RULES COMMITTEE: 08/24/2022
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 22-354
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: August 24, 2022
August 11 – August 18, 2022
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from Larry Ames, dated August 12, 2022, regarding: Proposed ‘Repurposing’ of Chartered City Parks.
2. Letter from Carlin Black (J’Carlin), dated August 16, 2022, regarding: Residential neighborhood streets belong to people not cars.
3. Letter from Martha O'Connell, dated August 16, 2022, regarding: Rules 8-24-22. ____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
8/15/22, 2:25 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/sentitems/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NA… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Proposed ‘Repurposing’ of Chartered City Parks
Lames
Fri 8/12/2022 7:35 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>;Ortbal, Jim <[email protected]>;Cicirelli, Jon <[email protected]>;Bayne, Brooke <[email protected]>;HousingComms <[email protected]>; < < >;
< >;
< >
;Sutherland, Kathy
1 attachments (953 KB)
D6NLG letter on Noble Ponds 2022Aug12.pdf;
Attached please find a letter from the District 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group (D6NLG) to the Mayor and Council concerning proposed interim housing in Noble Pond Park on the Penitencia Creek, an issue that has citywide and multi-jurisdictional implications.
Please forward as appropriate.
Thank you.
~Larry Ames, D6NLG Chair
Public Record: 1
1 The Honorable Sam Liccardo, Mayor of San José
and Members of the San José City Council
200 E Santa Clara St., San José, CA 95113
via email, sent Aug. 12, 2022
Subject: Proposed ‘Repurposing’ of Chartered City Parks Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We in the District 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group (D6NLG), a decades-old association of involved community representatives of the numerous District 6 neighborhoods and associations, are very interested in preserving and enhancing the parks of our city. We have been following plans for proposed Emergency Interim Housing Communities (EIHCs) being considered along the Penitencia Creek. Even though this project is not in Council District 6, the discussion by Staff at the Aug. 3rd Rules Committee meeting1 raised issues that impact parks in
District 6 as well. And while the Rules Committee has yet to agendize the topic for full Council discussion, we feel that the underlying issues should be studied and resolved prior to Council considering the specific project proposal.
We oppose the construction of any type of housing – transition, quick-build, trailer, temporary or permanent – on those properties by the Dr. Robert Gross Ponds, known by the community as “Noble Ponds Park” and by the County as Assessor Parcel Numbers 595-31-001 and 595-24-055.
We support the immediate determination of “Noble Ponds Park” as inalienable chartered park land, which means the lands are subject to the conditions of the City Charter2 Section 1700 requiring a vote of the electorate to change its use from public park. We recommend that council take further action to clarify San José City Charter Section 1700 and create objective measures of the definitions of “dedicated, improved, and opened to the public for public park purposes”, and that those definitions should take into account that 1) some parks may take years to be improved due to the inequities of park funding and 2) community preferences in some areas may be for a more natural and unimproved park to better enjoy wildlife and nature. We support the City working to find private or public non-park land to support the housing needs of unhoused individuals.
We support the re-implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Sunshine task force recommendations for robust public outreach prior to the decision on any site. 1 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=986755&GUID=F4DA38E6-B07B-4887-AF0A-CBB71130CAA0 Agenda Item # C1: “Community Outreach for Quick Build Interim Housing” 2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13907/637532449706900000 2 Background
In June 2022, the
City Council voted
to pursue three
“quick build sites,”
including the two
along Noble Avenue shaded in
yellow and green
on this Penitencia
Creek Park Master
Plan3 map. This
decision was
made without
outreach to the affected communities. On August 3, 2022 Councilmember Cohen submitted a referral4 to the Joint Committee on Rules to remove “Noble Ponds” from the quick-build list, asserting that the location is a park. His referral asked for thorough outreach and a rapid determination as to whether Noble Ponds was indeed a park. City staff argued the determination and outreach should both be “yellow-lighted” and deferred to a council priority setting session. Following committee discussion, staff agreed they would work to resolve the park determination shortly.
During the meeting, City staff referenced the three criteria for chartered city parkland under Section 1700: “dedicated, improved, and opened to the public for public park purposes.” Whether these parcels meet this standard is important because, to quote Section 1700, “Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Charter, the public parks of the City shall be inalienable unless otherwise authorized by the affirmative votes of the majority of the electors voting on such a proposition in each case.” Chartered Parkland Criteria #1: Is it “Dedicated”?
Staff acknowledged the subject property was part of a joint County-City-Water District master park plan from 1977, subject of tripartite agreements that date from 1981 and renewed Feb. 27, 20075to develop the Penitencia creek chain for “park, recreation and open space, flood protection and water conservation purposes.” Further, a Master Plan for the site was 3 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20651/636687674429930000, adopted by Council June 4, 2002: http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/2002_CnclMins/06-04-02%20Min.htm 4 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11098396&GUID=0E1C70B5-5F81-41B2-B440-35DFEACDE5B1 5 City of San José resolution no. 73660. The corresponding Water District resolution was passed Dec. 12, 2006 3 prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 4, 2002. For these reasons, staff stated the parcels were “dedicated.” (Rules, Aug 3, 2022)
Chartered Parkland Criteria #3: is it “Open to Public Use for Recreational Purposes”? Community members testified to using the park for walking and school-based nature study, with Audubon offering bird walks. Long-time residents, including former Council member Margie Matthews6, reported visiting the property for more than 45 years. The parcel has “park rules” signs and a trailhead to the Penitencia Creek trail. Groups must obtain permits from PRNS Special Permit unit. Staff agreed the parcels meet the charter standard of “open to the public for recreational purposes.” (Rules, Aug 3, 2022) Chartered Parkland Criteria #2: is it “Improved”?
The park is clearly improved – but just not in the traditional suburban style with a large swath of turf. Instead, this park emphasizes nature and reminds visitors of what San José looked like at the time of its first residents: the indigenous peoples. The park has been improved with modest amenities that welcome the visitor to this natural place. By design, natural areas will have less intense improvements. A formal trail / Class I bikepath leads visitors through the parcels and across the Robert Gross ponds. Gravel has been laid for walking paths along the edge of the ponds which were redesigned in the 1980s using some of the city’s land to provide a more natural shoreline to enhance the visitor experience. A “park rules” sign and one of San José’s signature (and expensive) “tombstone” park name signs greet the visitor. A fence with pedestrian openings was installed to separate the recreational area from the parking area.
Trees were planted and irrigation installed during community work days that were collaborations with Our City Forest and PRNS. A water fountain was placed in the park. Picnic tables were installed according to the master plan, and then later removed after they become a source of inappropriate behavior behind the nearby residences. Due to inequitable funding for parks in residential areas built prior to the 1993 creation of the Park Trust fund, little money has been available for extensive park improvement. The inequities embedded in the Construction and Conveyance (C & C) tax further limits resources to complete the master plan. A dog park was offered, but the community expressed its preference for a natural area and an appropriate level of amenities. Given present-day water realities, it is unlikely that the large turf area envisioned in the 2002 master plan will ever be built. What is clear is that many thousands of park dollars – maintenance and capital funds – have been spent on this park. If the city’s distribution of park capital budget dollars were more equitable, additional amenities likely would have been installed. We object to the Staff position that the park is not improved “well enough.” City dollars were spent and features were installed: there is no dollar amount or other criteria established in the charter or municipal code that defines a “sufficient” level of development.
We believe that the parcels meet the charter standard of “improved.” 6 see Public Comment letters, p. 5:
https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11107731&GUID=58A9189F-5B15-4325-875C-047E67484AFD 4 Some addition comments on park improvements:
Equity Concerns:
This property has clearly suffered from inequitable allocation of park funding. What other properties that have been underfunded due to inequity might also fail to meet this ill-defined “improved” test? Will underserved regions of the city be further penalized by having their parklands repurposed?
“Access to Nature” – Less Developed by Design:
ActivateSJ,7the City’s park strategic plan, presents “Access to Nature” as one of the five guiding principles for the city’s park system. The plan cites research that shows “access to nature encourages early childhood development, reduces stress, and promotes socialization among neighbors.”8
A number of city parks are less developed by design –
should neighbors of these parks be concerned that their park doesn’t meet some nonspecific standard of improvement and thus might be subject to repurposing? What About Properties Under Construction or Awaiting Funding? This proposal to convert a property with a 45-year history as publicly accessible open space suggests that other parks that are under development, awaiting a grant or park fees from nearby planned development, are also at risk. If this interpretation were to prevail, it would be challenging or impossible to ever again build a new park in the city.
Parks don’t just “magically appear” fully developed: it takes time, often years, to acquire and assemble parcels, and carry out construction. Which neighbors should expect their parks to be eliminated?
Litigation Risk – and the Inevitable Accompanying Delays? The lack of specificity in the City Charter about the word “improved” could lead to litigation from those aggrieved by a determination that this property or some other park is not a chartered park and thus is available for development. We wonder whether various neighborhoods worried about the future of their more natural parks with minimal investment might join litigation. Any litigation would consume precious City resources and delay a final determination. We hope that Council could resolve this issue now.
Additional Points:
Housing vs. Parks – A False Choice
Some may frame this as a discussion of prioritizing parks over the very real concerns and needs of the unhoused. This is a false dichotomy. We can have both parks and housing.
The voters have spoken loudly when they approved large housing bonds. They know 7 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/43503/637178743945470000 8 The Trust for Public Land, From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile: How Urban Park Systems Can Best Promote Health and Wellness (2011)
5 there are housing needs – and so they have voted for housing bonds. They want the unhoused out of their parks. The people expect their parks to be sacrosanct. Some questions for you to consider: Will these neighbors ever vote for another housing measure if/when they know the money will be used to take their parks? Will developers who contributed park trust fees to acquire these parks ask or sue for their money back? If voters fear their parks will be converted to housing, will they ever vote for a park bond again as long as homeless housing sits on parkland?
Sunshine. Transparency. Outreach
With the onset of the Covid pandemic, many features of the Sunshine Ordinance were suspended. As the City moves to a new normal, the reasons for the Sunshine Task Force and ordinance have become apparent again. Robust public engagement prior to decision making was and is a community priority. As was shown with the Vista Montana/First Street site, when neighborhoods are not notified in advance, they are likely to harass and punish the newly arrived and formerly unhoused residents until they are driven away. Only in those neighborhoods that engaged in substantial outreach prior to final decision making and the arrival of new residents has there been some level of grudging acceptance. We urge you to return to the Sunshine Ordinance standards and to engage in community outreach as soon as staff identifies a potential property.
Summary
The pandemic has reminded us all of the importance of parkland for our physical and mental health. The research is clear. Park usage by the community has increased. The Noble Avenue parcels at the Robert Gross ponds are chartered park land and are a part of the Penitencia Creek Park Chain. We urge you to remove these two parcels – and all other parks, in whatever stage of development – from the list of properties under consideration for housing, and instead to seek underutilized commercial or industrial properties that can be leased or purchased.
Dr. Lawrence Ames, Chair, D6NLG
cc: Toni Taber (City Clerk); Jennifer Maguire (City Manager); Jim Ortbal (Special Projects); Jon Cicirelli (PRNS); Parks & Rec Cmsn (c/o Brooke Bayne); Jacky Morales-Ferrand (Housing); Berryessa Union School Dist.: Hugo Jinenez (Brd of Trustees) and Dr. Roxane Fuentes (Super.); Don Rocha (Santa Clara Co. Parks); Valley Water: Rick Callendar (CEO) & Richard Santos (Chair); Mayoral and Council candidates; SJ Parks Advocates; All District Leaders Group; Save Our Trails 8/16/22, 9:17 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Residential neighborhood streets belong to people not cars.
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Tue 8/16/2022 9:13 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 7:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Residential neighborhood streets belong to people not cars.
From: J'Carlin < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:13 AM
To: District9 <[email protected]>; Peralez, Raul <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Liccardo, Sam <[email protected]> Cc:
Subject: Residential neighborhood streets belong to people not cars.
Greetings Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Jones, and Council Members— Since Covid, in the neighborhoods in San Jose I frequently visit, I have noticed people and children walking, running, exercising, using personal mobility devices, and playing in the streets. They simply have taken control of their neighborhood residential streets. In one neighborhood I visit frequently the residents have posted signs “20 is plenty” referring to the speed limit they want. I always set my cruise control at 20 mph to respect their wishes.
It is time that the city of San Jose recognize this reality and adjust the residential street speed limit to 20, to discourage excessive speed frequently over 35 mph on these streets as through drivers use them for access to arterials.
Thank you for your consideration of this critical residential safety issue.
Carlin Black,
--
Public Record: 2
8/16/22, 9:17 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Carlin Black
Aka J’Carlin
8/16/22, 3:52 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Rules 8-24-22
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Tue 8/16/2022 3:08 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: martha O'Connell < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:44 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>; martha O'Connell < > Subject: Rules 8-24-22
Public Record
Rules and Open Government
8-24-22
RE: Unreasonable delay in producing document
On June 14, 2022, the issue of the MH designation for all the remaining Mobilehome Parks was on the agenda – item 3.3. During the discussion, Michael Brilliot, Deputy Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement made the following statement:
“In other words, if you have higher density development around MH Parks you could potentially build townhomes. Townhomes are the big money maker for developers.”
Brilliot went on to state that staff would look at the Parks that have a prevailing density in which a developer could build townhomes. He cited the fiscal feasibility study that was done for Opportunity Housing.
Distressed by this obvious threat to MH Parks, I submitted a PRA – Public Records Act Request - the next day, June 15, 2022. In pertinent part my request stated: “This is a PRA for the feasibility study for “Opportunity Housing” in specific neighborhoods as a proxy for assessing the feasibility of redeveloping specific residentially-designated MHPs into townhouses. Wow – that is scary.”
Despite my clear language, all I got was silence and then delay after delay after delay. I was sent documents that did not appear to be the feasibility study. More delays.
Public Record: 3
8/16/22, 3:52 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Almost two months to the day from my PRA, on August 11, 2022, the City, through its unelected staff, finally provided the report I had so clearly identified.
And where pray tell where was that report – sitting in the very department of which Brilliot is a Deputy Director. To quote from an August 11, 2022 email: “Please see the attached report that Planning has provided.”
The Departments of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Housing should stop treating MH residents like mushrooms. Give us documents in a timely manner so that we can network, organize for an ROP (Resident Owned Park) and contact our Councilpersons to otherwise stop the closure of MH Parks in San Jose. Once you have identified the five Parks at most risk, please advise me.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu