►
Description
City of San José, California
Joint meeting of Rules and Open Government / Committee of the Whole of April 6, 2022
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=954100&GUID=98C4A94E-ACAE-436E-8A8D-455808890695
A
A
A
All
right,
we
are
going
to
start
out
with
the
agenda
for
april
12th.
C
And
sorry
councilman
brown's
present
too.
A
Welcome
vice
chair,
so
we're
gonna
start
on
pages
four
and
five.
A
D
There's
a
question
for
lee:
this
is
the
opposite
question.
Then
vice
mayor
usually
asks
you.
I
see
a
lot
of
deferrals
from
the
next
couple
of
agendas,
and
I
know
that
may
is
getting
pretty
crazy
and
june
will
be
crazy
too.
I
know
that
it's
probably
late
to
put
anything
back
on
the
agenda,
but
I'm
just
wondering
why
things
are
getting
deferred
out
of
may
out
of
april
when
we
have
these
short
agendas.
E
Yeah
good
question:
I
do
think
you
know:
we've
been
sending
out
the
horizon
report.
You'll
start
seeing
some
stuff
jump
up
from
may
into
april,
as
we
try
and
manage
some
of
that.
The
items
that
were
deferred
simply
just
weren't
ready
to
meet
the
sunshine
requirements
set
forth
by
this
committee
and
the
council.
E
They
needed
additional
time.
So
with
that
we
are
trying
to
manage
the
agenda
so
may
and
june
aren't
overly
impacted.
D
Yeah
I
appreciate
that
I
figured
those
items
wouldn't
be
able
to.
We
were
large
items,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
move
back
into
april,
but
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
we're
going
to
look
at
bringing
some
things
from
may
into
april,
maybe
and
lay
the
later
agendas
so
that
we
don't
have
too
many
midnight
meetings
in
may.
A
D
A
Okay
on
to
the
consent
calendar
tony:
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak.
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
The
next
item
is
local
small
business
preferences.
That's
actually
my
memo.
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
A
Okay,
bringing
it
back
to
the
committee,
this
is
pretty
straightforward
in
our
efforts
to
get
more
local
and
small
businesses
city
contracts.
We
had
a
preference
program
and
the
proposal
is
to
double
that
program,
because
we
weren't
successful
in
getting
some
of
those
contracts
awarded
to
small
and
local
businesses.
But
by
increasing
the
preference
percentage
we
would
have
had
small
businesses
and
local
businesses
receive
contracts.
So
that
is
the
genesis
of
my
memo
and
if
I.
D
A
Okay,
next
item
is
oppose
the
valley,
water
district
measure,
extending
term
limits
for
the
board
members
and
that's
from
councilmember
mahan
and
tony.
Do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
A
Okay,
bringing
it
back
to
the
committee,
councilmember
davis,.
F
E
No,
I
wouldn't
be
aware
if
any
other
city
has
taken
a
position
now,
council
member.
F
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
councilmember
cohen.
D
I'm
a
little
a
little
torn
on
this
one.
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
a
measure
that
I'm
personally
going
to
oppose.
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
measure.
I'm
not
sure
that
the
city,
how
well
the
city
is
served
by
taking
a
position
on
it.
You
know
I
I
certainly
the
argument
of
the
fact
that
this
is
costing
three
million
dollars
unnecessarily.
Is
there,
but
it's
already
on
the
ballot
we're
not
gonna
prevent.
D
The
you
know,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
make
sure
that
our
primary
role
should
be
to
have
a
good
relationship
with
the
water
district
when
we
are
working
with
them
on
joint
projects
for.
D
At
the
water
treatment
plant
and
we're
you
know
when
we
do
all
the
things
we
do
for
recycled
water
and
all
the
other
projects
we're
trying
to
do
with
them,
and
you
know
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
taking
a
position
on
a
measure
of
another
jurisdiction
serves
us
in
any
way
as
individuals.
I
think
we
all
can.
You
know,
make
our
positions
known
on
this
measure,
not
clear
to
me
that
the
city
taking
an
actual
official
position
is,
is
beneficial
to
what
we
need
to
do
as
a
as
a
city.
A
G
Thanks
vice
mayor
sorry,
to
be
a
little
late,
I
yeah
I,
I
think
it
is
important
for
us,
as
a
statement
of
principle,
to
raise
awareness
about
a
measure
that
very
few
of
our
residents
are
aware
of
it's
costing
a
lot
of
money.
I
think
it's
a
very
important
statement
of
principle
for
us
as
a
city
to
say
that
we
think
it's
not
a
good
use
of
3.2
million
dollars
in
ratepayer
funding.
By
the
way
our
our
residents
are
the
largest
group,
the
largest
class
of
rate
payers
in
valley
water
service
area.
G
I
think
we
do
have
a
a
fiscal
interest
in
this
and
in
defending
our
ratepayers.
We've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
just
over
the
last
year
about
rates
being
increased,
whether
or
not
we
believe
valley
water
is
using
rate
payer
funding
responsibly
and
and
even
more.
I
think
we,
we
have
a
very
strong
public
interest
here
in
calling
out
and
by
the
way
jurisdictions
often
weigh
in
on
measures
and
in
other
jurisdictions
when
they
affect
their
business
or
their
their
residence.
G
The
the
the
misleading
language
on
the
measure
keep
in
mind
that
the
board
passed
this
4-3
with
three
of
the
board
members
openly,
stating
how
misleading
this
is
it.
It
implies
that
it
is.
It
is
extending
terms
when,
in
fact,
it
is
or
I'm
sorry
that
it
is
limiting
terms
when,
in
fact,
it's
extending
terms,
I
think
it's
incredibly
misleading.
I
think
it
reflects
poorly
on
all
of
us
in
the
public
sector,
and
I
do
think
our
residents
look
to
us
for
leadership.
G
My
office
helped
form
a
community
working
group
with
interested
community
members
to
specifically
look
at
water
related
issues.
We
obviously
have
an
important
role
to
play
in
that
as
a
city
with
our
water
recycling
program,
purple
pipe
the
wastewater
treatment
facility
and
so
on,
and
it
was
the
residents
who
are
tracking.
G
When
we're
in
the
midst
of
the
most
significant
drought
we
have
faced
in
recorded
california
history,
we
could
do
over
a
thousand
lawn
conversions
in
san
jose
alone
with
those
dollars
to
more
drought-tolerant
plants.
We
could
have
a
significant
down
payment
on
the
waste
on
the
I'm
sorry,
the
water
recycling
expansion
that
we
want
to
do.
I
mean
this.
This
has
real
impacts
and
I
think
we
absolutely
should
be
willing
to
say
and
should
stand
up
for
our
residents
and
say
we
think
this
is
wrong
and
I
I
don't.
G
A
No,
we
we
blew
through
the
agenda.
C
G
B
C
Me
so
I
actually
look.
I
agree,
I
don't
I
don't
support
this
measure.
I
won't
be
supporting
it.
I
don't
think
this
was
the
right
decision,
I'm
just
curious
what
effectively
this
action
we're
taking
can
can
lead
to.
C
G
Whole
3.2
million
that
that
has
been
allocated
and
spent
now
that's
not
to
say
that
it
is
impossible
that
they
would
choose
to
spend
more
on
on
this.
So
I
I
would
not
say
that
that's
an
impossibility,
but
the
3.2
has
been
spent.
I
think
it's
more
about
the
fact
that
in
I
don't
know
eight
weeks
or
so
not
that
I'm
counting
our
residents
are
going
to
be
voting
on
something
that
is,
I
think,
truly
misleading.
I'm
shocked
that
this
has
been
approved.
G
This
language
has
been
approved
for
the
ballot
and
as
as
linda
lizat,
director
lazad
stated
at
the
meeting.
It
may
be
legally
defensible,
but
it
is
intellectually
dishonest
to
put
this
on
the
ballot.
So
I
think
that
the
primary
value
council,
member
from
my
view,
is
us,
as
representatives
of
our
community
being
willing
to
step
out
and
at
least
point
public,
the
public's
attention
to
this.
You
know,
mercury
news,
reporter
paul
rogers
has
been
doing
yeoman's
work
over
at
the
merc
digging
into
this.
Writing
really
thoughtful
articles.
G
Uncovering
this,
the
flaws
in
this
process
trying
to
raise
the
alarm
bell,
and
frankly
this
to
me,
is
about
amplifying
the
work
of
of
independent
investigative
journalists
and
others
who
are
in
watchdog
groups
who
are
saying
this
is
really
wrong
and
sadly,
when
poorly
worded
measures
end
up
on
the
ballot
like
this,
I
think
people
often
just
read
the
description
and
choose
to
vote,
and
it's
really
that's
bad.
That
erodes,
in
my
view,
trusted
local
government
that
affects
all
of
us.
G
So
to
me,
it's
really
just
about
us
standing
by
our
principles,
yet
you
know
generating
a
little
more
attention
and
saying
yeah.
This
is
wrong
and
we
we
don't
support
it
and
that
will
hopefully
help
spread
awareness
in
a
way
that
I
don't
expect
us
to
we're
not
going
to
spend
any
money
opposing
this.
In
fact,
I
don't
think
any
groups
will,
and
so
I
think
this
will
just
kind
of
slide
by
and
then
people
will
later
find
out.
G
They
will
sold
a
bill
of
goods
unless
those
of
us
you
know
who
are
serving
the
public
interest,
speak
up
and
say
this
is
this
is
wrong
and-
and
we
believe
in
you
know,
transparency
and
government
and
that's
how
we
build
trust
in
government.
So
anyway,
that's
that's
my
pitch.
I
don't
know
if
they're
going
to
spend
more
money,
but
the
3.2
has
been
spent.
As
you
said,.
C
Okay,
thank
you
yeah
62
days,
but
you're
right.
None
of
us
are
counting.
So
I
I
am
curious
from
the
staff's
perspective
on
the
resolution,
and
I
I
heard
what
you
just
said:
counselor
right
hand,
there's
no
advocacy
that
we
right
that
there's
some
sort
of
I
guess:
opposition
driven
up
other
than
maybe
being
on
the
record
in
in
our
opinion
of
it
and
then
potentially
asking
or
lobbying
other
municipalities
to
do
the
same.
But
there's
no
there's
no
request
for
what
tradition.
C
I
guess
we
would
do
with
our
lobbyists
at
the
state
level
or
federal
level,
because
we
don't
have
don't
have
a
similar
local
group.
That
would
you
know,
put
in
some
efforts
at
this
point
again.
I
don't
know
who
we
would
we'd
lobby
to
right.
The
decision
seems
to
be
made
by
them
now
it's
up
to
the
voters,
so
we'd
have
to
now
go
out
and
initiate
a
campaign
for
it.
But
but
that's
that's
not
possible,
so
I
guess
just
other
than
than
going
on
the
record.
E
I
was
waiting
to
see
if
nora,
unmuted
first
and
she
smartly
didn't
so
I'll,
take
a
stab
at
that.
You
know
yeah
this.
This
is
a
little
bit
different.
You
know,
as
opposed
to
a
decision
kind
of
us
waiting
on
a
decision
and
trying
to
influence
that
the
decision
of
the
elected
body
has
been
made
so
council
member
mayhem
is
correct
and
that
is
moving
forward
to
the
ballot.
E
I
don't,
I
can't
think
of
any
you
know
and
of
course
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
advocate
with
something
like
this,
because
it
is
on
the
ballot
now.
So
we
have
certain
guidelines
we
need
to
follow.
E
You
know
our
name
will
be
put
out
there,
the
city
of
san
jose
as
an
organization
on
the
ballot
related
to
several.
You
know
different
measures,
whether
we
move
forward
or
if
we
take
positions
on
other
statewide
measures,
so
we
routinely
lend
our
name
and
then
we're
allowed
to
educate
on
certain
measures
if
an
at,
if,
if
an
opportunity
opens
up,
we
could
certainly
identify
that
and
educate
on
kind
of
the
intent,
but
I
would
agree
with
council
member
mayhem.
I
think
this
is
more
us
going
on
record
talking
about.
E
You
know,
intent
and
transparency
around
measures,
specifically
as
an
organization
that
often
goes
to
the
voters,
to
ask
for
things
to
provide
services
and
ask
for
flexibility.
Trust
and
government
is
a
big
marker
for
us
to
measure
as
we're
doing
those
things
and
when
we
erode
the
trust
of
residents,
it
makes
it
very
hard
for
you
all,
as
a
governing
body,
to
have
the
opportunity
to
place
those
things
on
the
ballot.
B
No,
I'm
sorry,
I
was
just
going
to
add.
I
I
think
the
time
limits
have
run
in
terms
of
challenging
the
ballot
language
in
any
way,
so
that,
from
my
perspective,
that
would
have
been
about
the
only
thing,
maybe
on
behalf
of
someone
on
the
council
or
something.
But
I
think
that
time
has
passed.
C
Is
there
some
sort
of
ballot
argument
like
were
there
where
there
could
be?
You
know
tied
to?
I
know
independently?
Maybe
that
could
be
done
with
you
know
the
mayor
or
individual
council
members,
but
anything
officially
showing
that
if
the
council
does
say
agree
to
this
position,
anything
that
that
could
be
utilized
for.
G
I
believe
the
if
I
could
interject
I'm
sorry.
I
believe
that
the
ballot
statements
have
been
submitted
and
I
believe
that
our
mayor,
in
his
individual
capacity,
has
already
signed
as
one
of
the
co-signatories
and
the
taking
the
opposition
is
my
understanding,
along
with
some
of
the
sitting
directors
at
the
at
the
board.
But
okay.
G
G
Anything,
this
is
more
about
to
me
just
a
do
we
want
to
have
a,
I
think
I
personally
will
be
publicly
have
stated
my
opposition
and
why-
and
I
think,
it's
more
powerful
for
us
as
a
body
to
state
that
and
send
a
letter
to
other
cities
and
make
sure
that
their
residents
are
aware
of
what
I
think
is
a
really
bad
decision.
C
I
still
think
that,
if
it
even
is
just
a
statement
of
of
of
where
we
stand
on
this
from
from
my
reading
of
the
you
know
the
actual
title
of
of
the
initiative
to
what
it's
going
to
do
and
quite
frankly,
I
just
also
am
personally
not
a
fan
of
extremely
long
term
limits,
and
you
know
they
had
this
problem
before.
As
far
as
I
was
concerned,
they
fixed
it
and
now
they're
kind
of
unfixing
it
right
by
slightly,
and
I
believe,
making
arguments
that
I
just
completely
disagree
with.
C
So
I'm
fine
with
the
statement
and
I'll
I'll
be
voting
support
thanks.
A
Thank
you
lee.
I
was
just
trying
to
think
of
some
examples
of
when
we
have
opposed
a
ballot
measure
for
one
of
our
shared
jurisdictions.
Like
the
county.
Do
do
you
have
any
examples
or
anything
come
to
mind
where
we've
opposed.
E
Nothing
comes
to
the
top
of
the
mind
in
recent
years
on
opposing
a
local
measure.
We
have
opposed
several
statewide
measures
and
we've
supported
several
local
measures
as
well
like
supporting
the
county
on
measure
a
when
that
came
forward.
Other
cities
will
routinely
do
that.
I
know
I
believe
the
city
of
morgan
hill
supported
measure
t
when
the
city
put
that
on
the
ballot,
given
the
significance
for
coyote
valley.
E
A
Okay:
okay,
because,
as
everyone
knows,
we
have
to
work
with
these-
these
agencies
all
the
time
and
I'm
very
hesitant
to
come
out
with
an
opposing
position
unless
it
meets
a
certain
threshold,
and
I'm
not
sure
this
particular
item
meets
that
threshold
in
the
sense
that
functionally
there's
not
a
lot,
we
can
do
so,
it's
more
so
making
a
a
political
statement
and
there
is
a
political
process.
A
People
can
get
involved
with
any
any
kind
of
campaign
to
oppose
it.
So
there's
it's
a
very
transparent
public
process
to
get
your
opinions
and
your
voices
heard.
So
I'm
not
receptive
to
to
move
this
forward,
but
I
understand
councilmember
may
and
your
concerns
and
how
the
the
measures
is
written
and
the
potential
confusion
for
the
voters.
But
I
believe
that
this
should
be
part
of
the
political
process
and
that's
where
it
should
should
sit.
So
I'm
not
going
to
support
it.
A
But
there
is
a
motion
in
a
second
on
the
floor
and
councilmember
man,
you,
you
have
your
hand
up.
G
Can
I
rebut?
Yes,
you
can,
I
I
mean
viceroy
with
all
due
respect.
I
I.
I
think
that
this
is
an
issue
of
a
matter
of
principle
and,
as
lee
said,
my
concern
here
is
that
we
make
clear
to
our
constituents
that
we're
going
to
stand
up
for
clarity,
transparency
in
the
political
process
and
we're
going
to
call
out
intentionally
misleading
language.
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
the
debate
from
the
board,
the
water
district.
G
What
it
was
it
was
three
out
of
the
four
members
were
incredibly
uncomfortable.
This
got
pushed
through
the
executive
director
said
there
was
no
polling.
You
know
the
the
difference
here
in
language
is,
if
you
look
at
the
merk
coverage
of
this,
when
it
is
polled
as
it
is
currently
and
clearly
deceptively
written,
this
thing
wins
by
like
50
points
and
when
it's
stated
accurately
as
an
extension
of
term
limits,
it
loses
by
nearly
50
points.
G
I
think
we,
as
elected
officials
locally,
absolutely
have
an
interest
in
holding
ourselves
and
and
our
and
on
behalf
of
our
residents
holding
others
accountable
for
for
truth
and
transparency,
and
that
is
an
interest
that
we
collectively
have.
As
a
body,
I
think
it's
something
we
stand
for.
This
is
clearly
meant
to
deceive
voters.
It's
not
something.
G
Voters
ask
for
the
polling
completely
inverts
once
the
language
is
clear
and
if
we
don't
believe
as
a
body
that
this
is
wrong,
then
why
should
voters
trust
us
with
our
ballot
language
and
by
the
way,
3.2
million
dollars,
is
nothing
to
seize
that
you
could
forgive
water
debt
for
6,
000
families
in
san
jose
with
3.2
million
dollars
you
could
replace
thousands
of
water
efficient,
shower
heads
toilets.
I
mean
we
talk
about
wanting
government
to
be
more
efficient,
more
effective,
more
accountable.
G
These
are
things
we
believe
in
we've
had
extensive
conversations
with
the
water
district
about
how
to
achieve
our
shared
goals
and
then
a
faction
on
the
board
manages
to
cobble
together
four
votes
to
push
forward
deceptive
ballot
language
and
spend
3.2
million
dollars,
basically
tricking
the
voters
into
giving
them
more
time
in
office.
I
mean
I
just
did
this
feels
to
me.
This
is
about
the
worst
of
government
and
if
we're
not
going
to
stand
up
and
say
this
is
wrong,
then
why
should
our
residents
trust
us
to
do
the
right
thing?
G
I
just
I
find
this
egregious
and
I
think
that
money
could
be
used
to
benefit
thousands
of
san
jose
families,
including
those
suffering
from
from
water
related
debt
due
to
covet
income
loss,
and
if
we
don't
stand
up
and
say
that
we
care
about
that,
then
there's
a
real
lack
of
accountability
and
it's
going
to
be
harder
for
us
at
the
negotiating
table
to
get
wins
for
our
residents
in
the
future.
So
anyway,
I
I
just,
I
feel
very
strongly
that
this
is
wrong
and
we
ought
to
say
so
together
as
a
body.
A
Duly
noted,
councilmember
perales.
C
Yeah
a
question
for
staff.
So
as
this,
if
this
moves
forward
out
of
out
of
rules
goes
to
the
council,
would
it
just
need
a
majority
vote,
six
votes
and
then
and
then
we've
officially?
I
guess
it
had
a
city
position
on
it
and
then,
and
is
that,
is
that
the
threshold
here?
B
Thanks
councilman.
D
Yeah
mccoy,
just
just
I
fully
agree
with
councilmember
mayhem's
comments
about
standing
up
and
taking
positions
on
things,
and
I
think
that's
what
we
are
incumbent
upon
us
to
do
as
individual
elected
officials
and
so,
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
that.
We
show
our
our
strength
in
that
manner
and
there's
there's
a
number
of
us
who
can
publicly
say
we
oppose
this
measure.
I
I'm
just,
I
think,
there's
a
difference
between
doing
that
and
taking
the
vote.
D
I'm
not
sure
what
the
vote
of
the
council
does
for
us
as
because
as
individuals
we
can
all
oppose
the
measure
and
that's
to
me
more
likely
to
be
used
anyway
in
a
political
campaign
than
the
city's
name.
So
I
I'm
I'm
still
thinking
that
the
relationship
between
the
city
and
the
water
district
is
a
separate
issue
from
how
we
as
power
as
political
figures,
take
a
position.
So
I
still
believe
that
it's
better
for
us
to
do
this
as
individuals
and
not
as
a
council
as
a
whole.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
davis,.
F
Well,
I'd
just
like
to
point
out
that
it's
a
lot
easier
to
put
it
in
our
newsletters
as
the
whole
council
agreed,
especially
if
it's
unanimous,
if
we
all
agree
as
it
sounds
like.
We
all
agree
that
that
we
are
opposing
this
measure.
It
is
a
lot
more
impactful
for
our
residents
when
we
all
put
it
in
our
newsletters
after
we
vote
that
the
council
voted
unanimously
to
oppose
this
measure.
A
All
right
strengthen
numbers.
You
got
me
thinking
about
the
warriors
councilmember
man.
G
Yeah
thanks
councilmember
davis.
I
I
you
said
that
better
than
I
did.
I
think
that's
right.
A
lot
of
our
actions
like
this
truly
are
symbolic
because
they're
statements
of
principle
there's
a
reason.
We
voted
collectively
on
our
climate
goals,
even
though
there
was
nothing
immediately
tangible.
We
were
going
to
do
and
while
that's
not
a
perfect
analogy,
I
think
the
point
is
when
we
vote
collectively
on
a
body
on
statements
of
principle,
it's
much
more
powerful.
G
It
says
we
as
the
as
the
group
of
individuals
who
represent
our
residents
in
san
jose
believe
something
to
be
important
believe
something
to
be
true
if
it's
left
to
just
be
in
individual
opinions
of
individual
council
members,
it
just
exists
in
a
in
a
gray
area
in
which
reasonable
people
can
disagree,
and
it's
just
a
policy
matter
for
disagreement.
This
to
me
is
a
statement
of
principle
for
the
reasons
I
outlined
before.
G
So
it's
much
more
powerful
for
us
as
a
body
to
say
it
and
I
think
we'll
encourage
other
cities
to
let
their
residents
know
what
this
ballot
measure
actually
does,
because
it's
unfortunately
not
going
to
be
worded
truthfully
on
the
public
ballot,
which
I
think
is
a
travis.
B
A
B
Okay,
I
have
maxim
cooper.
H
H
We
can
yeah,
I
was
kind
of
really
confused
by
the
whole
process.
I
think
my
whole
takeaway
is
that,
like
as
a
voter,
if
I
knew
that
that
was
the
case,
you
know
it's
hard
to
be
an
informed
decision
as
informed
decision
maker
and
as
like
an
informed
citizen,
because
it's
really
hard
to
get
information
about
how
these
things
happen.
I
mean
just
take
this
meeting.
H
I
had
no
idea
this
meeting
even
happens
and
it's
like
a
lot
of
it's
very
cryptic
to
me
to
understand
like
what's
the
the
way
it
all
happens,
but
this
is
all
me
trying
to
say
is
like
I
really
wouldn't
want
something
like
this
to
be
on
the
ballot.
This
is
it's
very
misleading,
it's
misappropriation
of
funds
and
I
feel
like
if
anything,
I
want
to
see
things
about
making
our
water
more
efficient
like.
H
A
Maxim
typically,
we
don't
respond
to
public
comments,
but
also
your
the
the
rules
say
that
you're
for
open
forum
that
you're
to
speak
to
something.
That's
not
on
the
agenda
which-
and
I
know
you
said
this-
is
your
first
time
so
I'm
I'm
not
chastising
you,
I'm
just
trying
to
to
educate
you
in
terms
of
awesome.
Thank
you
all
right.
I
Hi
and
I'm
not
going
to
speak
directly
to
this
thing,
but
I
would
like
to
thank
mayor
mahan
and
everybody
else
as
an
agency,
the
water
district
and
the
california
public
utilities,
commission-
and
I
don't
say
that
slightly-
are
corrupt
the
water
district,
not
so
much.
The
cpuc
is
in
the
back
pockets
of
pg
e
and
the
way
they
arrogantly
met
with
us
during
like
when
the
flood
thing
happened,
and
then
there's
been
some
and
I'm
not
remembering
it
real
real.
Well
it
it.
I
It
was
a
sense
of
when
you
have
long
term
limits,
like
mr
mayhem
was
saying
this
sense
of
there's
not
only
a
lack
of
accountability,
it
breathes
contempt.
You
know
we
deserve
it.
We
we.
D
I
Right
to
be
here
for
the
20
years
or,
however
long
people
run,
you
see
that
flourish
in
a
lot
of
agencies
and
it's
it.
Water
is
a
basic
thing.
You
know
I
mean
we
needed
to
live
to
survive
and
they
got
us.
You
know
pg
e's
got
us.
The
water
districts
got
us
they're,
outdated,
they're
moated.
When
I
say
corruption,
I
do
not
mean
there's
this
big
conspiracy
of
people
who
lie
intentionally
not,
but
there's
that
sense
of
entitlement.
I
We
can
go
ahead
and
skirt
this
issue
and
skirt
that
issue
and
whom
I've
learned
to
really
respect
mr
jones
and
the
rest
of
you,
but
the
people
bringing
all
of
this
up
people
running
for
mayor
and
now
I
don't
know
who
to
vote
for
because
you're
all
doing
this.
I
don't
live
in
san
jose
anymore,
but
you
know
all
three
are
really
touching
the
heartstrings
here
and
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
appreciate
it
it
I
just
wish
people
would
you
know
we're
trying
real
hard
as
people.
I
J
Yeah
hi
martha
o'connell,
with
report
number
two
on
environmental
services
plan
to
electrify
existing
buildings
in
san
jose
on
march
22nd.
I
got
an
email
from
environmental
services
stating
that
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period
for
their
draft
plan
was
march.
25Th
friday,
I
asked
if
the
two
mobile
home
park
owner
reps
and
the
resident
rep
were
going
to
miss
the
deadline,
because
our
meeting
with
them
was
scheduled
for
march
29th
a
tuesday.
J
J
I
am
wondering
if
I
was
in
favor
of
their
plan
to
electrify
existing
buildings
in
san
jose,
if
they
would
have
helped
me,
but
because
I
am
opposed,
they
refuse
not
only
to
help
me
register
that
they
ignore
my
emails.
Finally,
great
news
for
mobile
home
park
residents.
I
have
contacted
the
state
of
california
and
have
it
in
writing
that
san
jose
at
this
point
is
without
legal
authority
to
mandate
such
a
program
in
mobile
home
parks.
J
K
I
know
we
called
it
a
mobile
home
overlay
and
there
was
some
discussion
by
mayor
loccardo
saying:
oh,
won't
really
do
anything,
but
but
I
think
in
fact,
since
we
voted
on
it
and
since
for
two
years,
we've
certainly
been
expecting
it,
and
many
of
us
are
keeping
our
eyes
on
the
general
planned
land
use
maps
and
to
try
to
stay
to
stay
up
on
it
to
make
sure
it
happens,
and
now
as
a
side
note
to
that
or
kind
of,
coupled
with
that,
the
general
plan
appears
to
me
to
be
going
through
some
really
really
kind
of
big
possible
future
changes
due
to
different
state
laws
coming
down
and
so
forth.
K
Regarding
compliance
or
excuse
me,
compatibility
between
land
use
designations
and
zoning
and
so
forth,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
that
is
partly
the
hindrance
involved,
because
there's
things
that
need
to
kind
of
correlate
with
that
that
are
inextricably
linked
so
anyway,
if
someone
could
please,
I
don't
know
how,
but
if
we
could
get
some
kind
of
update
on
what's
going
on
with
general
plan,
where
what
is
the
status
on
this
sort
of
making
sure
that
everything
complies
the
the
land
use
and
the
zoning
and
how
that
fits
in
with
what
we're
expecting
for
the
mobile
home
parks?