►
From YouTube: AUG 29, 2022 | Transportation & Environment Committee
Description
City of San José, California
Transportation & Environment Committee of August 29, 2022.
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=987808&GUID=B0BF7B2B-C58B-486A-B514-44D3ECF6BEFE
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
All
members
of
the
committee
staff
and
public
are
expected
to
refrain
from
abusive
language
and
failure
to
comply
with
this
code
of
conduct.
That
disrupts
disturbs
or
impedes
the
orderly
conduct
of
this
meeting
will
result
in
removal
from
the
meeting
all
right
and
now
we
will
come
to
order.
Can
the
clerk
call
the
role
please
fully.
A
B
B
B
E
Come
on
down,
this
is
kip
harkness,
deputy
city
manager,
and
I
think
the
question
is
related
to
the
future
direction.
For
the
committee
as
following
on
council
member
cohen's
memo
that
was
approved
at
the
last,
a
previous
council
meeting.
Excuse
me.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
the
addition
to
the
work
plan
will
that
be
coming
as
as
an
amendment
or
will,
will
there
be
a
new
work
plan
for
the
following
year.
B
Yeah,
so
we
we've
got
your
annual
report
and
work
plan
for
the
clean
energy
community
advisory
commission,
but
we
have
passed
council
member
cohen's
memo,
expanding
kind
of
the
the
direction
for
the
commission
and
when
will
those
work
plan
items
be
coming
to
be
added
to
the
work
plan?
For
that,
commission
is
the
question.
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
My
name
is
my
name
is
joe
flores
deputy
director
with
community
energy
department.
We
operate
san
jose,
clean
energy,
and
so
the
the
direction
to
staff
is
to
you
know,
work
with
the
environmental
services
department
in
order
to
bring
forward
to
city
council
the
what
it
would
take
to
be
able
to
you
know,
operate
a
climate
action
commission
and
then
be
able
to
merge
that,
and
so
that
would
actually
fall
into.
A
B
B
E
Thank
you
kip
chair
and
committee
members,
chris
burton
director
of
planning
building
code
enforcement,
so
we're
returning
to
you
with
our
update,
based
on
the
last
discussion
here
at
tne,
and
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
michael
to
walk
through
the
presentation.
F
So
right
so
we're
here
to
talk
about
the
update
to
transportation
policy
5-1,
so
just
stepping
back
for
a
moment.
A
little
background.
This
policy
was
established
by
council
in
april
2018,
and
it's
really
what
it
is
is
the
policy
that
that
determines
how
we
analyze
transportation
impacts
under
sequa.
F
So
if
you
may
recall
that
back
in
the
day,
not
that
long
ago,
we
measured
traffic
congestion
as
a
sql
threshold
or
an
environmental
and
potential
impact
and
and
now
under
because
of
state
bill,
sb
743
we've
shifted
to
analyze
driving,
does
a
project
can
do
significant
amount
of
driving
or
not?
And
that
really
is
a
more
accurate
reflection
or
a
more
accurate
portrayal
of
the
environmental
impacts
from
any
given
decision
or
or
project.
F
And
I
just
want
to
note
that
this
policy
is
another
is
really
beneficial,
that
it's
reinforcing
the
the
current
direction
of
the
general
plan,
a
focus
on
infill
sites
on
transit,
close
to
other
uses
for
housing,
that's
being
close
to
jobs,
jobs
close
to
housing,
et
cetera
to
minimize
the
amount
of
driving
that
we
have
in
the
city.
F
Just
to
remember,
the
goal
is
to
reduce
the
is
it
is,
is
to
create
a
more
urban
mixed-use,
multimodal
environment,
where
people
have
the
option
to
drive,
walk
or
take
the
bus.
But
we
understand
lots
of
people
will
drive,
but
the
goal
is
to
get
them
to
drive
shorter
distances
and
to
drive
less.
F
So
one
of
the
topics
that's
come
up.
That
came
up
with
the
may
second
meeting.
We
we're
not
going
to
present
the
whole
staff
proposal
tonight.
We
did
that
and
on
may
2nd,
but
there
was
one
item
that
came
was
particular
interest
to
the
committee
and
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion
on
it
and
that's
the
issue
of
when
can
you
do
an
over
a
statement
of
overwriting
consideration?
F
So
when
you
do
an
environmental
analysis
and
there's
if
there's
impacts
that
are
identified,
you
you
that
can't
be
mitigated,
you
do
an
eir
and
so
as
part
of
the
environmental
process
or
at
the
end
of
that
process.
F
If
there's
impacts
that,
through
that
whole
analysis,
all
the
mitigation's
identified
that
there's
no
way,
in
this
case,
for
example,
to
reduce
the
amount
of
driving
there's
just
going
to
be
driving.
There's
going
to
be
cars,
there's
nothing
you
can
do
about
it.
The
council
can
make
what's
called
a
statement
of
overwhelming
considerations
where
it
considers
the
benefits
of
the
project
and
makes
findings
how
those
benefits
out
outweigh
the
impacts
so
and
in
the
existing
policy
it
does.
F
It
does
allow
for
the
council
to
make
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
for
all
types
of
development
that
could
occur
in
san
jose,
the
affordable
housing,
for
example,
industrial,
commercial.
The
one
area
that
it
doesn't
support
an
override
is,
if
it's
significant
market
rate
housing
projects
that
are
in
inmitigable
vmt
areas
that
are
not
planned
for
growth.
In
the
general
plan.
F
So
on,
may
s
remember:
perales
wrote
a
memo
and
this
memo
was
moved
by
the
committee
and
the
committee
asked
staff
to
explore.
F
Criteria
really
for
how
the
policy
could
support
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
for
a
general
plan
amendment
in
situations
where
the
general
plan
is
not
planned
for
growth
there.
It's
inmitigable
and
it's
it's
of
course
a
market
rate
housing
project.
So
what
we're
doing
today
is
we're.
Coming
back
to
you
at
the
request
of
the
committee
with
a
draft
sort
of
criteria
for
your
consideration
and
discussion,
what
happens
today
we'll
get
further
direction
from
committee.
F
F
So
I
just
want
to
know
that
staff
is
has
and
continues
to
recommend,
not
carving
out
an
override
for
market
rate
housing.
We
still
think
that
we
want
to
hold
the
line
and
and
sort
of
plan
where
growth
can
go,
just
meaning
that
this
is
a
policy
so
that
you
know,
council
does
have
policies.
Sometimes
they
have
other
other
considerations
and
they
override
those
policies
and
go
a
different
direction.
But
we
think
it's
important
to
have
a
strong
statement
about
where
it's
appropriate
for
go
to
for
growth
to
go.
F
So
the
direction
in
the
memo
moved
by
the
committee
was
to
consider
amendments
and
when
we
do
develop
some
of
these
amendments
for
your
discussion,
that
the
amendments
align
that
with
the
general
plan
and
transportation
strategies
that
we
currently
have,
that
a
project,
if
it
was
allowed
to
get
an
override,
would
significantly
contribute
to
solving
the
housing
crisis
that
we
should
include
specific
process
and
criteria.
So
entitlement
process
and
the
criteria
that
a
project
would
need
to
meet
include
the
project
should
include
transportation
and
benefit
packages
equal
to
impact.
F
There
should
be
a
full
public
outreach
process.
Employment
land
should
not
be
converted
to
residential.
That
should
be
not
part
of
the
consideration
that
we
bring
when
we
bring
something
back
today.
Projects
must
be
large
enough
to
provide
a
balance
of
uses
and
they
must
contribute
to
the
vitality
of
their
neighborhood.
F
Okay,
so
we're
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
introduce
kind
of
what
what
we,
what
we
have
in
the
memo
and
what
we've,
what
we
kind
of
put
together
based
on
the
direction
from
that
memo.
So
in
thinking
about
this,
we
thought
that
a
framework
that
could
be
useful
for
thinking
about
this
was
measure
c,
which
was
a
ballot
initiative
in
2018,
passed
by
a
super
majority
of
the
voters
and
just
kind
of
a
reminder
so
in.
F
If,
if
you
recall
there
was
a
measure
b
proposed
by
ponderosa
homes
to
build
a
senior
living
community
in
the
land
designated
industrial
park,
that's
owned
by
karl
berg
in
the
evergreen
evergreen
area,
up
against
the
foothills
and
the
city
put
its
own
measure
on
the
ballot
measure
c,
which
was
a
counter
measure
that
said
okay.
If
you're
going
to
do
this,
then
the
development
will
need
to
do
do
these
things,
and
that
actually
is
is
part
of
our
charter.
Now
the
city's
charter.
F
So
one
of
the
reasons
we
thought
about
it
would
be
a
good
framework
is,
is
one
is
that
they
both
provide
they
the
they
both
well.
The
measure
c
does
provide
a
framework
for
the
inconversion
of
of
of
non-residential
land
to
residential.
It's
a
similar
geographic
scope,
in
that
it's
sort
of
the
areas.
Now
these
are
infill
locations,
but
they're
sort
of
the
outlying
areas
of
the
city
and
infill
locations.
Measure
c,
I
believe,
applied
to
areas
within
a
mile
or
two
of
the
urban
growth
boundary.
F
The
other
sort
of
issues,
the
threatened
employment
lands
which
are
defined
in
measure
c,
are
areas
that
have
red
or
inmitigable
vmt.
Much
like
what
we're
considering
the
council
would
be
considering
as
part
of
this
approach
and
it
established,
but
measure
c
establishes
criteria
for
development
and
it
furthers
the
goals
related
to
affordable
housing
and,
just
of
note,
it
was
passed
overwhelmingly
by
the
voters.
F
So
some
of
the
criteria
that
we
use,
at
least
as
a
starting
point
for
what
we're
going
to
talk
about
today,
was
that
measure
c
required
that
the
development
that
was
proposing
to
convert
threatened
employment
lands
to
residential
within
a
mile
or
so
of
the
urban
growth
boundary
would
have
to
prepare
a
fiscal
and
jobs.
Housing.
F
50
of
the
units
had
to
be
affordable
at
110
of
the
area,
immediate
income,
but
not
sold
to
households
making
a
more
than
120
percent
of
area
median
income
if
it
was
rental,
housing,
30
35
of
the
units
had
to
be
affordable
to
moderate
income
and
20
percent
had
to
be
affordable
to
very
low
income
households,
households,
the
project
also
needed
to
use
recycled
water.
If
and
when.
If
the
area
was
served
by
that
system,.
F
So
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
the
criteria
or
the
potential
the
potential
criteria
that
we
developed
in
response
to
the
memo
moves
and
written
moved
by
the
comedian
written
by
perales.
So
first,
where
would
this
apply?
So
I
think
it
goes
without
question
this
this
this
policy.
F
If
the
council
wanted
to
move
forward
with
it
or
something
like
this,
we
recommend
that
would
be
within
the
properties
within
the
urban
growth
boundary
and
within
the
urban
service
boundary
and
by
a
process
of
default,
which
I'm
going
to
get
to
in
a
minute
the
applicability
the
land
use
that
it
would
be
applied
to
would
be
land.
That's
designated
private
recreation.
F
F
There
are
very
few
if
any
large
sites
with
atlantis
designation
remaining
those
properties
are
largely
built
out
and
parceled
out
already.
So
we
don't
anticipate
someone
doing
a
redevelopment
project
on
those
lands,
the
other
land
that
it
could
apply
to
is
lands
designated
rural,
residential
and
lower
hillsides,
and
we
would
say
that
those
are
really
not
infill
locations
now,
that
is
land
within
the
urban
growth
boundary.
But
it's
that
land
that
just
butts
up
against
the
hillsides
lower
and
up
against
the
urban
growth
boundary.
F
F
I
think,
as
you're
aware
we're
exploring.
We
have
been
in
the
process
of
exploring
how
of
allowing
residential
uses
on
pqp
land,
which
is
owned
by
the
school
districts,
and
that
process
was
moving
forward.
It
was
put
on
pause
at
the
request
of
the
school
districts,
and
then
the
project
manager
left
the
city.
So
it's
currently
on
pause.
F
So
here's
some
here's
the
criteria,
so
I
just
want
to
note
that
this
criteria
really
is
intended
to
get
into
one
of
the
directions
we
received
in
the
memo
moved
by
this
committee,
which
is
that
a
project
must
significantly
address
the
affordable,
the
housing
crisis,
and
I
would
argue
that
the
housing
crisis
is
really
driven
by
obviously,
a
lack
of
low
income
housing
for
low-income
households,
it's
also
being
driven
by
a
lack
of
housing
for
middle
income
or
middle
class
households,
middle-class
housing
or
moderate
income.
F
Housing
is
a
housing
type
that
we
are
least
successful
in
building.
We
have
lots
of
subsidies
that
we're
using
to
build
low
incomes.
Are
we
doing
enough
absolutely
not,
but
we're
moving
we're
moving
the
needle
there
and
our
arena
number
or
our
production
number
for
market
rate?
Housing
is
actually
slightly
above
what
our
arena
goal
is
established
by
the
state
so
we're
doing.
F
Okay
there
now
now
all
housing
is
important,
all
types
of
housing,
but
where
we
really,
if
we
want
to
move
the
needle
in
the
housing
crisis,
it's
really
the
low
income
categories
and
the
moderate
income
categories
so
given.
Given
all
of
that,
the
proposed
criteria
would
be
that
35
of
the
affordable
of
the
units
be
affordable
to
moderate
income
households
making
up
two
hundred
and
twenty
percent
of
the
area.
Median
income.
F
And
then
the
in
terms
of
the
affordability,
essentially,
what
you'd
have
to
do
is
you
need
to
meet
the
iho
on-site?
So
you
need
to
provide
low-income
housing,
either
10
to
15,
depending
on
the
level
and
build
it
on
site.
F
Now
I
just
want
to
note
that
we're
in
this
this
criteria
doesn't
get
into
whether
it's
for
sale
or
market
rate,
so
that's
left
open
on
in
both
cases.
F
So
in
total
the
total
below
market
rate
requirement
would
be
between
45
and
50
percent,
and
again,
iho
would
need
to
be
met
on
site.
You
couldn't,
as
most
developers
market
rate
developers
tend
to
do,
is
they
tend
to
write
a
check
and,
and
the
city
builds
those
units
elsewhere.
F
So
the
other
direction
we
got
was
related
to
coming
up
criteria
with
transportation.
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
criteria
for
transportation
under
this
proposed
framework
is
no
different
than
it
would
be
for
a
a
project,
an
industrial,
a
commercial
type
of
project
that
needs
an
override.
So
the
project
would
need
to
max
mitigate
vmt
impacts
to
the
maximum
maximum
extent
feasible,
and
they
would
then
construct
or
fund
multimodal
improvements
as
part
of
their
mitigation,
to
the
maximum
extent
that
they
can
mitigate
we're,
also
recommending
that
the
project
use
recycled
water.
F
So
next
we,
the
the
memo,
did
direct
us
to
talk
about
processor,
think
about
process.
So
so
we
have.
The
first
is
public
engagement,
so
public
engagement
is
is
a
tricky
one
right.
You
have
to
kind
of
understand
the
context
of
the
project,
the
scale
of
the
project
where
it
is,
and
to
sort
of
take
to
really
tailor
make
in
a
public
engagement
strategy
for
a
given
proposal
so,
depending
on
what
it
was,
you
would
anticipate
the
council
and
the
mayor
would
give
us
direction
on
what
that
would
look
like.
F
That
being
said,
we
would
we
would
evaluate
the
project
under
policy
five
dot.
Our
council
outreach
council
policy.
6-30
is
a
project
of
significant
community
interest
which
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
meat
in
it.
It
does
require
a
radius
of
a
thousand
feet
for
notice
and
having
a
community
meeting
now.
That
being
said,
we
depending
on
the
project,
we
would
expect
that
we
would
get
direction
to
do
a
lot.
F
More
than
that,
I
will
say
that
the
we
do
recommend
that
the
process
be
that
outreach
be
done
throughout
the
entitlement
process
from
the
beginning
to
the
end,
even
before
the
the
project
is
fully
developed
and
fleshed
out
frankly,
and
not
here's
what
we're
proposing
having
the
one
community
meeting
and
then
going
to
planning
commission
and
council.
F
So,
on
the
fiscal
analysis,
like
with
measure
c,
we're
recommending
that
a
proposal
do
a
fiscal
analysis
to
identify
the
fiscal
effects
of
the
project
upon
the
city,
they
could
be
positive,
they
could
be
neutral.
They
could
be
negative.
It's
just
important
for
the
city
to
understand
that.
We
also
recommend
that
analysis
be
done
out
through
the
horizon
year
of
the
general
plan,
which
is
2040.
F
F
F
It
may
be
from
gray
to
yellow
or
yellow
to
gray,
and
the
applicant
may
say
things
like:
oh
yeah,
that's
what
we
plan
to
do,
but
there's
really
no
certainty
about
what
is
on
the
table
to
be
considered
when
the
council
makes
a
decision
on
whether
to
change
the
general
plan.
Amendment
there's
also
not
certainty
for
the
stakeholders
and
the
community
as
well.
F
So
what
we're
recommending
is
that
if
the
council
were
to
move
forward
with
this
approach
that
it
require
that
an
applicant
submit
a
project
with
their
general
plan
amendment
to
be
considered
a
process
and
process
concurrently,
the
one
of
the
benefits
of
that
is
the
outreach
that's
done
can
be
done
for
the
whole
package,
not
just
the
general
plan,
amendment
and
sort
of
really
explaining
to
everybody
involved,
including
the
community.
F
So
I
kind
of
touched
upon
this
a
moment
ago,
but
the
next
steps
are
to
take
policy
5-1
to
planning
commission
with
our
staff
recommendation
on
november
9th
and
then
return
to
council
on
november
29th
for
consideration
of
all
of
the
changes
in
the
planning
commission's
recommendation,
and
that
concludes
staff's
presentation
and
we
will
open
it
up
for
questions
and
discussion.
B
G
A
B
G
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
it's
been
so
long
since
I've
done
this
in
person.
Do
I
get
one
minute
or
two?
Two?
Okay?
Thank
you.
My
name
is
mark
lazarini
and
I'm
sounds
a
native
and
local
real
estate
developer.
G
The
vnp
policy
that
the
city
has
adopted
is
the
most
restrictive
of
any
city
in
the
bay
area,
and
it's
not
consistent
with
state
law
that
allows
more
broadly
for
statement
of
voter
writing
considerations
and,
let's
face
it.
Traffic
is
a
moving
target.
Even
now,
traffic
models
are
being
updated
but
often
lag
behind
the
ever-changing
modal
technologies,
let
alone
the
proliferation
of
the
work
from
home
phenomena.
G
G
Our
housing
crisis
is
not
going
anyway
anywhere
soon,
and
you
need
all
the
tools
in
the
toolbox.
So
we
respectfully
ask
that
you
make
sensible
changes
to
san
jose's
emt
policy,
and
that
allows
the
statement
of
overriding
consideration
by
the
council,
including
infill
projects
in
unmitigatable
areas,
that
might
you
also
need
a
general
plan
change.
Thank
you.
A
A
Jordan
and
I
will
speak
via
two
roles
today
to
begin
with,
I
represent
green
foothills.
We
actually
reject
further
exploration
of
the
additional
changes
to
the
policy
regarding
development
on
private
recreational
and
open
space.
Land
staff
did
not
recommend
this
additional
change
and
we
support
staff's
recommendation
without
this
change.
San
jose
should
not
be
targeting
remaining
open
space
for
development.
A
In
this
way,
it
is
a
further
denigration
of
environmental
values
that
the
proposal
would
essentially
waive
the
requirements
of
the
city's
vmt
policy
between
granting
exceptions
to
the
policy
and
putting
development
on
open
space,
there
will
be
a
double
impact
on
the
environment.
Additionally,
a
policy
should
not
be
largely
driven
by
a
single
property
like
the
114
acre,
former
pleasant
hills,
golf
course
site,
or
that
should
be
clearly
identified
for
transparency.
A
This
114
acres
of
open
space
and
recreational
land
could
provide
really
badly
needed,
open
space
and
recreational
uses
to
the
city.
Future
plans
should
include
dedication
of
a
significant
percentage
of
that
space
as
open
space.
We
support
community
leaders
in
demanding
that
exploration
of
development
for
the
site
should
be
through
a
city-led
process
with
community
engagement.
Instead
of
developing
a
policy
to
make
an
accessionate
for
it,
I
will
now
speak
via
different
role.
A
I
was
honored
to
serve
on
the
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan
review
task
force,
along
with
some
of
you,
the
task
force
included
over
40
stakeholders,
who
met
many
times
over
the
span
of
a
year
and
considered
a
wide
range
of
community
input.
Consideration
of
task
force
recommendations
ended
less
than
a
year
ago.
This
policy
change
would
have
would
be
a
fundamental
change
from
the
general
plan
that
should
have
been
proposed
during
that
review.
A
Such
a
drastic
policy
change
could
also
have
implications
for
other
areas,
as
it
could
be
used
as
a
model
to
apply
for
other
types
of
zoning.
Lastly,
my
understanding
is
that
you've
now
heard
from
over
200
community
leaders
and
residents
who
are
requesting
transparency
and
equal
treatment
in
the
process,
plus
the
ability
to
provide
input
to
ensure
their
needs
are
being
met.
Thank
you.
C
D
Hello,
my
name
is
robert
reese.
I
chair
the
land
use
committee
of
the
district,
a
community
roundtable.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
making
this
time
available
today.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
some
couple
of
points
that
juan
made,
which
is
we
need
to
be
clear.
That
staff
is
not
recommending
council
member
paralysis
change.
D
The
task
force
made
their
recommendation.
The
council
adopted
it
and
then
shortly
thereafter
there
have
been
many
meetings
to
talk
about
the
path
to
relaxing
the
vmt
standard.
Throughout
this
process,
the
district
community
roundtable
has
suggested
that
there
be
significant,
significant
community
engagement
when
the
evergreen
task
force
was
concluded.
D
There
are
about
700
acres,
south
of
story,
road
that
are
underdeveloped
or
vacant
land,
so
you
have
a
considerable
amount
of
land
within
this
area
that
could
be
potentially
impacted
by
this.
We've
really
suggested
that
there
be
visioning
before
entitlement
process
begins.
We
noted
that
there's
currently
a
visioning
process
going
on
for
a
15
acre
parcel
on
monterey
road
and
we're
wondering
why
we're
not
included
in
those
kinds
of
efforts.
Provisioning,
like
we've,
been
requesting
for
the
last
several
years
and
really
the
whole
request,
is
rather
bewildering.
B
H
Yeah,
thank
you
and
thank
you
staff
for
your
work
on
this.
H
I
know
we've
been
at
this
for
about
a
year
now,
just
kind
of
trying
to
to
carve
out
an
opportunity
here
for
what
I
feel,
like
the
council
and
the
community,
to
really
engage
in
overriding
considerations
for
particular
circumstances
of
development
throughout
our
city,
and
I
know
it's
been
a
tough
needle
to
to
thread,
but
I
appreciate
that
you've
come
back
with
some
some
options
for
us
today
to
be
able
to
discuss,
albeit
as
you
have
made
very
clear
from
the
beginning.
H
This
is
not
within
your
interest
or
staff's
interest
to
have
this
overriding
criteria.
H
As
as
broad
as
we've
looked
at
today
or
we've
asked
you
to
look
at,
I
think
I
I
have
more
of
and
have
had
more
of
an
interest
of
allowing
the
council
and
ultimately,
the
community
be
able
to
have
an
opportunity
to
decide
on
on
where
there
may
be
some
specific
development
and
and
what
criteria
right.
It
would
require
to
then
override
a
policy
like
this,
a
bmt
policy
and,
albeit
speaking
in
hypotheticals,
right,
it's
very
difficult
to
exactly
pinpoint
where
and
how.
H
This
might
be
utilized
and
what
criteria
should
be
required,
and
so
I
know
that
you've
attempted
to
to
look
back
at
some
of
the
past
actions
from
the
council,
like
the
the
ballot
measure
that
was
passed,
measure
c
and
and
trying
to
derive
some
some
language
out
of
that
in
in
some
creating
some
criteria
and
for
the
most
part,
I
I
think
I'm
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
direction
that
that
you
have
provided
for
us
to
look
over
you've
provided
some
insight
on
three
areas,
namely
the
affordable,
housing,
commercial
requirements
and
transportation
mitigation,
and
then
some
general
direction
and
advice
on
things
like
public
engagement.
H
The
area
where
I
have
concern
is
how
specific
of
recommendations
you
provided
under
the
affordable
housing
category
and
I'm
not
saying
that
that
you
know,
would
not
potentially
be
the
the
direction
ultimately
that
maybe
a
project
would
be
required
to
go
or,
as
michael
was
stating,
maybe
even
higher
than
that
in
particular
areas
where
deemed
necessary.
To
actually
agree
to
an
override,
but
I
I
don't
believe
that
it
would
be
wise
for
us
to
be
that
specific.
H
We
heard
from
committee
member
juan
estrada
mentioning
how
important,
obviously
that
is,
to
engage
the
community
on
any
potential
amendments
like
this
or
if
there
were
to
be
a
development
opportunity
and
what
that.
H
What
that
benefit
would
be
to
the
community
to
allow
the
the
develo
the
community
process
to
describe
what
that
criteria
would
be,
what
it
would
actually
take
to
accept
a
development
in
a
particular
part
of
the
community
and
then
and
ultimately,
obviously
that
being
led
through
the
council
members
office,
who
may
be
overseeing
where
some
of
this
development
would
would
take
place.
And
so
in
my
mind,
that
would
be
the
the
major
shift
that
that
I'd
like
to
see
and
really
not
being
as
specific
in
the
affordable
housing
requirements.
H
Rather,
maybe
use
the
example
that
you
have
created
under
the
transportation
mitigation,
which
is
more
along
the
lines
of
where
my
my
memo
was
back
in
april,
that
it
talks
a
little
more
broadly.
It
obviously
speaks
to
the
fact
of
what
those
improvements
would
be
like
under
the
transportation
mitigations
right
improvement
that
will
improve
system,
efficiency
or
safety
enhance
non-auto
travel
modes,
promote
citywide,
reduction
of
vmt
sort
of
a
more
broad
language
rather
than
narrowing
down
specifics
of
percentages.
And
what
ami?
H
H
I
don't
feel
that
is
the
best
way
to
develop
out
our
community
and
thus
a
number
of
years
ago.
I
engaged
in
the
process
in
updating
our
siding
policy
through
the
city
to
try
and
see
how
do
we
better
disburse
affordable
housing
throughout
the
city
and
not
concentrate
it
specifically
in
areas
right
of
lower
income
and
higher
crime,
and
and
how
do
we
ensure
that
we're
balancing
that
out?
H
I
have
worked
with
our
housing
department
in
looking
at
our
nofas
and
how
do
we
prioritize
getting
affordable
housing
into
a
high-rise
in
downtown
areas
where
we
hadn't
had
it,
and
so
that
really
has
struck
out
to
me
throughout
the
years.
The
need
to
be
able
to
have
an
opportunity,
as
the
council
representative,
to
help
and
determine
you
know
what
may
be
best
in
a
particular
community
and
work
with
that
community
to
be
able
to
to
figure
that
out.
H
And
so
I
I
do
want
to
make
a
suggestion
for
my
my
colleagues
to
to
be
able
to
to
chew
on,
and
maybe
we
can
get
a
direction
out
here.
But
for
the
most
part,
it's
it's
incorporating
the
staff
recommendations
really
with
just
a
specific
change
to
the
affordable
housing
criteria
and
so
I'll.
H
Formulate
a
motion
here
to
approve
the
staff
recommendation
but
modify
the
affordable
housing
requirement
criteria,
overriding
criteria
that
would
allow
more
flexibility,
such
as
giving
the
city
council
the
discretion
to
determine
that
the
project
would
provide
significa
a
significant
contribution
of
housing
units
on
site,
in
line
with
achieving
the
city's
arena
goals
and
those
the
regional
housing
needs
assessment
goals.
Those
goals
are
updated
right.
We
have
our
2023
to
2031
goals
right
now,
but
those
are
updated
regularly.
H
That
would
then
give
a
future
council
and
the
community
an
opportunity
to
to
weigh
in
on
what
should
be
considered
criteria
for
an
override,
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
mention
that
I
agree
with
the
public
engagement
process,
as
you
had
described.
I
agree
with
the
you
know
the
applicant
needing
to
submit
a
project
along
with
the
general
plan
amendment
so
that
the
rate
the
the
remainder
of
the
staff
recommendations
with
just
that
language
change
under
the
affordable
housing
criteria.
H
I
know
there's
a
mouthful
I
apologize,
but
that's
the
that's
the
the
direction
or
the
motion.
I
H
And
that's
all
with
my
comments.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah,
thank
you
and,
and
I
appreciate
councilmember
peralta's
suggestions.
It
was
kind
of
along
the
lines
that
I
was
thinking.
I
think
it's
important
as
we
go
through
this
process
for
us
to
somehow
codify
sort
of
staff,
thoughts
and
recommendations,
because
often
we
don't
we're
left
to
our
discretion
and
we're
not
always
given
what
you
know.
The
the
input
that
of
what
staff
believes
would
be
important
as
we
move
forward.
So
I
think
there's
this
balance
between
saying
here's.
J
What
we
think
is
important
inconsiderate,
considering
overriding
the
you
know,
giving
a
statement,
overriding
consideration,
but
not
necessarily
be
so
prescriptive
in
those
numbers.
So
I
think
that's
that's
kind
of
what
councilmember
is
saying
and
what
I
was
thinking
as
we
were
heading
into
this.
I
want
to
ask
a
couple
questions:
can
you
put
the
map
back
up
that
shows
the
the
colors,
the
yellow
to
the
green,
to
red.
J
Let
me
ask,
while
we're
waiting
for
that
I'll,
ask
another
question.
So
measure
c
was
about
converting
industrial,
protecting
industrial
land
right,
not
not
really
about
the
other
kinds
of
lands
that
we
talked
about
here.
I
just
want
to
clarification
you're
just
using
that
as
a
guide,
as
you
think
about
the
other
kinds
of
conversions,
too,
is
that
correct.
J
We're
putting
a
lot
of
thought
into
what
I
think
are
a
very
limited
number
of
rates.
Is
that
right,
we
we
have
we're
saying
in
this
policy
we're
going
to
try
to
avoid
at
all
costs
for
the
most
part,
converting
industrial
land,
and
so
we're
talking
about
a
few
sites
that
are
open
space
or
other
kinds
of
designations.
How
many
sites
are
we
really
talking
about
across
the
city
that
would
fall
under
that
category?.
F
Yeah,
I
can't
give
you
an
exact
number.
We
didn't.
We
didn't
do
a
deep
dive
into
a
precise
number,
but
I
would
say
it's
we
know
of
one
and
there
may
be
a
couple
others,
but
it's
very
very
limited.
It
depends
how
the
council
ultimately
were
to
apply
this
as
currently
recommended
or
put
forward
here
today.
It
would
apply
to
private
recreation
only,
but
it
could
have
applicably
applicability
to
other
types
of
non-employment
land
uses
if
the
council
so
desired.
So
one
example
could
be
this
framework,
something
like
this
could
be
applied
to
pqp
land.
F
We
have
a
lot
of
pqp
land
that
is
in
those
red,
inmitigable
vmt
areas
that
something
like
this
could
be
applied
to,
so
it
could
be
expanded.
J
Yes,
my
next
question
is
going
to
be
about
pqp
lands.
I
know
we
were
talking
about
a
policy
potential
policy
development
for
school
conversions
in,
in
the
absence
of
having
done
that
policy
and
having
counsel
talk
about
that
policy.
If,
if
a
school
district
were
to
come
forward
between
now
and
the
time,
we
do
that,
what
would
be
the
we
would
be
having
a
pro?
We
would
be
using
this
process
that
we're
putting
in
place
here
then
as
we'd.
Consider
that.
F
Correct
so,
and
this
very
well
actually,
this
is
going
to
happen.
It's
happening
right
now.
There's
a
proposal
for
converting
glider
school
and
oak
grove
school
districts
from
to
a
residential,
neighborhood,
landis,
designation,
and
so
the
process
for
them
is
that
they
need
to
prepare
an
eir
which
wouldn't
change
under
this
framework
that
we're
talking
about
here.
F
F
Council,
so
we
have
this
proposal,
it
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan
and
it
the
pulse.
The
transportation
policy
does
not
support
an
override
for
this,
so
we
would.
The
council
would
have
two
choices
and
we
we
in
this
case
we
anticipate
doing
this
early
next
year
and
this
glider
case
amendment
the
council
could
say:
no,
let's
deny
it,
because
it's
not
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
We
just
we
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea.
Let's
deny
it
or
they
could
say
no,
let's
consider
processing
it,
our
staff
consider
to
process
it.
F
F
They
obviously
would
look
at
this
policy
and
they
would
say
well
we're
not
we're
going
to
go
against
the
policy
in
this
case
or
override
it
and
say
we
are
going
to
consider
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
contrary
to
this
policy,
so
that's
something
the
council
could
do
and
then
they
could
certify
the
eir
with
override
and
then
they
could,
if
they
so
desired,
approve
a
general
plan.
Amendment
of
some
kind.
So
that's
the
process
is
currently
laid
out
now
at
some
point
in
time
we
will
go
through
next
year.
F
J
Thank
you,
this
map
does
it.
It
depends
on.
I
mean
the
calculation
of
bmt
and
whether
it's
mitigable
or
not
depends
on
what
kinds
of
transportation
there
is
in
the
area.
In
addition
to
what's
near
it
is
that
right
I
mean
so.
In
other
words,
if
you
have
public
transit
in
the
area,
then
that
has
an
effect
on
on
what
the
calculation
will
be.
Is
that
right.
E
Yeah
ramses
madu,
a
department
of
transportation,
that's
correct.
The
calculations
are
based
on
a
summation
of
immediate
transportation
facilities,
but
also
land
use
right
because
remember,
vmt
is
not
only
about
whether
people
take
transit
or
bike
or
or
drive,
but
also
how
much
they
drive.
So
there's
a
lot
of
resources
directly
around
a
neighborhood.
J
J
I'm
just
curious
because
you
know
what
there
will
be
potential
improvements
or
not,
that
may
or
may
not
come
from
vta
and
others,
and
I'm
just
thinking
about,
for
example,
in
this
area.
That's
down
capital.
If,
if
in
fact
light
rail
has
extended
down
capital,
does
that?
Does
that
mean
that
these
colors
will
change
with
time,
as
we
have
no
more
transportation
options
in
areas.
E
That
is
correct,
so
we've
just
done
an
update
to
this
map
that
will
be
published
within
the
next
month
or
so,
and
it
already
shows
a
difference
because
of
the
the
new
bart
stations
that
opened
up
in
in
your.
J
E
These
maps
always
reflect
the
the
recent
past,
not
the
future.
E
J
Thank
you,
and
my
last
question
is
just
from
my
edification.
I
think
when
we
say
we
need
a
developer
would
have
to
have
a
project
in
order
to
ask
for
a
gp
amendment.
What
is
the
definition
of
what
constitutes
having
a
project?
How
far
along
in
a
process,
does
that
have
to
be
in
order
for
that
to
be
that
criteria
to
be
met.
F
Yeah,
so
a
project
would
need
to
be
a
a
rezoning
well
by
state
law.
There
has
to
be
a
rezoning
with
a
general
plan
amendment
considered
at
the
same
time,
although
it
could
be
a
just
a
standard
off-the-shelf
sounding
district,
but
but
it
would
have
to
be
some
kind
of
rezoning.
It
could
be
a
pd
zoning
or
straight
zoning,
and
then
there
would
have
to
be
a
site
development
permit
or
a
pd
primitive.
It's
a
pd
zoning
process.
F
J
So
it
can
be
some
general
layout
without
having
gone
I
mean
I'm
curious.
Obviously,
the
idea
here
is
to
prevent
conversions
that
would
just
be
able
to
help
sell
land
right,
but
but
to
actually
have
a
project.
That's
realistic,
coming.
F
Correct
so
it
could
be
if
it's,
a
very
large
development
could
be
like
a
master
pd
master
permit.
So
you
wouldn't
have
this
to
get
down
the
architectural
scale,
because
sun
is
developers
what
they
will
do
is
they'll
sell
off
chunks
to
specific
developers
and
they'll
come
in
with
their
product
type,
but
it
could
be
lisa
sort
of
a
master
pd
level
pro.
B
Thank
you
other
questions
from
my
colleagues.
I
have.
I
just
want
to
thank
councilmember
perales
for
his
comments.
B
I
I
agree
that
the
criteria
that
you
proposed,
they
all
sound
good
on
paper,
but
until
we
see
individual
projects
and
until
we
hear
from
the
community,
I
think
it's
it's
really
hard
to
be
this
prescriptive
in
in
the
abstract.
So
I
very
much
think
council
member
problems
for
his
direction
to
provide
broader
language
for
us.
I
I
think
it's
really
helpful
as
well.
Councilmember
cohen
mentioned
this
for
for
you
to
lay
out
not
in
the
policy,
obviously,
but
in
the
staff
reports.
B
What
criteria
you
think
would
be
helpful
in
individual
cases
when
those
when
those
things
come
to
us,
for
whether
or
not
for
us
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
override-
and
I
would-
I
would
say
specifically
for
pqp
knowing
what
what
parkland
is
other
parkland
is
available
in
the
area
is,
is
something
that
would
be
very
helpful
for
us
and
how
it?
B
How
any
proposed
project
like
the
glider
school,
the
example
that
you
used
michael,
what
that
would
do
to
the
availability
of
open
space
in
in
that
neighborhood
and
in
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
So
because
that
is
something
that
I
think
gives
me
real
pause
in
terms
of.
B
We
don't
want
to
convert
employment
lands,
but
I'm
I'm
actually
really
concerned
about
the
conversions
of
school
district
lands
because
of
the
availability
of
those
sites
for
kids
to
play
outside
of
outside
of
school
hours
and
on
the
weekends,
and
even
for
dogs
to
to
run
and
all
kinds
of
stuff,
like
that.
Those
have
been
very,
very
helpful
and
useful
spaces
in
our
city.
So
those
are
criteria.
B
So
I
I
also
did
want
to
ask
how
often
I
can't
remember:
how
often
do
we
actually
go
contrary
to
our
own
policies?
F
Yeah,
I
don't
I
we.
I
don't
think
we've
done
a
metric
on
on
that,
so
I
can't
give
you
an
exact
answer
on
that.
I
think
my
just
in
my
career,
I
know
that
one
of
the
ones
that's
come
up.
Occasionally,
I
I
believe
is
the
it's
not
a
different
example
here,
but
it's
the
the.
F
Policy
right,
so
we
have
a
policy
about
when
it
when
when
drive-throughs
would
be
allowed
and
under
what
what
the
designs
are
and
if
there's
an
over-concentration
or
in
certain
locations
we
don't
the
policy
is,
you
should
not
approve
it
and
that's
an
example
where
council
has
had
other
considerations
and
said
we
said
we
think
it
a
drive-through
is
appropriate
here,
but
yeah.
We,
I
don't,
we
don't
have.
We
haven't
kept
metrics
on
that.
F
F
Us
really
really
keep
keeping
people
about
a
lot
of
keep
in
mind
that
I
should
be
fair
that
the
the
the
situations
where
the
council
would
do
it-
something
different
is
not
typically
the
world
that
I
work
in.
So
I
don't
know
I
work
in
more
of
the
policy
arena
and
that's
usually
when
it
comes
up
is
when
that
was
actually
a
project.
That's
that's
a
development
project,
that's
being
considered
by
council
sure.
B
Well,
I
think
the
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
it's.
I
think
it's
pretty
rare,
but
it's
also
because
we
need
to
make
our
policies
broad
enough
to
cover
most
instances,
as
opposed
to
so
prescriptive
that
we
have
to
make
overriding
concerns
and
go
against
our
policy.
Because
then,
what's
the
point
of
having
the
policy,
and
then
I
also
wanted
to
ask,
are
we
the
most
restrictive
city?
B
B
We
do
have
specific
challenges
in
san
jose,
and
I
know
that
our
policies
are
cognizant
of
the
challenge
of
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
employment
lands
and
we
don't
want
to
convert
those,
and
so
we
have.
We
know
we
have
those
issues
and
our
policies
are
probably
skewed
in
that
direction.
For
that
reason,
but
are
we?
E
So
thanks
for
the
question
overall,
our
policy
is
actually
almost
exactly
as
the
state
has
recommended
for
all
cities.
There
are
two
elements
that
are
different.
One
is
that
we
use
a
just
slightly
tighter
measure
of
vmt
for
residential
properties
and
it's
yeah
anyways
we
use
within
the
city
versus
within
the
region,
whichever
one
is
tighter.
E
The
state
recommendation
says
whichever
one's
looser:
it's
not
that
appreciable
in
terms
of
the
numbers,
the
other
one
is
what
we're
talking
about
today,
which
is
the
overriding
consideration
right,
and
this
is
just
one
part
among
amongst
the
rest
of
the
policy
and
in
this
most
cities
have
kept
themselves
at
the
general
sequa
overwriting
consideration,
statement
guidance.
We,
as
we
had
before
5-1
did
where
we
received
direction,
to
continue
to
give
council
a
policy
to
manage
overriding
considerations
as
we
were
developing
5-1
and
that
led
to
what
we
have.
D
B
E
Sorry,
if
I
can
just
sort
of
jump
in
for
a
second
just
your
prior
question
on
policies,
probably
the
best
parallel
for
something
like
this-
would
be
the
riparian
corridor
policy
right,
where
we
have
an
assumption
that
we
have
a
set
distance
of
100
feet
from
top
of
bank
and
then
we
sort
of
take
that
project
into
consideration
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
based
on
the
guidance
within
the
policy.
That's
probably
the
closest
parallel.
We
have.
B
I
Yeah
I'll
be
brief.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
councilmember
perales
for
his
comments
earlier.
I
We
frequently
balance
our
housing
crisis,
our
environmental
crises,
but
we
also
need
to
consider
equity
in
some
of
these
considerations
and
that
that
is
a
huge
issue
and
where
we
build,
where
we
build
market
weight
rate
where
we
build
affordable
and
how
we're
physically
designing
the
community
that
we
live
and
how
we
got
to
where
we
are,
you
know
and
council
member
davis.
Thank
you.
You
mentioned
schools
and
parks
right.
I
represent
very
dense
areas.
I
Multiple
parts
of
my
district
don't
have
parks,
some
of
the
poorest,
most
dense
census,
tracts,
don't
have
parks
and
as
districts
throughout
the
city.
Look
at
closing
schools,
for
example
the
districts
that
I've
spoken
to
on
the
east
side
actually
aren't
looking
at
developing
because
they're
already
in
dense
areas
and
they're
in
areas
where
they
really
need
public
space
public
use
and
are
really
looking
at
different
alternatives
for
those
sites.
I
It's
in
the
west
side,
where
there
is
less
affordable
housing
than
in
the
east
side,
where
there's
much
less
density
and
where,
frankly,
the
value
of
land
is
higher
that
you
know
this
is
becoming
more
of
an
issue
and
again
those
school
districts
have
to
balance
all
of
their
needs
current
and
in
the
future,
and
so
you
know
I
I
support
the
ability
for
future
councils
to
really
look
at
to
have
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
on
the
overrides.
I
B
A
Sure
so
the
next
next
to.
F
Us
to
craft
the
the
actual
policy
changes
that
we
will
then
take
the
planning,
commission
and
and
and
as
part
of
that
package,
I
think
you
know
you've
already
heard
all
the
other
pieces
and
I
think,
there's
not
a
lot
of
discussion
on
those.
This
is
the
one
remaining
part
that
we
need
to
work
out.
F
So
what
we
will
do
is
take
the
feedback
that
we've
heard
today,
more
specifically
related
to
the
affordable
housing
component
and
craft
it
in
a
little
more
I'd,
say
outcome
and
a
little
more
general
providing
more
flexibility
as
well.
I
think
we
also
heard
that
we
should
be
thinking
about
the
issue
of
park
space,
particularly
in
communities
where
there
is
a
lack
of
park,
space
and
the
implications
of
of
a
proposal
to
either
add
or
detract
from
the
amount
of
park
space
in
that
community.
So.
J
F
Some
kind
of
criteria
that
council
should
be
thinking
about
down
the
road,
so
we'll
bring
we'll
craft
that
it
will
go
into
the
planning
commission
staff
report.
We'll
have
a
draft
policy
right
it'll
go
to
the
planning
commission.
The
planning
commission
will
listen
and
hear
it
and
he'll
take
public
testimony
and
then
we'll
send
the
the
recommendation.
F
Obviously
the
council,
as
we
always
do,
and
the
council
will
have
the
final
decision
on
what
that
policy
will
look
like
and
here
and
and
have
a
chance
to
see
what
we
what
we
develop
based
on
the
feedback
today.
H
H
Okay,
great
yeah,
we
put
a
lot
of
work
in
this
over
the
last
year
plus,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we'd
have
an
opportunity,
this
council
to
make
that
decision
thanks.
B
And
I
just
want
to
be
clear
before
we
vote
and
I
know
councilmember
cohen's
got
his
hand
up
again
as
well.
I
didn't
the
the
comments
that
I
had
about
ppp
and
parkland.
I
didn't
ask
to
be
put
into
the
motion
specifically
because
you're
going
to
do
a
pqp
policy,
a
conversion
school
conversion
policy
separately,
and
so
I
that
was
more
sort
of
a
look
forward
as
opposed
to
putting
it
into
this
policy.
Just.
J
What
are
the
needs
in
the
area
is
their
need
for
open
spaces,
their
need
for
affordable
housing,
so
so
that
that's
all
in
there
in
some
way,
so
that
so
that
a
future
council
would
say.
Oh,
we
better
take
into
account
these
things
so
from
a
good
planning
perspective,
your
recommendations
as
to
what
would
make
what
would
make
a
complete
project
that
would
be
worthy
of
doing
this
over
supporting
a
statement.
J
Overriding
consideration,
you
know,
helps
us
as
we
make
those
decisions
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
so
that
was
the
thought
that
I
had
yeah.
F
I
mean
we're
comfortable
with
adding
something,
that's
more
general
and
sort
of
provides
as
more
outcome
based.
I
think
so.
I
mean
I'll
leave
it
up
to
you
guys,
but
we
could.
We
could
include
something
along
the
lines
of
what
what
paralysis
suggesting
for
affordable
housing
kind
of
talks
about
you
know
factoring
in
the
needs
for
parks
and
and
making
that
a
consideration.
The
project
that
you
know
provides
park
land,
particularly
in
areas
that
are
park.
F
What's
the
word
partnership,
fishing
yeah,
I
mean
we,
we
we're
happy
we'll
leave
it
up
to
you,
but
we're
happy
to
include
some
just
general
language
in
that
regard.
To
give
some
counsel
some
something
to
consider
in
the
future.
B
Considerations
versus
criteria-
I
think,
is
the
key
key
concept
here,
I'll
I'll
leave
it
up
to
council
member
paralysis.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
about
other
considerations
to
your
motion.
H
If
it's
a
simple
kind
of
you
know
broad
one
sentence
right
or
two
that
it
speaks
to
similar,
what
councilman
cohen
was
saying
that
makes
mention
of
things
that
could
be
considered.
I
think
that's
fine,
but
I
don't
think
it
has
weight
anyways
right.
I
think
that
I
think
that
that
could
be
determined
a
project
by
project
right
basis
that
this
these
kind
of
things
may
come
up.
So
I'm
fine
with
that.
H
If
staff
thinks
they
can
craft
it,
you
know
pretty
easily
in
a
broad
language
of
a
sentence
right
or
two
to
capture
what
councilman
cohen
was
saying
and
councilmember
davis,
but
I
definitely
don't
want
to
you
know,
get
even
more
prescriptive
than
where
we
were
at
today.
B
H
B
C
So
the
verbal
report
will
consist
of
a
recap
of
the
direction
that
was
provided
at
the
june
6
tne
committee
meeting.
That
will
then
cover
our
determination
that
was
made
on
the
feasibility
of
each
of
the
proposed
options
that
we
were
asked
to
explore
and
then
we'll
provide
you
with
the
current
status
of
the
city
generated
tow
services.
Rfp.
C
One.
Following
the
june
6
committee
meeting
staff,
including
code
enforcement,
the
finance
department,
as
well
as
the
city
attorney's
office,
reviewed
these
options
and
made
the
following
determinations
so
for
option.
One
which
was
using
a
cooperative
agreement
staff,
did
determine
that
this
was
not
feasible
in
that
the
rfp
does
seek
options
for
tow
software
providers
to
directly
contract
and
provide
towing
services
on
behalf
of
the
city,
the
procurement
therefore,
would
potentially
revamp
the
city's
existing
toast
delivery
service
model.
C
The
section
second
option
we
explored
was
the
contract
amendment
with
existing
vendors
staff,
determined
that
this
was
not
feasible.
The
city
does
not
have
an
existing
contract
with
tow
software
providers.
That
can
be
amended
to
include
the
tow
services
that
we're
requiring
the
existing
contracts
that
were
awarded
in
2016
did
not
include
the
expanded
services
or
the
new
tow
model
and
amending
these
contracts
with
one
or
all.
C
Option
three,
which
was
to
consider
another
method
such
as
sole
source
staff
determined
this
was
also
not
feasible,
and
that
we
did
conduct
a
request
for
information
in
2019
where
tow
software
providers
with
tower
tow
software
providers
that
use
responses
from
multiple
companies.
C
We
found
that
it
would
be
an
unfair
practice
for
the
city
to
sole
source
with
one
company
when
there
are
multiple
providers
potentially
in
the
market,
and
it
did
not
meet
their
criteria
under
municipal
code.
4.12.230.
C
So,
as
far
as
the
current
status,
given
that
those
three
options
were
determined
to
not
be
feasible,
we
did
continue
on
with
the
the
procurement
process
and
met
our
timeline
to
provide
the
refi
scope
to
the
procure
procurement
prioritization
board,
with
the
finance
department
for
reprioritization.
And
so
that
was
resubmitted.
C
In
july,
the
rfp
was
prioritized
as
the
number
one
priority
and
it
has
been
assigned
to
procurement
staff,
and
so
we
are
currently
in
the
process
of
our
final
revisions
and
preparations
to
be
able
to
release
the
rfp
with
an
estimated
timeline
of
the
end
of
september
very
early
october
and
with
that.
That
concludes
our
update,
and
we
recommend
that
you
accept
this
verbal
report
and
we're
available
for
any
questions
before.
B
A
Mr
president,
assistant
director
of
finance
for
the
city,
I
thank
you
for
your
question,
the
process
for
something
like
this.
We
are
actually
distributing
the
distributing
this
rfp
in
two
pieces.
One
piece
should
be
just
the
software
itself,
so
we'll
be
doing
a
procurement
for
just
the
software,
so
that'll
be
part.
A
part
b
will
be
essentially
saying
we
want
this
entire
contract.
All
the
professional
services
involved
to
be
procured
as
well.
So,
given
that
professional
services
is
involved,
we'll
probably
leave
it
out
there
for
at
least
three
to
four
weeks.
A
It's
a
niche
business,
so
we
may
leave
it
out
there
a
little
longer,
depending
on
the
responses
we
get
in
three
or
four
weeks,
then,
after
that
it
should
take
roughly,
I
would
say,
probably
with
with
the
review
and
everything
else
about
another
month
or
so,
or
perhaps
even
two,
to
get
it
back
before
council
to
get
an
approved
contract,
and
then
the
deployment
will
be.
I
would
say
once
again,
this
is
a.
This
is
a
a
niche
business.
A
It
may
take
a
little
bit.
We'd
have
to
have,
of
course,
if,
depending
on
on
which,
which
whether
we
go
with
a
or
b
if
the
civil
software
is
it
deployed
at
the
city,
we
have
to
do
that
as
well.
That
will
probably
take
around
six
months
if
we
outsource
this
completely.
That
will
also
take
us
something
like
six
months,
just
to
get
somebody
up
and
running.
So
probably,
I
would
say
from
if
we
started
today,
probably
a
year
or
so.
B
A
B
I
You
yes
thanks
for
we're.
I
was
like
what
did
she
say
here?
What
what
thank
you
for
clarifying
that
you
know
I
would
say
next
to
sort
of
homelessness
in
general.
This
is
the
number
one
issue
my
office
get
on
talked
about,
and
I
don't
think
I'm
that
unique
in
that
regard,
and
so
I
really
do
appreciate
this
being
a
number
one
priority.
I
I
know
I
know
you
get
lots
of
calls
from
from
the
public
as
well
as
ten
council
offices
and
the
mayor
about
it.
A
couple
of
questions.
One
is
because
I
also
wanted
to
address
some
of
the
things
that
we
had
done
prior
to
covid,
and
then
it
had
been
mended,
which
is
that
we
had
offered
sort
of
extra
extra
money
as
an
incentive
to
towing
companies
to
tow
and
really
address
the
junk
junk
reimbursements
rvs.
I
Some
of
the
vehicles
are
full
of
biowaste,
and
and
all
of
that
that
then
need
to
be
disposed
of,
and
so
that
has
expired.
Do
we
have
plans
to
bring
that
back.
C
Yes,
council,
member
deputy
director
rachel
roberts,
we
are
planning
to
bring
back
a
proposal
for
another
round
of
reimbursement
that
would
go
to
the
operators
for
tows
related
to
the
beautify
sj
large
toe
events
that
they're
administering
throughout
the
city,
and
we
expect
that
to
be
part
of
the
sixth
amendment.
Among
other
changes
that
we're
making
to
improve
the
service
model
in
the
interim
and
we're
expected
to
come
back
in
september.
With
that.
I
Great,
thank
you,
I
think,
that's
really
important
and
as
as
we've
seen,
sort
of
the
ebb
and
flow
of
service
delivery.
Keeping
that
going,
I
think,
is
really
critical
and
I
had
another
question
regards
to
the
software
rfp.
So
when
this
was
first
brought
forward,
the
reports
have
had
indicated
that
this
would
be
then
transferred
to
the
police
department.
I
C
Yes,
that
is
the
hope,
so
we're
working
on
that
in
parallel
with
the
rfp
process,
so
we'll
be
working
with
pde
on
a
transition
plan
that
we
we
will
be
developing.
We
also
have
to
come
forward
with
any
budget
proposals
that
may
be
needed
to
add
resources
to
administer
the
program
on
our
side
once
we
onboard
that
new
vendor,
so
our
hope
is
to
have
those
those
things
in
place
and
ready
to
go
by
next
fiscal
year.
I
You
know,
there's
been
just
had
been
in
a
prior
committee
meeting
some
discussion
about
the
fee
and
yes,
there's
a
fee,
but
if
that
fee,
to
provide
faster,
better
service,
then
it's
worth
it
to
not
have
your
car
in
for
an
extra
night
right.
So
on
balance,
it's
a
lot
cheaper
and
hopefully
a
lot
easier
on
us
as
a
city
and
on
our
residents
and
businesses.
I
Okay,
with
that
I'd
like
to
move
approval
or
accept
you
to
accept
the
report.