All right.

Good afternoon.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to call to order this meeting of the San Jose City Council in the afternoon of June 16th.

I want to remind those joining remotely that the Zoom link is available on the agenda for today's city council meeting.

If you are participating online and wish to speak, please use the Zoom application and select the raise hand feature.

Speakers will be called in order.

When it is your turn, the city clerk will enable you to speak, and a notification will appear on your screen, letting you know that you may unmute and provide your comments.

All right.

With that, Tony, would you please call the roll?

Kim?

Campos?

President Tordios?

Here.

Cohen?

Here.

Ortiz.

Present.

Mulkey.

Here.

Dewan?

Here.

Candelas?

Here.

Casey.

Foley.

Here.

Mayhem.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Great.

Thanks.

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Individual liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Today's invocation will be provided by Milan Ballanton, executive director of the African-American Community Service Agency, and Councilmember Mulcahy will tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor.

It is my distinct pleasure to introduce Milan Ballanton, executive director of the African American Community Service Agency.

Milan is no stranger to this body or likely to most people in this audience.

Milan is a Bay Area native born in Oakland, raised in San Francisco, and nurtured in San Jose for the last 25 years.

He earned an executive master of public administration from Golden Gate University and a communications studies bachelor of arts degree from San Jose State University.

Go Spartans.

He serves the community by helping to develop youth, embrace elders, and create community for all.

Milan is in his fifteenth year serving as the executive director of the AACSA, an organization dedicated to providing quality educational, culture, cultural, social, and recreational programs, services, and activities in order to perpetuate and strengthen cultural identity, values, traditions, knowledge, and family life.

When Milan became the executive director in 2011, the agency had two employees and barely any budget.

Since then, the agency has grown to a 15-employee operation, over 200 volunteers, and annually serves over 25,000 in San Jose and Santa Clara County.

He is smart, charming, and makes his presence known in all the right ways.

Thank you to the uh council members who are here, as well as all of you, the public, which you are those that we all serve.

I'm reminded today by a song my mother used to wake my brothers and I up.

She would sing rise and shine and give God the glory, glory.

And now in my young man age, I understand why she raised us with that song, as well as teaching us how to pray before we would eat our meals.

So today I will bring a prayer based on how my mother taught me.

But I want to remind us of a little story that came to me, and it is uh there is a marvelous story of a man who once stood before God.

His heart breaking from the pain and the injustice in the world.

He prayed, dear God, he cried out, look at all the suffering and anguish and distress in your world.

Why don't you send help?

God responded.

I did send help.

I sent you.

When we tell our children that story, we must tell them that each one of them was sent to help repair the broken world, and that it is not the task of an instant or of a year, but a lifetime.

David Wolpe.

So if you can all bow your heads to this prayer.

For those who do not believe, and for those who do, you are still present under the prayer.

Proverbs 1917 reminds us that helping those in need is essentially serving and helping God.

God, we ask you today to cover the minds and the hearts of the council members who will listen to the public today.

With over 900,000 residents and lives that visit this magical city.

It is in this time that we are hurting for housing, but we are also healing for homes.

It is important that our words, which sometimes can come across sharp, help us make them even kinder.

Teach us to make decisions that may be risky, but will ultimately show better results for the people.

Help us to remember that we are humans having a human experience.

Help us to remember when we make the decisions today that those will impact generations to come.

Remind our council members in their hearts that they are loved and they are cared for, and that their time away from their families serving the public is covered under you.

Remind the city staff who work tirelessly to meet the mark of thousands of people, that you are covered under the blessing.

And to the public servants, the nonprofits, and to those who are on the street corners waiting for us to come get them and put them in places so that they can continue to be a part of our society, that they are also covered under the prayer.

Remind us to be kinder, to be more loving, and ultimately to be more patient with one another.

This is the prayer.

Amen.

Thank you for that invocation, Milan.

It's great to see you as always, and thanks for organizing a great week of Juneteenth celebrations.

We are on to our ceremonial items.

Counselor Cohen, if you would join me at the podium, we will recognize and proclaim myositis awareness month.

Medically referred to as idiopathic inflammatory myopathy myopathies.

Myopathy.

Myopathy.

Myopathies, that's right, sorry about that.

Get my medical terminology down.

Myocitis is not a single disease, but a spectrum of conditions, including dermomyocitis, inclusion, inclusion body myositis, and polymyocitis.

It is a group of rare incurable autoimmune diseases in which the immune system attacks a healthy muscle tissue, leading to chronic inflammation, severe weakness, and disability.

It requires urgent funding to discover cures, expand limited treatment options, and provide emergency financial relief to struggling patients.

Myositis is caused by the body's immune system mistakenly attacking its own muscles, and in some cases, the skin, lungs, and heart.

It leads to progressive muscle weakness, severe pain, fatigue, difficulty swallowing, and sometimes visible skin rashes.

It is a chronic lifelong illness.

While some patients achieve stability, there is no cure, and it can become life-threatening if untreated.

Awareness and advocacy are needed so that funding can be increased in order to study effective treatments.

There's only one FDA-proof therapy or for any form of myocitis.

Doctors primarily rely on off-label immunosuppressants, which carry heavy side effects.

Because the exact triggers are unknown, research is desperately needed to decode the disease's pathology so scientists can eventually prevent, reverse, or cure it.

The diseases affect only 50,000 to 75,000 people in the U.S., and because it is so rare, many doctors may never see a myocitis patient.

So funding is needed to educate clinicians and improve diagnostic tools.

Treatment for patients is incredibly expensive because of long-term physical therapy, mobility devices, and medications.

Many lose their ability to work and require assistance for daily living and emergency household expenses.

Awareness can prevent lifelong disability.

Early diagnosis and intraaggressive treatment can preserve abilities, and these types of care seem only to be available with big university hospitals, and much of California is a medical desert for this high level of care.

Organizations like the Myositis Association rely entirely on private donations to give C grants to early career researchers.

This early funding allows scientists to gather enough preliminary data to qualify for larger grants.

I learned about myositis last year when my friend Vicki was diagnosed with it.

Vicky was unable to be here today, but with us is Shauna Nielsen, patient advocate and co-lead of the Myositis Association Support Group.

Welcome, Shauna.

Thank you.

Thank you to the mayor, city council, and David Cohen for spearheading this proclamation.

Vicky was unable to be here, but I am here in her place.

With the myositis community, the myositis association and myself, Shauna Nielsen, we thank you for recognizing Myositis Awareness Month this year.

Awareness is essential to preserving muscle strength and function for people who live with myositis and to increase the funding for research to this very rare disease.

This autoimmune disease affects the muscles and in some cases many other organs.

It's a rare autoimmune disease that uh includes lots of inflammation in the body.

I'm here as a nurse, a support group leader, and a patient.

We are on a mission to improve the lives of people affected by myositis through increasing awareness, advocacy, and research funding.

The disease causes immune system attack and this resulting inflammation, which can cause severe disability.

My own journey began with skin symptoms but progressed to significant muscle weakness.

At my worst point, I was down to just 30 steps a day.

Because many physicians only encounter one or two cases in their entire career.

Myositis is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late.

And time is muscle loss with myositis, a loss that may not be recoverable.

The average diagnosis is age 50, primarily in women.

70% of the patients are women, and many attribute this initial weakness to menopause, age, or general deconditioning.

Some cases progress rapidly while others progress slowly and lead to irreversible disability.

People suffering for years without knowing what is wrong.

I'm very fortunate to have had a quick diagnosis and transferred to Stanford 26 years ago, and I've recovered about 75% of a normal ability.

Living with a lifelong condition and its treatments remains demanding, challenging, and costly.

We thank you again for this proclamation and for the opportunity to raise awareness.

We hope that this increased awareness will lead to greater research funding and ultimately a cure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here, new advocacy.

Thank you so much.

Would you like to get a photo?

Sure.

Just step to the side just a little bit because the mode this will be because of the podium.

There we go.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being sure.

Thank you.

All right.

Vice Mayor Foley and Councilmember Mulcahy, if you would join me at the podium, we will recognize the San Jose Sports Authority and we'll invite our guests to come on down as well.

You're speaking.

Okay.

Okay, great.

As all of the members of the sports authority who are here present come down and join us.

It's my pleasure to to talk about them and highlight their work.

Good afternoon.

What an exciting time to be celebrating San Jose Sports Authority 35th anniversary.

There's never been a more exciting time for sporting events in San Jose, San Jose.

Don't you agree?

Right now, San Jose is in the thick of FIFA World Cup celebrations.

And thanks to the San Jose Sports Authority, San Jose isn't just watching history happen.

We're helping to make it happen.

Across our region, teams are practicing, venues are set to host games and watch parties, and communities are excited to be part of one of the biggest sporting events in the world.

Today, along with Mayor Matt Mahan and my fellow sports authority member, Councilmember Mulcahy, we are honored to recognize an organization that has spent 35 years putting San Jose on the map.

Since 1991, San Jose Sports Authority has served as a city's sports commission, driven by a mission to increase economic development, visibility, and civic pride.

And wow, what a year this has been.

Starting with the National Women's Soccer Championship last year, then Super Bowl 60, NCAA men's basketball, and yeah, we're right in the middle of FIFA.

These large sporting events bring visitors from around the globe, generate tremendous economic activity for our local businesses, and showcase San Jose and the greater Silicon Valley on an international stage.

But sports are about more than just the competitions, they bring our community together.

And this year we've seen just that through activations outside of the competitions, just such as concerts, superfest, fan experiences, and other community events that have energized our city and demonstrated that San Jose is a world-class destination for sports and entertainment.

Sports Authority has led the way.

Its impact extends far beyond major events.

For decades, they have expanded opportunities in sports, especially for women's sports in San Jose, including helping welcome Bay FC and helping to bring one of the four new expansion teams to in professional women's hockey league to our city.

They've also inspired future generations through programs like the San Jose Sports Hall of Fame and the Reach Youth Scholarship.

And if you haven't attended the Reach Youth Scholarship, you should.

It is the most moving, impactful event that we do in the city and the sports authority does.

They've also inspired none of this success happens by accident.

It takes vision, collaboration, and an incredible team.

So for that, we have a few people to rec recognize.

Darren, Chase, Sheila, and Trevor.

Tommy O'Hare and our city staff for their partnership in helping prepare San Jose for this historic moment, and San Jose Sports Authority Board President Charlie Foss, our fellow board members, many of them are here, and everyone who volunteers their time and expertise to advance sports in our community.

And I'd just like to give an acknowledgement for Olympian and board member Ann Cribs and also for founding member Dean Munro who are here.

As we continue the World Cup celebrations throughout our city, I also want to invite everyone to join Councilmember George Casey and me.

This is Blaton Plug, for our Friday, July 3rd Activation Day, South Bay Soccer Fest.

That's our your opportunity to see three knockout games in Almaden Lake Park.

Hope you'll join us.

Thanks to Sports Authority's efforts to support World Cup watch parties.

Thanks to all of their efforts.

Thanks for everything that you do, including so many other activities coming to San Jose that I'm not even mentioning right now.

Congratulations to San Jose Sports Authority on 35 incredible years of service, leadership, and community impact.

Before before the mayor presents this commendation, it's my pleasure to introduce the person who has helped lead this historic era of sports and entertainment since 2017.

Please join me in welcoming John Poach.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, Councilmember McKay, Mayor Mayhan, members of the council, and our city manager.

I'm just honored to be able to follow the footsteps of Dean Monroe, founded the sports authority with the city back in 1991, served 15 years as our opening executive director, followed by a stellar tenure service by Patricia Ernstrom.

Uh Dean recruited me in 1998, served as a tournament manager for the NCA College Cup through 2000.

And then he recruited me to take over their after-school initiative called the Inner City Games, which is the afterschool all-stars, who were the empathist to create ACEs, Prop 49 funding that is funded to California to this day.

So I've been involved with Sports Authority since '98 as a volunteer, then as a board member in 08, and now the honor of following Dean Patricia as an executive director.

They set our North Star.

And our goal is simple to make San Jose Premier Sports Destination and the South Bay and the West Coast.

So I want to thank the council, thank Tommy O'Hare from the city manager's office for his incredible leadership, and thank our mighty but small staff, and especially thank our partners through our board, Matthew Martinucci, Ricky, I see uh in Mukey with the airport, along with another 24 stellar board members.

So thank you for the honor and thank you for interesting us to bringing these events to San Jose.

Thank you, Patricia.

You two accept it.

All right.

At 70 years right there.

We can do a better photo here.

You too.

One more.

Thank you.

Good job, there we go.

And colleagues, I know I went way over time.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, good afternoon, everyone.

Today I have the pleasure of introducing LeVere Foster of uh the African American Community Services Agency, located right down the street here in District 3.

Uh, as we celebrate Juneteenth here in the City of San Jose.

Juneteenth marks the announcement of freedom to enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas, on June 19th, 1865, more than two years after the issuance of the emancipation proclamation.

Uh Juneteenth celebrations date all the way back to 1866, originally starting with church and community gatherings in Texas, and evolving over the years into the diverse celebrations we see today, such as Axis Juneteenth in the streets in the Sofa District, which I had the opportunity and pleasure to join over the weekend.

Uh so before the mayor presents the proclamation, I'll now turn it over to Lavere to tell us a little bit more.

All right, good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Todillos, and members of the city council and community members.

On behalf of the African American Community Agency and many individuals, families, and organizations who work to preserve and celebrate African American history and culture, I'm honored to accept this proclamation recognizing Juneteenth in the City of San Jose.

Juneteenth commemorates the day when news of freedom finally reached enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas, more than two years after Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

It reminds us that freedom delayed is freedom denied, and that the pursuit of justice requires both vigilance and action.

Today we celebrate the resilience contributions and achievements of African Americans throughout our nation's history and here in San Jose.

We also recognize that Juneteenth is not only a reflection on the past, but a call to continue building a more equitable and inclusive future for all.

And with a lot of the programs and community engagements that we've had, it's always great to see our elected officials, see our community members just come out like in consolidation and like come together with our organizations and really just doing this as a community together.

Because we can only really serve our community and recognize our history if we are doing it as one community.

So I thank you all who have been participating in our programs and that continued work that we must continue to do to really recognize our people within our city of San Jose and also towards like throughout our country overall.

So thank you, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Tordillos, the CIS San Jose for his recognition and for joining and honoring the significance of Juneteenth.

We are grateful for your partnership and commitment to celebrate in this important chapter within our history.

Thank you.

It's been great to see you.

All right, we're on to orders of the day.

Do we have any changes to the printed agenda?

Not seeing any.

We'll move on to the closed session report.

Yes, Mayor and Councilman, closed session to discuss items one through five as listed on the agenda.

And there's nothing to report at on these items.

Item number six with regards to personnel evaluations has been continued until next Tuesday.

My zoom just blinked out.

Yeah, well, I have one hand.

Elizabeth.

Yes.

Great.

Yes.

Sorry, we'll have to wait until item 3.9.

Tony, any other things?

I have no other hands, and I'm getting zoomed back up on my computer, so we'll be smooth next time.

Okay, no problem.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Move approval.

Second.

Thank you.

Okay, Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

We're going to item 3.4, adoption of the annual appropriation ordinance and annual funding sources resolution for the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 budget and resolution establishing the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 appropriation limit.

Tony, do we have public comment on item 3.4?

No, I have none.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Okay, not seeing any hands.

Tony, let's vote.

Still waiting on one.

There we go.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

Next is the consent calendar.

Councilmember Compost would like to pull item 2.7 for comment and I believe motion on a separate vote.

Or just comment.

Or separate vote.

Okay.

And then Councilman Candelas, I believe, would like to pull item 2.10.

Is that right?

And I know a few of us have recusals on that same item.

And then we'll have the remainder of the consent calendar.

Here's what I'd like to do just to keep this simple.

If we why don't we take item uh 2.10 first?

I'm gonna hand uh things over to the vice mayor.

I'm gonna give a quick um recusal disclaimer, and other colleagues may need to do the same, and then we'll have the vice mayor manage item 2.10, and then um I'll resume management of the meeting.

So I will be recusing myself from voting on item 2.10 as I receive contributions from a uh principal at urban catalyst greater than $500 within the preceding 12 months.

I will turn things over to Vice Mayor Foley to take a separate vote on this item, and then we'll return to the rest of the consent calendar.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Are there any other colleagues who need to recuse themselves?

Councilmember Ortiz.

Councilmember Ortiz here.

I also have to ex uh uh recuse myself from this vote uh based on a donation over 500.

Thank you.

And Councilmember, I will as well accuse myself because of a contribution from a principal of over 500.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Yes, on 2.10.

I have three um speakers, Richard, Kathy, and Becky.

Come on down.

And as a reminder, as you come on down, um speakers must comply with the city's code of conduct for public meetings.

Please direct comments to the body, limit remarks to the agenda item, and observe the time limit.

Conduct that materially disrupts the meeting or interferes with others' ability to participate, be result in meeting or removal.

Go ahead and step forward as authorized by law.

You have one minute.

Thank you, Councilmember Kendellas and Mulcahy for pulling this item.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Kathy Sutherland, co-president of the S Plus NI, and a 40-year resident of Gifford Avenue.

We have a long history of supporting dense and affordable development in our neighborhood, and we supported the new hotel and mirror image housing project on CEPA, one block away.

The agreement being proposed today unexpl unexplainably links the purchase of property owned by Urban Catalyst on South First Street to our proposed project on West San Carlos Street over a mile away.

We asked that you bifurcate the projects, approve the purchase of South First Street, and come back to council to approve the $975,000 escrow holdback when development plans are completed for Gifford Avenue instead of by the arbitrary December 31st date.

We worry the developer will use this linkage to pressure planning staff, the planning commission, and members of the community to rush approval of the 276 residential units without proper design and planning.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name is Rebecca Spitz.

I live uh on Gifford Avenue.

I've lived there for 10 years.

Um this item raises a simple question.

If the Gifford Department project is a good project, then why does it need this transaction attached to it?

Given that the Gifford project has not yet completed its entitlement process, why is the city entering into a financial agreement tied to the project?

Moving forward before it has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, mayor and council.

My name is Richard Mason, a member of Delmas Park Neighborhood Association for about uh two decades.

Um Delmas Mark, the Delmas Park Neighborhood Association welcomes infill development and has been patiently waiting to hear from urban catalysts for a very long time.

Urban Catalyst has been sitting on the Gifford property for years.

Why the rush to get an approval project now, an approved project now?

It bills like the escrow hold back with the December 31st deadline as a way to pressure planning staff to rubber stamp a subsidized project and unit community engagement and limit community engagement.

We asked that you bifurcate or defer approval approval of this item.

Um so I want to thank the council for everything you guys have done for our our neighborhood on behalf of the Delmas Park neighborhood.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Back to council.

Thank you.

Thank you for the public comment.

Councilmember Kendallas.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I I my questions are for Eric, and so while Eric makes his way down, I I uh want to take an opportunity to touch a little bit about what um uh Kathy and neighbors have have said and have brought up.

Um in the letter received, uh I think there was a mention about concerns around environmental review, specifically uh at the at the site closer to the Knox Goodridge property could maybe speak about the environmental concerns.

Sure, thank you, Councilmember.

So Eric Sullivan's director of housing for the city as part of the acquisition process, the housing department worked with uh the Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs to ensure we do a comprehensive phase one and phase two, which are just more in depth environmental reviews at the site to ensure that it is fully clear and they to and this site for acquisition has cleared both testing.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, I know that's that's something that that was expressed and and I I appreciate you uh uh answering that.

The second pertains to the um uh community design standards that were uh that were mentioned as part of this project and and the um uh no before the project and specifically uh you know the concerns that some of the neighbors brought up around engagement and um you know going into uh you know past you know today, assuming today's uh approval goes forward.

Uh, what does that uh interaction with uh the neighborhood leaders with the developer and what city staff, what does that look like?

And maybe you can uh shed light into that.

Sure, having been briefed on some of the community engagement prior.

I spoke with the developer, and they have committed to giving due consideration to some of the exterior material changes uh that have been expressed as concerns from the neighborhood, and we'll engage in that conversation to give that due consideration accordingly.

Okay, great.

No, that that's wonderful.

It's my expectation that they uh they continue to meet and continue to have uh a genuine dialogue and an opportunity to you know make progress on on something that's gonna be uh hopefully more more housing units uh and and an opportunity for for families to live and thrive in our city.

Um, and uh yeah that that's that that's it for now.

And I if I didn't cover anything, I'm I'm sure my colleague council member will c he will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Mulcahy.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um thank you, Councilmember Candelas.

I think he sort of got at a couple of the things that we were interested in.

Uh continuing dialogue and that the decision today doesn't usurp that opportunity for our Delmas Park neighbors uh to continue to talk about improving um the project itself that is attached to this creative, but in some ways complicated transaction that you're talking about.

I I we may need some guidance from the city attorney, but can you just sort of help illustrate for us that these while they're tied together by making a decision on one, it doesn't take away the community input on the other?

Sure, and I will comment on that thank you, Councilman, for the question.

So the way we've designed this transaction is to provide an incentive for the other transaction, which is a gift for apartments to go forward, so that way we're able to benefit from picking up a piece of critical land within our downtown area at the same time encouraging more housing production at the Gifford Apartments.

The transaction does not mandate, require or otherwise limit any forms of community engagement on the Gifford Apartments.

It's just designability as an incentive.

We want you to move this forward.

We know the developer is looking to bring the project under one of our incentive programs.

So we'll have to come back to council uh in the fall as part of this work, but these two things are bridged together, but they are not in any way tied together, and one does not approval of one does not fast track approval of the other.

Thank you.

Um, you know, the Delmas Park uh you know neighborhood, especially the folks on Gifford, who you know, several were here today, you know, have dealt with successful and unsuccessful development in their neighborhood.

The block right behind Gifford, as an example that faces Delmas is an old dinosaur project that has been left there unfinished, right?

But then, you know, deeper into West San Carlos Corridor, a new hotel, the same developers building a project right across the street from that hotel.

So they've been part of the kind of um both the uplift and the challenge from development in their neighborhood.

Another affordable project that was built with no parking, that is a burden on the neighborhood, and so forth.

So I appreciate not only them showing up today, but continuing to dialogue.

And at the end of the day, everybody started with we recognize we're in a transitional area and we want this to happen.

Um so I just want to make sure that we're mindful of that, and this is coming from an experienced community group.

Um the other thing, they're sort of so involved in cheerleaders for San Jose.

The one thing they are asking about is the affordability program around this project.

Can you talk about that and what our hopes are for um this particular project?

Yes, so currently, as part of the Gifford development, there's a 5% inclusionary housing set aside for uh low-income families.

We are now in exploration conversations to expand that for up to 20 units utilizing our master leasing tool.

So we're in those conversations now, and again, we'll have to come back to council for authorization once those details have been settled to expand further affordability.

Okay, and and just the last thing, and we can I just want to sort of get it out there as something that we've been talking to this particular neighborhood about.

San Jose has been talking about gateways in and out of downtown.

We've got San Carlos, which is a very important gateway in and out of downtown.

We've got an opportunity at what is already a very well-lit uh 87, you know, uh uh bridge that you're sort of crossing underneath.

Some opportunities for improving that area might be a helpful ad to this project, and we can talk about that further.

But for the neighborhood's sake, wanted to put that on the on the table as well.

Thank you, Eric.

Thank you.

Councilmember Tordillos.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I just wanted to speak briefly on this item since the parcel uh under question of acquisition is in district three, and wanted to emphasize that I think this really is an ideally situated site in one of downtown downtown's most important corridors, uh directly in front of the uh Santa Clara Street uh light rail station, as well as across the street from the home of the future downtown BART station.

Uh so this acquisition acquisition represents a really rare opportunity for the city to play a role in building more housing in one of the most transit connected blocks anywhere in our city, uh contributing to the city's goals of increasing residential density downtown, also uh supporting affordability for our residents and increasing vibrancy in the downtown core.

Uh, we're also acquiring the site for what I would consider a very attractive price.

I'll notice it's a 60% discount relative to what the previous owner paid for this parcel back in 2019.

And we're also benefiting from some of the capital investments made on the site from the previous ownership.

Uh, and then in terms of how this interacts with the Gifford project, I would just say that I think the holdback structure uh agreement will provide the city some important leverage to ensure that that project does move forward.

I would emphasize that the city has an interest in seeing that project move forward into construction uh as soon as possible.

Uh, and note that while the city has definitely seen an increase in building recently, which is good to see, uh, that last year we still only hit 33% of our arena target as a city.

Uh so we need all of the housing we can get.

The Gifford Project is again a centrally located, well-connected neighborhood.

Uh, and I think that there should still be ample opportunities in the months ahead for the community engagement as that entitlement process uh moves forward.

Uh so I think this really is a slam dunk deal for the city.

I'm excited to see plans for this site come together over the next couple of years as the city works to find creative solutions to improve affordability for our residents.

Uh so I'll be supporting uh the acquisition, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Uh so I will uh with that move the staff recommendation for item 2.10.

Do I have a second?

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Seeing no further hands, let's vote on this item.

Motion passes with eight to zero votes with the aforementioned recused.

Thank you.

I turned it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you so much, Vice Mayor.

Okay.

So we now have item 2.7, and I'm gonna turn to Councilmember Campos.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I've pulled this item to register a no vote.

Um, okay, we will need a motion from someone then to vote on it separately.

Motion to vote on it separately.

Okay.

So we have a motion just to be clear, motion to accept item 2.7.

Correct, or to pass it.

Approve.

I'm sorry, to approve item 2.7.

Tony, do we have public comment on item 2.7?

I do not.

Okay.

Going back to the council.

I don't see any other hands.

Let's vote on item 2.7.

Motion passes 10 to 1 with campos voting no.

Okay.

Um, we now have the remainder of the consent calendar, colleagues.

We will approval the remainder of the consent calendar.

Great.

I don't see any other hands.

Tony, do we have public comment on the remainder of the consent?

We do not.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Let's vote.

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

We got through consent.

Thank you.

All right.

We're on to land use consent.

This is item 10.1A, rezoning of real property located at 15 Cottle Road.

Do we have a public comment?

No, I have no, I have none for this item.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Do we have a motion on item 10.1?

Move to accept.

Second.

Great.

I don't see any hands.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on to item 3.1, report of the city manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do not have a report under 3.1 today.

All right.

Being efficient.

We are on to item 3.5.

This is approval of terms.

Um we're gonna have city manager McGuire's gonna, I think make opening remarks that relate to items 3.5 through items 3.8, but we will vote on them separately.

City manager.

That is correct, Mayor.

Thank you very much.

Uh we are very pleased to announce and bring before the mayor and city council overall tentative agreements on successive memoranda of agreements between the city and the association of building mechanical and electrical inspectors, also known as ABMEI, the Association of Legal Professionals, also known as ALP, and the San Jose Police Dispatchers Association, also known as SJPDA.

The term of each agreement is July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

So three year agreements, and each agreement has been ratified by the respective unit.

It includes items that are important for the city and beneficial for city employees in both economic terms such as wages and non economic terms, such as enhancements to the city's artificial intelligence policy.

There are many, many people involved in reaching this agreement that we want to thank the city council, of course, for their support and guidance through this process.

The negotiating teams for each bargaining unit for the time and effort they put into these negotiations, including on the ABMEI negotiation team, team members Sean Moresco, John Van Avery, Tim Ferrand, and ABMEI President Gary Mira.

For ALP President, Tara Chaffee and Alp negotiation team members, Julia Van Rue and Brian Kimball.

SGA PDA President Mary Sinceri, SJPDA negotiation team members, Yasmeet Dioli, Delphina Galardo, Leonardo Silveira, Heidi Vieira, SJPDA's labor consultant Tom Sagau, and SJPDA's counsel, Greg Adam.

Lastly, I want to thank the city's negotiating teams, including director of the city manager's Office of Employee Relations and Director of Human Resources, Ram Kumangen, Elsa Cordova, Sarah Steele, and Hashanah Braun.

Every year we must establish our budget priorities to address critical issues.

Together, we've made a decision that workforce stability remains a high priority for the city, which is reflected in this agreement in a physically responsible manner.

Thank you again to ABMEI, ALP, and SJPDA and to the city's negotiating teams.

Because of their collective and creative efforts, these agreements were reached through the negotiation process before the previous agreements expired and are being presented to council today for formal approval.

Additionally, the administration is recommending compensation and benefit increases to executive management and professional staff in Unit 99 that are comparable to those negotiated in these agreements.

And that's the end of my comments.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Jennifer.

And I also want to just extend my thanks to Jennifer, you and your team, everyone who is at the bargaining table, both on the administrative side as well as our bargaining unit represent our union representatives, and really thrilled that we have a number of agreements here in front of the council.

We'll start with item 3.5, which is approval of the terms of an agreement with the San Jose Police Dispatchers Association for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Because there's no presentation, we'll start with public comment if we have any.

I have no cards for this item and no hands online.

Okay.

Move approval, second.

All right.

Just pausing.

I don't see any hands from colleagues.

So let's vote on item 3.5.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great, thank you.

On to item 3.6, approval of the terms of an agreement with the association of building, mechanical, and electrical inspectors, also known as ABMEI, for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards or hands.

Great, coming back to the council.

Second.

Great.

And I don't see any hands.

Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

We're on to item 3.7.

Approval of the terms of an agreement with the Association of Legal Professionals or ALP for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Tony, do we have public comment?

Have no cards or hands for this item.

All right, thank you.

Coming back to the council.

Great.

Seeing no other hands, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And item 3.8 approval of compensation and benefit changes for executive management and professional employees in unit 99 and other unrepresented employees.

That's units 81 and 82 for the term of fiscal years 2627, 27 28, and 2829, an amendment to City of San Jose pay plan effective June 21st, 2026.

And Tony, do we have public comment?

I have no cards or hands.

Okay, coming back to the council.

I see council.

A hand actually just went up as I was saying that for Chris.

I gotta switch.

Chris, you have one minute.

So I'm really not in a position to judge on this particular topic, but I just want to be cognizant that your city budget, as you know, is 5.5 billion dollars for less than a million residents.

So that's over 22,000 for a family of four, which is exorbitant.

So everything a la carte looks good, but what is the trade-off if you're going to be giving these raises?

What city services are you going to be reducing?

Because I think most people, based on public comment, I did read the public comments on the next agenda item, are overwhelmingly saying no, let's not make it easier to raise taxes.

And this is essentially what you have to do when you keep spending more and more.

So I would uh I hope you're giving a very close eye on anything that cut that causes the expense budget to go beyond the 5.5 billion and instead focus on what can be done to reduce it.

Thank you.

Back to council.

Okay, thank you.

And I see council Duan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I would support the item, but however, would I ask that the unionization of unit 99 into MEF be delay until important question or answer for my staff and and many other staff that they felt that they were out of the loop?

And they're not sure and understand what is the process, what are their, you know, uh the pros and cons.

So I move to delay um the unit 99 into MEF until questions are answered.

I would say, let's say give it a two months until those answer to his questions are answered.

So council, appreciate the comment.

Let me I'm not sure that these two things are directly tied.

I understand the relationship, but um let me turn to our city attorney to try to understand if that's germane to this item, or there's a different forum where those questions would need to be addressed.

Uh Councilmember Duan, I might I suggest that the better forum might be uh on Tuesday for some of the because I believe uh labor will be on discussion again for the council next Tuesday.

And um, they're not necessarily related, but your questions might be better answered there.

But we are voting to approve the contract today, yes.

So I would imagine the question that must be answered prior to approval of the contract, right?

You could put those these particular contracts down till next Tuesday.

This isn't a contract.

This is not an this is uh just the compensation and benefit changing for all unit 99.

This this item doesn't contemplate the employees going from this you this unit to being a represented MEF.

So it would it uh that's not part of the action on here.

This is just giving the the same increases to the people that are that are people that are um in unit 99.

So that would be a separate conversation in close session.

If if the city attorney would uh would like to agendize that for council discussion discussion.

In that case, I'll just uh we can't my uh motion.

Throw, okay.

Thank you, council member.

Let me turn to Councilmember Tordios.

Thank you, Mayor and wanted a quick clarifying question.

Not sure if it's for Rom or for uh the city attorney, but my understanding is that the 18th floor staff that is unionized are already represented.

Is that correct?

Okay, so just wanted to throw that out there.

Uh, and with that, I will uh move approval of item 3.8.

Okay, thank you.

I don't see any other hands.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

We're on to item 3.9.

Tony, do we there's no presentation, so do we have public comment?

Yes, I have public comment, um, both in person and online.

And before I call names, I want to state as a reminder speakers must comply with the city's code of conduct, which is also available on the slide on the screen and on Zoom.

Please direct comments to the body.

Limit remarks to the agenda item and observe the time limit.

Conduct that materius materially disrupts the meeting or interferes with others' ability to participate may result in muting or removal as authorized by law.

I'm gonna start with um six people in person and then I'll bump over to the online.

Um Enrique Navarro, Carl San Miguel, Stephanie Ligsey, Rebecca, Jean.

I think it says Hunt and Jenny Zhao.

Come on down.

You do not have to speak in the order that you're called.

And you have one minute.

First person in the microphone wins.

Good afternoon, City Council and Mayor.

Uh over the last four years alone, there have been over 1,400 attempts to pass special parcel taxes and assessments on property owners.

814 succeeded in adding to the cost of owning real estate.

This does not help housing affordability.

In 2024, San Jose Unified School District put on the ballot measure R, a 1.15 billion dollar bond based on the median price of uh properties in Santa Clara County.

That will add $900 per year for 30 years to the property owner.

This is just one example of the liabilities the property owners have to absorb with the this amendment.

It does not take away the ability to ask for the parcel tax or special assessment.

It only increases the threshold to pass.

The request for a higher percentage to pass is because everyone votes on the measure, but only to pop only the property owners inherit the burden.

So I request that you not take a position.

I'm sorry that's your time.

Next speaker.

As a reminder, the timer is available on the podium as well as above your head.

Good afternoon, mayor, council, and staff.

Local government should be accountable to the people who fund them.

Government exists to serve residents, and residents deserve confidence that their tax dollars are being used responsibly.

Every year, the city council makes important budget decisions.

Those decisions impact the quality and cost of res services residents receive.

But residents should also have a voice when government seeks additional revenue.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association measure is based on the idea that raises tax that raising taxes should require broad public support, not just the decision made by elected officials.

The principle is especially important today when politics are polarized, and many people see their costs continue to increase faster than their incomes.

Supporting this measure is not about opposing government.

I'm sorry, that's your time.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council, Enrique Navarro with the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors.

We are now recognized as the most expensive and least affordable city in the world, and that should be a wake up call.

This memo focuses on protecting revenue while ignoring the reality faced by taxpayers who provided that revenue.

Residents are already carrying the burden of rising costs, mandates, fees, taxes, assessments, and regulations that make it harder to afford a home and harder to stay in the community that they built.

You cannot continue adding costs onto residents and then act surprise when frustration grows.

People are making difficult choices every day just to keep up, and the government should understand that reality.

This council doesn't speak for all of San Jose's residents.

The city belongs to one million people who live here, and they deserve the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves.

Reject this memo and let the citizens of San Jose speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Stephanie Lake Say, and I'm a resident of D6.

City Council should not oppose a measure designed to give taxpayers a stronger voice.

At its core, this measure is about one simple principle.

Taxpayers should have a meaningful say before they are asked to pay more.

Residents across San Jose are feeling the pressure of rising costs from housing to groceries, utilities, insurance, and everyday expenses.

For many families, there's not a lot of room for left in the household budget.

When people are struggling with affordability, it's understandable that they want stronger protections and greater accountability before new taxes are imposed.

This measure does not prevent government from providing services.

It simply asks that a major tax increase results receives a higher level of public approval.

The city council should respect that voters created these protections for a region and should not take an official position opposing a measure that gives residents more control of their own finances.

Please reject this memo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council members.

My name's Jean Hunt, and I speak also in opposition to this memo.

I believe that the uh title to it is actually a misnomer.

This Jarvis Can initiative does not limit the people, it actually enhances their power over sell over taxation to themselves.

So I am implore upon you to remain at least neutral.

Do not take a position on this particular item.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

On behalf of Bay Area Homeowners Network, who represents thousands of small property owners, we respectfully ask the council to reject this memo and to remain neutral on this measure, allow voters to decide.

Taxpayer deserves a direct voice when the government seeks additional tax burden.

Many of us already feel we are heavily taxed and believe that California does not have a revenue problem.

What California has is a spending problem.

This measure is about giving voters the opportunity to decide whether government spending should face additional limits.

We hope the council will respect the democratic process and allow residents to make that voice the choice of their themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark followed by Chris.

Tony, do we have any other cards in the chamber?

No one, not in the chamber.

I'm going to zoom.

So Mark followed by Chris.

And then after Chris will be Elizabeth.

My line?

Yep, go ahead.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mark Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association.

I heard you do the void taken position on this measure.

It's a big mistake.

It requires 50% plus one.

But is it really 50% one with low voter turnout in a very small community?

And what about those under the age of 18?

They're gonna have to pay sales tax if it comes up.

And those who are immigrants, not only do they have to pay sales tax, but property taxes, and they are both non-representative in the measure.

So I voted.

I think we should say problem 13.

And I urge you to avoid picking a position.

Thank you.

Chris, followed by Elizabeth.

After Elizabeth will be Ramin.

Thank you.

I also urge you to vote no on this resolution.

Um, as I mentioned, the city of San Jose already has an operating budget of 5.5 billion.

I almost stutter with that number.

It's so massive.

Um that number needs to be reduced, right?

And I know what's gonna happen.

You're gonna pass this, and you're gonna say under the premise of, oh, we have the sky's falling, and we're gonna have to cut all these services.

Well, that's based on the fact that you are use a large uh significant portion of your budget is predicated on equity theft, right?

I.e.

property transfer taxes.

Even if somebody buys a home and solves it at a loss, there's they have to pay on that lower sales price where they had a loss.

That is not a reasonable thing.

So, yes, it does stop property transfer taxes, which it should.

And so the conversation should be about reducing the spending and getting a better funding mechanism for the city and an overall lower cost envelope expense envelope.

Secondly um it's you know the people that are supporting this, like Silicon Valley Council and nonprofits that wrote to you, they directly benefit from this.

Other, but the overwhelming overwhelming majority of citizens do not want this.

Elizabeth followed by Ramin and then Simon Elizabeth Briarly of Silicon Valley taxpayers and the county libertarian party San Jose resident I'm concerned for both substance and principle it's highly inappropriate for council any elected body to take positions on ballot measures that are the people's prerogative to vote on your sworn duty as our elected reps protect the individual rights of us the people not use your time and thus illegally our taxpayer money to tell us how to vote the 250 anniversary of America's government by and of the people perfect time to remind everyone that it should be we who tell you how we're gonna vote not the other way around as for save prop 13 three examples how our vital Prop 13 protections have already been bypassed legislature blowing past the lawful limit on locality sales tax rates crushing low income folks mosquito vector district poison pill to automatically increase its rate later without a vote of the people open space authority parcel tax same thing please don't take a position instead spend your time trimming the budget back to basics as mayor mayhan campaigned on thank you Ramin followed by Simon and then after Simon is Jordan Ramin okay Simon followed by Jordan and then Lena go ahead Simon you unmuted and then you muted again are you coming are you coming to you go ahead okay thank you hello my name is Simon Levchenko I am 24 years old I was born in Santa Clara and raised in San Jose I've lived here almost all of my life I'm here to state my opposition to proposition 13 and to share my support for Matt Mahan and Governor Newsom and their sub in their opposition to proposition 13 proposition 13 decreased California's property tax revenue by more than half one day after it came into effect in 1978 proposition 13 revolt resulted in the severe underfunding of public services and bankruptcies of multiple major municipalities in the state many years after it came into effect proposition 13 resulted in two suicides in the Almadin Valley neighborhood of south of San Jose which ultimately resulted in a neighborhood counseling service being created albeit it was so poorly funded that when I suffered severe bullying and sexual abuse at Leon High School I was never even made aware of this counseling service parents and Germany both have better social services and higher social cohesion than the United States and preparal preferential taxation is illegal there.

We need all the tax laws you can get California's not a retirement home and it is not an inheritance thank you for your time Jordan followed by Lena and then Ramin.

Hi this is Jordan district three resident I'm speaking in support of the council memorandum on the floor today and I'd like to thank the council members who are bringing it forward um this measure that's being considered only increases voting power for some people and decreases voting power for other folks um I would like to tax myself for certain things that can only be funded collectively I can't purchase a park or create a park but if me and the million neighbors want to tax ourselves to fund a park we should be able to do that.

And so making it so that you need a two thirds majority is weakening one set of folks at the expense yeah is weakening power for some and I don't like that but even more importantly is the retroactive canceling of the existing taxes and San Jose should be able to tell the voters what that impact will be thank you.

Lena followed by Ramin.

Good afternoon, Mayor and council members with Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority um Lena, you need to speak up.

We can hardly hear you.

Oh, apologies.

Uh, good afternoon, Mayor and council members.

I am yeah, speaking on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority to express our support for this memorandum to oppose this initiative.

Thank you.

Rameen.

I look can you hear me?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Perfect.

All right, good afternoon, Mayor.

Council members, and a shout out to my rep George Casey in District 10.

I am uh talking to you as a voter and resident of San Jose.

I uh urge you to oppose this uh measure.

Uh I share the retro, I share the retroactivity concern and even local fiscal watchdogs do, but the cure is a revote, not a city funded campaign against taxpayer protections.

Polls already showed this measure is losing, and an opposed resolution changes nothing.

It uh just depends on staff time and a state fight while you cut services.

Uh please stay focused on the residents.

Thanks.

Back to council.

Right.

Thank you.

Coming back, thanks to everybody who who weighed in on the issue.

Let me turn first to Councilmember Casey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whenever government opposes taxpayer protections, I believe we should stop and ask a simple question.

Why?

Why is government uncomfortable with requiring broader public consent before making more money from people who earn it?

Why is government asking taxpayers to trust it with fewer safeguards rather than more?

That is the question before us today, and it's why I can't support the city's opposition to the local taxpayer protection act.

At its core, this debate is about who deserves the benefit of the doubt, the taxpayer who earned the money or the government that wants to spend it.

I believe the taxpayer is the answer.

Every dollar collected by government began as someone's paycheck, someone's savings, someone's investment, someone's small business revenue.

It belongs first to the people who earned it, and that is why taxpayer protections exist.

Not because government is bad, not because public services are unimportant, but because government will always have reasons to seek additional revenue.

There will always be another worthy program, another urgent need, another crisis to address.

The demands on government are virtually unlimited.

The resources of taxpayers are not.

And at every level of government, we see the same pattern.

When revenues increase, government finds new ways to spend them.

When revenues fall short, government asks for more.

The one thing government rarely says is enough.

I know some of my colleagues are concerned about the potential impact this measure could have on measure E and the revenues it generates for homelessness and the affordable housing programs.

I understand those concerns.

But the fact that government has grown dependent on a revenue source is not an argument against taxpayer protections.

It's the very reason taxpayer protections exist.

If taxpayer protections disappear whenever government identifies a worthy use of money, then there are no protections at all.

For nearly 50 years, Proposition 13 has reflected the belief that taxation is different.

Taxation is one of the most significant powers government possesses because it directly affects the earnings, property, and financial security of our residents.

The local taxpayer protection act preserves an important check on that power and reaffirms a simple principle.

Our first responsibility is not to protect government's access to revenue.

Our first responsibility is to protect the people who earn that revenue in the first place.

And for those reasons, I cannot support the city's opposition to the local taxpayer protection act.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let's go to Councilmember DeWan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Last week at rules committee, I second the motion to bring this forward to council for discussion.

Supporting an opposed position for this ballot measure would signal approval of a lower threshold for additional taxes and revenues at the expenses of our residents.

I have consistently opposed increasing the tax burden on San Jose family.

And my position remained the same.

Just the other week, we did discuss the affordability challenges facing our community.

Most notably our immigrant communities.

We acknowledge that too many residents are being priced out, and that the cost of living in San Jose have reached an unsustainable level for our working families, seniors, young people.

I trust voters to make their decision at the ballot box.

So for these reasons, I cannot support the opposed position.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let's go to Councilmember Cohen.

All right, thank you.

Um this is sort of uh kind of a regular occurrence of um organizations in the state directly attacking local governments.

We cities and jurisdictions across the state are stepping up this year to join together to protect their ability to go to their voters and ask for majority approval of uh ballot measures that enhance revenue.

This doesn't decrease a threshold or make any change, it upholds that democratic principle.

Not only though does this make it very, very difficult for future increases to occur, it retroactively removes key revenue that jurisdictions across the strait count on.

Right now, we uh actually, Lee, can you clarify for me that or maybe I don't know if Jim's here, but if somebody can clarify Jennifer can clarify the dollar amount for measure E that we receive annually from our real estate transfer taxes, right between 50 and 100 million dollars.

Between 50 and 55 million annually.

50 to 55 million dollars a year.

It's it has gone up to 100 million, though.

And it's been over 100 in some years.

Right.

This is revenue that was approved by the voters, revenue that helps us fund affordable housing projects that funds our programs to address homelessness.

And if this measure were to pass, our most of our interim housing system would have to be shut down.

Um and just to be clear, also I might have heard some numbers a lot tonight about a 5.5 billion dollar um budget.

Obviously, that is our total budget.

Our general fund budget is about 1.7 billion dollars.

The rest of it is enterprise like running the airport, sewage treatment plant, and things that don't come out of our general fund and are not part of uh and are not flexible funding that the council has control over.

Um about 60 percent of our 1.7 billion dollar general fund pays for public safety, which is an important function of local government, but there are also a lot of other functions that local government uh needs to pay for, and we are being asked daily by the residents of our city to address homelessness, cleanliness, and and things that Measure E helps us afford.

The sinister uh idea of retroactively taking funding away from governments is what makes this measure um so sinister in my mind.

It's much it's it's not a question of changing the rules going forward, it's a question of changing the rules that we were operating under previously, and would make it very, very uh challenging for many jurisdictions across the state.

It's actually an interesting uh as a rep as the representative on the California League of Cities.

I was there when the board of the League of Cities voted to oppose this measure, and it was a unanimous vote.

Uh unanimous vote um from cities with incredible variety of political backgrounds and viewpoints, because they know that being able to go to their voters and ask their voters to support key initiatives is one of the things that helps them continue to govern their local communities.

Um I am uh along with my colleagues, I'm asking this council to uh join this coalition and oppose this ballot measure that would be so devastating to San Jose's general fund going forward.

And I will move approval of the recommendation or the memo to oppose uh ballot measure, which is currently titled 1983, but we'll get a ballot number later.

Thank you.

Thanks, Council.

A second from Councilmember Tordillos, who I'll turn to next.

Thank you, Mayor.

I want to start by thanking Councilmember Cohen for his leadership in this effort, as well as Councilmembers Command Campos for their partnership on this.

Uh, it is really hard to overstate how disastrous the impacts of this initiative would be uh to the lives of residents across California, but also here in San Jose if it were to pass.

As Councilmember Cohen noted, it's critical to note that this measure is not just about increasing the threshold for future taxes, but it would also invalidate existing taxes that are already on the books.

And statewide local governments would stand to lose billions of dollars that support fundamental city services from housing and homelessness, response to street cleaning and garbage pickup.

Here in San Jose, if this measure were to pass, the city would lose between $98 million and $130 million in annual revenue every year between measure E and our conveyance taxes, decreasing local funding available for our city's homelessness response and public infrastructure improvements.

And I know we all just got out of budget season last week, and we talked a lot about the contingency plan that was put together if uh the measure A had not passed.

And there we were looking at about 10 million dollars in annual revenue.

And we saw already at that dollar amount what the impact to services would be with elimination of police patrols, closing of libraries, and cuts to other essential programs.

So I would like all of us to think very carefully about what 100 million dollars in cuts to revenue would mean in terms of what we are able to do for our residents here in San Jose.

I also think it's important to highlight the unfortunate disinformation campaign that we've already seen emerging around this initiative.

As we see many uh supporters attempting to frame the initiative as somehow being a referendum on Prop 13, I think we all have a responsibility to inform our residents and let them know that that is simply not what this ballot initiative is.

Uh, far from protecting the voices of residents, this initiative would actually restrict residents' right to initiate and vote on local measures, and it would overturn measures that have already received majority approval from residents through a lawful and democratic process.

I believe in the democratic process, and I believe that this measure fundamentally subverts that process.

Given the unique threat this initiative poses to the city of San Jose, we should not only take a formal position against it, I think we should also be working to educate our voters so that they understand what they are voting for come this November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We'll go to Councilmember Kame.

Thank you so much.

Um, you know, I fully respect all voter decisions.

Uh, but you know, I find most concern concerning that the initiative would apply retroactively, potentially uh invalidating numerous voter-approved local uh revenue measures, and that's one of the reasons why I signed on to the memo, because it would um apply retroactively.

And so I will be supporting the motion on the floor uh in this instance.

Thanks, Councilmember.

We'll go to vice mayor.

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments of the members of the public who spoke on this issue and their passion uh about taxation and their right to vote on these particular issues.

Are this motion does not preclude them or the public from voting on this matter?

It's going to come to us in November, and every member, every voter has a right to vote yay or nay on this.

But having uh to echo what Councilmember Tordillos mentioned, having just finished balancing a budget uh with a $50 million deficit, uh and yes, it was passed based on a transfer tax or a uh transit occupancy tax on our hotels that was approved by the voters too.

If we had not passed, our cutbacks would have been small but impactful.

If this passes, it will the cuts will be huge.

I am particularly concerned about the retroactive nature of it.

Jim, if we could you, is it easy for you to just tell us what the retroactive impact would be on this budget, and how much having faced just solved a $50 million deficit?

What deficit would we have have said have faced with the retroactive uh deficit or loss of measure E?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Vice Mayor Jim Shannon City's budget director.

So, yeah, so the um as I understand it, when the if the initiative were to pass, it would um it would impact taxes that had all already passed, which would include our measure E.

It would also include our construction and conveyance tax.

So measure E, as Jennifer says, at least if 50 to 55 million this year, it might we will probably get past 70 million as an example.

Um, and that would effectively sort of um eliminate our interim housing program and really reduce most of our funding for homelessness prevention on a going forward basis.

Also, um our CNC taxes uh generate 45 to 60 million dollars on an annual basis, so the capital support for libraries, parks, rec recreational facilities, fire stations, that goes away.

Uh, and so there would presumably need to be closing of some of those facilities and/or some transfer from the general fund to make sure you had some minimum amount of capital funding to make those viable.

When you say transfer from the general fund, that sounds to me uh, we don't have funds in the general fund to transfer and backfill these dollar amounts.

It cuts elsewhere, exactly.

So, so really it puts us in a huge budget deficit, and we need to figure out how to balance our budget, and cutting expenditures is not how we would be balancing this budget in relation to this huge loss.

Thank you for that.

I really appreciate it.

The C and C taxes are taxes that have been on the books for years.

The measury transfer tax was approved, I think, in 2020 by our voters.

I'm not a huge supporter of taxes, but the rollback nature of this, or the retroactive nature of this is just so onerous.

I cannot, I cannot sit here as a council member and support the idea to vote no on this.

I appreciate the comments of councilmember Casey and Councilmember Duan, but I will be voting in support of this.

This motion.

Thanks, Vice Mayor.

Um look, I I think my colleagues have sort of said it all.

Um I do you know want to thank those who came to speak and recognize the very real impulse that I think is driving the desire to constrain tax increases.

It does feel like every ballot we're asked to approve more taxes, more bonds, more cost, and residents are really struggling with the high cost of living and the size of government and our overall tax burden is certainly a big piece of that.

So I want to I want to acknowledge that.

Um, and we are going to have to push ourselves even harder to get more efficiency and value and impact out of every dollar we spend at a time when the need so far exceeds our revenues, and raising cost of living for our residents really shouldn't be an option.

So we are grappling with a really difficult situation.

Um that being said, as my colleagues have noted, I was gonna also highlight that the immediate impact in San Jose, and it would be immediate, this would not be something phased in, is something between 98 and 130 million dollars per year.

The entire interim housing system would be shut down overnight effectively, and you would have over 2,000 people put right back on the street because the reason we built that system is we had thousands of people in tent encampments literally without a bed to offer them.

Um our conveyance tax is what's paid when a developer on new development um pays to improve local roadways, parks, and rec facilities, libraries, fire stations, and other public infrastructure in the vicinity of the development.

If we were to lose these two sources of revenue, you'd be looking at a hit to the general fund in an amount that would be equivalent to losing revenue that supports the pay of over 185 police officers.

Those of us who have just been through this budget process know how hard it is to find a few hundred thousand dollars on an ongoing basis, much less a hundred million ongoing.

Um, again, that's not to minimize the importance of us being hyper efficient, disciplined, responsible with every dollar we have, but the retroactivity is incredibly concerning and uh would make governing the city incredibly challenging.

Residents would be very unhappy with the with the impacts.

I also appreciate Councilor Cohen referencing the big numbers that get thrown around.

So 5.5 or 6 billion dollars.

The vast majority of those dollars are fee for service within city enterprises.

That means the entire operation of the airport.

You fly, you pay a fee on the ticket to maintain the operation of the airport, wastewater treatment, garbage collection, energy, all the power, all the energy, all the all the electricity and gas in the city, water for municipal water users.

These are all massive fee-for-service city enterprises that are included within that $5.5 billion budget.

Um, the actual general fund, the math is actually pretty simple.

So it's 1.6, maybe it's 1.7 billion this year.

There are about a million people in the city.

So that is basically 1,600 or 1,700 per resident for police, fire, road paving, parks, libraries.

You think about, I mean, you're paying $100 a month for cable television, maybe $150.

We're talking $1,600 per year per person to have police and fire protection, roads paved, libraries, community centers, parks maintained, trails maintained, and a number of other services.

So, not making an argument for uh expanding government.

I think we could have a very reasonable argument about going forward.

What should the threshold be?

We might not all agree on that, but the retroactivity piece would be devastating for the city, and I do want to make sure people are clear on what they're getting for their dollars, because we've heard some big numbers thrown around that don't accurately reflect um the city's budget.

Okay, I appreciate comments from colleagues.

Let's um Tony.

Let's take a vote.

And this is on the motion to oppose the ballot measure.

Motion passes nine to two with Dewan and Casey voting no.

Okay, thank you.

Um we are on to item 8.1.

This is the public hearing on the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District and assessments for fiscal year 2627.

And I will ask my colleagues to bear with me.

We were going to have scripts for each of the next few items here.

Um, okay, so as I just said, item 8.1 is the public hearing for the approval of the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District Annual Budget Report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the Alam Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District.

No written protests have been received for the Alam Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District.

Thank you.

At this time we will open the public hearing.

I have no cards for this item and no hands.

Thank you.

We will now close the public hearing.

Since the business owners in the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Do we have a motion?

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Ortiz, I didn't see your hand.

I apologize.

Go ahead.

Uh just move for move for approval.

This is something that's been a long time coming.

Really excited for the businesses in District 3 and District 5.

Definitely.

Thanks for your leadership and helping to get this going.

Do we have a second?

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other hands.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Alright, thank you.

Item 8.2 is the public hearing for the approval of the downtown business improvement district annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the downtown business improvement district?

No written protests have been received from the downtown business improvement district.

Thank you.

At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no cards or hands.

Okay.

We will now close the public hearing.

Since the business owners in the downtown business improvement district have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the downtown business improvement district and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Do we have a motion?

I'm sorry, Councilmember Tordillos.

Alright, I'm getting it.

We'll let the council member in his district uh this is okay.

We had the second Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Item 8.3 is the public hearing for the approval of the Japan Town Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from the affected businesses in the Japan Town Business Improvement District?

No written protests have been received from the Japan Town Business Improvement District.

Thank you.

At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no cards and no hands.

We will now close the public hearing.

Since the business owners in the Japan Town Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Japan Town Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Councilmember Tordillas.

Move approval.

Thank you.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Item number 8.4 is the public hearing for the approval of the Alameda Business Improvement District annual budget report and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Before I open the public hearing, has the city clerk received any written protests from affected businesses in the Alameda Business Improvement District?

No written protests have been received from the Alameda Business Improvement District.

At this time, we will open the public hearing.

I have no hands or cards.

We will now close the public hearing.

Since the business owners in the Alameda Business Improvement District have supported the proposed levy of assessments, I will now ask the council to consider adoption of the resolution approving the budget report of the Alameda Business Improvement District and levying assessments for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Councilmember Mulkey.

Move for approval.

Thank you.

Great.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion approved unanimously.

Thank you.

Had I known there would be this many scripts in my future, I would have opposed all of your business improvement districts.

Um just kidding.

They're doing they're doing great work.

Okay.

Well, I catch my breath.

We're going to move on to item 8.5, actions related to grant agreements for multiple interim housing sites.

And we do have a staff presentation, I believe, a brief one from Eric Sullivan, our director of housing.

Eric, feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Council.

So Eric Sullivan, Director of Housing.

I'm bringing forth this memorandum to fund our interim housing sites for the next fiscal year.

I'll go through a brief presentation today, and then we can take questions afterwards.

So very quickly, this is a quick listing of our 22 sites that we have throughout the city of Santa Jose, encompassing just about 2200 beds.

There's about 1,800 units located in throughout the majority of the districts, including both our leased motels, our home key sites, our interim housing sites, as well as our motel voucher program, which provides temporary housing for families.

We have across the different side.

We house just roughly about 2,500 individuals across the entire portfolio, including sites where fathers and children share beds, as well as couples share beds.

We have a very large contingency of pets, just over, we just did a recent count of just about 625 pets with the average occupancy, just given the new sites that have come online exceeds 90%, and we post our weekly occupancy rates already on our existing dashboards, and we continue to track our transitions from these sites to permanent placements.

Permanent placement takes many forms, could be housing, which is the big majority of it, but it also takes forms to other care beds or exits from the program for reunifications with family members.

So it takes many different types to date.

Our overall turn rate is roughly about 40%, as we're then looking to optimize the system in order to improve overall performance as well as standardizing our delivery of services across our five providers that provide the majority of our services across the entire portfolio.

In addition to our actions here for approval of the contracts, we're also going to be taking actions on our home key site, which is LifeMoves, as we're making an operator transition there and thereby recouping some funds that were initially laid out for that program to then pay for the new operator that'll be coming on site.

And we continue to work on various ways to improve and optimize the service delivery, including centralized security services.

You'll see a differential on the last slide that I'll show here compared to the memorandum, as the last slide shows the all-in costs, including motel leases, plus services and security contracts at roughly 69 million, while the services side provided by our partners is roughly 60.

It's at 79 million services provided by contracts is 69 million.

We also include in this our continuing work as uh detailed in the homelessness annual report memorandum released just about two, three weeks ago.

Our work around Cal Aim, though there's some challenges to the execution of some of that work, and the continuing streamlining that we do as we're looking to implement our property maintenance system as we'll be bringing that contract forward to council in August, and then revisiting our work around optimization of food delivery and case management.

And so overall, we have a diversity of funds that goes into this system, including our measure E dollars, our HAF funds, general funds, multi-source funds, PHLA kind of state funds, as we provide a comprehensive set of services sourced through various initiatives in order to keep the system moving forward as we look to further conversation earlier today, optimize every dollar going into the system that includes standardizing a lot of our delivery of services with the partners across the board.

So that is the quick summary, and I'm happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Eric.

Let's uh first go to public comment if we have any.

Elmer, come on down.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

I'm Elmer Martinez Saballos, Director of Public Affairs at Life Moves, here to express our gratitude for your continued partnership and investment with today's proposal.

Life Moves is proud to continue serving as a part of the community's critical safety net through programs like Guadalupe, safe parking, and our motel voucher program.

And we remain committed to providing interim shelter and pathways to permanent housing for our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness.

And we support the investments before you today, which will strengthen the city's interim housing portfolio, and we're glad to be a part of the network heading into the next fiscal year.

And Life Moves looks forward to continuing the great work with the City of San Jose.

And we thank the council for its ongoing commitment to bringing homelessness to functional zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Back to council.

Thank you.

Let me turn to Councilmember Campos.

Thank you, Mayor.

I want to begin my remarks by expressing appreciation to the city's administration for their remarkable work.

The staff recommendations represent the culmination of the significant efforts between the housing department, public works, the city manager's office, city attorney's office, and many other critical partners working to rapidly establish and sustain the shelter portfolio as directed by the city council.

We could not have achieved this without the support of so many essential external partners, including the state of California, the County of Santa Clara, the Housing Authority, the shelter operators themselves, VTA, and other private property owners.

And I'm particularly grateful for the support that my office has received to ensure the success of the one Branham Lane shelter, especially from Director Sullivan and his team.

So thank you for your dedication and your responsiveness to our community.

I know that the administration is working diligently to improve the efficiency of the system, centralized operational functions, and ensure consistent and coordinated support for our unhoused neighbors who are transitioning into the system.

And with that, I will be supporting the staff recommendations.

And at the same time, we must continue to be mindful of the significant ongoing operational exposure of the costs of the shelter portfolio as well as the risk of increasing general fund exposure.

We, you know, just heard in the previous item references to our budget and the serious risks that have been identified, putting as a potential loss for revenue, whether it's the ERAF uh funding, the cardroom business tax revenue, all of that while we're contending with a projected $20 million deficit in the next year.

Um, and and what we really heard today was regarding the real uh property transfer tax, the primary source of the local funding for the shelter operations, which we know is volatile, and if larger commercial properties aren't changing ownership, those revenues are lower.

Because Measure E revenue is already insufficient to pay for the interim shelter annual operating costs, the general fund will continue to subsidize our shelter operational costs, which means less general fund money for police, fire, libraries, and other core city services.

So I encourage city administration to continue to critically examine the cost effectiveness of individual shelters, the Philippe and Mayberry shelters, for example, serve far fewer individuals compared to the Monterey and Bernal shelter in my district, but the annual operating costs are not much cheaper.

So I have one quick question for staff.

In the report, um, permanent housing destinations are defined as quote transitions to stable living environments, including permanent housing and other traditional housing that leads to permanency.

So can you please clarify if the quote exits to permanent housing metrics on table two in the staff report include transitions from these shelters into different interim housing sites?

Yes, so as listed in the table on uh slide four, it shows that for the safe parking sites, we've had a lot of turn that transition over into other interim housing sites similar to the motel programs.

A lot of the motels that we lease, which are the first five that are listed at the top of the motel program sites, transition into interim housing, and then that turnover from interim housing into permanent placement, where we get a lot of turn, particularly as I would highlight again on the same table, Pacific Motor Inn, 100% of those individuals were transitioned to permanent housing.

The arena, 100% of those individuals who transitioned to permanent housing as we began the specialized program with the housing authority, and then similarly situated at some of the other sites, particularly from the interim housing portfolio, as the majority of those go to either a PSH unit or to other permanent housing placement or to other family unification type permanent housing.

So the portfolio, just given its different types of service levels and where they're at, has different transitions along the mark as part of the throughput model.

Thank you for that clarification, Eric.

With that, I will move to approve the staff recommendations.

Yes, I I wanted to thank you and your department for all your work on this.

And we're at a better place this time around.

So I just simply wanted to show appreciation uh to you and your staff.

It's never a simple thing.

Sometimes things are very complicated.

Uh so um, you know, as we move towards continuous improvement, I'm hoping that next year will be even better.

Uh so just thank you and your staff.

Thanks so much, council member.

Appreciate that.

We have the motion of second.

I don't see any other hands.

Tony, let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh we are on to open forum, which is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not on today's agenda, any any city business not on today's agenda.

Tony, do we have any open forum comments?

Jim Gray, come on down.

And as a reminder, um, speakers must comply with the city's code of conduct for public meetings.

Please direct comments to the body, limit remarks to the agenda.

Well, this is open forum and observe the time limit.

Conduct that material materially disrupts the meeting or interferes with others' ability to participate may result in muting or removal as authorized by law.

When does it start?

Where's the where's oh my gosh?

Okay, my name is Jim Gray.

I live on Akron Way.

I came home recently, and there was a 311 gentleman in his car and it's parked right behind a motor home, and by golly, they're finally gonna get that motorhome out of my group my face.

And then I look around, and he gets out of the car and he goes to a different car, and he gave a ticket to that car for parking two inches outside away from the core the curb.

The three of the motor home is in a is it's in uh illegal parking.

It's it's um, it's part of the emergency lane.

So I only talked to them in February, so they have time to do it this year.

I'm sorry that's your time.

But you know how to email me.

Yeah.

Steven, maybe you can grab an email address.

Are you working?

Okay, all right.

Sounds like your council office is on it.

Okay, did we have any other comments?

No, that back to council.

Okay, well, thank you all.

We're adjourned.

Have a great evening.