►
Description
City of San José, California
Joint meeting of Rules and Open Government / Committee of the Whole of March 16, 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=951549&GUID=F272529A-01BE-4449-A17F-4369B5EA9D32
A
A
A
B
Cheering
but
we'll
give
it
a
couple
minutes
here,
so
we
can
get
a
quorum.
B
All
right
looks
like
we
have
a
quorum,
we'll
go
ahead
and
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
meeting
of
the
joint
meeting
for
the
rules
and
open
government
committee
and
committee
of
the
whole.
If
we
can
do
a
roll
call.
First.
B
B
Go
ahead
and
bring
it
up
on
the
screen,
we
have,
we
got
pages
one
and
two.
We
got
three
and
four
and
now
we're
down
to
five.
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
And
17
and
18:
that's
the
bulk
of
it
and
we
do
have
an
ad
sheet.
If
we
can
display
the
ad
sheet.
A
A
C
All
right
great
we've
been
here
thanks
for
the
meeting
today.
I
guess
the
first
start,
offering
you
have
item
2.12
transportation
fund
for
clean
air,
grant,
funding
agreement,
2021-22,
good
luck.
How
that
can
work?
Tesla
should
be
very
interested
in
that
item.
C
3.3
is
about
campaign,
finance
regulations
and
the
public
financing
of
foreign
influence
in
our
future
elections
in
this
area.
This
is
an
issue
we've
been
bringing
up
for
as
important
as
it
is
and
meaningful
it
is.
I
hope
we
also
can
have
the
perspective
to
be
considering
as
we're
trying
to
do
learn
better
practices
in
this
country.
How
we
don't
do
that
same
sort
of
influence
in
other
countries.
It
works
both
ways
as
we
learn
in
this
country.
We
learn
to
not
do
that
in
other
countries
as
well.
C
You
know
influencing
election
process.
Good
luck,
how
to
work
on
that
as
an
international
process.
Not
just
for
this
country.
I
wanted
to
speak.
There
is
items
coming
up
of
eviction.
Moratorium
stuff
will
be
next
week.
Good
luck!
How
we
can
extend
that
in
this
era
of
covid
there's
a
lot
of
cases
going
on
in
china
of
cobit
still
so
mask
use
should
probably
be
really
important
for
ourselves
through
march
and
april,
at
least.
It
seems
good
luck,
how
to
work
on
it.
C
There's
a
smoke-free
issue
in
in
our
apartment
buildings.
Next
week.
That's
a
questionable
issue.
I
don't
think
I
fully
I'm
trusting
this
issue,
but
good
luck,
how
we
can
talk
about
its
importance,
and
that
leaves
housing
issues,
and
you
know
good
luck
in
all
the
the
future
housing
issues
and
size
of
retrofitting
that
I
think's
been
a
really
important
concept.
People
like
jackie
morales,
has
talked
about
the
future
of
retrofitting
earthquake.
Retrofitting
can
be
a
good
practice
for
ourselves
that
for
all
of
us,
thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
blair,
and
I
wanted
to
just
describe
the
item.
So
everybody
is
aware.
So
this
is
comment
on
the
final
agenda
for
march
22nd
and
I
see
people
have
already
utilized
the
raised
hand
feature
if
you're
calling
in
you
can
press
star,
9
and
then
you'll
press
star,
6
to
unmute,
and
you
will
have
2
minutes
to
speak
on
this
item
and
next
up
we
have
vanessa
marvin.
D
Do
you
think
we'd
be
thrilled
to
be
so
close
to
the
finish
line.
However,
we
now
oppose
the
draft
ordinance.
That's
on
your
agenda
for
march
22nd,
due
to
the
cannabis
smoke
exemption
and
we're
asking
you
to
defer
it
or
delay
it.
Those
living
in
multi-unit
housing
are
our
most
vulnerable
residents,
our
low-income
children,
the
elderly,
disabled
communities
of
color
they're,
also
the
populations
that
are
most
vulnerable
to
the
harms
of
secondhand
smoke
and
deserve
our
protection.
D
However,
we
believe
the
ordinance
in
front
of
you
guys
on
tuesday
will
no
longer
protect
them
and
we'd
like
more
time
to
discuss
it
with
you.
The
survey
results
from
your
own
city
staff
reveal
the
extent
of
the
problem.
Almost
40
percent
of
the
respondents
to
your
city
survey
reported
being
exposed
to
marijuana
smoke
in
the
past
30
days,
and
so,
while
passing
a
law,
only
regulating
tobacco
smoke
may
seem
like
a
common
sense
way
to
make
progress
on
the
issue.
We
actually
feel
the
opposite.
This
policy
be
worse
than
the
status
quo.
D
Enforcement
will
be
impossible.
Every
potential
violator
will
simply
claim
to
be
smoking
cannabis.
This
just
guts,
the
tobacco
portion
of
the
law,
leaving
ineffective
and
meaningless.
So
again,
we're
asking
you
to
take
it
off
the
agenda
for
next
tuesday
and
delay.
The
ordinance
we'll
be
speaking
our
coalition,
our
coalition
partners
and
residents
that
we
work
with
will
be
opposing
this
ordinance,
as
proposed
we'd,
rather
spend
more
time
to
work
together
to
protect
all
residents
from
the
to
all
types
of
dangerous
second
hand
smoke
in
their
homes.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
rules,
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
I'm
the
ceo
of
breathe,
california
of
the
bay
area,
golden
gate
and
central
coast.
Our
organization
was
founded
over
a
hundred
years
ago
in
san
jose
and
has
been
serving
our
community
since
then
with
programming
to
fight
lung
disease
and
promote
lung
health.
E
We
believe
that,
because
smoke
is
smoke
is
smoke,
this
would
be
totally
unenforceable.
There
is
no
way
that
you
can
exempt
one
kind
of
smoke
and
have
another
smoke
be
perfectly
fine.
What
would
really
happen
is
that
you
would
be
exempting
all
smoke,
and
you
also
would
be
putting
the
landlords
in
the
center
of
this
trying
to
make
a
decision
about
what
was
what,
with
the
two
people
that
were
unhappy
in
their
buildings.
E
F
Good
afternoon,
council
members,
my
name
is
jen
granlajano,
I'm
with
american
cancer
society
cancer
action
network,
and
we
ask
that
you
remove
item
7.1
smoke-free
housing,
ordinance
from
the
city
council
agenda.
This
ordinance
does
not
support
best
practice
in
smoke-free
housing
policy
because
it
exempts
smoking
and
vaping
of
cannabis.
F
Like
others
have
said,
smoke
is
smoke
and
no
product
should
be
exempted
and
for
this
reason,
the
american
cancer
society
cancer
action
network
opposes
this
ordinance
as
written.
This
issue
was
first
prioritized
by
the
city
in
2017,
and
it's
taken
us
five
years
to
get
to
this
point
so
we'd
hate
to
see
five
years
of
effort
go
to
waste
by
adopting
a
sub-par
policy
that
would
set
a
dangerous
precedent
in
the
area
and
bypass
the
intent
of
the
council
by
continuing
to
allow
dangerous,
second-hand
smoke.
F
Please
remove
this
from
the
city
council
agenda
and
return
it
to
committee,
where
we
can
continue
to
work
on
it
and
come
to
a
better
ordinance
with
no
exemptions
for
cannabis
that
would
actually
protect
public
health.
The
ordinance
with
the
current
exemptions,
like
margot
said,
is
impossible
to
enforce
it's
near
impossible
to
determine
what
products
are
being
smoked
or
vaped.
So
if
one
product
is
exempted
by
default,
all
products
are
exempted.
F
There's
no
way
to
keep
smoky
air
from
seeping
through
shared
walls
and
ventilation
systems,
elderly
and
children
are
most
likely
to
spend
most
time
at
home,
and
now,
when
many
are
working
from
home,
so
many
more
people
will
be
exposed
to
second-hand
smoke
and
deserve
to
be
protected.
We
would
hate
to
have
to
oppose
an
ordinance
that
was
so
close
to
doing
what
was
intended
to
protect
public
health.
Again,
please
remove
the
ordinance
from
the
city
council's
agenda,
so
we
can
continue
to
work
on
it
in
committee
and
remove
the
exemptions
for
cannabis.
Thank
you.
E
Baker
good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
having
hearing
us.
I
am
carol
baker.
The
co-chair,
along
with
vanessa
martin
of
this
tobacco-free
coalition
of
santa
clara
county.
Most
of
what
I'm
going
to
want
to
and
want
to
say,
has
already
been
said,
so
I
will
just
say
I
expected
this
ordinance
to
be
stopped
here
at
the
rules
committee,
because
certainly
one
of
the
rules
is
that
an
ordinance
has
to
be
enforceable.
E
G
G
The
only
comment
I
would
add
in
addition
to
my
colleagues
that
have
just
spoken,
is
if
kova
taught
us
one
thing
it
had
to
do
with
health
equity,
to
try
to
bright
light
on
it
and
again,
people
who
may
not
have
the
economic
means
to
live
in
a
single-family
home
or
an
environment
where
they
control
their
air.
G
This
is
a
form
of
disparity,
so
those
that
are
in
some
form
of
housing
where
they
become
subject
to
the
smoke
of
a
neighbor
is
not
is
not
a
healthy
environment,
nor
is
it
within
their
within
what
they
may
wish
to
inhale
so
similar
again
next
week.
Please
do
not
put
this
on
the
agenda.
Please
return
it
to
committee
so
that
additional
work
can
be
done.
Thank
you.
H
Of
course
you
guys
don't
want.
Of
course
you
want
people
to
be
able
to
smoke
pot
because
you
people
make
money
off
of
it.
You
have
all
the
taxes
coming
in
from
it,
but
oh
no,
tobacco,
bad,
flavored
tobacco.
Worse,
don't
smoke
a
cigar,
but
marijuana,
that's!
Okay!
That's!
Okay!
For
for
pot,
seller,
fully
and
pot
seller
parallels.
They
love
all
those
taxes.
They
think
they're
gonna
get
rich
off
of
it.
Somehow
you
should
leave
it
up
to
the
individual
owners
whether
they
should
allow
smoking
or
not.
What
do
you
do?
H
Call
sjpd
when
someone
lights
up
a
cigarette,
but
it's
okay!
It's
okay!
If
somebody
lights
up
a
joint,
that's
wrong!
That's
discriminatory
to
cigarette
smokers
and
vapers.
How
about
that?
And
once
again,
how
are
you
going
to
enforce
it?
Call
a
san
jose
pot
dealers
they'll,
come
on
down
and
make
sure
that
the
smoker
gets
a
fine,
that's
for
sure,
but
if
the
guy
hasn't
lit
up
a
joint,
that's
okay,
because
this
sjpd
makes
money
off
of
it
right,
don't
follow!
H
The
money
bottom
line
is
that,
if,
if
a
landlord
does
not
allow
smoking
of
any
type,
their
insurance
rates
will
go
down,
but
if
you
make
it
legal
that
they
can
smoke,
marijuana
you're
actually
perpetuating
people
to
break
federal
law,
you're
even
doing
it
by
accepting
the
money
from
the
from
the
pot
back.
I
wish
the
federal
government
would
investigate
you
guys
if
you
ever
take
a
financial
transaction
through
a
banking
system,
but
you
guys
it's
all
cash
money.
I've
always
wondered
where
that
windowless
office
is.
H
It's
got
a
high
security
lock
and
a
guard
protecting
all
that
illegal
tax
money
that
you
people
get.
You
should
all
be
ashamed
of
yourselves
down
there
at
city
hall,
a
bunch
of
potheads,
a
bunch
of
pot
smoking
potheads
you
people
who
are
trying
to
make
an
extra
nickel
off
of
some
tax
and
and
and
prohibit
people
from
other
things
that
are
taxed
because
you
don't
get
enough
tax.
You
don't
have
that
much
money
from
tobacco
attacks
or
vaping.
G
Thank
you
interesting,
and
there
are
other
ways
I
I
have
to
agree
with
the
secondhand
smoke.
There
are
the
edibles
for,
and
you
obviously
can't
we
can't.
I
won't
get
into
that.
You
people
can
eat
nicotine
they
want,
but
there
are
other
delivery
modalities
for
marijuana.
So
I
have
to
agree
with
the
from
what
I've
heard
of
the
sentiment,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
guys.
You
really
have
to
put
up
a
lot
of
stuff.
My
my
emphasis
to
you.
Thank
you
for
your
service.
All
of
you.
A
Given
my
area
of
study,
the
overall
well-being
of
the
population
is
important
to
me,
which
is
why
I
decided
to
speak
and
oppose
this
ordinance
as
it
excludes
the
smoking
and
vaping
of
cannabis
in
multi-unit
housing.
There
is
an
increased
susceptibility
of
secondhand
smoke,
and
studies
have
shown
that
the
fine
particulate
matter
that
results
from
the
combustion
of
cannabis
can
be
breathed
into
the
lungs.
Not
only
does
that
irritate
the
lungs,
but
it
also
exacerbates
the
symptoms
for
those
that
already
have
pre-existing
conditions
such
as
asthma.
A
As
someone
with
younger
siblings,
one
which
has
asthma,
I
don't
think
it'd
be
appropriate
to
pass
an
ordinance
that
allows
conditions
that
would
put
a
vulnerable
population
at
an
increased
risk
of
health
complications,
and
I
don't
think
people
should
have
to
suffer
the
consequences
for
actions
that
others
choose
to
make.
So
if
we
have
the
opportunity
to
reduce
health
risks
and
implications
on
our
community
and
promote
healthier
habits,
I
believe
we
should
do
so.
A
B
I
Yes-
and
I
just
discovered
that
my
camera
doesn't
work
but
I'll-
I
think
my
audio
does
so
I
I
I
wanted
to
at
least
ask
questions.
I
I
see,
I
guess
lee's,
not
here
angel
you're
here
today,
but
it
it's
clear
to
me
that,
after
all
the
discussions
we've
had
coming
back
and
forth
through
the
committee
and
through
council
various
times
about
the
smoke-free
ordinance
that
we're
just
not
getting
to
a
place
of
consensus
on
this,
and
that
it's
been
that
I
think
it's
imperfect
and
I'm
not
sure
how
we
get
it
to
perfect,
and
I
I
am
at
the
point
where
I
feel
like
this
is.
This
is
the
kind
of
issue
that
maybe
we
ought
to
postpone
drop.
I
So
if
I
were
to
recommend-
and
we
could
drop
it-
obviously
we
could
postpone
it.
I
don't
know
if
it's
right
to
say
we
postpone
it
indefinitely
and
then
you
know
someday
somebody
could
bring
it
back
if
they
want
or
whether
we
have
to.
We
should
send
it
to
to
a
discussion
at
our
road
mapping
process
to
see
whether
the
council
still
considers
it
a
priority
or
not
before
we
bring
it
to
council.
Maybe
you
have
input
on
what
that
procedure
would
should
be.
G
Yeah
councilmember,
so
this
yeah
I
would
agree.
This
is
one
of
those
tough
ones
where
you
know
achieving
you
know.
Full
consensus
is
probably
an
impossibility.
It
has
been
vetted
through
nsc
and,
and
there
was
substance,
associative
and
robust
conversation
there
you,
you
know
it's
it's
it's
a
tough
cult.
You
know
I
mean
in
some
ways
it's
you
know,
keeping
it
on
the
agenda
and
calling
the
question
and
and
kind
of
you
know.
G
Having
that
conversation
at
the
council
level,
you
know,
will
kind
of
put
us
in
a
position
to
kind
of
make
a
decision
regarding
this.
At
the
same
time,
yeah
yeah,
it's
it's
just
a
tough
one.
I
mean
if
we
send
this
back
to
committee,
I'm
not
so
sure
we
would
come
back
with
a
different
recommendation
right
or
or
a
better
compromise.
So
it
really
comes
down
to
you
know
what
priority
we
give
this
as
a
as
a
city.
I
I
I
know
for
a
fact
that
going
back
to
nsc
is
not
going
to
improve
it
at
this
point-
and
you
know
I
I'm
sympathetic
to
a
lot
of
the
viewpoints
of
you
know
that
I've
heard
on
this
call
today
about
doing
something
that
isn't
necessarily
going
to
be
either
enforceable
or
sending
the
message.
That
was
the
purpose
behind
this.
I
I
I
see
another
hand
up
I'd
like
to
hear
what
others
on
the
rules
committee
think
about
the
next
step,
but
my
preference
would
be
to
figure
out
how
to
delay
it
to
some
future
date
at
which
we
might
build
more
consensus,
but
that
future
date
being
way
off
in
the
future.
At
this
point,
I
think
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
For
now,.
J
Thank
you.
I
was
disappointed
to
hear
the
the
comments
today.
I
I
tend
to
think
we
should
have
this
full
discussion
at
the
council.
I
also
think
that
we
should
move
forward
with
a
smoke-free
ordinance.
J
The
reason
I
I
would
support
keeping
the
exemption
for
for
marijuana
is
that
we
still
have
many
medical
marijuana
users
and
they
use
them,
for
they
use
it
for
specific
reasons,
and
what
I
have
heard
is
that
dosage,
with
edibles
is
not
as
consistent
as
dosage
with
the
smoking
smoked
products.
So
that
is
the
reason
for
wanting
to
keep
that
as
an
exemption
is
that
there
is
still
a
medical
use
for
for
marijuana.
J
I
do
think
this
is
a
discussion
that
we
should
have
at
full
council
at
this
time,
because
I
know
that
staff
has
worked
on
this
item
for
many
years
and-
and
I
know
that
I
know
that
we
have.
We
have
some
advocates
here
that
say
that
exempting
one
thing
is
like
exempting
all
things,
but
I
think
we
all
know
that
tobacco
smoke
and
marijuana
smoke
smell
very
different
and
they
are
very
distinctive.
J
I
don't
think
it's
impossible
to
distinguish
between
the
two
of
them
and
I
would
very
much
like
to
do
as
much
as
we
can
do,
while
maintaining
the
ability
for
people
who
have
medicinal
uses
to
be
able
to
continue
to
use
marijuana
in
their
home,
especially
if
they're
ill.
This
may
be
an
issue,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
the
agenda
with
the
add
sheet.
B
Okay,
we
have
a
motion,
we
don't
have
a
second
and
at
the
moment,
I'm
not
going
to
second
and
I'll
speak
to
that
now,
since
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up,
but
I
appreciate
the
the
the
commentary.
B
I
think
that
what
we
have
here
is
is
obviously
the
reality
of
the
challenges
behind
policy
making,
and
you
know
we
had
a
bit
of
a
discussion
yesterday,
a
little
bit
on
being
able
to
set
up
some
parameters
to
determine
success
of
the
work
that
that
we
are
doing
here
at
the
city
and
and
the
work
that
we
do
is
is
very
messy
and
obviously
it's
it's
very
responsive
to
needs
in
the
community
changes
in
the
community,
and
it
has
so
many
different
stakeholders
and
and
points
of
view
that
it.
B
You
know,
I
would
say
most
the
time
is
very
challenging
to
come
to
any
form
of
a
conclusion
that
builds
consensus
amongst
all
interested
parties
and,
more
often
than
not,
we
always
find
disagreement
or
contention
in
whatever
position
or
final
vote.
We
we
may
take-
and
this
is
proving
to
be
no
different.
B
The
I
think
the
the
main
area
of
concern
for
me
here
is
that
the
proponents
that
asked
us
to
bring
forward
this
smoke-free
policy
are
now
asking
us
not
to
bring
it
forward,
and
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
else
in
the
community
that
has
been
asking
or
demanding
of
us
that
we
bring
forward
this
policy
and
and
and
what
we
have
crafted
was,
I
think,
based
on
feedback.
B
We
have
heard-
and
I
I
would
imagine,
that
those
that
were
asking
to
exempt
cannabis
as
I've
had
some
conversations
as
well
with
them,
would
likely
be
comfortable
with
us
not
coming
forward
with
a
policy
either.
If,
if
indeed,
you
know
they're
happy
with
what
we
have
today,
they
would
likely
be
happy
with
with
no
policy
coming
forward
either.
So
I
don't
see
a
a
need
to
bring
forward
something
that
is
really
not
gonna.
Please.
B
Anybody,
in
this
case,
at
least
from
from
our
community
standpoint,
their
proponents
that
asked
us
to
bring
this
forward,
those
that
have
advocated
in
the
for
the
cannabis
users-
and
I
I
I
am
concerned
to
hear
from
councilman
cohen,
who
was
on
the
committee
that
it
doesn't
look
like
going
back
to
committee,
is
going
to
you
know,
come
to
any
different
conclusion
and
at
the
same
time,
I
don't.
I
certainly
wouldn't
support
moving
forward
with
a
policy
that
it
doesn't.
Look
like
at
this
point.
B
B
So
I
my
suggestion
would
be
that
at
the
moment
we
we
dropped
the
item
and
that
would
allow
us
to
bring
it
back
at
a
future
date.
Whether
it
comes
to
committee
or
comes
back
to
rules
it
would,
it
would
buy
time
potentially
for
our
advocates
to
reach
out
to
staff
or
even
council
members
and
have
conversations
on
next
steps.
But
I
don't
see
a
need
to
to
move
it
forward
at
the
moment
and
councilmember
go
ahead.
I
Well,
given
your
input
on
it,
then
I'll
make
a
substitute
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
with
the
ad
sheet
but
drop.
I
guess
the
word
we
use
drop.
The
item
was
it
6.7.1
7.1
from
the
agenda
next
week.
B
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
on
that
all
second,
okay
and
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up,
so
we
will
go
ahead
now
and
take
a
roll
call
vote.
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
C
Hi
claire
beekman
here
thanks
for
this
agenda,
a
reminder
that
you
will
have
an
item
8.2
about
commercial
linkage
fees.
The
feature
of
that
item
8.3
is
about
a
homelessness
annual
report
that
you
know
it.
C
It
should
be
important
to
be
thanks
so
much
for
the
memo
yesterday
to
talk
about
sponsored
housing
sites
in
our
future.
I
guess
a
important
question
at
this
time
to
those
sponsored
sites
homeless
encampments
should
those
be
city,
government-led
or
ngo-led.
C
C
I
hope
that
those
are
that's
what's
considered
in
the
future
of
any
fast
tracking
of
the
future
of
urban
villages
and
how
urban
villages
really
need
to
start
planning
for
eli,
vli
and
mixed
income,
if
possible,
something
to
really
consider,
and
certainly,
if
you're
going
to
be
fast-tracking,
I
don't
think
you
should
be
fast-tracking
urban
villages,
but
you
know
with
you
know,
future
subsidy
funding
subsidies
are
meant
for
low-income
people,
basically
and
their
needs.
C
To
finally
conclude,
there
is
an
items,
there's
items
about
auditing
issues
and
and
more
budgeting
and
financing
and
planning.
You
know
for
the
next
few
months
for
the
previous
few
months,
the
next
few
years
boy.
You
know
good
luck
in
these
efforts.
I've
been
talking
endlessly
about
this
subject
and
I
will
try
to
always
work
to
be
clear
how
to
talk
about
what
to
ourselves
to
expect
in
the
next
few
years.
I
want
to
be
patient
and
decent.
B
Okay,
we'll
go
back
to
call
in
user
one
give
give
them
another.
Try.
H
Yeah
thanks
for
the
meeting
I
just
want
to
see
if
you
guys
are
going
to
ever,
have
enough
money
to
do
all
these
things
that
you
want
to.
Do
I
mean
you
guys
are
going
to
not
only
just
make
this
city
wonderful,
but
the
world
wonderful
right
with
all
your
flag
raising
and
lighting
up
the
rotunda,
you
need
to
light
of
the
rotunda
in
red
on
march
19th
for
saint
joseph.
You
know
the
patrons
saints
name
of
our
city.
Why
don't
you
guys
do
that?
I
don't
know.
H
B
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion,
a
second
roll
call
vote.
Please.
B
B
Any
lighting
of
the
rotunda
either
so
we'll
go
to
blair.
C
Hi,
claire
beekman,
you
are
practicing
the
consent
calendar
in
a
slightly
different
way.
It's
a
it's,
a
more
efficient
system,
good
luck
with
it,
it
seems
workable
for
now.
If
changes
need
to
be
made,
I
hope
it
can
be
open
to
them
so
far
so
good.
It
seems
for
this
item.
C
I
I
would
like
to
there's
a
big
item
here
that
you're
going
to
be
a
study
session
for
topa
and
copa
issues
seems
to
be
it's
not
going
to
be
happening
next
week
and
you're
announcing
that
here
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
note
of
it,
and
and
in
light
of
it
that
you
know
the
the
copa
and
toca
work
is
incredibly
important
for
our
future.
C
Thank
you
that
you've
been
having
public
meetings
on
its
subject
matter,
so
we
can
all
learn
to
grow
more
familiar
with
its
subject
and
and
learn
how
to
talk
about
it.
Better.
Good
luck!
How
we
can
always
be
open
to
this
subject
matter
that
that
needs
to
be
open
for
ourselves,
and
I
think
that's
about
it.
I
had
one
more
thing
to
say:
I
can't
remember
it
now,
but
so
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Blair,
coming
back
to
members
of
the
committee.
J
B
Second,
thank
you,
and
I
was
wrong.
There
is
a
rotunda
lighting
for
the
greek
independence
day
on
consent
and
for
those
that
were
interested
in
the
study
session
on
copa
that
is
likely
going
to
be
rescheduled
for
the
fall
okay.
Can
we
get
a
roll
call
vote?
Please
arenas.
B
C
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
words
council
person
prowls.
I
now
remember
what
I
wanted
to
say
as
we
close
the
topa
study
session
for
the
end
of
march.
Is
there
any
way
we're
going
to
still
have
an
equity
session
to
talk
about
the
current
state
of
racial
equity
in
san
jose?
C
It
was
mentioned
at
the
mayor's.
I
don't
know,
debate
or
whatever
it
was
this
past
monday,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
forum
mayor's
forum-
and
you
know
I
for
as
much
as
I
I
like
the
term
social
equity
and
to
use
equity.
I
think
we're
entering
a
new
era
where
we
really
have
to
be
to
acknowledge
the
importance
of
racial
equity
and
what
we're
really
striving
for
at
this
time
and
really
find
ways
to
make
note
of
that.
C
To
note
that,
so
I
think
a
study
session
for
the
whole
community
to
understand
the
future
of
you
know
racial
equity
in
san
jose
and
that
there
is
a
baseline
services
that
I
think
all
districts
need
of
racial
equity
issues
and
that's
an
important
concept,
and
then,
from
that
baseline,
then
we
can
haggle
between
each
city
between
each
district
who
needs
what
better.
I
think
I
think
we
have
a
good
agreement
exactly.
What
exactly
is
you
know
our
racial
equity
issues,
a
baseline
set
of
understandings?
C
To
conclude
again,
a
thank
you
to.
It
was
a
really
nice
meeting
on
the
budget
issues
yesterday.
I,
that
is
how
I'd
like
to
proceed
in
talking
about
budget
issues,
the
mayor's
ideas
of
creating
a
balanced
budget
with
the
combinations
of
creating
a
budget
based
on
racial
equity
ideas.
I
the
husband,
talked
about
before
pre-covered,
I
think,
is
just
the
one
two
of
our
future
and
how
we
can
better
much
better
talk
about
these
issues
in
our
lives.
K
Yeah
hi
martha
o'connell,
first
of
all,
roll
fabulous
job
on
enforcing
the
code
of
conduct,
so
you
get
10
stars
for
this
meeting.
I
would
like
to
address
my
concerns
with
what
I
consider
an
extremely
flawed
outreach
on
the
part
of
environmental
services
on
the
existing
building
electrification
plan.
K
Whatever
the
issue
is
it's
the
same
folks,
okay,
I'm
looking
at
the
frequently
asked
questions
from
environmental
services,
community-based
organization,
labor
organization,
environmental
organizations.
I
will
tell
you
that,
to
my
knowledge,
there
is
not
one
single
representative
from
the
mobile
home
park
industry,
either
resident
or
landlord
or
park
manager,
who
got
any
outreach
on
this
issue.
This
is
critically
important.
It
could
result
in
the
closure
of
mobile
home
parks.
K
It's
too
long
to
go
into
an
explanation,
but
believe
me
you're,
going
to
be
hearing
the
same
message
from
me
as
a
resident
rep
and
from
the
park
owner
and
managers
who
are
going
to
tell
you.
Please
don't
apply
this
to
the
parks
because
they
cannot
afford
it
and
it
will,
it
will
cost
it
will
close
parks
and
we
don't
need
to
to
use
lose
affordable
housing,
so
environmental
services,
your
outreach,
is
completely
flawed
and
I
hope
you
do
a
lot
more
outreach
on
this.
Thank
you.
B
Unmute
no
okay
go
ahead.
Last
speaker
will
be
j
chalden.
A
B
Thank
you,
jade,
okay,
this
meeting.
Oh,
oh,
what
sorry?
Let's
go
ahead
and
give
colin
user
one.
A
second
try
here.