a reminder to stay on topic, to follow the code of conduct, to keep things civil and not disruptive, and we'll say that before every every speaker.

So that's like their first warning, um, so that reduces how many warnings we have to give later because normally it's you know, but we're gonna do our best.

Um my suggestion is also to um have the city clerk handling that and not the mayor because I'm not exciting to make angry.

You guys are very exciting to make angry.

I'm very boring.

Thank you.

So I think if I'm the one that says you need to stay on topic, it it becomes less incentive for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that last comment.

That's a that's a good idea good idea to have you as the impartial clerk making those calls.

Um I was gonna ask the same question.

So the new tech it's possible that the new system could be in place in August if things go well or not.

No, just testing to happen before.

I don't think it would be ready by August 11th.

Our first meeting of the year is actually August 11th.

So I don't think it would be in place.

That the the new the new thing we and we just found out about I mean we SB 707 was passed in like November.

So we did not have a lot of time to go out there and find robust solutions.

So we were a little like I didn't find this until like a month ago.

Um and other cities have found it too.

They're the only, there it's like the only public comment software.

It's very exciting.

Um we're hoping to get an agreement before the end of the fiscal year so we can use our current year budget.

Um, but it it'll take time to implement because we're not the only city that wants them, and they're like literally the only person who does this right now.

Um because SB 707 came on so suddenly.

Yeah, that okay.

Um the the concern I had was more on the technical side and being able to to do some of the things we had talked about before as far as figuring out where people are from, but also identifying abusers and trying to and automatically block.

Do any of these technologies do any of that yet or not?

No, I know I didn't ask that about public input.

That's the I should I don't think I'm supposed to show the room.

I didn't I didn't ask that software vendor who I actually just talked with at one o'clock about that particular thing.

With Zoom, I can only geolocate to the country, not to the state.

Um we can run get a report so we can see sort of who the bad actors are, but I can't I we have just rules in place, um, but I typically recognize some of the bad actors, and I'm prepared immediately to mute um after a warning.

So we do kind of pay attention, but they there still is not a geolocation to California even, which is what I would love to have.

If we could at least limit it to the state.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And and as somebody who availed themselves of remote participation before I was on council, I know the value of being able to call in.

Unfortunately, we also, I mean, the reason we went away from it as a council was because of abuses that began to happen as people became more comfortable being hateful.

And and it's it's an unfortunate truth of our current time.

And as somebody who's recently been a target of anti-Semitic attacks, I'm cognizant of and I was very aware of the kinds of attacks that were coming in that were targeting the that very thing as a on this council regularly, and from people around the country who were not local and not interested in our governance but interested in stirring things up.

So I just want to make it clear that you know we we certainly value the input of the residents of our city and always have, but also need to have a well-functioning and comfortable environment for staff, public, and members of this council going forward.

So there are concerns with bringing this back, um, that you know that I'm still worried about.

So I'll just I'm just expressing that as we move this forward.

Um also just want to comment on the remote participation for committees and council in general, um, not from the public side, but from the members of the committee.

I I still feel like there is an important value in face-to-face interaction.

We learned quite heavily during COVID, I believe that the collegiality and relationships that we had on a council were not as positive during the time in which we were all in our own places remotely participating in meetings.

So I want to encourage committees and council and everybody else to be in person when possible because I think the value of being in person for the people who are on the deliberating body is still very high.

So that I just wanted to make that point as well as we move forward into these this new flexibility that we might offer.

So having said that though, I'm you know, I think it's important.

We're bringing this back um after the end of the fiscal year and bring it back for the budget process makes sense this year, so let's vote.

All right, motion carries five zero, and we're on to open forum.

Jordan.

Jordan Muldaw, district three.

Uh I was watching on YouTube some of the discussion yesterday at the budget hearing.

Um, I think I heard mention, and I think it was from Councilmember Condelas talking about uh cap and invest formerly cap and trade, uh, hopefully trying to be able to pull some dollars there for environmental projects.

Um I just want to bring to the council's attention that CARB is currently looking into changes to the cap and invest program.

Um I think they were scheduled to remove credits out of the system uh so you know amounts of emissions that you're allowed to do decrease slowly over time.

Apparently, they're thinking of a different system where they might introduce more credits and make them available to polluting companies to basically get their money back to invest in um you know, their own projects uh and also adding more credits to the pool would decrease the price and uh decrease the amount of funds available.

So I just want to bring that to council's attention.

I don't fully understand it myself, but that's my best understanding of it.

But folks who care about that money being available, and you know, the economics around Cap and Invest, uh, I hope you might speak to the lawmakers uh or speak to the carb themselves about that issue so that that uh pot of funding remains available and robust.

Thank you.

Just wanted to check in with the rules committee as you continue to create priorities for the council.

I just wanted to share something that's troubling me that all of you are aware of, which is as a city, we are still way, way, way behind on building the amount of housing we need to reach our goals for this city and the next RENA cycle.

And whereas all that language sounds a little bureaucratic, the consequences for our community are very, very, very real.

We are continuing to be displaced in our community where people cannot afford to live here.

The next generation will not be making San Jose its home if they cannot afford it, and one of the greatest barometers of affordability is the amount of housing we build.

As many of you also know, Silicon Valley is one of the most, if not the most unequal place in the country, and again, housing is contributing that.

So as you decide what to prioritize as the rules committee, as you vote on the council, please, please, please continue to prioritize housing.

It is one of the number one issues in our community, and it it threatens the very fabric of San Jose and Silicon Valley.

So please treat it with the urgency that so many of us here in the community feel around it.

Thank you.

Back to the committee.

Okay, thank you.

We are adjourned at three o'clock.