City of San Jose, CA City Council, 9 Feb 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: FEB 9, 2021 | City Council Evening Session

Description

City of San José, California
City Council Meeting of February 9, 2021, Evening Session

Pre-meeting citizen input on Agenda via eComment at https://sanjose.granicusideas.com/meetings.

This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.

Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=832164&GUID=46EB43F5-603F-4D5C-BB74-9C756E4502F3

A

A

B

C

I was gonna um had to step away for about 10 minutes, so I'm gonna go ahead and get the uh the meeting back started. So tony can. uh Can you take roll call? Please.

D

Menace present corrales here cohen here here davis here esparza here, arenas.

D

Arenas holy mayhem here jones present, ricardo.

C

Thank you. Okay, on to item 8.1 hazard pay for retail food workers, uh council member foley has recused herself from this item and she will return after this item is completed. I divested myself of the stock that could potentially cause a conflict, and so I do not need to recuse myself from this item.

C

Okay, so on to public comments, paul you're.

A

First, yes, uh paul soto from the horseshoe. um The entire process was tainted uh to be quite honest with you uh uh vice mayor, um just divesting yourself. Okay, now I don't have an interest, but yet I had to give that a little song and dance that you gave last week and then pulled back and it just the whole process is just tainted. I, as a citizen, I'm deprived of due process, I'm deprived of equal protection under the law.

A

You know, there's there's a lot of uh constitutional issues that were violated last week and we're talking about pay that absolutely is vital for the sustenance and viability of the citizens in our city that are literally putting themselves in a position to where they could possibly catch covid, take it home to their elders and to their families and to their children and die. Yet they are forced due to their poverty, to continue to go to work and do what it is that they have to do in order just to stay alive.

A

Okay and you're. Creating this this, this kind of dissociation from that from that which is a moral issue, it's a moral and ethical issue, and you think that you can come back to this council and argue it from a legal standpoint. Okay! Well, I got no. I ain't got no uh skin in the game, so I'm gonna pull out and then you'll just reinvest later. Depending on the vote, I mean it's insulting for you to come back here and act like you, you, you ain't, polluted this whole process.

A

You know, so I mean that that that's one piece, the other piece is just the the uh the uh the moral issue. These are people that historically have continued to be the backbone of our economy, the latino, the chicano, the mexicano.

A

We are the ones that without us you can't sit comfortably uh councilwoman davis. You can't sit comfortably in your pad and get food delivered to you. You know why, because we're the one that's cooking, it we're the one. That's stalking the shelf, we're the one! That's working in that warehouse, we're the one that's out there in the field, picking that fruit, we're the one. That's picking that we're the one that's cleaning, those motel, the covid hotel rooms, we're cleaning those too. So we are the ones that are sustaining this economy.

A

We are the backbone of the economy, we've been the backbone of the economy and will continue to be the backbone of the economy, because that's just how we do it. That's how the mexicano rolls that's, who we are? That's where we've been and that's who we'll always be. Thank you. Thank you. Paul.

C

E

um Good evening, um yeah, I'd like to add to what the previous speaker just said, and I spent this afternoon listening to the county report on how covet is hitting our latinx main members worse and one of the reasons for that is because they're out doing these essential worker jobs and although some of the small businesses have been hurt in their sales and they wouldn't be able to afford a pay, raise, I believe, they're exempt from the rule anyway. I don't know why it isn't.

E

The full proposed five dollars an hour when places like safeway and target are doing absolutely fabulous with everybody doing so much more cooking at home instead of restaurants, and then you know the chain- restaurants, not anyway, like the um fast food restaurants. I hear they're doing pretty well, because people are going doing fast, food still through the drive-thru.

E

um I'm just really disappointed to see the amount of the hazard pay cut when people are catching cobit and taking it home, and you know.

E

Listen, you know, and then they have to take off time for work if they get exposed or if they get sick and they're, not getting enough sick pay. I don't I agree if this mentor covers uh sick leave or not it should um so. We need to restore it to the full five dollars. Thank you very much.

C

Thank you, catherine allison.

F

Hi, um I am a grocery worker, my name is alison winsott and I live and work in district one. um I have been working for about six years at this grocery store and when I got into it I definitely never saw anything like the pandemic happening. I was never trained for anything.

F

um I was never prepared at all um to take on the responsibility that I've been taking on and the responsibilities that my co-workers have been taking on. um It is extremely dangerous working there. um I live at home with my 76 year old grandmother, so I'm always very worried that I'm bringing something home.

F

I find myself spending extra money on sanitizing and cleaning everything that I have um in addition to that, we a lot of people feel pressured to keep going to work even when they feel sick because they don't have enough money and they, the covid pay, is only two weeks and it's one time.

F

So if you don't feel well, you end up having to take off multiple weeks at a time, because there's a there's, a nurse hotline that tells you that you have to stay out um until you get a negative covet test and it can take, uh it can take.

F

I've had a friend it took 12 days for him to get his result back for a coveted test, so you can end up being stuck out of work that entire time you only get paid once after that, like you're worried, you might have to use your benefits if you have any and otherwise you're, just going to be missing a paycheck or you're pressured to go to work and then at more risk. um I also want to say that if you do raise it back up to five dollars, you know a lot of that.

F

Money would just go directly back into the san jose economy instead of the shareholders at the top of the albertson's food food chain who are taking money out of the city. Basically, thank you.

C

Allison elizabeth.

G

Hi, council, members and mayor my name is elizabeth camia, I'm on the executive committee of the naacp branch here in san jose um and I'm the chair of labor and economic development. I am coming to speak on behalf of this issue. um As the pandemic first hit, african americans were most likely to die from copen 19 than any other racial group, while latinos were more likely to contract the virus. Recent reports have shown that coven 19 is causing inequality to grow even more staggering pace, as the wealthiest people in the world amass huge profits.

G

People of color are working these frontline jobs to provide for their families, and they are doing so knowing that they could track covid at any moment and miss two weeks of work. They take this risk because they have no other option. Hazard pay could provide relief during these trying times and we must do the right thing and protect these essential workers who continually strive to get up every day and ensure that we get the services we need mayor, licardo and councilmember davis and may davis and mahan. um I want you to question your privilege.

G

You are white, you don't have to worry, you are white and privileged, and you don't have to worry about putting food on the table for your families in the same way as a person of color who's working, a minimum wage job, you don't have to fear, contracted covenant in the same way as an essential worker who's living paycheck to paycheck.

G

You can sit comfortably, knowing that if you could track covet, you can use sick leave and return back to work you're making over a hundred thousand dollars, yet are expecting front line workers to take minimum wage and accept that this is the way the world works. Your apathy for working people and communities of color is astounding and just shows how out of touch you are with the pressing issues. Hazard pay will not bankrupt companies or force them to close albertson's safeway can afford it.

G

It's just a choice of whether or not they want to reward their workers for taking risks on stockholders. This proposal exempts small grocery stores, so it's disingenuous to claim that you're looking out for small markets, please vote. Yes, thank you for your time.

C

Thank you, elizabeth blair,.

H

All right, thank you, an additional three dollars an hour for the next six months uh until september 2021 seems it can work very well in what can be a year of stagnant inflation in 2021.

H

how the economy can begin to develop after september. 2021 is an important part in what the mayor and city council are currently worried about, although decisions will be will need need to be made by the end of this may to extend hazard pay for a few more months.

H

I feel by july and august of this year a more clear direction into 2022 and beyond can begin to be better understood and if current bonus hazard pay can become a part of a more regular pay into the future, a reminder it now may be september 2021 as the time we can possibly start to return to more familiar routines of shared workspaces and regular community living.

H

uh Thank you for all the public speakers on this item tonight. I have just learned a lot already. I mean I tried to offer something very neat and and being somewhat agreement to the compromise plans of city council.

H

But you know: if we're going to be in a year of stagnant inflation, maybe we can consider five dollars an hour as as as a hazard pay until you know, uh uh july or august, when things can be more clear, if we're going to continue that or we can uh discontinue it by, you know, say september october, when hopefully we'll be heading back to our more regular routines, um thanks for your time, good luck in everyone's efforts uh to work on this issue, and uh I guess thank you. That's all for myself. Thank you.

C

Thank you, blair, uh john great.

D

uh Thank you. um My name is john gomez and I'm an essential uh grocery worker.

G

You know I just wanted to speak. You know I'm extremely disappointed in those who voted.

D

uh You know against this ordinance. um You know I wanted to address uh council member mayhem's memo. um You know it makes it clear that you have uh the interest of these large corporations rather than the interests of the community in which you serve. um You know these. These companies um making money hand over fists and- and all this memo does is- is support. You know these large grocery corporations that are, you know, raking in the profits off the sweat and the hard work of their workers.

D

um You know, I think you also need to realize that workers in the grocery industry, no matter who we work for face uh the same hazards and differentiating between public and private companies could could open the city to litigation um again.

D

You know, I can't express the importance of this. How important this is to grocery workers. um Council, member davis- I I know you know your concerns and your questions. Were you know if these companies are going to pass, you know the costs down to their workers by cutting hours or or raising grocery prices to the consumers. You know you. Would you really should be asking yourself is what you're going to do to protect the the the workers and the community from these companies if they decide that that's how they want to do it?

D

There's ample profits. Lucky's is a perfect example of why this can be done without raising prices, cutting hours or closing grocery stores. Again, I I ask that you, you know, change your stance on this ordinance and that you vote yes for grocery hazard pay for grocery workers. Thank you.

C

Thank you, john uh peter.

H

Hello, can you hear me.

D

G

Go ahead, thank you. uh Honorable city council, my name is peter ortiz and I'm a county trustee and an east san jose resident. The coronavirus pandemic has drastically changed what jobs are to be considered dangerous, as well as what workers who hold those jobs deserve to earn in a survey by just capital.

G

It was found that more than three quarters of americans surveyed supported providing hazard, pay to workers in essential jobs, and let us be clear, this policy would directly benefit the people who have overcame their fear every day and marched through the door of their place of employment, not knowing whether that day would be the day they would catch covid and potentially lose their life.

G

They deserve supplemental compensation for that sacrifice.

G

As of 2018, nearly half of all frontline essential work workers earn less than a living wage that can sustain a family for a lot of these people working out here, four or five days a week, eight hours a day, risking their lives, a three to five dollars extra an hour is a start, but it really is not the answer. However, it's a lot better than what they're getting now.

G

It's also important to mention that black and latino workers are over-represented among low-wage frontline, essential workers. Hazard pay is racial and worker justice. I urge the council to raise the pay to five dollars within the policy and vote. Yes, thank you.

C

Thank you peter.

F

Good evening my name is ashley hoffman from the california chamber of commerce. Here today on behalf of our members, as well as the more than 20 local chambers of commerce that have signed onto our letter respectfully opposing this proposal.

F

There are now at least 16 cities or counties, considering these mandated pay increases of between three to five dollars per hour for grocery workers, and that number is growing. While these workers are, of course, essential and we've all depended on them greatly during this pandemic, these proposed mandates stem from assumptions perpetuated by the brookings study about grocery stores, profits throughout the pandemic.

F

Grocery stores historically have operated on razor thin margins. The average profit margin is about 1.4 percent. During the early months of the pandemic, some saw those margins slightly increased to about 2.2 percent, but, according to a more recent study, profit margins have since fallen back to pre-coven numbers, something the other study does not mention. It was around that time that many stores did provide an increase in hourly pay bonuses, as well as increasing worker benefits. There's now an assumption that they can do this again.

F

Double the hourly rate increase, which is unfortunately not true given sales are backed down to pre-covered numbers. It would take an about additional four percent profit margin to cover this increase, which exceeds grocery stores present margins. It's also really important to view this issue. In light of all the costs, businesses are facing right now. Companies targeted by these ordinances have spent millions many more than a billion on increased ppe, sanitation, plastic barriers and notably paid leave in november cal, osha issued an emergency standard requiring increased protections, and this does actually include an uncapped paid leave.

F

Any worker that has been diagnosed with covent or potentially exposed is required to be excluded and required to have their full pay and benefits provided. Therefore, while sales have decreased, the pre-pandemic numbers costs on businesses unfortunately continue to increase. Thank you for your consideration and we respectfully request that the council not pass this ordinance.

C

Thank you, ashley.

C

D

Hello, can you hear me yes, excellent? Thank you. My name is dianna zamora marroquin. I am the senior director of political strategy and operations for the south bay labor council.

D

We represent more than a hundred thousand members and their families, many of whom are directly impacted by the decision you are going to make today for nearly a year the increased risk of becoming severely ill or dying from covet 19 has been looming and continues to be a constant threat for retail food workers who, day in and day out, put their lives on the line, they've interacted with thousands of people and then go home to their families. They have young children at home and elderly parents.

D

They interface with consumers, some of whom might not want to follow the rules.

F

And have no regard for their safety. These workers deserve better.

D

By going to work every day and keeping food on our tables, grocery workers keep those of us who have the privilege of working from home. Safe hazard. Pay for retail food workers is a benefit that should have been adopted at the start of the global pandemic. Opposing or delaying hazard pay is shameful and immoral.

D

Mayor, licardo and council members, mayhem and davis support essential workers, prioritize people over corporate special interests and vote. Yes on hazard pay, people's lives hang in the balance, and they cannot wait one more day for hazard pay. Thank you.

C

Thank you, matt.

G

Can you hear me? Yes, okay, um thank you mayor and city council. This is matt mason, I'm the union organizer for ifpte local 21, who represents over 800 city employees, and we are speaking on behalf of council members, uh jimena's memo and in solidarity with the hard-working, essential grocery store workers in san jose. This is a racial equity issue. African-Americans were more likely to die from coping 19 than any other racial group, while latinos were more likely to contract the virus.

G

Recent reports have shown, as an earlier caller said, that kobe 19 is causing inequality to grow an even more staggering pace, as the world's wealthiest people are mass huge profits. People of color are working these front-line jobs to provide for their families, and they are doing so knowing that they can contract covet at any point and force to miss two weeks of work. They take the risk because they have no other options.

G

During the spring and summer of 2020, it was popular to see hashtags and posts, thanking healthcare, grocery store and delivery workers for doing a job. We all needed as we sheltered in place. Although I appreciate the movement by councilmember mayhem with his recent memo, only uh council members uh jimena's memo on this ordinance will provide guaranteed relief of the grocery store workers. During these trying times, hazard pay will not bankrupt companies or force them to close, and there is an exemption to protect the small grocers having under 300 employees nationwide.

G

This is not about whether big companies like amazon and whole foods, albertsons, safeway or kroger, can afford it. It is a choice on whether they want to reward these workers for taking the risk of providing an essential need to help keep the rest of us safe or reward their stockholders, who have profited profited during the pandemic. We must do the right thing and protect and support these essential workers who continually strive and get up every day to ensure we get the services we need. Thank you very much.

C

Thank you, matt brenda.

D

Good evening, council, members and mayor um today I want to speak on behalf of our essential workers. um This isn't a game of uno where you can throw the reverse card and create your own plan to matt davis and the mayor. I respectfully ask you guys to support our essential workers, who have not only put their lives at risk.

I

But a lot of them had no option but to show up to work because they have to feed their families.

D

A lot of these people aren't privileged enough to choose between staying at home, like you guys, are all at home right now, instead of gathering together in a meeting right, you're at your comfort at your home and safe.

D

um These are our heroes that we call and we make signs for they deserve hazard, pay. They deserve that extra pay to make sure that they can feed their families as well.

D

The more we have, the greater we become as corporations like amazon and we've seen it over and over and other big companies like whole foods and several others. Today. I want to ask you guys to please pay them what they deserve.

D

They work for us and if it wasn't for them, you guys wouldn't have groceries at home. um A lot of markets and stores have profited with covet.

I

19, because I don't know if you guys noticed, but we eat more when we're at home when we're depressed.

D

We eat more, so a lot of stores have profited from this and they deserve to pay their employees hazard pay. So today I urge you guys to support.

I

Our essential workers, our heroes and support ximena's proposal, this isn't uno game, don't throw the reverse card and try to do it. um What you think is convenient. Thank you.

C

Thank you, brenda miriam.

C

Can you hear me yes, I'm clear, okay, great.

E

My name is miriam sax martin and I represent the 3 000 member feminist community. Together we will san jose in urging you to approve hazard pay for retail workers at the five dollar. An hour mark, it's staggering to me that in a community as wealthy as ours, we're dickering over whether we can provide this modest wage increase to our most vulnerable and valued workers as they face daily threats to their wellness and their lives in the middle of a pandemic, really we're one of the most wealthy communities in the country.

E

We're talking about whether we can allow three dollars an hour for people to take their lives in their hands every time they go to work. This is shocking.

E

The average income in silicon valley is about a hundred and ten thousand dollars a year. An annual salary on minimum wage is about thirty one thousand dollars a year and the difference between those two is about eighty thousand dollars a year, and I'm asking you if you're voting on this, if you're listening? What side of that divide are you on, and can you see your neighbor on the other side of the divide?

E

If you're, on the wealthier side, your life depends on their labor and if you're, on the less wealthy side, their life depends on your decisions tonight. This is such a small amount, don't be miserly, think about this astronomical gap in wealth and do the right thing. Please vote vote. Yes on this at the five dollar mark. Thank you for your consideration.

C

Thank you. Miriam.

C

I

Hi good afternoon or good evening, I'm maria noel fernandez, with working partnerships, usa and silicon valley rising once again. This vote is about not just giving these essential workers praise with posts and memes, but about making sure we're doing everything possible to support and protect these workers. Grocery workers.

D

Have been putting their lives on the line feeding us while oftentimes struggling to feed their.

I

Own families, the efforts to supposedly support smaller chains by councilmember mayhem is frankly unacceptable. We are in a pandemic, our people are dying, and this is not a time for compromise. Latinos, essential workers are bearing the brunt of this crisis, and why, who are we trying to protect corporations like cardenas.

D

And pueblo owned by multi-billion dollar.

I

New york and chicago-based.

D

Private equity firms or mitsuwa, which is owned by a multinational oil and gas conglomerate or negea and 99 ranch, which have over 100 million and 300 million in annual revenue.

I

Respectively, do these large corporations really need san jose's protection, our people, our community, our workers? Do I want to thank the council members who have supported hazard, pay, supported these workers and hope we can count on full support. It's time to listen to what these workers are telling you telling all of us what they need. You know I went to school who, um where their motto from one of their faith, leaders is not words but deeds, and that is our request to you today, not words, but.

D

C

Thank you, maria.

J

Jeffrey uh good evening, uh mayor and council, on behalf of working partnerships, usa, uh wanted to support the the ordinance before you.

D

And to raise a couple of issues that I think is important to consider.

J

Certainly, we know after last tuesday's council meeting that there are six votes.

D

In support of moving this ordinance, uh any effort to delay the implementation of this ordinance by not supporting the urgency ordinance is going to directly take money out of the pockets of workers, because we do not have a council meeting scheduled next week. That means that we wouldn't be able to have a second reading of this ordinance.

J

Until uh the 23rd and at that.

D

Point we would be waiting another 30 days before it goes into implementation. That's 44 days that workers otherwise would be being paid under a uh under this policy, but now because of the obstruction of of a handful of council members, those workers will no longer have 750 dollars. That would be votes taking money out of the pockets of our essential workers. Furthermore, I remain concerned by the proposal from council member mayhem, which not only leads to additional obstruction of having to delay uh to rewrite the ordinance but include significant misdirection.

D

The mayhem proposal, if you're a worker at chavez, market or lion, would mean that all of a sudden, you are getting two thousand and fifty dollars less than a worker because they work at target or they work at a trader joe's. That kind of discrimination does not serve a public policy purpose.

D

Companies like cardenas and mi pueblo are owned by private equity firms with net values over 200 billion dollars. Misawa market is owned by a conglomerate with over 4.5 billion dollars in revenue a year. uh Others have stated for some of the other uh examples that mr mayhem cited in his proposal.

D

These are giant companies, san jose should not be protecting them, and certainly we shouldn't have to rely on a system that the county doesn't have to track uh the vaccinations of individual grocery workers uh to try to implement this complicated system to protect a handful of large corporations in.

K

Thank you, tony vargo,.

D

Hi, can you hear me.

K

Yes, we can welcome.

D

Hi good evening, uh mayor and city council, my name is tana vargo, I'm a researcher with unite here: local 19, the hospitality workers union hospitality workers stand in solidarity with the retail food workers who deserve hazard, pay for having to risk their lives just to pay bills and keep a roof over their head. Many of our laid off members have taken jobs and food retail since the start of shelter in.

L

Place when overnight, the majority of workers in the hospitality.

D

Industry found themselves out of a job and unsure how they would put the next meal on the table. Large grocery stores were some of the first places to do mass hiring at the start of shelter in place, because it became immediately apparent that these workers were essential.

D

I remember in the early weeks of the pandemic before the death toll in our county really started to skyrocket. One of the first coveted related deaths I ever heard about was a grocery store worker who worked nearby house in san jose. These workers are long overdue for hazard pay, opposing or delaying hazard pay to the people who have put their lives on the line to feed our families is shameful. It is time to stop obstructing and support essential workers by voting yes on hazard pay tonight. Thank you for your time.

K

K

K

Cindy we're not able to hear you, uh it appears your device is muted right now you could mute your device.

K

Sydney we're still not able to hear.

K

You cindy uh okay, so if you want to try to put your hand up a bit later, if you're able to reconfigure the device um go ahead and give that a shot, and we can take you out of all right, I want to thank everyone for their. uh The contributions and ideas appreciate councilmember, mendez's, introduction this uh this proposal and as well as council member may hands uh proposed revisions which I'm inclined to support.

K

I appreciate the importance of this, certainly to many many families in our community. It's also critically important that we keep stores open and keep avoid layoffs in many stores that are serving many of our most fragile communities, and I think a segregation of based on public ownership makes sense.

K

uh That is a distinct distinction between those large corporate entities that tend to operate in more profitable markets and the stores that, as we know, serve many residents who would be critically without a grocery store, should they close as the two in long beach have and an awful lot of folks would be left without jobs, and so we want to do this in a way. That's careful, we haven't had the benefit of any staff analysis of any of this there's been no economic analysis whatsoever.

K

So it's important for us to understand how we can tread carefully in this, because we're trying to support essential workers at the same time, we're also trying not to do harm to those essential workers in stores that may be quite marginal, and what we know about the industry is that margins are typically less than two percent on average, a little more than one percent and during the so-called boom of the pandemic.

K

When many have cited the large profits that many stores made, uh that profit margin may have doubled to a bit more than two percent there's still a very narrow margin, and it's still one that leaves stores that are operating on less lucrative areas. Less profitable areas uh leaves them very much in a fragile position and what I know from my own conversations and what my staff's conversations with store owners, including store owners that were not subjected to council member jimenez's original proposal, because it already exempted stores uh beneath an employee threshold.

K

They told me look yeah, we've got stores they're doing well. We have stores in neighborhoods that are struggling right now and they're not doing well and we'd be inclined to close them. If we were subjected to this ordinance and those were by the way store owners again who were not subjected anyway, they were simply speaking candidly about the impact here. So that's why I support uh the uh the memorandum. That's been crafted by councilmember mayhem. I appreciate its efforts. Councilmember mayhem.

J

Thanks mayor and uh you covered a number of the points I I would also like to speak to you know I I guess I'll start by saying you know I came out of last week's conversation, pretty disappointed.

J

um You know it felt to me like we were saying we should not try to educate ourselves about the potential unintended consequences of this policy, and- and I you know my study of economics, my experience in business tells me that there are always trade-offs and I think, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to at least be open to the the full picture, different perspectives looking at data, so I was, you know, frankly, pretty disappointed that we did not want to ask our staff with expertise and economic development to try to give us a fuller picture and and listen.

J

I want to be clear. I um I get the urgency of the moment. I get that. I know people are suffering. I've had conversations with people who are suffering. I find the story is incredibly compelling and want to help people, and I know that's where the intention. That's that's certainly where this is coming from and and I I hope we can get to a place tonight where we can move it forward.

J

But again, I think we have a responsibility to look holistically at the common good and to at least be honest with ourselves that any policy we implement, no matter how well intentioned, no matter how well targeted will have tradeoffs it is. It is just a fundamental truth that there are always tradeoffs and we may we likely will ultimately decide in this case that the benefits outweigh the costs, but um I think we need to be. I just hope going forward that we're willing to have that conversation and again I understand we're trying to move quickly.

J

I understand people are suffering, but I just I felt the need to make to make that point um and believe me, you know I wish it was so simple, as this will just come out of the profits of big profitable corporations and shareholders. If it was that easy, I would I wouldn't. I would have submitted a memo. I I wouldn't be talking right now. I would just be calling for the vote, but I I just know that that is not it's not that simple.

J

So a couple points I'd like to make one is actually I'll start with just you know a couple. Thank you. I want to thank the mayor and his team and I'm going to brown act with and particularly kelly klein for investing considerable effort.

J

uh We didn't, you know, have city staff resources for this, but um you know kelly and others invested time in reaching out to local grocers, helping us understand their financial position, how they're likely to respond- and you know these are, as you know, the mayor and others have said in at least one of our public comments. These are not we're not talking about amazon and target here.

J

In fact, the memo I've put forward keeps them subject to the ordinance we're talking about the local and regional and ethnic chains, where many of the stores are operating in those low single digit margins. That's just that's a fact. I I wish they had 40 profit margins, I'm sure they do be a very different conversation if they did. This is a fragmented, competitive marketplace. These are low margin, businesses and the truth of the matter is they? This isn't just going to come out of some fat profit margin.

J

This is you know this is mandating immediately, a 20 increase in labor costs roughly, and so that means higher food prices at some of the various stores that 300 employee threshold. That's currently in the ordinance is pretty low that still includes chavez, cardenas lion, mi, pueblo, mitsu, negea and a handful of others. I won't list them all that are not public companies and that are going to be likely to increase food prices.

J

We also know- and this is something that I just learned in the last week as I dug into this deeper- that the state has some anti as an anti-price gouging rule. That means that, in addition to food prices going up once these stores hit their annual cap in terms of how much they can increase food prices if they need to get to break even they're, going to be looking for other ways to cut costs and that's where the concern about cutting shifts, cutting cutting jobs, converting full-time into part-time workers.

J

I mean these are the real world trade-offs that businesses with thin margins, make in real time in response to policy change? It's just it's a fact. It's it's, not speculation. It's not an emotional argument. It's just facing the reality that our our policy decisions have real-world trade-offs, and we should be honest that there are benefits to this policy. There also may be costs, and my intention here is to try to maximize the benefits while minimizing the broader costs.

J

So I also want to thank- and I will get to summarizing my recommendations in a moment. I also just want to say I'm grateful to council, council members, cohen and davis, also in our brown act group for being willing to just have an open and honest dialogue about what we're hearing, what the trade-offs are and really again how we maximize benefits, while mitigating potential costs the kind of spillover effects.

J

We don't want to see- and you know hopefully one of those is not the closure of a store one of one of the things we heard this week.

J

That's particularly concerning to me is that you know the store would in a chain with 10 20 stores, regionally, which yes may have 100 million dollars in revenues, but that's not profit margin when they look at their portfolio they're going to cut the underperforming stores if they need to increase if they need to make up for a big increase in cost and that underperforming store may be in san jose, but more likely it may be in an even more vulnerable community. It may be down in watsonville where I grew up.

J

Maybe that's their lowest performing store at this point. Wouldn't that be terrible that, while we target a pay increase here, we are responsible for a store closing in an even more vulnerable community. So I'm just saying I'm not saying that that's exactly what's going to happen. We don't know is the truth and we've done very little analysis, but the truth is that there are trade-offs.

J

So I appreciate my colleagues being willing to have an open conversation about that to acknowledge that there are trade-offs to at least think through how we may mitigate some of these. So let me get to the recommendations, because I've gone on for quite a while.

J

The memo I put forward, I believe, meaningfully, reduces some of the risks inherent in moving quickly and decisively to increase pay in a targeted industry that we all rely on while, while maximizing the benefits, so limiting the ordinance to publicly traded companies is the first recommendation, as councilmember cohen, suggested last week, and as I know, the county has also been considering to be clear: publicly traded companies in this sector sell the majority of the food in our community, have access to capital markets they're much more likely to have profit margins and resources they can draw on, and it's the most likely stores for which these costs will come out of profit, though we should be clear.

J

Not all costs will come out of profit that we will also see increases in food prices and potentially impacts on employment recommendation. Two is giving employers greater flexibility. This this to me feels like a no-brainer. uh The intention is to give a three dollar an hour.

J

Bonus to hard-working people who are working in a risky environment covers a very small subset of our essential workers, but certainly a worthy subset by giving employers the flexibility to structure this as a bonus, three dollars doesn't become four or five and spillover costs when you calculate in additional benefits that are that are calculated based on base salary, union dues, overtime, pay and all the other associated costs that become that are calculated based on base salary, so that flexibility is important to allowing employers to structure this as a bonus, which is really what it is we're talking about.

J

This is a hazard pay bonus and, finally, I I'm recommending that we tie the ordinance to the sooner of 120 days as the ordinance is currently written or the rollout of vaccines to our food retail workers, which we know will substantially reduce the hazards that are faced by these workers and a number of people ask the reason I did not recommend tying this to the end of our state of emergency.

J

Is that the feedback I have gotten from staff is that we we have an incentive to keep our state of emergency open as long as possible, because it makes us eligible for federal and state funds, and we know that many members of our community will be in crisis, we'll be in a state of emergency long after the public health crisis has largely passed.

J

So that's why I think it makes more sense to tie this to our food retail workers being vaccinated. So I'm hoping that my colleagues can support these changes in support of again balancing the benefits with the costs and thinking holistically about what is the greatest good for the entire community.

J

With these changes, I would personally be very proud to support the urgency ordinance and I think, we'll be in a position to help the majority of our food workers, while food retail workers, while still minimizing unintended consequences that we frankly know very little about with that I'd like to move my memo, which approves the urgency ordinance with the three changes that I have just outlined.

J

Thank you mayor.

F

K

Second, from councilman davis, uh councilman, mendes.

K

Here, can you hear me? Yes, we can.

M

I'm actually driving at the moment, if there's someone else in line to speak, if you can go before I, I could please sure.

K

Yeah we'll come back. Thank you. Raise your hand when you're ready.

B

Thank you uh mayor, and let me just first start by saying that last week I made um some suggestions that that were included in the motion to consider um some changes that were included in council member mayhem's memo, and I just want to talk about those for a minute. um I suggested that we consider limiting this ordinance at this time to publicly traded companies.

B

um You know the county had had put that in their draft ordinance, and um you know I felt that that that covered a big enough majority uh of stores and would help us get to the eight votes that would allow us to implement this um urgency ordinance so that employees would get relief sooner. In addition, I felt that the flexibility piece um while it might help us get to the eight votes.

B

I also felt like councilmember mayhem, that that was more of a question of how employers might feel um the the flexibility would be benefit they're, both their employees and and their ability to implement this in a in a way. You know that that's easier for them or or beneficial to their employees. I mean, for example, I know many companies in this area last year.

B

Periodically gave uh bonus pay to their employees, who would put themselves at risk or who, because of the circumstances, had faced hardship or just because it was difficult times, and I thought um I apologize. I I did intend to turn on my video when I spoke, and I just realized I didn't um anyway. So so I thought that that flexibility offering companies of flexibility as long as the it was an equivalent dollar amount to the three dollars an hour was a reasonable thing to offer the businesses um as part of this um but the.

B

But I thought that the motion might get us to the eight votes and it was a question of the trade-off um between immediate implementation of getting us to the urgency ordinance versus the 44-day delay. That would result from having six votes. um You know that you know would delay employees getting the relief that we were trying to achieve here and so the real question I have- and you know I understand I've- heard arguments on both sides about limiting this to publicly traded companies versus not, and I support this either way.

B

I mean I'll vote for this, whether that's in the final proposal or not, um but I I have erred on the side of wanting to get relief and extra money in the hands of our grocery workers as soon as possible. So I have been leaning towards supporting the um putting in the publicly traded piece in order to get my the support of my colleagues so that we could, you know, get this in their in their hands sooner, but I will I'm interested in hearing what the rest of my um colleagues say about it.

B

You know before coming to a final conclusion about where, where I'll vote on that, um I I do not support the third piece of council member mayhem's um um memo, and I you know as part of our brand discussion yesterday. I did explain this to him. I I don't think it's practical.

B

First of all, to tie this to uh vaccines, I think first of all, we know that that until we've reached a certain level of vaccines in the community that our communities are necessarily fully safe, we can't say that just because certain workers have been vaccinated or people have been vaccinated, that being out in the community is completely safe. We also don't necessarily know um you know what it's going to be hard.

B

I think for us to know when people when workers or all of these doors have been vaccinated or not, um and the other piece for me is that you know we're we're doing this in order to recognize the sacrifices that these workers have been making and not having been getting this extra pay for all these months. So even in my mind, if we get everybody vaccinated in these stores by the end of april, for example, um you know from january, through april, that's four months and 120 days being four months.

B

You know we're not going to get them. This started until march. First, so, even if we go past the vaccination date, we're still really paying for the four months from january to april. So to me, you know trying to limit this because of the vaccination doesn't really make sense. I mean we ought to.

B

We ought to, if we're doing this, to to reward the hardship that gross workers have gone through, let's, let's stick with the 120 days and not try to set any additional um potential ways of of taking money out of the pockets of these workers. um So I'm not in favor of that part of the memo.

B

I do have a question. One question um now for staff, and there was a there- was a comment from one member of the public about making these changes now would delay implementation because of having to rewrite the ordinance uh is. Is that true? Or do we if we make the motion now? Does that get incorporated in the ordinance and does the ordinance yet still get approved with the same timeline.

B

N

Think, that's probably a question for me. Thank you councilmember, and um we would if there are changes to the ordinance and they're clear enough that they can be included in the ordinance uh as drafted. We would do that and so it could become effective tomorrow. It wouldn't happen tonight.

B

So it would it wouldn't necessarily change the timing of the ordinance to make a change to the ordinance that, as proposed tonight,.

D

N

D

B

Ends up being an emergency.

N

Right, if it's an urgency right, okay.

B

um The other question I have is on um section seven: there's a there's, a clock section: seven in the ordinance says no uncovered employer shall, as a result of this ordinance, take any of the following actions: one reduce a covered employee's compensation or two live limit. A covered employee's earning capacity, so there's been concerns raised by other council members about whether ours would be cut for employees because of this ordinance. This seems to imply to me that the ordinance says that you can't take an action to limit an employer's employee's earning capacity.

B

Does that suggest that they wouldn't be allowed to cut hours? Because of this ordinance I mean: do we have the ability to make that requirement as part of this ordinance.

N

Council member: that's the um intention of that section: um they're based on other ordinances um in the state, the in the concern that perhaps there would be a employment implication that section is included. um The city will not be enforcing in an enforcement rule.

B

So it's a question of enforcement or not, but the intention of the ordinance is to say you know we're not you know businesses can't just retaliate or reduce hours in order to save the money that it will cost them. As a result of this, I just wanted to point that out that that is written into the ordinance um to say that you know we we can't have hours cut just because the businesses are trying to recoup the money that they spend um as a result of the ordinance um okay.

B

So um so my last point is you know last week at the um at our study session on friday, um we heard from pancho guevara in his comments, and I think councilmember foley who's not here right now, because she recused herself, but she she she highlighted that he spoke about needing courage during times like this and and to me, this is one of those moments of a question of whether we have that courage.

B

Are we going to stand up and do what we think is right in this in a case where it might be difficult in the case where there's people pushing back against us in a case where um we're being told there might be, there might be consequences to your action, but when we know underneath that what we're doing is for the is for the good of the people who we're serving for the good of the residents for the people who are really taking.

B

You know to bearing the brunt of the difficulties that we're facing in our community right now and to me this is one of those moments of courage and we need to stand up and say that times are tough and we have to help people get through these times, and I think this you know, councilmember jimenez did a really good job of crafting this ordinance, and you know better than some other cities have done putting the 120 day time limit in there. So we can see what the effects of this ordinance will be.

B

Gives us a chance to look at this and say what are these effects it's hard for me to believe that any stores are going to say you know, because of 120 days of having to spend more to help our employees we're going to shut down a store and go through the effort of restructuring our business because of 120 days of spending of having higher expenses we're not we're gonna, while other businesses in our city and small businesses particularly have struggled and taken out loans and and fought to keep their their businesses going.

B

It's hard for me to believe that for 120 days, these businesses are going to go under or they're going to not fight to keep these stores open. Now, having said that, we know some stores closed periodically because of difficult conditions, and I'm going to give an example.

B

There's a there's, a safeway in my district that I think is on the edge of being profitable, is on the edge of being a store that people in my district, like shopping people in my district, talk all the time about finding any other store other than this safe way to shop. That it's probably one that safeway would eventually close and there's a new safeway being built one and a half miles down the street. Next to the very station.

B

It's going to be a nice new fancy safeway, I suspect, in the spring, when we cut the rivet on that safeway. That safeway may consider closing the safeway at capital and variesa and they're going to probably tell some people that, because we have this ordinance in place, that increase the salary of employees for these months, that they couldn't keep that store open.

B

But I will tell you that the reason they're going to close that store is because of long-term issues with the size of that store, the locate, the the problems that they've had at that shopping center and the fact they couldn't build that store into the modern store that people expect from the safeway these days.

B

But stores use the excuse of what's going on in these kinds of situations, to try to convince the public that they've been driven out of business by decisions made by the city council. So we have to be careful when we allow businesses to tell us that they're being driven under by decisions like this and we'll have to so so. These are situations that demand courage from us to stand up and say we want to do what's right for our people, even if there might be businesses telling us that there's going to be consequences.

B

I think this is a time to help frontline workers who have been helping us through this pandemic by working at these grocery stores and do the right thing now.

B

The question for our council will be whether the rest of our fellow council members are willing to get us to emergency ordinance so that our employees are helped as soon as possible or if we have to make these suggested changes in order to get there or if it's okay, to wait 44 days to help workers a little bit later, and I want to hear the rest of my council members from that. Thank you.

K

Thank you, councilmember perales,.

O

Yeah sorry uh did we want to check in with councilman recommended sure.

K

Yeah councilmember amendments are you at a place where you're able to speak now.

M

Yeah yeah, can you hear me yeah wonderful? um Well, you know, as I'm listening to the conversation and hearing some of the comments, just a lot comes to my mind. um One of the well, the first things I would say is is just simply thank you to the public that showed up and expressed concern and support for what we're doing.

M

um I think one of the things that I was reminded of- and I wasn't necessarily going to mention it because, but I know it's been thrown around and I think uh council member cohen touched on it is- is this uh stores that are potentially on the verge of closing anyway, because they're underperforming uh and then companies using uh the rationale of the passage of this ordinance uh to suggest to the residents that that's the reason it happened and, and the reason I mention that is my understanding.

M

That's exactly what happened in southern california and I think time and again that's been brought up as sort of this doomsday scenario. That is inevitable.

M

That will happen um if we pass this, and so I think it's important just to point that out that those stores that close in southern california, the information I've seen suggest that they were due to close already. They were on the chopping block, and then this happened, and obviously conveniently some of the uh the grocers then suggest that the reason they close were for the reason you know of implementation, of an ordinance such as this, and so I think it was important to point that out.

M

um The other thing that comes to mind and you know, to touch on uh councilmember mahan's uh suggestion that we're going in this completely blind. You know these are. These are not unique times.

M

I think all of us can attest to that. These are not unique times. People are in crisis, people are hurting, but there's some corporations doing just fine, and so I I am always interested in getting information. I've been poking around asking questions met with some of the grocers talk with local, uh with local grocers. Here in my district and such and I had my team reach out to folks from the linardis from zenatos, and I wish we had the time to study the heck out of this.

M

I really wish we did, but, but I just think these times, don't lend themselves to that, and the other thing that comes to mind is that I suspect I mean my view is this: is that we can have all the studies in the world paint different divergent pictures of what may happen if we approve this?

M

That's what I believe and know to be true that we that can actually happen right, assuming we had all the time in the world, but in the end, we're gonna, we're driven by our values by our experiences by what's important to us, and anyone can choose any particular set of data to go this direction or that direction, but that that's what drives some of these decisions and that's what drives my interest in moving this forward, and you know- and just as a reminder uh you know I was texting with the councilmember jones right now and we didn't start off at three dollars an hour.

M

It started off at five. We didn't start off at saying 120 day review. We started at attaching it to the county order which may go in indefinitely, and so from from the initial creation of this memo, I mean it was it's changed. It's morphed concessions have been made, recognition that there, of course, there's going to be an impact to the to the grocers.

M

Of course there is, I I'm not blind to that, but to suggest that uh stores are going to close that the sky is going to fall, that people's hours are going to get reduced. I mean those are scare tactics in my mind right. What brochure in their right mind would say. Thank you for doing this. We appreciate it we're going to take this song and do the right thing now.

M

There are some groceries that have done that and they're doing quite well, but others you know, aren't interested in doing that, um and so I I think it was just important to point that out um the other. The other thing for me is that uh and now sort of going into the the the memo that was put out by councilmember mahan.

M

um You know there's a number of concerns that I have with it um one of the guiding principles, at least as it relates to the drafting of some of this of the direction in the memo, and I'd like to think that council, member jones and even councilmember foley who's, not on the call would appreciate, is, is just trying to trying to go about drafting a very clean, simplistic uh memo, because my understanding and what I believe is the most effective ordinances- are the clearest and easiest to understand, and so that that takes me into some of the challenges I have with uh some of the proposals um for, but but before I get into the the cleanliness of some of these requests is the first thing that comes to mind.

M

Is it relates to number one so apply the mandate only to a publicly traded company, essentially leaving out some of these uh private companies say as ranch 99, who has about 52 stores, and, I think, are doing quite well. um The the the concern I have with that is the exposure to litigation.

M

As we know, the grocers going around you know having these boilerplate lawsuits suing everyone under the sun, and I worry that if we include anything like that in which people aren't being treated equally, that it's going to very clearly open us up for a lawsuit and we may go down in flames quite frankly, and so in an effort to try to preserve what we've put forward. I I I don't want to bring that forward. I think some of these companies, even if they are private, are doing quite well.

M

I mean I was, I was looking online and I know chavez, for example, 52 stores, caravanas and mi pueblo, or actually pueblo's 49 stores, a thousand employees, 500 million in revenue. I mean these are these: they sound local. They sound like it's just the store down the block, but these are not the these are. These are massive stores that are that are doing well, especially during these trying times, and so so so that's that's my concerns with number one, uh just the exposure, litigation and number two.

M

uh You know I during the course of the conversation we had last week, sort of tied to the cleanliness, a very straightforward of a clean um um resolution to be pope forward. I I think it's very important that uh that we maintain clarity and that's why I think it's just. It should be just an across the board three dollars uh uh extra an hour on base pay. um Additionally, I mean the 120 days.

M

I mean we had a conversation uh in closed session today uh you know and- and I'm gonna say something that maybe isn't uh I suspect I can say outside of closed session. It's just the everything related to the vaccine has been a disaster. It seems to me- um and I see nora sort of grimacing thinking.

M

What is he gonna say, but but but the vaccine roll out and and the stages coming you know, mandates coming from the feds from the state to the county to us has been complicated, and so I'm not interested in further complicating it by tying uh the this uh resolution.

M

To that I think that's one of the reasons we we would put forward the 120 days and I'll give council member vice mayor jones credit, for that is you know, bringing that forward, so we can revisit the the real life impacts after 120 days and and not base our decisions and information we have based on anecdotes or stances political stances from one group or another.

M

We clearly evaluate the the the results of what's happening on the ground after 120 days, and so that's why I thought that was important um and so and so with that being said, I can't support the memorandum. I I think uh you know.

M

I certainly want this to be implemented uh as soon as possible, and I would have desired that uh that we as a council could have mustered the courage to put forward an urgency ordinance, but I suspect uh that if we don't accept these uh recommendations, no the urgency ordinance is not gonna have enough votes, and- and so what I'll do is I'll submit a substitute motion um moving forward the original memorandum and the the regular resolution, not the urgency, ordinance um or the regular ordinance.

M

The only thing I would change in the in the regular ordinance is the uh the the um the numbers around square footage of the stores. I think it was 15, so I would say strike that again for simplicity stakes, so that way, folks that are having to implement this and understand who it applies to is very clear and that's one of the reasons we thought that the 300 employees was was a very clean way to do this very clear way to do this.

M

So that way the interpretation wouldn't be wouldn't be convoluted, and so that would be the substitute motion.

K

Okay substitute from council member jimenez there's. Second, I heard a second who is that.

L

That was me uh as council members.

K

Councilman raines got it. Thank you. Councilmember pros.

O

Yeah thank you mayor um and thank you councilmember jimenez again. I thank you as you have done, some of the hard work on heavy lifting um and I will be able to support this motion. I think, unfortunately, um you know sort of watered down yet again, at least in the timing um of what we have an opportunity to do today with an emergency ordinance, but I understand we're not going to count to eight in this regard, so I I can support that motion.

O

um I just want to make a few statements so uh number one. uh Let's talk a little bit about long beach since that's made the news and obviously it's made a memo today and I think it's a talking point for individuals.

O

um We know kroger announced that they would be closing two stores and they specifically and in the news indicated it was due to the four dollar hazard pay that long beach passed.

O

um I happen to have a colleague that works on the long beach council through the league of cities, uh so I reached out to him personally to try to get some uh some further details that we may not see in a in a quick news.

O

Snippet- and he informed me that uh at least one of the businesses, specifically the food for less, uh had publicly been noticing that they were on the brink of closure for the last few years, and that is because, within just the last five years, they've had five new big box grocery stores open up nearby, um like councilmember cohen, stated um he has a similar development where we'll be cutting a a ribbon on an opening of a safeway uh on berryessa and I'll say that I regularly almost every two weeks go shopping at the safeway on very essen capital and every time I drive down there, I drive past the new safeway, that's still being completed, and the one on capital is three miles from my house, and the one uh by the the flea market is one mile.

O

uh That's an easy decision for me. uh I will be going to that new safeway. It's also going to be an easy decision for every single one of my north side. Japantown, roosevelt neighbors.

O

It will be simply a matter of of a distance, regardless of the fact that it's going to be a you know, brand new and, as counts, more cohen, stated uh maybe more of a draw in general.

O

And so what we may see is a flip where, instead of uh me, driving and my neighbor's driving three miles to the safeway out on capitol, they decide to close the one on capitol and then they, the community, the neighbors out. There have to drive three miles uh in my direction and- and I would uh you know, be ashamed for safeway if they did the same thing, that kroger did and state that it was simply due to a hazard, pay increase.

O

In regards to uh some of the the the businesses uh that were listed in council member um mayhem's memo, specifically uh the me pueblo, I don't know how, when the last time many of you have stopped by me pueblo, I used to go all the time to the one downtown, but they haven't existed in san jose for a couple years uh ever since kohlberg, kravis and roberts purchased them and cardenas and merged the two of them under the cardenas name and kkr is an investment company and they happen to be worth 545 billion dollars and have purchased several different businesses, not just grocery stores throughout the entire country.

O

In regards to the the, I think that the concern that there's going to be an increase or a cost to the the workers themselves or even consumers- I guess in general, I looked at the the cga study, uh this california groceries association study that um was conducted after la uh proposed, a five dollar increase.

O

And then, ultimately, this study was utilized in long beach for their four dollar increase and they came out opposed to the the hazard, pay increase and, and one of the reasons why they s their study, showed there could be a possible increase to consumers as much as four hundred dollars a year for your average family of four. uh So the groceries of of a family of four uh potentially as much as four hundred dollars a year and mind you that was analyzed at a uh an estimated five dollars per hour increase.

O

You do the math for that and four hundred dollars per year, increase in groceries comes out to seven dollars, just under seven dollars and seventy cents per week, or if you shop for groceries every other week, like I do fifteen dollars and forty cents more every two weeks and that's to say that this could be the most as they were stating in their in their kind of the worst case scenario.

O

A five dollar increase, as it was studied for a full-time grocery worker at 40 hours per week, would be 200 more per week or 400 every two weeks granted pre-tax but you're talking about the ability of covering what miniscule increase there may be potentially in groceries even from the cga study themselves in a matter of two weeks, if not maximum three weeks covering the difference there. So even the cga study itself doesn't point to some sort of astronomical, um I think impact to consumers or even the the employees themselves.

O

I personally think we have enough analysis granted, certainly done quickly. No doubt- and I would agree with some of the comments we've heard- and I made this comment uh last week, where I stated that I too believe we should have. We should have been evaluating this much sooner.

O

uh So, if anything, shame on us for for not doing that, but that shouldn't stop us now for acting when we know that we have, I think, quite frankly, uh still in the middle of a pandemic, we have these essential workers that here, unfortunately in the city of san jose, we have a number of, as we already know, grocery stores that have on their own committed to this hazard pay without being asked to do it, but we have a number of them that have not and of all the businesses that have suffered this past year.

O

Grocery stores are not at the top of that list, they're, not even in the middle. Numerous studies have showed that profits soared somewhere upwards of 40 percent, just in the first half of last year, as people flocked to grocery stores and uh kroger. Specifically uh over the first two quarters last year saw a 90 increase nationwide.

O

uh The the data out there, as far as I'm concerned supports this as an urgency uh ordinance, uh but I recognize that we may not get there as a council um and because of that, I will uh support the the motion that we have on the table. Thanks.

K

Thank you all right, uh council, member vice mayor jones. Thank you.

C

Mayor, um I think that um a lot of my colleagues have brought up some excellent points in this discussion. um I'm not gonna go into like econ explaining, but I'm gonna do a little bit. um Based on my experience, my education, I have a pretty good grounding and understand how business works, how the economy works, and none of us can make a statement. That's that says.

C

If we make a decision, it's not going to have an impact on business or make a statement that will have an impact on business when we make a decision and we vote on something it ripples through the the business community and the economy, and literally there are millions of individual decisions that are made and the culmination of all those millions of individual decisions, equal and effect, and that effect might happen in a couple weeks. It might happen in a couple of months.

C

It might happen over years, and so when we have this debate and discussion and dialogue about the impact of our decisions, I just want my council colleagues to just be aware that when one of your colleagues is admittedly opposed to a particular proposal or or a recommendation or a memo, it doesn't mean they're opposed to workers or the safe and well-being of our community.

C

What it means is that they're, looking at both the short-term and the long-term, I don't think anyone on the council would not want to see these frontline workers making additional money.

C

I I would bet, there's no one on the council who feels that way, but I will tell you that there are members of the council who are concerned about the long-term impacts of some of these decisions.

C

It's great to have someone make a little extra money in the short term, but if that impacts their long-term employment, that's a problem.

C

So those are the issues and concerns that that they're being brought up- and I I respect the councilmember man's mayhem's uh memo bringing up some of those issues and some of those concerns. um I also want to thank council member jimenez for um being willing to be flexible in terms of his proposal and trying to come up with the common middle ground. So I I appreciate that I have some concerns which I have expressed before.

C

I believe that we should have gone through a process of really understanding the economic impacts of our decision, but this is not a normal circumstance, and I understand this is a.

C

I don't want to use the word unprecedented, but unprecedented, so I'm going to um support the motion, but I I want to press upon my colleagues that over this 120 days that we can be serious about looking at understanding and evaluating the ramifications of our decision, because- and this is not just this- this this issue but there's multiple issues that we've had debates on and I just want to create a nexus in terms of our decisions and the impacts and outcomes, and if we can, if nothing other than that comes out of this discussion, then I'll be satisfied.

C

So that's all I have to say I will support the motion on the floor.

K

Thank you councilmember, um because I remember amanda's. Why don't I come back to you after I called through everybody and then I'll come come to you, okay, councilmember davis,.

F

Thank you mayor. I appreciate the uh comments from vice mart jones and council member mayhem about our need to consider kind of the totality of the outcomes that could result from our actions. That is exactly how I think, as well um and and being worried about um not just what happens in the short term, but also how, as vice mayor jones, put it, how our decision ripples out and what what happens as a result of that is really um is really my concern.

F

I I do think that, um even just in the last week we've learned a lot. I know I have learned about the state law limiting price increases over the last week to the point about um not not having full analysis or not having frankly, to, to my mind enough analysis to know what those ripples are going to be or to or to estimate in a confidently um what those ripples are going to be and what how it will all shake out. um But council member mayhem's memo does limit the risk of of price increases.

F

I think, and while also limiting any any possible store closures um due to this policy by by eliminating the the maybe more um marginal participants market participants is the way that I would say it, but the stores that that participate in um in our more harder to serve neighborhoods- and I just want to point out so so kind of as a as a result of that I won't be supporting the motion on the floor. If we get to the underlying motion I'll be happy to support it.

F

um One thing I do want to point out the number of stores that uh that a chain has and the amount of revenue it they sign. They can sound like big numbers, but that doesn't speak to the the amount of profits or the profitability of those of those stores and each individual store.

F

um If, if they're an underperforming store and the situation, the market situation changes for that business, then they will reevaluate all of their stores, based on the new market conditions and as council member mayhem mayhem talked about. That might mean that a store closes not in san jose but somewhere else.

F

Where that grocery store may be the last remaining grocery store, and I come from a state- that's very small um grew up in north dakota, and I remember when the the one grocery store closed in my mom's hometown um and everybody had to drive 45 miles to get to the nearest grocery store after that, which they still do to this day. uh There's never been another grocery store there.

F

So I I just uh that that really when that was something that that came came up as as a possibility in in the mayor's staff talking to different grocer grocers, I that that really concerns me so yes, definitely very concerned about what what workers are going through and also what customers might have to go through to get their groceries. um So I think that council, member mayhem hit on.

F

Hit on a compromise that that gets at the the issue without well, while minimizing kind of the risks of of negative consequences from negative ripples from our actions. So I I will be happy to support the underlying motion. If we get there.

K

Okay uh councilmember around us.

L

So sorry, thank you. Thank you. So much mayor um hold on. I apologize my um I have an additional device uh because I was toggling between devices for connectivity. We can.

K

L

Okay, great, thank you so much uh so I'm gonna support the motion on the floor from council member jimenez. um I think you all have heard the reasons um from last week.

L

I think we we need to also remember the conversation that we had earlier about homeless um prevention dollars and the reason why we need so much support uh much more than the 60 million that are collectively that we're getting from the state and from the treasury for our residents here and- uh and none of us here on council have um been at loss uh for our paycheck this year.

L

uh We've all had very stable um uh income coming in, and so I don't know that we can relate to uh some of those folks who are struggling out there, except um via some of our residents, uh who share their stories with us and who open their hearts and and um are vulnerable um with us um and by sharing how what it is that they have to do to make ends meet.

L

So primarily that's the reason why I'm supporting this, I think our grocery workers are um it's. It's absolutely worth uh uh providing them with some additional um pay for that risk. That they're taking for all of us um I'd like to see this in more than just um uh store workers, but I, but you know, that's another conversation.

L

I do think that that expanding the the exception for for stores owned by uh basically hedge funds will uh not only um is a bad idea. It'll get us sued, so you know it's it's. The question really is like: why shouldn't govern the nuts not pay their workers? If safeway has to um and I'll remind everyone that um la and oakland passed this unanimously, not at 350, but at five dollars.

K

Thank you, councilmember jimenez,.

M

You know mayor, I don't often ask to speak uh twice, but I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate uh council member or vice mayor, jones's comments. uh I really do um you know I I think in this whole conversation about what may happen if this passes. I guess what it brought to mind is just that you know it's conjecture, right, we're guessing as to what may happen right and the folks that are telling us what may happen are the folks that are maybe impacted by this.

M

So it's not irrational to think that they would paint a bleak picture, and so we don't really know what's going to happen, but but I you know that gets me to think about what I know to be true, and I and I can say with absolute certainty that three dollars more an hour for these folks very narrowly tailored policy for 120 days uh is going to make an impact on their lives. These aren't people that are paid a lot of money right.

M

I think the average grocery worker makes about eighteen dollars an hour right, that's close to thirty five, forty thousand dollars a year. These are not big spenders. These are not uh people that uh are going to be stashing money. You know uh in their offshore accounts.

M

These are people. These are consumers, quite frankly, right and it brings to mind. You know a situation that I had some time back with my son, who was working at panera at the time. Well, he would get paid and half his check would go back into panera, and it's straight, it's weird.

M

How that happens right and so, and so there's certainly I share that because I believe- and you know- certainly I don't have a degree in economics and- and I'm sure vice mayor jones can school me on this, but but I think it's not irrational to think that some of these folks that are getting these extra three dollars, they're going to become stronger consumers in the very stores in which they work, and so the money isn't necessarily leaving the marketplace.

M

It's staying within that sphere of where, where where some of these grocers are deriving, some of that that profit, um and so I just wanted to say that, because I think it's important to acknowledge that as well right that there may be some good things that come out of it, uh not just bad things, and so uh the other. The other thing I wanted to just say is that um you know we.

M

You know it sort of touched on what I said at the beginning is just you know if we're presented with all these studies, this data, these numbers, these percentages, these profit margins, whatever it may be. um I I don't honestly believe that that they're they're, you know that the data is always objective right. I think it's imbued by our experience.

M

The way we interpret it, uh what we've seen play out, what our values are, what we care about or upbringing, and so I think it is possible that we look at the same data assuming we were studying this for six months on end. We would still come to the different conclusions, and so I I don't. um I don't want folks to feel that are on the other side of this issue that I'm sort of you know.

M

You know poking at you and suggesting that your values aren't in the right place and if I've expressed that I apologize but uh but it's just I I feel strongly that this is the right thing to do in my gut and I'm hoping that uh and actually that is the reason it was narrowly tailored and I'm hoping that in 120 days the sky didn't fall, stores didn't close.

M

The economy's looking up. These folks have gotten three dollars more an hour, and these companies continue to do well, um and if that is not what has happened over the course of 120 days, I would be the first to say I was wrong bad idea. Don't do it again ever right, though you know so so I think in 120 days we will be able to derive some some value about the decisions that we've made right, even though I think many of the decisions that we make are imperfect.

M

There are no perfect decisions, um and so I just thought it was important to say that I value all the different perspectives, all the different comments. I think we come from come at this and from just different directions: different opinions, different experiences, uh but those are mine, and I think this is the right thing to do and so appreciate the support.

K

Thank you, uh councilmember cohen,.

B

Yeah, just a quick question for norah and I don't know whether we'll have a good answer on this or not. But there's been a couple of inferences some from the public and some here on um from the council about the potential for legal exposure over differentiating between public and private, and I don't know whether you've had any chance to think about that, because I think all of the lawsuits that have happened in other jurisdictions have been just over the whole question of imposing a salary increase, and none of those have have actually specified publicly right.

B

They've all been for all entities, so there isn't any case out there. Yet that has to do with public versus fighting. I'm wondering what you think about that, whether there's any question of legal exposure for the public versus private question.

N

The um thank you for the question councilmember, the um each time we put a uh criteria in um this is the short answer: um you're opening up um a potential differentiation and and a uh risk of an argument, um a legal argument. So that's I whether or not that particular one might cause problems.

N

It's hard to say. I think there may be some privately held grocery stores that are perhaps similar in size and number of employees and size of chains and things like that to publicly help, and so we would want a an understanding of why council member man in his memo suggest it's because of access to public uh markets and in public funding uh public capital. I should say- and um uh I can't tell you if that is a good enough rationale, but it's a rationale.

B

um And then one other, I know you probably have questions.

B

Well, I don't know. Maybe it is, but um back to councilmember jimenez's thinking about you know within 120 days the sky may fall or not um the you know. One thing I've been thinking about through this whole process. Is you know, as I'm as I've made policy over the years in other capacities, I've always thought about. You know the ability to adjust, even before the time frame you put on to something right. I mean if something if you determine that something is happening that you didn't intend or that the consequences are not what you expected.

B

There's opportunity for the council to come back even 60 days and say hey this. Is you know this isn't what we wanted to have happen? Let's make an adjustment to our policy right. I mean we put in place an ordinance and we can it's like in some sense, some might consider this a live experiment.

B

I mean if people are thinking that we haven't for those who think that we haven't studied this enough or that there's some data that we needed to have and for the rest of us who think that there should be data we could have gathered in some reasonable period of time. That would prove one thing or another ahead of time. The data that we'd be gathering is live data from the actual implementation and then at some point you know you would say: hey the data is showing that something completely unintended occurred.

B

In theory, the council can come back and cancel, adjust change or make adjustments or make amendments to a policy at any point right.

B

I'm just making that point too, because my my belief is that if we believe this is the right thing to do, for the people for the employees that we go out in a room as we as I said before, we have the courage to be bold, but we don't sit here and say: hey. We have to wait 120 days and if everything starts falling apart around us, we just got to live with it crashing down around us. We never have to do that.

B

We have the ability to govern and make adjustments, and so I I still feel like you know if enough of us feel this is the right thing to do and we should try it and this and these distinctions we're arguing over, aren't worth arguing over, but we're we're affecting real people's lives.

B

We try that and as councilmember jimenez said, if, if somehow everything crumbles, you know we're not hope we're not helpless with the things crumbling around us, I mean we, but I think he and I agree that I don't things aren't going to crumble around us, but you know I don't. I don't think we have to live with any consequence without without being able to make adjustments. So I I don't.

B

I don't think we're doing something here that is, you know, can possibly be catastrophic to the to the livelihoods of people around us is my opinion, so that that's just I guess that's the point. I want to make.

K

All right, thank you. Councilmember uh councilman, spartan.

D

Thank you mayor. um I I just I know everything's been put out there so I'll keep it short.

D

I just want to say that um I agree with council members, arenas and cohen that uh creating exceptions is what got long beach into the situation that they're in- um and uh you know my background- is you know, non-pro non-profit government a little bit of business, um and so when, when I think about giving a little bit of extra money to hourly workers, one of the things that came to my mind was snap benefits that if you give somebody a little bit of extra money that money stays in the local economy, that's been studied for decades.

D

Right. If you give give folks a little bit of extra money that goes to local retailers, it goes to local businesses, it goes to meet their needs and I feel that there's a benefit to the fam, the workers, the families and to our community by by supporting council member jimenez's motion, which I will be doing tonight. Thank you.

A

K

Noah, I just want to ask a question about section 7 of uh what's uh currently in the proposed motion. That's regarding the protections.

K

It says that a covered employer as a result of the ordinance can't reduce an employee's compensation or limit their earning capacity.

K

It doesn't say they can't lay off an employee. Does it. I mean.

N

um There is a uh section later on retaliation.

K

Well, yeah for retaliation.

N

Right for the exercising of rights.

K

Right, that's for exercising rights, but if it's just because their costs are too high and they're going to operate with 20 employees instead of 22, that's not.

N

N

K

The business decision made based on the cost structure right.

N

Not the way that's set out, I was just going to check. I was just looking at the language, so the um uh whether or not limiting in a covered employee's earning capacity would cover a layoff is.

K

um Well, I I think we're looking for legal issues if we're looking for legal issues and we're basically ordering employers um to operate unprofitably, um if that's their, if that's their particular circumstance, I'm guessing. This is going to stick out like a big red flag.

K

I can't imagine this city's, never done that in its history, to my knowledge, told an employer that they have to operate at a cost structure that may be unprofitable after we've included increased the wages for their employees.

K

Have we ever done anything like that? Nora.

N

That would be difficult for me to answer. I just yeah.

K

I mean we increased minimum wages a couple times. I know that I've never told folks as a result that they they have to operate in a particular way, even though the increased cost may in fact force them to make decisions, maybe because they think automation, which is already very prevalent now in supermarkets and is already replacing employees or maybe because they just believe they're going to stop operating as many hours, and I I just can't imagine somehow. This is either going to be enforceable or not challenged.

K

And this issue about distinguishing between public and non-public companies and we already draw lines between who's covered and who's. Not, I guess, is the 15 000 square foot was that taken out of the ordinance under the current motion. Is that right? Is that still in.

N

My understanding is, it was taken out.

K

That's taken out yeah.

N

K

Oh, no, I'm sorry the other distinctions, though about the number of employees and the 10 sales floor area. Those are certainly distinguished distinctions between who's covered who's, not- and I assume it's all subject to the same uh rational basis standard as any other distinction that doesn't involve matters of race or gender or other protective classes that right.

N

K

Okay, so so it's really all subjected to the same standard.

K

I I I am troubled, I guess, uh by an approach that says I mean I think what we know certainly about the non-public companies, that is, the supermarkets that tend to show up in neighborhoods where the public companies dare not to tread the less affluent neighborhoods.

K

Those stores are obviously tend to operate at a lower margin, because we know in more affluent neighborhoods, they can charge higher prices have greater margins on more luxury items. It's not a secret to anybody, but with the differences between a whole foods and what was me pueblo now cardinals uh and by the way mi pueblo went bankrupt before that merger. That was just five or six years ago.

K

That's why karnan says swallowed me pueblo, so uh these are markets that tend to operate at lower margins if they're in less affluent neighborhoods, and that's exactly why many of us have concerns uh it's about who gets laid off as a result of this, and if we think that the only option the only option we're giving an employer is, you have to operate with an unprofitable structure or close they're going to choose to close.

K

I'm not an expert in any of this just applying introductory microeconomics that we most of us, I'm sure, have taken in college.

K

So we don't know what's going to happen, I don't pretend to know what's going to happen and the notion that council will adjust if we see that there's data that contravenes our firmly held beliefs. That would be helpful. But what I'm hearing already are all the explanations about why we shouldn't adjust. The safeway closes their store on capital, because people apparently are convinced the safeway's going to close anyway and that we should just brush it off.

K

I, I guess what I'm saying is. I don't have the benefit of that insight and I don't have the benefit of knowing exactly how all these folks make their business decisions other than what we read about every day in the business pages and what we know from basic microeconomic principles, which is folks, aren't going to continue to operate if it's not profitable.

K

And if we're putting people in the position where either you gotta lay people off or close the store.

K

Those are obviously outcomes that we don't want.

K

You know in a world where unemployment in many of our neighborhoods um is double digits, so I'm I'm concerned about just going forward uh with an approach that says we're applying it to all stores, or at least a much broader set of stores.

K

uh Distinctions have already been made in the existing ordinance. I'm not sure if there's any principled basis for saying some additional distinction can't be made.

K

I appreciate that there are folks who feel strongly on both sides of this, but I'm concerned about the structure of of this proposal, uh given the fact that we've had the benefit of absolutely no analysis whatsoever. uh You know I heard suggestions that there was analysis, paralysis. Well, that would be good if, in fact, there was any analysis at all, we just don't even have the benefit of that.

K

So I I hope that council is receptive to adjusting if we get data that contravenes the firmly held belief of many in this council, but I'm concerned that we won't because it will just be explained away and the the folks who will be suffering as a result will be the employees of those stores.

K

Okay, uh we can vote on council member jimenez's motion.

N

May I ask for one clarification and that is on section m um the way we had uh it's, the definition of grocery store.

N

um The way it was structured was that the um it was just the uh the sale of certain um products, but then in the bracket below there was an alternative, so it could have the fifteen thousand square feet or the ten percent of sales floor. So what I need to make- or what I need to understand is: um are we just going with that? First paragraph, or do you want the second paragraph of the alternative?

N

Also it'll have to be reworked a little bit, so it makes sense and the or it may have to be reworked a little bit. So it makes sense, but was the was the desire to have the ten percent of the sales floor also.

M

N

K

Yeah so councilman amanda struck m1. That m2 would then become just part of m.

N

Right but the brackets for m1 and m2 were it was meant to be an alternative definition to that. Just the plain paragraph, but I we we can add it to that paragraph. If that was the intent of the motion.

K

Okay, councilman is your intent, correct? Yes, okay,.

B

All right, let's go ahead and clarification is this: is this um the vote on me just on the urgency ordinance or on the.

K

No, this is on the underlying ordinance. As I understand it is that is that correct council member jimenez. This is not the urgency ordinance.

M

No, it's the it's. The under the underlying ordinance is just the regular order. It's not the urgency ordinance.

K

Should take effect after sex was it 60 days after second reading.

M

Yeah, whenever that is, I think, yeah okay.

K

Any other questions about the motion.

M

If I, if I can just uh also say mayor, uh you know, I think the the long beach lawsuit is due to be heard. I think, on the 19th of of this month, and so you know certainly that's going to happen before this. This is a done deal. You know with the second reading and such, and so you know I I would say to nora, you know once that comes through I. I would hope that some of that's going to come in a closed session uh or whatever, wherever that needs to be placed.

M

That way, we're better informed as to what's happening.

K

Yeah, would you like to include that direction to bring it to closed session.

M

Yeah, that's fine.

K

Okay, that's okay, with the secondary.

K

uh I believe that was council member uranus. I believe.

F

K

Okay, great okay: let's vote on the motion because I'm reminiscent.

P

D

Morales hi cohen, hi.

D

Davis, no esparza, yes, uranus. Yes, yes is recused mayhem, no jones, yes, ricardo.

K

No okay. Now my understanding is, since the underlying motion was not inconsistent with this motion, uh it could still be considered voted on. Is that right, north? In other words, the underlying motion was an emergency ordinance.

N

The um under uh rosenberg's, I was just looking that up, um which is on the clerk's website once an under. If a this was made as a substitute motion, once a substitute motion passes, the underlying motion becomes moved.

K

Okay, then councilman.

N

K

As I understand it could make a motion now if he wanted to make a motion for the um for the emergency ordinance under his memorandum since that hasn't been considered or voted on.

K

In other words, we can consider other motions under the same. Is that right.

N

um It is an alternative urgency ordinance. Yes,.

K

Okay, all right councilman do you deserve to make that motion? Yes,.

J

I I would like to move that we consider an urgency ordinance with the three provisions that that I've outlined.

K

Okay, is there a second.

J

K

Okay, segment, councilmember davis, all right uh discussion, or should we just vote uh councilman prowls yeah, just.

O

A question for nora, um wouldn't that first motion that we just voted on had to have failed in order for us to then take up. Another motion.

N

No be my understanding was. The motion that was just voted on was a substitute motion of the underlying motion, and so a substitute motion is taken first and um would move out the underlying motion. But you didn't pass an urgency ordinance, and so there was a motion to move forward on an urgency ordinance, as I understood.

K

Yeah, emergency ordinance has been agendized and it hasn't been considered yet.

M

When a voter mayor.

K

Yeah councilmember.

M

Yet nora you, you cited rosenberg's rules.

N

Yeah, that's what um tony has on the on the website. The.

M

I thought it was a variation of roberts.

N

It is a variation. It's it's essentially roberts. um We um uh council uh has a a relaxed roberts which is essentially rosenberg's, but on this it's the same. uh It would be the same. um So the.

N

Underlying motion.

N

K

All right, no, I, as I understand it there were, there was an emergency ordinance that was agendized. Yes, so the fact that one motion passed doesn't preclude us from considering something else that was also agendized.

N

The the probably the the issue is the second motion was brought as a substitute motion and it if the intent was for it to be a um just. A standalone motion, not really not a substitute for the underlying motion, but a stand-alone motion on the regular coordinates um it that's what it sounds like the the council is intending, and so now it's going back to emergency ordinance. Both were agendas. Yes, that's correct.

O

Okay and mayor what you're done, I just I still had the floor, so I had a couple questions, sure, okay, so it sounds like, and I wanted to confirm that this is the first time I've come across this uh particular situation. I think- and I guess I understand it because of the non-vote that we've that we've taken so far on an urgency ordinance. um So just another question then nora.

O

Is it then possible to uh make a substitute to the current urgency ordinance uh to to emergency ordinance that in particular, I would prefer.

N

If, if this is being taken up as a as a separate motion- and it is as I understand it- yes.

O

Okay, so I'll make a substitute motion, then that we actually uh revert back to the original motion that councilmember jimenez had uh planned uh in his memo um and- and that's that's the motion thanks.

D

Second, I have a point of clarification.

K

No, no no wait. Wait. Councilmember um is that we.

D

K

On emotion, we can't vote again on the same motion as a superseding that that doesn't make any sense.

O

It's not it's not it's not the same. It's not the same motion mayor. Obviously, as the snore has pointed out, this is a separate motion on an urgency ordinance, so I am now suggesting a different urgency. Ordinance.

K

Okay: okay, yes understood okay, you're you're you're, offering the other urgency right. The original or urgency ordinance is proposed exactly all right, understood. Okay! Thank you, council member for clarifying uh councilman.

D

K

Did you have a question, though I said.

D

That was it, he just clarified. It.

K

Okay, got it all right, so we're all puzzled with the same issue. Okay, so we can vote first on this. It requires eight votes. It does not if it does not get eight votes we can consider the underlying is that is that correct, nora? Yes, all right!

K

uh Let's vote on council member prowls's superseding motion. First.

D

O

D

O

D

P

D

Crosco hi davis, no esparza.

F

N

D

J

Q

Jones, yes, ricardo.

D

No seven votes.

K

Okay, so we can consider now, council, member mayhem's motion, uh councilmember mayhem,.

J

Yes, I'd like to modify my motion to be an urgency ordinance with just the first two recommendations, so that's publicly traded companies and um flexibility over how it's structured. I I'll defer to councilmember cohen's concerns about the 120 days versus the rest. I'm fine with 120 days so.

K

J

K

J

K

Been modified, councilmember davis said okay with you as a secretary.

N

K

All right, the motion is just the first two items on the memorandum. All right questions all right. Let's vote then on council member may hands urgency.

K

D

B

N

Roscoe no davis, I.

D

Esparza, yes or no sorry, no arenas, no.

N

J

D

Jones, no ricardo, all right.

Q

Three: seven.

K

Okay, I think we've exhausted the motions unless anyone wants to make one more.

D

I have a question on the urgency ordinance. Is that two-thirds or is it eight votes.

N

It's eight votes: okay,.

D

K

Okay, if there's nothing further, we'll go on then to 10.1.

E

I have a question mayor. I have a question so yes, customer.

K

Crosstalk yeah.

E

Yeah, thank you. So, even though council member foley is not here, it only makes us 10 eligible voters. That's still eight votes instead of uh uh two thirds which would be seven. Can we confirm that.

N

Yes, under the um under the charter, uh section section 605 um to have an urgency ordinance, you have to have um eight posts.

E

Okay- and it specifies eight, I'm so sorry, nora, I'm just trying to.

D

Say eight versus two thirds it.

N

Specifically, does.

E

So if there was a three of us that were sick, it would still I mean four of us that were sick would still be eight yeah.

K

N

There are some other rules if you drop below that number, but we're not in that situation. Okay,.

E

Thank you just wanted to verify. Thank you so much. Thank you.

K

Okay, uh we'll move on then to item 10.1, just land use, consent, calendar.

K

Stare a motion.

D

Move approval second,.

K

All right uh we'll check to see if anybody in the public would like to comment on consent for the land use agenda. Mr beekman, specifically on this item.

H

uh Yeah hi uh yeah, it is on this item. I have to find my speech.

H

If you can uh give me a moment, does paul want to speak on this item? uh No, I'm the only person here for this item. huh Yes, um okay, this is uh what what I am. This is item 10.1.

H

So yes, let me let me get my speech here if you can just hold on and I can, if you can start the timer over again, that would be really great.

K

We can't do that. We need to move on so.

H

What time well, how much time do I have right now I have a minute 30. Okay, you have plenty of time. Okay, so I want to just uh this was about overall issues of accountability with uh the future of uh energy and and green sustainability in san jose and the envision zero 2040 plan, and you know I'm really you know I I was I've, been very impressed with your your backup generator issues and in fact, if you know um you know, hydrogen fuel cell use can actually be started with renewable energy ideas.

H

I've heard that I don't know how accurate that is, and it just got me off on a tangent, to really think about that. We really have to consider natural disasters in our preparedness practices as a city for the next 10 years. You know five years ten years and it's it's hurtful that we have to do that because it kind of takes the wind out of things about you know being positive and hopeful, but it's from that.

H

We just have to keep on trying and that's why I've been talking about our good ideals and our good practices, and that's what's going to really pull us through what may be a difficult next five to ten years and that's kind of what my speech was going to say, and I was a bit more specific and uh hopefully uh you know I can bring some stuff up later on, and uh I I you know with with all the reimagines possible right now. You know I just we.

H

I just hope we don't get down on ourselves and we can pull through thanks. Thank you, mr soto.

K

Mr soda you're you're, muted right now.

K

We're not able to hear you.

A

You hear me now: yeah we can okay all right. Thank you for doubling back mayor. I just had to get uh my notes in in order. um What my concern is is that the infrastructure that we're building we're building it to support uh we're building it to support higher income brackets we're going to have an influx of approximately 75 to 125 000 people within the next 20 years within the next generation.

A

Okay, the majority of these people number one they're not going to be from this area. So they're not going to know this history, that's going on or the history of the gentrification or the history of the historical injustices that have happened. They're gonna have no clue about that. Okay and we're building an infrastructure to support that segment of this population.

A

It doesn't even exist here right now today, you know and we we talk about it in ways that are uh very uh like as if everybody is going to benefit from this quote-unquote green infrastructure that we're going to be using. The fact is: no we're not in fact it's going to stratify the economy even further.

A

I mean right now in order to buy a home. It's already been slated. You need 200, an income of 250 000 to just buy a home okay. So with that said, we already know the mexican the chicanos. We ain't gonna, get nowhere near that, nowhere near it. Okay, but like people like myself and other people we're going to stay, we ain't going nowhere.

A

You can stack us 10 in a garage we're just not going we're, not leaving, and so I'm really cautioning the council to be very responsible for the decisions that you're making right now, because your grandchildren, my grandchildren, if I had any they would they're gonna, eventually incur the consequences of your decisions now. Thank you.

A

K

You, okay, uh return to council. Let's vote on the consent, calendar jimenez.

C

D

B

Q

P

Q

Jones hi ricardo, hi.

K

Thank you all right. Thank you. Okay, let's go to 10.2. um This is uh city initiated general plant tech's amendment uh with revisions to the neighborhood community, commercial land use designation, again 10.2, which is the text amendment we're going to have a presentation and then we'll go to the public. Welcome rosanne.

I

Thank you, mayor rosalyn, huey, director of planning, building and code enforcement, and I'm joined this evening by my colleagues from the office of economic development, housing department and the fire department.

I

So as way as way of background policy h, dash 2.9 also referred to as the one and a half acre rule for affordable housing. Development stems from the mayor and council's housing crisis work plan and the city's goal to build 25 000 homes, including 10 000, affordable homes. The current policy is the result of council direction and consideration by the task force for the first four-year review of the city's general plan.

I

This slide provides details of the current policy regarding size, utilization, location, land, use, designation and consideration of historic resources.

I

So the revised, um so why are we proposing the changes now in 2019 council included changes to the commercial space requirements for affordable housing as part of the scope of work for the second four-year review of the general plan? This item is also identified in the housing crisis work plan. A key component is providing clarity, particularly clear requirements to comply with new state housing legislation, which requires cities to review housing development projects based on objective standards.

I

So the revised policy will provide clarity and consistency in its application, and this, in turn, will provide predictability for developers and property owners. Additionally, as part of this work, staff develop an interactive web-based application that combines many different data sets, including zoning and approved permits.

I

This application called san jose housing site explorer, is intended to help the development community identify sites that present an opportunity for new housing production.

I

So now I will walk you through the proposed clarifications and changes to the policy.

I

First, we are clarifying that the definition of affordable housing is actually a hundred percent, affordable housing developments that are indeed restricted by a public agency for not less than 55 years to low-income residents and those residents are defined as earning 80 percent or less of the area. Median income, affordable housing development would be allowed on sites outside of growth, areas on properties, with the mixed use, commercial or neighborhood community commercial land use designation if the development meets specific criteria.

I

The first criterion is that the site must be one and a half gross acres or less nests. The site must be vacant, that is no buildings or structures or the site has to be underutilized and underutilized is defined as a standalone, surface parking lot or the site has a structure with a floor area, ratio of 0.2 or less or if the floor area ratio is greater than 0.2.

I

The building must be vacant for five years or more.

I

Next, the site must share a property line with a parcel that has a residential general plan. Land use designation.

I

The site must be at least a thousand feet from any property, with a heavy industrial or light industrial land use designation and at least 500 feet from any property with a combined industrial, commercial or industrial park. Land use, designation proximity to industrial sites is particularly important as it is where we are striking a balance of providing more sites for affordable housing and, at the same time, achieving the city's goals to preserve our industrial lands and support jobs.

I

We are also mindful of environmental justice and not adding new residents, particularly low-income residents, in areas that are burdened with environmental and health hazards.

I

The next criterion must be located within a half mile of an existing transit line with a minimum of 30 minute peak headway. This provides residents with mobility options and facilitates transit, ridership.

I

The next criterion is related to reusing existing structures that are on or eligible for the city's historic resources. Inventory and projects will also be required to provide relocation, assistance to tenants who occupy existing rental units and, lastly, general planned text. Amendments that are applicable properties within airport influence areas are referred to. The airport land use commission, also known as a luck and a-look took action to include language and the resolution that safety, height and noise policies govern projects within the airport influence areas.

I

um I do want to acknowledge uh the memoranda from council members, so a memorandum from council member, perales and jimenez, and also a memo from council member esparza, and I also want to uh recognize all of the comments that we've received from residents and many stakeholders, including the affordable housing advocacy groups such as sv at home, and also doing the four-year review task force process. There was robust conversation uh about changes to this policy and since that time, staff has met with many stakeholders.

I

I do want to um also acknowledge that staff as a result of the the memos that came out, we did issue a supplemental memo this afternoon. I hope that all of you have been able to take a look at that to provide some additional information, as well as address the issues that have been raised.

I

So there are two really two major areas of concern that have been brought up. First is around the definition of underutilized and the recommendation that a building that has been two-thirds vacant for five years or more would be considered underutilized.

I

So steph notes that if a building has partial tenancy, then there is market indication that commercial use is actually viable. Staff is also concerned about business displacement, and should a property owner decide to sell their property, then the existing business or businesses are faced with moving and managing their own viability.

I

Lastly, staff is concerned about the ability to consistently determine that a building is actually two-thirds vacant.

I

The second area of concern is where we are balancing the need for affordable housing and preserving our limited industrial lands for good-paying jobs.

I

Since 1980 about 2300 acres of employment, lands have been converted to non-employment uses, resulting in an estimated loss in job capacity between 52 000 and 110 000 jobs in the city overall, employment lands and light, and heavy industrial lands in particular make up a very small percentage, just 2.7 percent of the city's overall land portfolio.

I

Additionally, industrial space vacancy rates are currently low at about two percent, while demand is still high, and we know that industrial businesses provide many quality employment opportunities that do not require a college degree. The economic reality necessitates the need for the city to preserve its stock of industrial and mixed industrial. Commercial designated lands for the viability for industrial uses on those properties.

I

Staff also recommends the thousand foot and five thousand foot distance as these distances better reflect requirements for fire department, hazmat storage and, as I also mentioned earlier, we want to be careful about placing new residents in areas that could be environmentally hazardous as important. It is as it is to build, affordable housing in the city. It is also important that we are also building community for new residents, who should enjoy quality of life and a quality living environment with access to services and amenities, and this is just really a basic, sound planning principle.

I

We all know that residents sometimes complain those residents who live nearby industrial uses. We get complaints regarding noise and track traffic and air quality as well, and lastly, staff recommends the thousand foot and 500 foot distances simply in order to comply with the new state requirements for objective standards.

I

So staff presented the general plan text amendment to the planning commission at its january 27th meeting and the commission supported staff recommendation and voted to recommend that the city council approve the general plan text amendment and that concludes staff presentation. We have many staff available for questions.

K

Thank you roson all right, let's go to the public first and then we'll come back to council for discussion. uh Mr beekman, this is a public comment on the revisions. Neighborhood commercial uh community, commercial land use designation, also known as the one half acre rule.

H

Yeah hi blair beekman here. uh Thank you yeah uh for this item. um You know, uh as rosalind was speaking about. uh You know how affordable housing can can fit into this future of issues. um You know to just once again offer uh mixed income ideas. Maybe for this sort of uh development, uh is it applicable? Is it something that you would be interested in? uh I think mixed income can be an incredible future and it can be efficient it can. It can be used in really small terms.

H

It doesn't have to be you're really considering the four to add the little four square housing in different areas of uh the city. I guess uh apartment dwellings in different neighborhoods um is mixed housing a way to kind of calm that tension. I I don't know you know I just there has to be something good, a good placement of mixed income in your future somewhere, and I just I'm waiting for the time that it can be a more open subject to talk about, and uh it's been used in santa clara uh city of santa clara.

H

The great example there- and I know that yourselves have developed, really good examples for the free to use in the little portugal area. Probably- and so you know I just wish it was talked about more- and you know to to conclude, I I'm hopeful that um you know the ideas of uh energy, the future of renewable energy in the future of say, uh reimagine issues with the police issues. Today you know I I hope we don't give up on that idealism uh as we we're gonna enter, possibly a tough decade.

H

We don't give up on that stuff. I hope we can really work on our best practices. Still. Thank you. Thank you. Events.

K

Sdh welcome sorry. This is matthew reed from silicon valley at home, I'm here this evening.

K

I submitted a letter on behalf of the vast majority of affordable housing developers that are working to build critical, affordable housing in this city. The 1.5 acre rule has been a priority item for staff since before it was included in the housing crisis, work plan in 2018 and we're pleased to be here and want to acknowledge that there's real progress that we think has been made and appreciate uh work in creating objective standards that that's really important.

K

We believe that those standards, as defined by staff, the criteria have um stepped over a line and and will constrain opportunities with that we believe substantially furthering the intent of the policy to protect viable commercial uses.

K

We appreciate the memos from council members perales jimenez council member esparza. We believe they address portions of our concerns. We felt that acknowledging that chronic under-occupancy, as well as totally vacant properties, was really important. We support the recognition in the council member the council memos that long-term tenants really do make even underutilized properties, important for small business retention and our critical assets for the city, and we appreciate that addition. We've also outlined a proposal for addressing industrial buffers.

K

Our goal was to more fully realize staff's intent of protecting industrial uses, while acknowledging that, in some cases, these uses are already restricted by existing residential uses nearby, these decisions are going to be made on a case-by-case site-by-site basis. In these cases, it seemed redundant to limit the use of potentially great sites for affordable housing. We generally don't build affordable housing in toxic environments.

K

Our developers don't want to do that to our families either. This is important progress, but we think we can do better. Thank you. Thank you. Colin user, too.

P

Welcome well, I just hey. I just hope, there's going to be enough room for the unicorn lanes that you're going to have in this in this uh fantasyland that you think you're going to develop.

P

uh You know we got what nine more years of trying to pave the road that we already have, and we've got terrible infrastructure you're not going to be able to use natural gas for these new homes going to be all on our very weak electrical grid that we are having a lot of problems with the police and fire and ems services are terrible takes forever.

P

They can't stop the crime, prevent the crime put out the fires that they have now and now you're going to build all these houses with what money, what what money is going to be around due to covid and- and you know how retail has has uh kind of reimagined itself due to amazon and online shopping, forcing employers to pay certain amounts of money. High minimum wage.

P

You guys are going to go down the tubes, mass transit, dead debtors and dead, but die forever, because there's no way you're going to be able to be uh able to get rid of of the you know not or you know the rules you're going to have due to covid is dead and uh you're going to have high density housing dead.

P

You guys are crazy. You guys have really lost your mind. You quadruple down on really stupid decisions, and now is not the time to build something based on taxpayer funds to build someone else's home form. It's insane. I don't I mean this is like marxism 2.0. You guys have lost your mind. You should stop this project. It's not going to work, it's not going to be affordable for anybody. It's a burden on the taxpayer. Your people are crazy enough.

K

Thank you, catherine hedges.

E

All right, first of all, I'd like to say I'm really, sorry that you have to put up with that person abusing you like that that um he calls him so frequently.

E

um I think it's important to have more affordable housing, but I definitely appreciate the concern about putting affordable housing in areas that may have environmental hazards and will be isolated from other communities.

E

But if there's empty strip malls that are near neighborhoods, that would be good, also the opportunity housing where you up. You know whether it's up zoning, so that, if somebody has a house in a single family neighborhood, they can replace that with a duplex, triflex or quad.

E

You know, but it doesn't change neighborhoods that much to do that, and I grew up in a neighborhood that had duplexes on one side of the block single family homes in the other single family homes. All around our side of the block wasn't some horrible slum or something it was elderly, retired people.

Q

E

There and I've lived in san, diego and other cities that had mixed years of duplexes and triplexes and quads and with the single-family homes, they were similar age to a lot of the developments in san jose and they were good places to live.

E

Thank you very.

K

Much thank you paul.

A

Yeah paul soto from the horseshoe um if there was ever uh something on the agenda that would require us having to talk about the racially uh restricted covenants and the historical injustices that flowed from that, the concentration of wealth in the rose garden in willow glen and how we, as a city, what we're doing is we're putting a filling over a cavity and we haven't drilled the cavity out yet and I'm the one with the cavity, I'm in pain man, I'm in generational pain from this city's refusal to have and demonstrate the humility with concrete policy that reflects its acknowledgement that it owes this community, something it owes it.

A

This, isn't I'm not even requesting this? I am challenging my city leaders to acknowledge what has been historically agreed upon. I have the tape lecardo. You you admitted on film at connection that the injustices that occurred in willow, glen and the restrictive covenants that there are injustices that float from that and a much of them are economic.

A

That's number one number two is the affordable housing metric that is being used. Eighty percent of eighty percent of the median eighty percent of the median is maso menos 92 000, because the median income now is 123 000 and that is going to exponentially increase as people filter into san jose.

A

Right now, 46 of santa clara county residents earn less than 60 thousand dollars a year. Think about it.

K

Thank you, tim bobian.

D

Good evening, honorable mayor vice mayor and council members, tim bobian, representing the santa clara county association of realtors and our 6 000 plus members score supports the intent of the memorandums authored by council member jimenez, perales and esparza to create even more affordable housing opportunities in the city of san jose.

D

We do support recommendation one in the memo authored by councilmember, jimenez and perales to further limit the requirements for a vacant and underserved commercial property. This will take a large stride in opening up more sites for potential, affordable housing developments, while only minimally impacting the business community, given the severity of our housing shortage. We feel this is a necessary step to help the city of san jose work towards meeting affordable housing arena goals.

D

However, we do have concerns about recommendation too in their memo regarding distances from industrial sites, as it may create health, safety and environmental risk for potential tenants and families that could be exposed to dangerous allowed job sites, hazardous materials or waste. We believe the staff recommendation of the distance from industrial sites creates a safer living environment, while also increasing the inventory of potential affordable housing developments.

D

We thank the mayor and council for initially approving this item from mayor licardo's housing crisis work plan. Given the regional land constraints, it is important to take action such as this modified 1.5 acre rule as a creative solution to help solve the housing, sorted shortage and affordability issue. This will create help create more housing opportunities for san jose's, most vulnerable residents without excessively impacting surrounding areas and communities. Thank you for your time.

K

Thank you, uh ryan.

P

um Good evening and council um very briefly, I I just wanted to express my my gratitude to uh rosalind and the star for the effort um obtain attention to detail um that they put into uh crafting this revision, and I hope that you will approve it. Thank you.

K

Thank you, con user two. I believe you may have spoken already or is this a different person.

K

uh Calling user two, you appear to be muted right now,.

P

Yeah I mean people who don't like yeah.

K

You've spoken already. Thank you all right. uh Let's go back to council, councilman prowls and I'm sorry before we go there. I just want to say thank you.

K

If I could um I'd like to thank uh staff, everyone who's worked hard on this and know this has been important to move forward uh to address many of the challenges we're facing right now around housing, uh particularly thanks to jared ferguson, ruth cueto and planning, uh along with, of course, rosalind, uh michael brio and jared hart, and in oed nancy klein, chris burton and in housing, jackie ross, ferran and rachel vanderveen.

K

I support staff's recommendation. Thank you. Councilmember.

O

Yeah thank you uh mayor, and I appreciate the work by my staff as well and uh committee members that came to speak and uh our affordable housing development advocates as well. That worked with me uh and uh councilmember jimenez on drafting our recommendations um and I'll be frank. I I don't think uh we'll have a lot to contest here and I'll. Try to kind of clear up sounds like uh the recommendation.

O

Number two may be the only uh contentious part and we'll see if we can't come to a resolution here um so just to talk a little bit about uh this policy, uh it's one I have supported back in 2016, we enacted it. Our general plan task force, understood the need for affordable housing and since then, unfortunately, we've only seen one project qualify to the process in 2017, our mayor asked for a map to clearly identify underutilized sites and our housing crisis work plan made it a priority to create objective standards to better streamline these projects.

O

It has been clear that this policy has been an underutilized resource since then, work, obviously that staff has put on to get us to. This point uh has still hasn't amounted. I think to to be able to get to the the goal that we wanted. We still see uh that we're falling short of our arena goals, and my concern uh is that some of these this, this added clarity now uh to the criteria, may move us further away from uh the intended purpose of the policy and so an explanation of uh our recommendation.

O

uh Number one um in in our current general plan policy language. One of the criteria for development is that the site is vacant or underutilized, and I believe the staff's proposed criteria views under utilizing vacant to be similar, and I feel we can't combine the two. We must look at all potential sites which are not just vacant but are experiencing chronically low vacancies and lowering the threshold to a two-thirds vacancy in a five-year cycle.

O

I believe more accurately reflects the original policy's intent and purpose, but if the property has been vacant for three years, uh I do believe we should allow for that property to become considered.

O

The five-year cycle can be proven too long when the need for affordable housing is, is so high and the site can be better utilized, in my mind, for affordable housing sooner rather than waiting a full five years for a site to sit completely empty.

O

In addition, the two-thirds vacancy definition does raise the concerns about the possible impact on small businesses that maybe have been long-term tenants, even though it may be an underutilized property, and in that case uh there is at least one uh if there is at least one tenant that has been a tenant at the site for five or more years. uh The suggestion we have is that the property will no longer qualify to be redeveloped, uh taking into consideration obviously displacement there.

O

In regards to recommendation number two, uh I will say I understand that the delicate balance here that staff is trying to make in uh both increasing the production of affordable housing uh at the same time wanting to protect uh job growth in industrial sites, and then I think, most importantly, where I'll try to hone in on some uh some key points here and in my questions, I'll ask on the sensitivities that we all should should consider when, having residential or, quite frankly, any any use next to industrial sites.

O

um Personally, I'm concerned that the buffers that staff presented are too constricting. I do believe um it's already a criteria that a prospective property excuse me. I don't believe it is the fact that a prospective property must share a property line with a residential uh use, at least one side and we're not changing that.

O

The recommendation of a distance of a thousand feet from heavy industrial 500 feet from other industrial zones is, is inconsistent with current zoning regulations, which are uh right now much less strict for uses uh and adjacencies to residential properties um and, in my mind, they're, not reflective of any of the current existing land-use zoning standards that do regulate our proximity of industrial and residential uses.

O

Now, um staff had a supplemental memo and I know I I read councilmember as far as this memo uh customer spars has mentioned the thousand foot threshold, as stated in the california, health and safety code in regards to proximity to schools and staff, mentioned in their memo, that the thousand-foot recommendation does comply with new state standards so and, and obviously what I was relating it to was what we see currently in our zoning codes here in the city. So I wanted to see if staff can can elaborate a little bit on um that that line.

O

That was in your supplemental um that talked about uh the compliance with these new state standards.

I

Thank you councilmember, so that reference and the supplemental memo it's really regarding the state's new requirements that for cities to consider and review housing developments. The standards have to be objective, so you have to come up with um standards that are measurable. That are predictable, so we were just simply referencing that a thousand feet and 500 feet are objective standards um and provides predictability.

I

There's nothing subjective either it's a thousand or not, or either 500 or not. So that was our reference in the supplemental.

O

Okay, so I guess the same could be said: if we lowered the threshold to 500, it would still be objective, correct.

I

O

Correct okay, so I I just I wasn't certain if there was some sort of other uh recommendation that actually spelled out the 1000 foot distance, um it sounds like that's not the case. It sounds like you were just referring to the fact that it should be objective.

I

Yeah that that's correct- and I would just also add council member that um in developing these criteria, there were several factors that we considered, and one is, is that the fire department raised the issue about their requirements for hazmat storage um actually, as well exceeds 1000 feet. I believe it's over 2200 feet.

I

So when we came up with 1000, we knew it would be closer to what the fire department requires for hazmat storage. um At the same time, still providing enough buffer uh from residential uses.

O

Yeah, I had a conversation with him too, and I understood it was around 2500 feet and, depending on whatever particular use we we may be talking about. um I think that's one of the challenges, too is that there's so many different potential uses in uh industrial light, industrial, heavy industrial, um that you know you sort of run the gamut on on what distance you you know you would want to have and rightfully what you know, distance people would deserve to have um to be nearby.

O

I don't think that means you know we're going to run into an issue where all of a sudden, you have some some, you know explosive material, that's too close or within the 2500 feet. I think that, uh obviously, what will happen right is just. You will then eliminate potential uses in some of these industrial sites, and it would be limited down to once it would actually be in accordance with with the distance that's remaining, and that was the other. I think.

O

Thought process that at least I had in regards to some of the the redundancy here on on the sites, because we're talking about a site that uh that this 1.8 1.5 acre site right has to be have one side uh adjacent to a residential use. So a pre-existing residential use- and I was just looking at you- know how close in proximity would that put this 1.5 acre developable site?

O

That's in question right? How close would that put it to potential?

O

um You know industrial lands and when you look at 1.5 acres, it's just over 65 000 square feet and you know for simplicity's sake, you take a perfect square parcel and uh it would be just about 255 feet, uh squared and so you've got feet in in distance um sort of at best. It did that you're already talking about you know that that's the sort of the gap um that you would be taking up, potentially so you're you're, not really moving too too much closer to whatever industrial site may be there granted.

O

I do recognize that you know if we're looking for a distance of 2500 feet for some sort of explosives. Well, if you're, you know, if you're already at the 2500 foot mark and you go 255 feet closer, then that's it you've eliminated that that that type of hazardous use or, if you're, already at a thousand foot. um You know distance, and you built this this new one on this new 1.5 acre site and you cut into it by another 255 feet. Well, then, now you've obviously chopped into that thousand feet.

O

You eliminate some of the potential uses and I guess at the end uh the one thing that sort of has me a little hung up. Is it and maybe staff can try to clarify this as well? What seems to be is, though, we may only be talking about 12 potential sites in question, as staff analyzed.

O

uh The the the difference between uh this 500 foot uh suggestion that that that uh myself, councilman jimenez having the thousand foot really would be uh the difference of 243 to 255 sites is. Is that is that a definitive answer from staff? um Is there a possibility that there are other sites out there that um you know that exist today that maybe we didn't analyze or that could exist in the future? Or are we really only talking about 12 sites.

I

So councilmember, I'm probably going to turn this question over to ruth and jared if they were very involved in the analysis of impacted sites.

I

Generally speaking, um you know we did this analysis and that difference between 12 or 13 was the pretty definitive number. However, I do want to say that there could be the potential of of other sites, so I'll ask jared or ruth ruth to chime in.

E

um Yes, uh councilmember corrales. I think your question is whether we, the the number, is 242 right now, like that's the universe of one and a half acre sites, and um I want to clarify that those are only the sites that we're able to map which are which have an far of 0.2 or less um the category that would fall under criteria to see a greater far and completely vacant.

E

We don't have like a database of such sites because we don't know yet which ones are vacant, and if you go off of our recommendation of five years, let's say next year is going to be the fifth year. Then they would, you know technically qualify, then next year, so there's still a universe out there of other sites, but um in terms of the the number of sites that we lose going from going to 1000 feet versus 500, it is approximately about 13 sites.

O

Okay, so I do, I guess I understand a little better then so today, if we make that decision, we lose 13 sites, um but but what you're stating is that we don't necessarily know- uh and that makes sense now uh what the implications would be a year to three years from now, because a site that is maybe only a year away from qualifying based on this new standards.

I

That's correct.

O

Okay, that makes sense, um and obviously we wouldn't be able to to answer that uh completely, because that involves factors that would uh you know we can't determine if a site that's been vacant. For you know a couple years now, all of a sudden would be occupied, so we just don't. We can't predict that, um but we can look at. Obviously, just uh I think that the ratio there- and at least I can make a determination on on what the implications may be, um and so I'm I'm not.

O

You know married to the the idea of the 500 feet. I would like to be able to hear actually from my colleague councilmember esparza, because she mentioned a couple other um sources like our our air resource board and then uh and then from uh back meds uh air quality guidelines on this thousand foot threshold. uh I had not looked at either of those I wanted to see. If maybe she could just speak to those first before I sort of come to a decision on emotion. If that's right,.

K

D

So um so my office or district seven has, along with district four, um some pretty heavy industrial areas, um and so we had um reached out done some research. I had heard also the same about the fire department's um hazmat requirements, um and- and so we started looking into this, and so uh the thousand foot threshold is consistent. So we're talking land use right, but then bachmed has their thousand foot guidelines and we also heard about arb on their guidelines.

D

Mostly, I was from from district 7's experience with heavy industrial sites trying to um trying to accommodate the intent of the of the proposal with what the realities would be on the ground, because I do have industrial heavy industrial light. Industrial we've done a lot of work on the monterey corridor, um uh along with uh mayor ricardo and councilmember jimenez, and in doing the um our homework on uh the land use along that corridor.

D

There are some kind of strange configurations and that's why I started digging into to the other sources of the thousand-foot suggestion, um because that is a concern of mine. You know I I I realized. I read the supplemental memo where housing was concerned about um you know subjecting our businesses to all of a sudden putting residents next to heavy industrial.

D

I was looking at it from the concern of putting residents next to putting people and having them live next to these particles, trucks, um the noise, the the actual pollution um and that that was my uh where I was coming from, because district 7 would be one of the districts just looking at heavy industrial where that would um where that would would happen. Those were the thoughts that occurred to me and that's where we actually talked to these organizations and got that information. So I hope that helps.

O

Yeah it does help it's not. As I said, I did not speak with those organizations and didn't. I was simply referring to our land use guidelines here and what we see uh was not factoring in some of these other guidelines.

O

That may be talking about things like air quality and stuff, like that, and I also recognize the significant number of industrial uses that district seven has that district 3's got just a little piece of some some industrial up in the north side bordering district 4, but nowhere near what district 4 and definitely nowhere near what district 7 has.

O

So I recognize you also have a little bit more uh experience with with you know, managing the the relationship relationships there between the residential uses and the industrial uses, um the the the ratio, I'm hoping will will stick, which is just about under five percent of uh what we're talking about today.

O

If we were to the difference between the 500 feet and the 1000 feet uh is about a five percent um loss of of sites that 13, you know, sites of the of the 255, I'm hoping that number- uh that ratio at least stays and, quite frankly, uh as a policy. This is something that we can come back one way or the other, whether we go with 500 or go with a thousand.

O

We can come uh come back to it, and- and so with that uh I will, I will make a motion uh to move uh the memorandum authored by myself and councilmember jimenez, and I will strike a recommendation number one b, just uh approving um or excuse me uh two. um I was looking at council member as far as this panel at the moment, uh striking recommendation too thanks.

K

Motion council member pros second from council member esparza um councilman spars did you want to speak for them.

D

Yeah, I just wanted to add one more point which is um uh on the land. I think one of the reasons why we're so passionate about industrial land we had have had amazon, come in and um and buy three um industrial spaces in district seven recently, and one of the things that you know I hear from companies, I'm sure oed can speak to that point is that this is very, very valuable land um in our city and for um for a lot of the companies that want to come into our region.

D

So um you know it's my hope that uh we won't find industrial land vacant. Thank you.

K

Thank you. I agree in fact it has extremely low vacancy. I think it's between one or two percent right now, despite the tough economy, I appreciate the protection of the 1000 foot uh buffer. I believe that is the current motion is that right, councilmember cross.

D

K

Yes, yes, great yeah. I I also appreciate it because not just for companies who want to come here, but employers who are here, um I can tell you. I've had conversations with two companies in just in the last year who have been really trying to find nearby manufacturing land where they can do land or they can do custom or prototype manufacturing somewhere close to where their headquarters are because, as we saw increasingly about four or five years ago, there was a restoring and neck shoring of manufacturing from china, as companies were realizing.

K

How important it was to have the actual manufacturing processes close to engineers close to designers, close to all the folks who are involved in conceiving of a product before it's actually produced, and it's so important for us for for the entire ecosystem, just to be able to have that land here and obviously creates a lot of blue-collar jobs that we'd otherwise not have here in our community. So I appreciate the protection of that. I do have a question, though councilman peralta, about the the two thirds for five years requirement.

K

Let me tell you, I: I could probably be persuaded to support a reduction in five to three years. I'm concerned about this two-thirds requirement for a couple reasons, one for what uh I think rosen articulate, which is that if you've got a third of a building, that's occupied, that's a pretty good indication.

K

It's viable hard to know how hard anybody's marketing or doing anything else or what their, what problems there may have been in the remaining space in terms of whether or not they were willing to invest in the tenant, improvements or repairs or whatever was necessary to actually lease it up.

K

So I'm concerned about those existing businesses. That would then be uh kicked out, and I guess I'm also concerned about just how we would actually implement it or enforce it. I just don't know how you do that over a five-year period of time and establish that there was two thirds of vacancy um so as opposed to just saying total vacancy. It just seems to be much easier to establish.

K

So would you be open to eliminating that two-thirds over five years and simply shorten it to three.

O

So you're suggesting completely vacant over three years, rather than than the two thirds over five.

K

I think you have it now as an option. Is that right, yeah yeah, our name.

O

Yes, it's two different thresholds: essentially it's one of them which is completely vacant and then there's the second threshold. So you're just saying get rid of that that threshold of the two thirds over five years, yeah.

K

The two thirds right just stick with the the totally bacon for three.

O

Yeah, I'm not inclined to support that. I do recognize. uh Maybe the challenges I'm happy to hear from staff on how they think something like that might be uh evaluated. I'm not suggesting it would be easy, certainly easier to just determine if something's fully vacant versus two-thirds. But um I'm happy to hear from staff. I'm not inclined to just to to eliminate that, though um michael.

K

I see your hands up.

K

Michael brielle.

G

Yeah, so I just had a clarifying question on the motion, um but I think you need to talk more, but if it, if you guys the council goes through with two-thirds vacant, we just need a clearer definition of what you mean by that you.

M

Mean two-thirds.

G

Of the gross leasable area is vacant or two-thirds of the tenant spaces. I gather it's the.

K

Do you want to clarify customer props.

O

Yeah, it was the latter, but um I guess I'll go back to the same question I just asked. Is there one of those that's easier to measure.

G

Probably uh tenant spaces chris, I don't know if you.

M

Have any thoughts on this.

G

I think that'd be easier to measure.

M

G

Square feet I mean the burden of proof is going to be in the.

K

G

Owner so I'm trying to put them in my in myself and their shoes.

K

Yeah, you could also just define as to whether either it would be particularly easy to implement. I mean.

G

That's neither will be easy to implement. I don't know how a property owner is going to prove this frankly, but that's why we again stuck with 100 you.

K

Could you could actually use street view.

G

Pretty easily in many ways to get at that, but it gets more challenging.

D

Yeah I'd agree with that. um I think the the sort of challenge that we've looked at in considering two-thirds versus the the full site is that there's really not an accurate data source for us to rely on to say you know, there's definitely a business in that space for a whole host of different reasons. You know the city's business license.

D

Tax database doesn't give us that information, uh real estate databases, don't always track every lease, especially in sort of transitional areas or sort of lower classes of buildings, uh and especially in sort of retail commercial spaces, there's different types of arrangements between property owners and landlords, and so with the burden of proof being on the property owner. um You know there's no way for us to really verify that accurately as to sort of how the the business has uh been occupied over a period of time. It makes it really difficult.

O

Chris question: how would we measure if there's no no measurement for for two-thirds vacancy? How would we measure you know sort of a hundred percent yeah? What what? What are we using anyways.

D

That's a fair point, council member- and I think you know um to the extent so you know in the past, we've used a variety of different sources. So again, in either of these scenarios, the burden of proof becomes the responsibility of the applicant.

D

um You know there are ways that we've sort of used in the past to check various different business listings, whether online or other ways just to show. If there's a business associated with that address, um you know the difficulty of the two-thirds is then associating sort of how much of that space they're occupying um you know versus the sort of whether or not they're there.

K

Okay, also just throw out utility records, is something we used to use quite a bit yeah very true. You can tell, if nobody's been there.

O

So I think it sounds like you know, burden of proof is going to go on the owner regardless and we're going to have the same challenge whether we're looking at two-thirds vacancy or or you know, 100 vacancy, correct. Chris.

D

uh That is correct, councilman, but yeah. The the burden of grief lies with the applicant.

G

H

G

On a second chris, I think what the question was. 100 versus two-thirds is equally difficult. I might I think what we've talked about.

M

It's easier to.

G

Verify a hundred percent- I mean you know you can use street view, it's very easy to tool if they they actually update it every year, and you can go historically year by year, I think maybe less than a year, and there are other tools which chris could talk about, but it gets a lot more problematic when you start talking about you know the the percentage of a building or tenant spaces, they're.

M

Both challenging, but I think the two-thirds is.

O

More and michael, I I actually wasn't suggesting that it was easier. I was really just just comparing how we would measure right that those would be that it sort of be the same same way regardless. So if there's a challenge in measuring uh it's the same thing now, clearly, you know to try and prove two-thirds because you're now looking at a fraction of it.

O

No doubt that requires more work. Hence you know could be more challenging to actually try to prove that, but um at the same time, let's say, for instance, we have a property owner. That's um you know that wants to challenge our our vacancy for whatever right reason. They don't want the building. You know gone, they don't want that changed, and so they they're making an argument that they had some. uh You know they had some occupancy right and they weren't 100 vacant.

O

Well, then, again, burden of proof right, we're still trying to prove it, whether we're proven two-thirds or we're proven 100 again. It goes goes on the the property owner there. um So I just I don't know I guess um again, I'm not I'm not! uh I'm not inclined to want to remove that. uh I do recognize.

O

You know it's not going to be perfect uh and I I would you know. Obviously we were thinking about the the tenants there as well. Hence why we wanted to look at uh you know tenants not displacing those that had actually had some consistent tenancy.

O

Even if um you know the building was was not fully uh occupied or two-thirds vacant that we still didn't want to necessarily displace a tenant that had been there for a long time.

O

Considering the fact that that would you know claim that, maybe this is a viable space, uh it's just uh you know maybe had a struggle for the last five years with some of that some of the spaces in there. um So we tried to kind of have a middle ground as far as where we were going with this, but the idea was not to just go with the simple decision. I think that that would be. Let's just look at 100 vacant.

O

In my mind, there could be some more viable sites that have uh really struggled with occupancy, had constant turnover or consistent turnover and um and shown consistent vacancy. Even if it's not a hundred percent- um and that's where you know we- we came up with the two-thirds and wasn't necessarily uh you know kind of, uh I think thinking initially on what we were going to assume with the the units or square footage, the intent, I think again with square footage. But if it's easier to measure uh the units, then I'm fine making that clarification.

O

If that helps for staff.

Q

Councilmember, if I'm just conjoint jump in for a second um the the likelihood is that a property owner. The unintended consequence is that a property owner will want to hold space uh vacant, namely because the residential price per square foot is going to be considerably higher than the industrial price per square foot. So most of the time, I think it will be rather than a property owner wanting to not uh abandon a site.

Q

It will be a property owner wanting to get a greater dollar per square foot and and force folks out of the site, and it will be harder to to say what the two-third number is and just in terms of staff, time it'll. While we say it's the burden of the property owner and certainly they would have to provide the documentation.

Q

I would uh guess that there'll be quite a bit of conversation about each one of those assertions, um so so it is just cleaner uh and and easier to get at, although, admittedly, as folks are saying not that easy, if we are able to to mark from 100 vacant and the other thing just as a question, if I may um about including uh relocation assistance, if it is two-thirds vacant- and you do have a a third uh that there be an effort by a new uh property owner the new purchaser to to assist in relocation- and I don't know exactly what the parameter would be for that, but um just so that we we don't displace businesses.

O

Yeah I I appreciate that comment and in fact, when I was making my hypothetical situation or stating my hypothetical situation, I was thinking exactly what you were just saying that uh you know. Actually it's likely the other way around where um property owners is, is clearly right, going to be trying to determine that they did have the vacancy um versus not um and- and I think at the sort of the the difference here right would be.

O

um You know you you have if if there was a property owner trying to maintain, uh you know vacancy um and they're keeping the the building completely unoccupied uh and then coming forward with that, I I don't you know.

O

If somebody was that determined right, um I don't think we're making it any any easier on them by saying two-thirds vacant, um you know versus completely vacant, clearly there's an opportunity for some revenue and tenancy in with the one-third of the units, um but I think, if they're, if they're quite frankly, that determined that they were going to hold it bacon, anyways, then they likely would have just you know completely held it vacant um to do so, and so I I don't necessarily want to change it for for that purpose.

O

I do agree with you, though, on on the last comment in regards to uh you know: relocation, um assistance, and that was our thinking on not wanting to displace especially longer term tenants, but even any displacement of of potential tenants. I would. uh I would agree that that is uh you know, that's something uh that we should consider and- and uh it sounds like you didn't- have uh right a suggestion on on how best to do that, but I would, um unless you do.

Q

um I I would need a little bit more thought, but at least um um credible brokerage services to help find uh an additional location and or to pay for those brokerage services. Usually it's the receiver site so that shouldn't be that pays the broker. So that's not uh shouldn't be an issue and then a certain amount of moving costs, um um and it so depends on what the business is and what equipment they have. That's why I don't know if there's an objective standard I I would be able to think through in on the spot.

O

Yeah yeah and I'd look I'd be comfortable with allowing staff to sort of develop some language around around that relocation assistance. I do think that that that would be important um as well, so if anything I'd be comfortable making that modification, um but I I don't want to remove the two-thirds uh language.

K

K

uh Okay, thank you anything council, further council member.

K

Okay uh and I'm not inclined yet no sorry, okay, yeah, I'm not inclined to support the current motion. uh I am concerned that uh every one of those businesses is someone's livelihood and probably several peoples and I'm concerned about displacing them when appears to be at least viable enough to support some businesses. um Councilmember cohen yeah, I'm I'm kind of.

B

I'm agreeing with mayor on this one I'm not sure that I would support the um that current motion. I think so remind me the number of sites that we think we're opening up by just with the staff recommendation of vacant sites for five years.

Q

13 sites, council, member.

B

13 sites, okay and then, and if we reduce the year number of years to three years, we probably open up more than I assume. But we don't know the numbers up right now right, um but so.

E

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify it's 13 sites when we use a 1.

D

000 foot buffer.

B

Sorry, 1 000 foot buffer with with fully vacant for five years.

E

No no um 13 sites is is just the the buffer sites, but you're asking.

D

um Changing policy, how.

B

Many sites have we opened up to potential.

E

So the sites we've identified that are that have an far of 0.2 or less it's roughly 242 sites. We don't yet know the number of.

G

The vacant heights.

B

So, there's a to me there's a there's a potential number of sites and we don't in my mind we're opening up a number of sites and it's cleaner for me to I think, easier for staff to use a fully vacant measure, and you know I even asked this question when I got when I was talking to staff about this yesterday.

B

Why was five years because it seemed to me that three years I think I've mentioned three years when we had this discussion yesterday, because you know it seems like three years of vacancy and the site is enough to sort of cause questions in a community about. Why do we still have this this site here?

B

That's vacant that that and begin to have potential for blight and other things, and so reducing that time I think, could be a reasonable way to add more sites to the list, um and I I do agree that, having trying to measure the two thirds could be complicated. In fact, when I looked at that memo, I was also a little bit confused about that that exception for having a single tenant. That's there for five or more years, because you could have a site: that's completely vacant, except for one tenant.

B

That's been there for five or more years and in some sense it would make sense to find to offer relocation for that single tenant and then use that site as opposed to having that single tenant who's been there for a long time hold back use of that site. So it's not clear to me that that two-thirds with a single tenant exception is the right measure, either um and and then again, and then also the question about how you decide what two-thirds means right. Is it based on square footage?

B

Is it based on number of number of storefronts? It's not, I'm not sure, that's totally clear either. So I think it makes a good starting point in terms of opening up more sites to go with staff recommendation at this point, and then you know seeing how that goes and maybe having to open up more sites later by further expanding.

B

The policy is the right way to approach.

K

It right uh councilmember, foley.

L

Thank you uh and I appreciate the planning department bringing forward this general plan amendment and as a way to stimulate more development in affordable housing uh in the affordable housing arena, which we know we need desperately.

L

I'm I I don't believe I can support the motion either, and it's really comes down to the two-thirds vacant uh component as well. I'm glad to see the thousand feet is back in.

L

I think that's really important from an environmental justice standpoint, just the properties being uh high heavy industrial properties being closer to residential uh development, but I'm concerned about how to quantify the two-thirds vacant, whether it's square footage which would seem to me, be the actually the easiest way and not the number of tenants, but I I think that's just problematic for uh staff to take a look at and if we're looking at viability of a commercial property, if there's a tenant in there, then it's viable that it can be utilized for uh for industrial or commercial purposes.

L

So I I'd love to see you know. I know council member perales you're you're not willing to to budge on that, but I I just don't think I can support it with the two-thirds I'd rather see it um vacant and uh three years. I think five years is a long time too to for a property owner to keep their property vacant for the potential for development down down the line. So uh would you consider I'm going to ask you again you've been asked by the mayor and you've been asked by others?

L

Would you consider removing the two-thirds vacancy.

K

I guess that means pretty.

L

Pleased with sugar, on top.

O

uh No- and I I had my hand raised, I I would just describe a little bit yeah sorry.

K

Go ahead, councilmember we'll come back to councilman foley when you.

O

So you know first off, I just want to say look I I I do agree staff is you know trying to to help here. um Obviously we have a policy that the one of the biggest issues for me was that we, we only saw one property, actually get developed, because this policy in uh you know the last several years, and so for me it was a matter of this policy.

O

Right was put in place because we actually wanted to to see if we couldn't spur some residential uh use, some affordable housing development on sites that have essentially you know, really gone underutilized and so and it I think for me, I erred on the side of of housing. If you will- um and I get the delicate balance that we have here with the the need to preserve job space and specifically industrial.

O

Hence why you know, I think, as much as staff was being very conscious of that. I was trying to be very conscious of that too.

O

At the same time, trying to open up opportunities in a policy that that clearly hasn't you know, amounted to too much, and so that's where the the you know, sort of this, this middle ground of this two-thirds versus the 100 vacancy um came into play and and still trying to be conscious of displacement, and so I think you know, I think I've struck a balance in my mind, airing on the side of uh something that we all know we need, which is affordable housing.

O

If you know, as I'm hearing from some of my colleagues here and as councilmember foley now is asking pretty, please um you know you're lying on the side of hey look. uh You know you're, not so comfortable because of the fact that there would be at least one third of the bill of the the occupal space you know um to be occupied.

O

uh I think that's fine right, you're sort of just a different uh coming from a different place. I I'm so I'm not inclined to want to change that. Sorry.

L

Okay, I appreciate that. That's I I understand where you're coming from, but when you're considering two-thirds, then are you considering the number of tenants versus the square footage? For example, I have a building of a thousand square feet. I have three tenants: two of the tenants occupy 500 square feet 110 and occupies 500 square feet. Is it two-thirds if two people, two tenants occupy the 500 square feet? Is that what you're considering two of three tenants or is it the square footage I think square foot?

L

I I I mostly deal by square footage, so it's easier for me to follow a square footage calculation and say: okay, two-thirds of this property is being occupied by a tenant that would be 750 square feet in my example, but if you're saying two of three tenants, it could be two smaller tenants and the bigger parcel part of the property could be vacant.

L

So that's part of why I I'd like to remove the two-thirds, because it's confusing and I'm having a hard time deciding determining if it's the square footage or if it's the number of tenants.

O

I you know, as I stated and look, I should have uh spelled that out. The the intent was uh two-thirds of the rentable space, I.e square footage, um and so that that should have been more clear. I did ask staff, since obviously it came up on how we're going to measure it if they felt one was was easier to measure than the other, um and that's where I said you know I could.

O

I could also go with where staff thinks might be easier to measure, but, as a you know, property owner, that's leasing out space um as you're now describing if, if the two thirds of the rentable square footage makes more sense and based on what you just said, I actually do think that makes more sense, especially if you have a very large you know tenant occupying you know, you know a significant amount of of a building and then a couple smaller tenants again, I think that's what would make it more fair would be just to utilize that so I'll.

O

Just make that very clear. Then, in the the motion that that is the case, it is two-thirds of the rentable uh square footage.

L

Okay, that helps me that that helps me a lot.

L

There may be times where a commercial property owner can rent out the smaller spaces, because it's easier than renting out the larger space, but the total square footage or the combine the square footage that is being raised, a rented is still less than two-thirds, so that that helps me a lot. Thank you for clarifying that it's square footage.

L

I appreciate that. I'm I'm done with my questions. Thank you. Thank you.

K

Michael, did you want to win.

G

I was just gonna say we agree with uh councilmember foley that it's it's better to go. This work gross gla, mostly simple area of space and not go based on canada space. So we agree, so I just want to make that uh uh a statement for corrales because councilmember, probably because you asked staff and we kind of anyway- that's our recommendation. So we agree with uh probably on that.

K

Okay, uh we'll come to you in just a moment: councilmember cohen, we'll just go through the councilmembers haven't spoken yet councilmember man.

J

Yeah thanks mayor I'll, be quick. I I you know I because I just want to go on the record and make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You know I I very much want to see more housing developed, and I appreciate the effort here. I I guess, given our history as a city and and the state of our tax base, due to our jobs, to housing ratio, the two-thirds rule is something I'm also pretty uncomfortable with that.

J

If I'm understanding correctly and please please, do it correct me if I'm wrong, it feels like that's essentially saying that we're okay, with a certain amount of business, to place displacement in the industrial sector and given the size of the lots and and the the types of industries supported. I mean we're basically talking about displacement of smaller businesses that are generally pretty high, paying jobs. That also generally don't require college degrees, which are the very kind of jobs. I think we want to keep here to maintain our middle class.

J

So again, I you know I'd love to hear from economic development if I'm misinterpreting, where we're heading I'm very supportive of being back to the thousand foot buffer. I think that makes a lot of sense, but it just it feels like the trade-off to me personally, at least is not quite what it ought to be, and I just I feel like there are other better ways. We can increase housing production in san jose, but and of course, regionally and beyond, but curious. If economic development wants to weigh in on any of that,.

Q

Thank you, councilmember, I'm guessing! Oh chris, go ahead. You start.

D

uh So yeah councilmember uh just to sort of clarify, um so we do. We are very concerned about small business placement um based on uh the recommendation and the language moving forward. It's not so much displacement on industrial sites um and that's you know the buffer between the sites that are actually involved tend to be transitional commercial sides, so neighborhood community commercial.

D

um I think I believe uh mixed uses in there as well, um and obviously that you're right that they're smaller sites uh that obviously have challenges getting leased um and and so they're sort of lower class buildings, um which is why I think this policy direction has taken place. um I think the important thing to bear in mind from a displacement perspective is one of the issues that we're really focused on right now, especially as we look at the recovery is the ability to re-establish small business.

D

You know in in the next sort of relatively short period so when, when we think about especially a three-year time frame, um you know, we've already got vacancies that have been sitting empty for almost a year now as a result directly from the pandemic, and so if it takes us another six months plus to get past, you know restrictions on on use of space.

D

You know that could put us halfway through a three-year period already and especially as we start to build back small small business, especially sort of new entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs that are reestablishing themselves they're, not always looking for you know high class main street space. Sometimes they need to find these class b class c spaces that are available at lower rents, uh so they can establish themselves and then sort of move on up the chain. So so it displacement's very, very much an issue that we're focused on uh that they're.

D

Very much sort of these spaces- you know typically, uh are transitional. Some of them, you know, aren't viable and, to the extent that these are you know, chronically vacant sites and there's reasons why they've never been used effectively as commercial sites. um You know we agree, absolutely the opportunity for housing and the need for housing certainly outweighs uh continued preservation, but to the extent that you know as part of our recovery plan, we need a different type of space to accommodate small business growth. Then uh we should also be bearing that in mind.

Q

And- and I just wanted to add to that- that the type of business really matters of the of the small businesses might be a rapid prototyping might be a number a small manufacturer.

Q

So so these the companies that are in industrial, uh do provide good jobs and do provide council member benefits often provide benefits, um and it is really hard because we have a low vacancy rate to relocate them in our area.

Q

Totally appreciate, um council member prolly's support on working forward for relocation, assistance from any prospective project and just acknowledge as well that, with only two percent vacancy in the monterey corridor say or other areas, it's very hard for businesses to move around a rule of thumb from the brokerage community is a five to seven percent is actually a more healthy vacancy rate, so that people can either come in or move around um and again it is so important to have it's true. Economic development is not at all saying that affordable housing is not important.

Q

Just continuing to make this really strong connection between affordable housing and economic opportunity, economic mobility and the types of jobs that are in heavy and light industrial are such a great place to try to to train and make available, um and we are scarily close to losing a ton of hi li heavy and light industrial land at only 2.7 uh total out of the 14.

Q

That is the total amount of jobs in the city. So we are. We are very low on supply.

J

Thanks yeah, that was my sense, and I appreciate the detail. Nancy and chris. um I guess I'll just close by adding that I would be a little nervous about reducing to three years. I've I've leased a number of office spaces, including one in a light industrial building once and I just know that as landlords negotiate with potential tenants and deals fall through and landlords decide to make new investments in the space to try to attract new tenants that three years can go by quickly.

J

um I certainly don't like seeing buildings empty for five to ten years. I mean that that really does become a problem in the community. We have a very prominent site down in district 10 that that we're all very concerned about that's been vacant almost 10 years now, but three years with just a normal business cycle feels to me like it's cutting it pretty close, so I personally prefer to see it at five years, but I just wanted to add that you know personal perspective um thanks. That's that's all I had.

K

All right, thank you.

B

Yeah I just wanted to make the substitute motion to move the uh staff recommendation. I was. I was going to amend their recommendation to move into three years and a little bit after the last discussion, not 100 sure I want to do that. I'll just leave the staff recommendation as is, and we can discuss the years so I'll. Just move substitute motion to that to improve the staff.

P

Recommendation.

F

I seconded it, I don't know who else did.

L

You, too, you were medium.

D

Hearing, hey sam, your audio is real life.

C

Oh, I'm sorry, and here you see him.

K

How about that.

D

K

All right just one more time uh having device issues, uh let's go with councilmember perales.

O

Yeah, uh I was just gonna stage, a filibuster here, um but uh no, I was actually going to suggest to to amend uh a part of of my uh motion that would have included, uh I think, just a little bit more uh consideration for current tenants, uh which was in regards to the the one-third of those tenants that have been occupied from from five years down to three years, but beings that that's not the motion on the table anymore.

O

um I I you know I can see where the the ship is selling, uh I'm not against that the direction. Here. uh I think I you know I made a valiant effort. uh I will support the the substitute motion as well. Thanks.

C

uh Vice mayor, uh so I seconded the uh substitute motion, so it pretty much says everything I need to say so I'll just leave it at that.

K

Okay, thank you. uh Customers, carson.

D

K

Councilman, did you want to speak.

D

K

Okay, all right, I'm happy to support the substitute motion. uh I think those are all the hands. So, let's vote on the substitute motion. Jimenez. Yes,.

D

D

Mayhem, hi jones aye.

B

Ricardo hi.

K

Thank you all right. Thank you. um We're now open to public open forum, uh mr soto.

A

uh Yes, paul september horseshoe, uh I'd like to address you uh specifically uh mayor lecardo, uh I wanna. Thank you. I'm really curious just to know what the real actual reason was that you agreed to the uh felon statue removal.

A

I probably never know it, but um it was the right thing to do and it was the right time to do it and uh and and you you're going to create a means by which our community can heal from a lot of the historical injustices that stem from that and what flowed from the sonic lodge. 10..

A

I've been doing a lot of research on the sonic lodge 10 and the men who served uh judge lawrence archer being one of them who was also a mayor, judge william almond another one, uh and they were all very, very tight, good friends with uh peter burnett.

A

So we see this cabal of of human beings that came over here and inserted this manifest destiny policy within this region and how that tentacled out and how we're uh confronted with the residual impacts of that today, and so in that sense, I appreciate what you did, because what flowed from that is still reverberating today, and so um I would really like to have at least some type of committee that is formed that um reduces that price, because it's not going to cost 400 000.

A

It's just it's just not going to do that, and so I'd really like to work with you on really mitigating that costs, so that the issue of its removal does not continue to reverberate that we can have some point of healing um around that issue. But I do want to thank you for um for making that move. It was a wise move and it was the kind of move that we would that we do expect from our leaders, and so I just wanted to extend that personal. Thank you to you.

K

Thank you, mr sutto, and uh if you're interested in the reasons, I wrote a really long piece on medium.com, so I, uh if you have the time, feel free to read. That is a long one. Mr bakeman.

H

All right, thank you. um I feel at this time a u.s senate impeachment process of the former president is meant to ask how to create boundaries in what to consider as unacceptable in the negotiative and deliberative powers of a u.s president.

H

An important lesson, I hope, we're all all learning from this senate impeachment process is simply that the president must be held accountable for his recent actions in some form.

H

We are an interesting moment of time uh in time of well-reasoned ideas that can offer both accountability and forgiveness, as this country is about to embark on a journey in the next four years that can invite the country to set goals, helped develop by all sides in the last decade, towards the ideas of peace, health, human rights, green sustainability and more open, positive, sustainable democratic practices within a local community.

H

These are practices that can invite everyone in the united shared effort from this in san jose. Ideas of accountability and human rights have been working long before covert 19..

H

I hope san jose can continue a process of everyday community, its council city council and its election process that will have an important part and voice in city government and how the future of san jose can continue to grow and mature with 38 seconds left.

H

In other thoughts, please include new eli, affordable housing ideas, police mental health and renewable energy practices and jobs, as as some of the many community ideas to not give up on in what may be a difficult next five to ten years in san jose and the bay area.

H

Good luck on continuing a good logic of compromise, with hazard pay issues and after the 2017 flood, the need of good language interpretation was deemed important within city government if possible. It is time to organize and ask multilingual government staff if they can pitch in and be paid some overtime to help with language interpretation at zoom meetings and other events. Thanks a lot.

K

Thank you, uh gesture moon.

K

I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name, hi hi, welcome.

F

Hi, um my name is justjeet, I'm a san jose resident, I'm someone who helped draft the letter in support of the farmer's protest that I sent to mayor licardo vice mayor jones and the council members. I wanted to highlight the importance of supporting the farmers in india and the right to protest, which is a fundamental right in all functioning democracies.

F

If folks are not aware, farmers in india have been protesting since november 2020 in defense of their livelihoods. The federal government passed three new agricultural laws that basically privatize the farm industry and leave farmers at the mercy of large corporations.

F

The indian government responded to a protest by farmers in january by shutting off the internet, beating protesters and arresting media officials. What has happened in india and continues to happen is a human rights issue. The oppression of the farmers stands on the historical oppression of the sikh people, with so much of the san jose constituents being sick and south asian and with the imminent threat of further violence by the indian government.

F

It's imperative that the city government voice its support for the farmers and the right to protest safely and condemn the violence used against them by the indian government, following in the steps of fresno mayor jerry dyer. Thank you.

K

Thank you uh call and user too.

P

Yeah, I I hope that the city can get their act together, get these businesses back open and start focusing on local issues versus what's happening in dc. I mean we have so many problems here with poor infrastructure, terrible police department. That's looking for a pie in the sky police chief. I hope the new police chief focuses on real crime versus fringe issues and taking kids to target and camp, and all these other. You know nicey nice uh phony pr campaigns of complete craft. Maybe you should folk, maybe this police department.

P

I wish the city council could have the police department focused on helping prosecute real criminals and keeping them in jail. Although you know lori smith, the sheriff who's, corrupt, pretty difficult, the district attorney rosen terrible, but the city council of the police department has to fight for the citizens. When terrible things happen, I mean bambi. Larson was murdered.

P

What two years ago, terrible sam did a terrible job handling the whole thing you ran out of john muir junior high school, like he was on fire uh eddie eddie mucked it up for the cameras, that's for sure, but uh no it's just terrible. How you guys treat the regular citizens here?

P

The roads are bad, you know potholes everywhere, you can't pave the roads. You want to build these new pie in the sky cities that are ridiculous. They're, not it's not going to make it.

P

This whole city is crumbling and the the trash everywhere on highway 280 is awful. In my district there's burned out buildings, it looks like detroit in district 9.

H

P

Terrible uh but yeah you're, you guys, should be ashamed of yourself, every single one of you and the people who do a good job. Half the time.

K

Thank you, uh catherine hedges.

E

um Good evening and thank you uh first of all, uh mayor ricardo, I'd like to thank you for agreeing to take down the felon station. I agree with mr soto's comments and.

E

That's about it! Thank you very much.

K

Okay, thank you uh well, uh thank you. Everybody good night and stay healthy. This means adjourned.

B

B

B