►
Description
City of San José, California
Joint meeting of Rules and Open Government / Committee of the Whole, March 8, 2023
Pre-meeting citizen input on Agenda via eComment at https://sanjose.granicusideas.com/meetings.
This public meeting will be held at San José City Hall and also accessible 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=1075935&GUID=959C3B13-F0C2-464D-877C-8F7269BCBC71
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
C
C
A
couple
ceremonial
items
know
what
we're
going
to
talk
about.
There's
no
evening
session,
we're
going
to
we'll
get
there.
So
I'm
consent
items
2.1
they
just
through
Page
15
item
2.12.
B
C
C
Contract
Authority
and
the
measure
t
status
report
section
7
on
page
17,
deferring
7.1
we're
moving
the
Lake
Cunningham
Shoreline
update
7.2
to
be
heard
before
item
3.5
before
the
measure
T
report
and
the
lease
of
the
golf
courses,
section
7,
section
8
on
page
19.,
another
land
purchase
for
affordable
housing
development
and
then
for
land
use,
page
21,
10.1
a
is
deferred
and
point.
One
B
will
be
heard
immediately
after
consent
and
10.2
will
be
re-noticed
to
the
28th.
So
there's
no
evening
session,
all
right
we'll
go
to
public
comment.
D
E
Oh,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you
Paul
Soto
from
the
Horseshoe.
E
My
comments
are
in
reference
to
item
2.10
and
there's
1.4
million
dollars
being
extracted
from
measure
e-funds
and
then
that
those
monies
are
being
used
for
storm
evacuee,
emergency
funds,
and
so
since
the
city
is
going
to
be
requesting,
federal
and
state
assistance
afford
that
what
I'm
asking
is
if
those
funds
can
be
replenished,
because
what
you're
doing
is
you're
making
the
funding
that
is
allocated
for
homeless
services
and
you're
pulling
from
that
and
creating
a
deficit
there
in
order
to
accommodate
this,
the
financing
required
for
the
storm,
evacuations
and
you're
going
to
be
requesting
that
from
the
federal
government
anyway.
E
So
that's
number
one
number
two:
is
it's
been
long
overdue
for
that
housing
project
on
on
almadin?
It's
right
there
in
the
heart
of
my
neighborhood,
however,
the
income
requirements
that
you
use,
the
logic
that
you
used
is
that
you
extracted
monies
from
measure
e
for
Eli
and
Li
lowenco.
E
So
by
extracting
from
that
that
housing
development
should
be
kept
at
those
income
brackets.
But
it's
not
going
to
be
inside
the
document.
It
states
that
60
of
the
median
income
area
income
it's
going
to
increase
to
that
and
that's
nowhere
near
anywhere
and
you're,
using
measure
e-funds
for
the
Eli
and
Li
in
order
to
support
the
building.
So
there's
a
bit
of
a
contradiction
there.
How
are
you
going
to
use
it.
F
Hi
Blair
Beekman
here
I
just
it's
nice
to
hear
Paul
thanks
Paul
for
your
words
today,
I
wanted
to
offer
that
you
have
a
item.
That's
going
to
be
deferred.
Digital
Equity
issues
like
I've,
been
trying
to
say
recently
real
good
luck
to
listen
to
what
Civic,
Innovation
and
people
from
Tech
are
talking
about.
F
Lately,
they're
going
they're
working
on
really
interesting
Concepts
that
I
hope
we
can
take
our
time
to
hear
what
they're
saying
and
what
they're
working
towards
and
that
way
you
can
better
develop
policy
ideas
that
I
really
try
to
say
it's
openness
and
accountability.
F
Boy,
if
you
can
do
those
things,
really
consider
those
things
and
really
try
to
communicate
ideas
to
the
everyday
public
and
make
that
clear
and
and
and
and
and
work
past
current
standard
practices
of
what?
How
we
talk
about
these
issues.
Take
that
extra
step
ask
consider
what
that
extra
step
can
be
to
do
those
things.
That's
building
our
good,
sustainable
future,
believe
it
or
not,
it
isn't
just
maintaining
a
status
quo
of
hiddenness.
It
really
is
not
that
a
future
of
Keck
has
to
continue
to
be
an
open,
accountable
process.
F
In
a
dialogue,
an
open
dialogue
with
community
and
real
good
luck
in
those
efforts
listening
to
Civic
Innovation,
what
they're
doing
towards
those
good
things
at
this
time
and
thanks
for
your
time.
C
All
right,
let's
vote,
all
right
attend
is
approved
5-0,
so
we'll
move
on
to
the
agenda
or
March
21st,
which
has
a
few
interesting
twists,
which
we'll
get
to
closed
session
at
9
30
Open
session
at
1,
30.
C
Consent,
Pages
5,
6
and
7
through
2.9
for
section
three.
We
have
study
session
item
3.3
on
bond
disclosure
to
be
heard
immediately
after
consent.
C
Then
we
recess
and
go
to
section
separate
meeting
of
the
council's
successor
agency
Redevelopment
agency,
which
was
on
page
10
and
then
we
come
back
to
the
main
agenda:
section,
3.4,
multi-family
housing,
revenue
bonds
and
the
mayor's
budget
message
and
then
the
covid-19
after
Action
Report,
Section,
8,
h8,
another
motel
conversion
and
then
housing
element
update
and
then
on
page
10,
The,
Joint,
City
of
San
Jose
and
the
successor
agency,
Redevelopment
agency,
meeting
with
the
item
on
debt
management
policy,
which
will
be
heard
between
items
3.3
and
3.4.
E
Thank
you,
the
8.2,
the
housing
element,
the
redlining
map,
is
not
being
centered
within
the
context
of
this
housing
element
it's
referenced,
but
it's
not
being
used
as
the
objective
measure
to
reproportion
what
his
been
disproportionate
and
one
of
the
symptoms.
One
of
the
objective,
empirical
evidence-based
symptoms
of
that
redlining
map
is
the
Kate
Landmark
desegregation
case
of
Diaz
versus
San
Jose
Unified
School
District.
In
1971..
E
We
have
tangible
evidence
of
what
redlining
had
done
to
the
community.
It
outlines
the
schools,
it's
data
driven
and
it
was
actually
argued
by
judge
Manley
on
behalf
of
Diaz
and
what
it
did
is
it
outlined
very
specifically
what
the
housing
issues
were
and
how
those
housing
issues.
This
is
the
generational
impact
of
the
redlining
map,
so
you
you
have
something
that
is
not
theoretical,
it's
not
subjective
and
it's
not
anybody's
opinion.
E
These
are
facts
that
were
heard
in
court
and
they
were
argued
by
one
of
the
most
respect
to
judges
now
judge
back.
Then
he
was
an
attorney
in
this
city
in
the
county,
and
so
what
I've
seen
the
city
do
is
this
is
it
continues
to
try
to
accommodate
those
that
have
been
the
generational
beneficiaries
of
these
redlining
policies
and
there
was
nothing
legal
about
them.
When
you
look
at
the
Fifth
Amendment,
it
states
that
life,
liberty
or
property
cannot
be
taken
without
just
compensation.
E
The
fact
that
Mexicans
and
blacks
are
explicitly
outlined
in
those
documents
means
that
those
properties
were
taken
from
us
without
just
compensation.
So
you
really
need
to
consider
centering,
both
Diaz
versus
sons
of
unified
and
the
redlining
map.