Public Meetings - San Jose, California

The San José Rules and Open Government Committee met on November 19, 2025. The committee approved the consent calendar and referred a memo on historic preservation ordinance reform for a workload analysis. No public comments were received. Consent Calendar - The committee approved the agenda for the meeting with an add sheet (vote 5-0). - The consent calendar, consisting of three items, was approved unanimously (5-0). Discussion Items - Historic Preservation Ordinance Reform (Memo C1): Councilmember from District 3 presented a memo with four recommendations: (1) improved outreach and education for property owners on the Historic Resources Inventory; (2) an amnesty program for previously unpermitted construction on inventory properties, excluding health/safety hazards; (3) a simplified legal framework for demolishing or removing blighted or substandard structures where historic elements are no longer evident; and (4) modernizing regulations to facilitate installation of modern windows and energy-efficiency improvements. The councilmember noted that the issue affects all districts, not just Japantown. Discussion included questions from Councilmember Verk and Delis about applicability to city-owned historic landmarks (e.g., Metzger Ranch) and from Councilmember Duane about the scope of the inventory. Vice Mayor Foley expressed support, citing precedent with ADU amnesty programs. The committee voted to refer the memo for a workload analysis. Key Outcomes - The committee approved the consent calendar (5-0). - The committee voted 5-0 to refer Memo C1 on historic preservation ordinance reform to staff for a workload analysis, with a return to the Rules Committee for final consideration on December 3rd or 10th, 2025.

The San Jose City Council met on November 18, 2025, to discuss a wide range of items including ceremonial proclamations, consent calendar approvals, the police department's military equipment annual report, the Climate Smart San Jose zero waste element, easements for Microsoft at the Regional Wastewater Facility, the selection of a developer for 159 acres at the wastewater facility, and preparations for major sporting events in 2026. Public comments were heard on several items, and all votes were unanimous. Consent Calendar - The consent calendar was approved, including a resolution authorizing new operators and grant agreements for the motel program (Item 2.17). The Mayor noted variability in per-bed costs across operators, ranging from under $10,000 to over $19,000, and asked about plans to standardize food, security, and property management services. Housing Director Eric Silleywan outlined completed and upcoming RFPs expected to generate savings, with security changes beginning in January, food in February, and property management by March. - Item 2.24 (appointments to the Federated Retirement Board and Civil Service Commission) was approved with noted supplemental election results: Brian Chee for the Federated Retirement Board and Gary DeQuisto for the Civil Service Commission. - Land use consent items 10.1A and 10.1B were approved together. Public Comments & Testimony - On consent calendar item 2.16, a speaker described her brother's medical condition and homelessness after an encampment abatement, stating he lost his trailer due to towing and that the city has no shelter or safe parking available. - On the military equipment item (4.1), a speaker opposed the purchase of robotic dogs and pepper bullets, arguing the funds should be used for social services, and recounted being injured by a less-lethal munition during a protest. - On the zero waste element (6.1), a speaker (Jordan Muldow, District 3) supported the plan, emphasized waste reduction and repair, and urged the city to reduce promotional swag. - On items 8.1 and 8.2 (Microsoft easements and developer selection), multiple speakers appeared: - Alina raised concerns about cumulative impacts, lack of community engagement, water and energy sustainability, and questioned Prologis' experience with hyperscale data centers. - Jack McGovern (South Bay Labor Council) supported the project and urged strong union construction jobs and local hiring. - Will Smith (IBEW Local 332) supported Prologis, citing their partnership with labor. - Danny Mangan (Sprinkler Fitters Local 483) supported the project and highlighted apprenticeship programs. - Doug Block (Silicon Valley MEPS) noted Prologis' history of project labor agreements and supported the memo on labor standards. - Huascar Castro (Working Partnerships) supported the Cohen memo and called for community benefits. - Oscar Masariegos (Carpenters Union) requested inclusion of the NorCal Carpenters in negotiations. - Kenneth Doe (NorCal Carpenters) urged Prologis to commit to labor standards. - Dashiell Leeds (Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter) opposed the project, citing contradiction with the 2013 plant master plan, habitat destruction, and risks of sea level rise. - Linda Hutchins-Knowles (Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley) opposed, calling it a risk to climate resilience and a burden on the Alviso community. Discussion Items - Item 3.1 – City Manager Report on Holiday Shopping: The Office of Economic Development is promoting local shopping through the Shop San Jose campaign, highlighting over 300 small businesses in 13 business districts, with Small Business Saturday on November 29. - Item 4.1 – Military Equipment Annual Report: Captain Randy Torres presented the report covering 189 events in 2024 with 246 deployments, and 671 drone flights (505 for police activity). Zero complaints or violations were reported. The department requested approval to purchase additional drones, bomb robots, and a chemical agent deployment system for FY2025-26. The chief noted the equipment is for safety of officers and the community. The report and purchase authorization were approved unanimously. - Item 6.1 – Climate Smart San Jose Zero Waste Element: Staff presented the element, which aims for 90% diversion from landfill by 2030. San Jose's current diversion rate is 62%. Strategies include waste prevention, repair, reuse, and expanded composting. Community feedback was incorporated. Councilmembers discussed textile waste, school partnerships, public trash receptacles, enforcement of bans on disposable plastics, and the compost hub pilot. The element was accepted and directed to be incorporated into the Climate Smart San Jose plan. - Item 8.1 – Master Easements and Site Works Agreement with Microsoft: The item authorizes easements on Regional Wastewater Facility land for Microsoft’s data center, generating $9.27 million. Councilmember Cohen noted the revenue benefit to the wastewater plant. The motion passed unanimously, with Vice Mayor Foley recused due to stock ownership. - Item 8.2 – Developer Selection for 159 Acres at the Regional Wastewater Facility: Staff recommended selecting Prologis as the preferred developer and Catalyst DEC as the backup. The site, with 250 megawatts of power from PG&E, is envisioned for data centers and advanced manufacturing. Prologis representative Ali Herandi highlighted the company's local roots and commitment to union labor and sustainability. Councilmembers discussed environmental concerns (water, energy, burrowing owl habitat), labor standards, and tax benefits (estimated $30 million annually at full build-out). Three memos were offered: a group memo on environmental safeguards, a memo from Councilmember Cohen on labor and community benefits, and a joint memo from Councilmember Cohen and others on workforce agreements. The motion passed unanimously to accept staff recommendations and the memos, with direction to negotiate an exclusive negotiating agreement. - Item 8.3 – 2026 Major Events Status Report (SJ26): Staff provided updates on branding, wayfinding, small business outreach, art installations, and public safety planning for Super Bowl, NCAA March Madness, and FIFA World Cup events. Councilmembers asked about equity across districts, safety for immigrant communities, human trafficking prevention, and funding for neighborhood activations. A joint memo from Councilmembers Kamei and Ortiz was approved, emphasizing safety, transparency, and local business support. The report was accepted. Key Outcomes - All votes were unanimous. - Consent calendar (including motel program contracts and appointments) approved. - Police military equipment annual report accepted and purchase authorization approved. - Zero waste element accepted and incorporated into Climate Smart San Jose. - Microsoft easement agreement approved. - Prologis selected as developer for the Regional Wastewater Facility land; city manager authorized to negotiate exclusive negotiating agreement. - SJ26 status report accepted and memo approved. - The meeting was adjourned in memory of Rudolph “Rudy” Tenes.

This was the second meeting of the 25-26 General Plan 4-Year Review, with the planning commission serving as the task force. The meeting focused on evaluating the urban village planning process and strategy, including staff recommendations for streamlining. Commissioners discussed consolidation, outreach, and capacity issues, and heard public testimony. No votes were taken; the next task force meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2026. Public Comments & Testimony - Dr. Robert Wood (Chair, Housing Committee, California Faculty Association, SJSU) argued that the current urban village approach has failed to produce enough housing, citing declining housing numbers since the plan took effect. He advocated for lower density requirements (e.g., 50 units/acre is too high) and cheaper wood construction to reduce costs, urging that the city avoid pushing excessively high density goals that are unaffordable. - Rigo Gallardo (Field Representative, NorCal Carpenters) urged the commission to include strong labor standards in future development, including healthcare, local hire, and apprenticeship requirements, to ensure responsible growth that benefits the community. - Ruth Callahan (Kooser Woods Neighborhood Association) expressed shock that the Kooser Urban Village is being reclassified as a commercial center village, despite a 7-story, 191-unit Section 8 housing project under construction in a single-family neighborhood. She asked for clarification on the reclassification. - Bob Levy (Santa Clara County Planning Commission, former San Jose planning commissioner) cautioned against over-streamlining, warning that merging urban villages and limiting public input can lose opportunities for parkland and community needs. He cited the Saratoga urban village plan as a negative example where two villages were merged and public engagement was inadequate. - Larry Ames emphasized the need for quantitative, enforceable design standards (not just guidelines) in urban village plans, and advocated for buffer/transition zones (mid-rise housing) between high-density urban villages and surrounding single-family neighborhoods, along with parks. - Harry Neal (VTA Citizens Advisory Committee, speaking personally) supported streamlining but recommended reducing the affordability threshold for projects under IP 5.12 (e.g., 50% for <80% AMI, 25% for <60% AMI), incentives for redeveloping parking lots, pre-approved building designs, and prioritizing transit stations. He also urged simplifying design guidelines. - Ken Hiddelman expressed concern that the streamlining recommendations focus only on reducing community input rather than improving it. He called for concrete ideas for better early outreach to avoid plans that do not reflect community desires. Discussion Items - Follow-Up from Last Meeting (Ruth) : Staff reported that a council study session on cost of development is scheduled for December 8, 2025 (9:30-12). The city is focusing on implementing SB 79, not joining a legal challenge. Staff does not propose to lower the IP 5.12 affordability threshold from 100% to 50%, as it has been successful. A virtual community meeting is set for December 15 at 6:30 PM. - Urban Village Planning Presentation (Jared Ferguson & Cora McNaughton) : Staff outlined the existing 62 urban villages (4 types) and the current planning status: 16 completed plans, 2-3 in progress, covering 43% of land area. Two policies (Signature Project and IP 5.12) allow residential development before a plan is adopted. The typical planning process takes 3.5 years, but recent expedited examples (North First: 2 years 9 months; Capitol Caltrain: 18 months) show improvements. Staff presented four preliminary recommendations: 1. Consolidate 16 unplanned transit corridor villages into 6 plans. 2. Convert two neighborhood villages to commercial center villages with full plans; for the remaining 17 neighborhood villages, make targeted general plan amendment and rezoning (single process, no individual plan). 3. More clearly define outreach for conventional planning (limit to 3 community events as baseline). 4. Continue simplifying plan text, focusing on actionable policies (rely on citywide design standards where possible). - Commissioner Discussion: - Vice Chair Bickford stressed the need for modern outreach methods (beyond in-person meetings) to engage busy residents and supported consolidation. - Commissioner Cantrell questioned minimum density requirements, consultant selection (minority-owned businesses), and the effectiveness of engagement. He urged ensuring outreach reaches marginalized communities and that the city pivots if engagement is low. He noted the Office of Racial Equity is overburdened. - Commissioner Bondal asked about the cost per plan (staff said they are still calculating) and why 42 villages remain unplanned (due to staff capacity and grant funding limitations). - Commissioner Young strongly supported the streamlining recommendations, emphasizing the need to build 62,200 housing units by 2031 and that affordability is tied to supply. He suggested more effective outreach through stakeholder groups, council offices, and less reliance on large meetings. - Commissioner Oliveira noted that SB 79 will supersede local zoning, making streamlining even more important. He supported in-person meetings for deeper conversation, urged realistic expectations from outreach, and favored staff-led facilitation over paid consultants. - Commissioner Barroso asked about lessons from the Alum Rock form-based zone. Martina Davis (Division Manager) explained that the form-based zone lacked vision, transportation, and park elements, leading to community dissatisfaction, though it was effective for guiding development. The city now seeks a balance between streamlined standards and community visioning. Key Outcomes - No motions or votes were taken; this was a discussion meeting for the task force. - Staff will complete analysis of SB 79 impacts on urban villages and present final recommendations at the next task force meeting in June 2026. - The next task force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 6:30 PM in the same room. - Staff will provide a virtual community meeting on December 15, 2025 to inform the public about the review process.

The Rules and Open Government Committee met on November 12, 2025, at 2:00 PM, with all members present (Candelas, Duan, Foley, Kemi, Cohen). The meeting focused on reviewing the agenda for the November 18 City Council meeting, including a deferral request for agenda item 8.4 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance amendments). The committee also addressed public comments, approved the consent calendar, and heard open forum remarks. Consent Calendar - The consent calendar for the November 18 meeting contained four items: Climate Smart Zero Waste Element Report, an easement agreement for the Santa Clara San Jose Wastewater Facility, a request for qualifications for a backup developer for the regional wastewater facility, a 2026 major events status report, and an inclusionary housing ordinance municode update (item 8.4). Two land use consent items were also noticed. The committee approved the consent calendar unanimously (5-0) after brief public comment. Public Comments & Testimony - Emily Ann Ramos (SV@home) requested deferral of item 8.4, stating the proposed changes would shift affordable housing from deeply low-income families to workforce housing for wealthier residents. She noted that nearly 70% of San Jose renter households fall below median incomes and that the current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) has produced over 260 affordable units recently. She called for more analysis and stakeholder outreach. - Kira Kazanzas (Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits, representing the REAL Coalition) also requested deferral to January 2026, emphasizing the need for a cost of development study and broader community engagement. She noted that engagement on the proposal was anemic, with only one community meeting on short notice. - Alison Cingalani (SV@home) opposed shifting IHO benefits to wealthier households but focused her request on deferral, arguing the council lacks comprehensive analysis of how policies interact. She noted the IHO produces nearly 300 affordable units annually, doubling the city's direct subsidized production, and stressed the need for a cost of development study before any changes. - Jorge Casas (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley) requested postponement, warning that proposed changes would reduce deeply affordable housing options, leading to increased evictions and homelessness. He stated that careful study and analysis have not occurred. - Blair Beekman (public comment) spoke on agenda item 8.4 as well as the military hardware inventory report, urging accountability, transparency, and peace-oriented practices in Bay Area UASI (Urban Area Security Initiative) programs. He also raised a procedural question about public records not being presented. Discussion Items - Agenda Review and Deferral of Item 8.4 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance): Councilmember Kamei moved to defer item 8.4 to a date soon after the cost of development study session scheduled for December 8, 2025. They argued that the study would provide critical data to balance housing goals and development realities. Councilmember Foley supported deferral, noting the positive impacts of recent development incentives and wanting to review the study first. Councilmember Duan (Vice Mayor) agreed, requesting the deferral not be pushed too far into January. Councilmember Kemi (Candelas?) also supported, directing staff to engage stakeholders after the study. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Key Outcomes - Agenda Approved with Deferral: The committee voted 5-0 to approve the November 18 agenda, including deferral of item 8.4 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance amendments) until after the cost of development study session, likely in January 2026. - Consent Calendar Approved: The consent calendar for the November 18 meeting was approved 5-0. - Meeting Adjourned: The meeting adjourned at 2:18 PM.

This planning director hearing was held via Zoom on the morning of November 5, 2025, presided over by hearing officer David Keon on behalf of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, Christopher Burton. The meeting addressed a consent calendar, a deferral, and a public hearing for a mixed-use development project. The hearing adjourned at 9:38 a.m. Deferral - Item 3C (File SP 24041 / ER 24274): A special use permit for a 28,235-square-foot addition to an existing aircraft hangar and office facility at 1210 Aviation Avenue. The item was deferred to the November 19, 2025 director's hearing at the request of the applicant. Consent Calendar - Item 3A (File PD 25009 / ER 25109): A planned development permit for a four-story, 65-unit multifamily residential building with ground-floor parking at 1325 Mick Avenue. No public comments were received, and the item remained on the consent calendar. The consent calendar, including Item 3A, was approved. (Item 3B was moved to public hearing; Item 3C was deferred.) Public Comments & Testimony - Julie Engelbert (neighbor): Expressed appreciation for the applicant’s cooperation but raised concerns about garage door noise, privacy, and the adequacy of planting materials on balconies to provide visual screening. She requested that details be noted for ongoing collaboration. - Liz (neighbor): Emphasized concerns about construction vibration impacting her 120-year-old house located 50 feet from the site, and asked for a detailed construction impact plan, including crane usage, before project approval. - Brian (resident of Dagley Park, three blocks away): Voiced concerns about noise from future rooftop decks, referencing disruptive fraternity parties in the area. He urged the management company to be responsible for noise, alcohol, garbage, and parking, and noted that code enforcement does not currently enforce noise ordinances. Discussion Items - Item 3B (File SP 24015 / T22024 / ER 22033): A special use permit and vesting tentative map for a six-story mixed-use building at 610–650 East Santa Clara Street. The project includes approximately 7,708 square feet of ground-floor retail, 6,982 square feet of office space, and 50 residential units (22 one-bedroom, 8 studios, 22 two-bedroom) with one level of underground parking (62 auto, 21 motorcycle, and 24 bike spaces). The site is in the East Santa Clara Street Urban Village. - Staff Report: Planning project manager Angela Wang presented the project, noting consistency with the urban village plan, density (122 units per acre), and commercial floor area ratio (0.282). Environmental project manager Newman reported on the mitigated negative declaration (MND), which was circulated April 25–May 15, 2025. Mitigation measures address nesting birds, undiscovered cultural resources, and construction vibration. Five public comments were received during the review period; staff prepared a formal response. - Applicant (Alfonso, representative): Described collaboration with staff to meet setback and design requirements, including height transition to the south. Added landscaping and planters to block direct views into a neighbor’s yard. Agreed to preserve the neighbor’s CMU wall. - Hearing Officer’s Ruling: Noted that as a housing project, the city’s discretion is limited to objective standards. The project is consistent with the urban village plan and city goals. The MND, mitigation monitoring program, special use permit, and vesting tentative map were approved. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Item 3A (1325 Mick Avenue) was approved. - Item 3B (610–650 East Santa Clara Street): Approved. The mitigated negative declaration under CEQA was adopted; the special use permit and vesting tentative map were granted. A construction vibration reduction and monitoring plan must be submitted prior to grading permits. - Item 3C (1210 Aviation Avenue): Deferred to the November 19, 2025 director’s hearing. - Meeting adjourned at 9:38 a.m.

The San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) held a meeting on November 6, 2025, primarily to consider amendments to Chapter 13.48 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) regarding definitions and a new override provision for the City Council. The meeting was a continuation from October 1, 2025. After public testimony and commission deliberation, the HLC voted 4-2 to recommend a modified version of the staff’s proposed amendments (Option 2) to the City Council. Consent Calendar - No items were presented on the consent calendar. Public Comments & Testimony - Phil Moresca (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board chair) urged adoption of the proposed language, stating the park needs activation and the changes are needed to move forward. - Dan Orloff (San Jose resident, music producer) supported the amendments, emphasizing the need for venues to discover future musicians. - Grace Pugh (downtown resident) supported the ordinance, arguing historic preservation must be balanced with community development. - Ed Somm (former HLC chair, architect) opposed the broad override provision, calling it a “Pandora’s box” that undermines preservation and creates procedural confusion. He urged the commission to approve a more constrained version (Option 2). - Dan Bato (Art Boutique owner) supported the amendments, citing the need for all-ages venues in San Jose. - Sally Schroeder (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board) supported the changes, stating that activation preserves history. - Susan Brant-Hawley (attorney for St. James Park litigants) argued the ordinance amendment cannot be adopted via an addendum and improperly reduces historic protections. - Tara Branham (Opera San Jose) supported the amendments, saying they would enhance public access to the arts. - Sean Atkins (St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation) opposed, accusing the city of breaking the law and warning of future litigation. - Laura Wolford (downtown resident, Love It board) supported the changes, calling the lawsuit trivial and expensive. - Michelle Drayband (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board) urged adoption, citing momentum and the desire to move forward. - Suzanne St. John-Crane (CEO, American Leadership Forum) supported the amendments, emphasizing public benefits and the Levitt Pavilion Foundation’s $6 million investment. - Ben Leach (Preservation Action Council of San Jose) urged caution, noting the change affects all historic resources and must have clear guidance. - Aaron Fiddler (downtown resident) supported the amendments, citing similar policies in other cities. - Adriana (East St. James Community Center board) opposed the Levitt Pavilion itself, citing noise, property value impacts, and neighborhood quality of life. - Doug King (San Jose resident) supported the ordinance changes, arguing the park’s history is about community gatherings. - Julie Wiltshire (Naglee Park resident) supported the changes, calling for revitalization. - Veronica Bernal (resident across from park) opposed the project due to noise and disruption. - Walter King (downtown resident) supported the change, saying it will make the park safer. - Maria (resident near park) opposed, citing decibel levels, trash, crime, and homeless issues. - Sally Zarnowitz (PAC SJ) supported Option 2, emphasizing guardrails and feasibility. - Mike Sadegrin (St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation) urged caution, stating the change is inconsistent with other cities and could endanger other historic assets. Discussion Items - Staff Presentation: Staff reviewed the proposed amendments: adding definitions for "detrimental historic integrity" and "substantial alteration" (including defining "impair"), and adding a new subsection (D) to §13.48.240 allowing City Council to make overriding findings when work is detrimental but provides specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits. Staff presented two options for the override findings: Option 1 (more detailed public and private project criteria) and Option 2 (more concise but similar parameters). Staff noted the schedule: Planning Commission Nov. 19, City Council Dec. 2 (first reading) and Dec. 16 (second reading). - Commissioner Discussion: - Commissioner Cohen expressed concern that even with options, the override remains too broad and subjective, potentially allowing the City Council to bypass historic protections. He argued that without clear objective standards, the ordinance could be used to justify any project. - Vice Chair Galandari appreciated the staff’s revisions and supported Option 2, with an additional provision from Option 1 requiring that private projects provide a clear measurable public benefit and show that preservation is infeasible. She also favored including the definition of “impair” in the substantial alteration definition. - Commissioner Arnold opposed any amendment, stating it undermines historic preservation and that the Levitt Pavilion is an example of why the change is problematic. - Commissioner Camuso also opposed the amendments entirely. - Commissioner Bainwalk asked about clarifying definitions and expressed doubt about the City Council adhering to the precedent-setting language. - Chair Royer noted the difficulty of defining objective parameters but acknowledged the staff’s effort. Key Outcomes - Vote: The commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments with the following specifics: - Adopt the findings as outlined in Option 2. - Incorporate the language from Option 1 for private projects: “the project provides a clear measurable benefit to the community and is necessary to achieve a specific public purpose that cannot be reasonably accomplished through preservation, relocation, or adaptive reuse that outweighs the detrimental effect.” - Adopt the first definition of “substantial alteration” that includes the definition of “impair” (i.e., to diminish, damage, degrade, or otherwise negatively affect one or more physical characteristics, features, materials, workmanship, setting, design, or other elements that contribute to the landmark or property in a historic district such that the ability of the resource to convey its historical significance is materially reduced). - Yes: Commissioners Arnold, Bainwalk, Vice Chair Galandari, and Chair Royer (4). - No: Commissioners Camuso and Cohen (2). - Next Steps: The recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission (Nov. 19) and then to the City Council (Dec. 2 and 16). - Agenda for Future Meetings: The commission agreed to add to a future agenda: (1) an update on the Willow Glen/Coyote Creek Trestle (historic bridge) from the city, (2) a discussion on demolition by neglect ordinance and code enforcement priorities for historic resources. The December meeting may include these items, but staff suggested reporting back via email on code enforcement processes. - Design Review Committee Chair: Commissioner Royer was appointed as chair of the Design Review Committee (unanimous). - Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the October 1, 2025 meeting were approved unanimously.

The Rules and Open Government Committee met on November 5, 2025, at 2:00 PM to review the agenda for the November 18 council meeting, approve the consent calendar, and hear public comment. The meeting adjourned at 2:08 PM. Consent Calendar - Approved the November 18 council meeting agenda, including a 9:30 AM closed session, 1:30 PM regular session, and evening session (recommended cancellation). Consent items covered pages 5–13 and included the military equipment annual report, the Climate Smart Zero Waste Element Report, a master agreement with Microsoft and Valley Water for the Regional Wastewater Facility, a request for qualifications for a developer for the San Jose–Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility, a major event status report, and an amendment to the inclusionary housing ordinance. Two land-use consent items were also listed. - Approved the committee's consent calendar (three items) unanimously, 5–0. Public Comments & Testimony - Blair Beekman (speaking twice) commented on several topics: - Expressed hope that the upcoming study session on the cost of residential development could lead to a focus on middle-income housing, offering more flexible choices and mixed-income neighborhoods where people from different income levels can live together. - Acknowledged the monthly activity and auditing reports as useful for tracking city government work. - Praised San Diego’s approach to similar issues and encouraged collaboration. - Raised concerns about the city’s use of Flock (ALPR technology), suggesting that San Jose should question whether Flock is necessary, as Oakland and San Diego are doing. Urged the city to consider developing its own ALPR system or working with companies that prioritize civil rights and public safety accountability. - Also expressed concerns about Bay UASC issues and the need for open public dialogue. Key Outcomes - The committee voted 5–0 to approve the November 18 council meeting agenda as presented. - The committee voted 5–0 to approve the consent calendar. - No other votes or directives were taken.

The San Jose City Council convened on November 4, 2025, at 9:45 AM for a meeting that included ceremonial recognitions, a city manager report, interviews and appointments to the Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices, and policy actions on nitrous oxide sales and tobacco retail licenses. The council also approved grant agreements for homeless outreach and engagement programs. Public comments addressed VTA cleanliness, animal shelter issues, and support for tobacco enforcement. The meeting was adjourned in memory of animal advocate Janessa Lurie. Consent Calendar - The council unanimously approved the consent calendar. A public commenter raised concerns about smoking on VTA buses and light rail, calling for stricter penalties and bans. Recognition & Ceremonial Items - Parents Helping Parents 50th Anniversary: The council recognized the nonprofit for 50 years of supporting families raising children and adults with disabilities. The organization now serves 7,000 families annually plus 250,000 online. Vice Mayor Foley presented the commendation; Chief Development Officer Mark Fischer accepted. - Daniel Martinez – Adopt My Block: Councilmember Dewan recognized Martinez for his dog rescue work. Martinez noted the ongoing pet population crisis and the need for affordable spay/neuter services. - Riverview Stormwater Garden Award: The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) awarded the City of San Jose the 2025 Outstanding Stormwater Capture and Use Implementation Project Award for the five-acre bioretention project that treats runoff from 340 acres before it reaches the Guadalupe River. The project includes walking trails, boardwalk, public art, and native landscaping. - Adjournment in Memory of Janessa Lurie: Councilmember Campos spoke about Janessa Lurie, an animal rights advocate who passed away on September 16, 2025. Her parents, Kevin and Gina, shared her story and announced the formation of "Janessa's Friends" nonprofit to support animal welfare. Report of the City Manager - City Manager Jennifer McGuire recognized the San Jose Police Department's Homicide and Crime Scene Units for achieving a 100% solve rate for three consecutive years (2022–2025), solving 122 murder cases. She highlighted the diverse composition of the units, with nearly half of the crime scene unit and four of twelve homicide detectives being women. Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices – Interviews and Appointments - Three applicants (Eddie, Sangeetha, and John) were interviewed for two vacancies. The council asked about impartiality, meeting attendance commitment, understanding of the Levine Act, and concerns about fair elections. After balloting, Eddie received 10 votes and Sangeetha received 9 votes, with one vote for John; both were appointed. Discussion Items: Nitrous Oxide Ban and Tobacco Retail License Moratorium (Items 7.1 & 7.2) - Staff presented two urgency ordinances. The first bans retail sale of nitrous oxide (whippets) in tobacco shops and similar retailers, with exceptions for medical, dental, and industrial uses, and provides enforcement tools including administrative citations and license revocation. The second imposes a 45-day moratorium on new tobacco retail licenses (extendable up to two years) to allow review of regulations and address overconcentration. Staff noted 101 complaints, with 30 businesses operating without a license and 35 without any business tax certificate. The 2025 Latino Health Assessment found East San Jose has 6.7 tobacco outlets per square mile, more than double the county average. - Councilmembers expressed strong support, emphasizing the need for enforcement and youth protection. Both items passed unanimously, including memos directing further exploration of enforcement mechanisms and education. Discussion Item: Targeted Outreach and Engagement Program (Item 8.2) - Housing Director Eric Sullivan and Deputy Director Cupid Alexander presented results from the $8.6 million targeted outreach program (TOPE). Since April 2024, teams engaged 2,225 individuals, with 866 transitioning to shelter, housing, or reunification. 1,368 chronically homeless individuals received case management, and over 28,000 outreach sessions were conducted. The program achieved 96% occupancy across 20 interim housing sites. The Homeward Bound program reunified 28 individuals with family. - Future plans include contracting $3 million (a two-thirds reduction) to reflect system optimization, focusing on maintaining high occupancy, improving data collection (including tracking service refusals), and integrating with the new Code of Conduct and Enhanced Engagement Team. Staff noted challenges with the HMIS data system. The council approved the grant agreements unanimously. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously. - Nitrous Oxide Ban (Item 7.1): Approved unanimously as an urgency ordinance. - Tobacco Retail License Moratorium (Item 7.2): Approved unanimously as an urgency ordinance. - Fairways at San Antonio (Item 8.1): Approved unanimously. - Outreach Grant Agreements (Item 8.2): Approved unanimously. - Board Appointments: Eddie and Sangeetha appointed to the Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices. - City Attorney Nora’s Retirement: Recognized for her service; the meeting acknowledged her last council meeting.

On November 3, 2025, the San Jose City Council held a brief public meeting. After roll call, the council heard a single public comment regarding the independent police auditor, then adjourned to closed session with no readout provided. Public Comments & Testimony - Ted Scarlet addressed the council, expressing concerns about the effectiveness of the independent police auditor based on his past experience. He stated that the auditor's office previously "felt like a way to fade things that had happened" and that he would now "go to a lawyer and file a lawsuit" rather than use the office. Scarlet noted he had been trying to speak with the council for over a year and urged them to "do more with the auditor." He also expressed support for police officers, stating it is "too dangerous" and "harder than ever" to be an officer today. Key Outcomes - The council adjourned to closed session. No readout from the closed session was provided to the public.