RULES COMMITTEE: 4/03/2024
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 24-550
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: April 3, 2024
March 21 – March 28, 2024
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
1. Letter from Housing and Community Development Commission, dated March 27, 2024, regarding: HCDC – Letter to City Council – Remote Communications 3-27-24.
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from Paul Welch, dated March 23, 2024, regarding: Restore Virtual Comments at City Council meetings.
2. Letter from Karin Jeffery, dated March 25, 2024, regarding: Public comment for City Council March 19, item no: 3.3, Fast Food Worker Ordinance.
3. Letter from Donna Tran, dated March 25, 2024, regarding: Request Submit Comment for "Return to In-Person Public Comment in Public Meetings".
4. Letter from Emmanuel Abello, dated March 25, 2024, regarding: LAFCO Certificate of Completion Blackberry Hill Road No. 6.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
This letter was agendized and approved by the Commission at the March 14, 2024 HCDC meeting.
March 27, 2024
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Integrity, respect, innovation, excellence, collaboration, and celebration. Each of these words have impactful meanings and encapsulate the core values that the City of San Jose proclaims to uphold.
According to the city’s website, “The Mission of the City of San José is to provide quality public services, facilities and opportunities that create, sustain, and enhance a safe, livable, and vibrant community for its diverse residents, businesses, and visitors.” The City of San Jose is failing to uphold these values, as evidenced by the sentiments expressed at our Housing and Community Development Commission “HCDC” meeting on February 8, 2024.
Recent legislation has limited verbal public comments to in-person only for all meetings of City legislative bodies, which include the City Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees. This decision was made within a vacuum, without public notification or solicitation of feedback. The change in policy has created a strong consensus of disappointment and dismay, prompting the HCDC to draft this letter to convey our dissatisfaction.
The rationale provided to remove remote communications for the public is to address instances of hate speech, with the belief that eliminating remote capabilities will curb such behavior. While we all recognize that hate speech has no place in our society and should be eliminated in all arenas, we must not stifle the voices of the public that may not have the means or capability to attend city meetings. The unwarranted and disgusting comments made by a small group of individuals can be and could be cut off immediately via Zoom or YouTube by simply pressing a mute button and removing those individuals’ ability to continue speaking.
The City of San Jose is in the heart of Silicon Valley, the tech capital of the world. We are supposed to lead with integrity, innovation, collaboration and honor diverse views by being inclusive. In other words, we are supposed to be a beacon to the state, our nation and the world. This regressive policy will only deprive the city of various points of view and negatively impacts certain groups of people such as the elderly, disabled, working families, the sick or those that may not have the means to travel to city hall.
We understand the city intends to provide reasonable accommodation in order to grant as much accessibility as possible. However, people must contact the ADA Coordinator to determine possible options. This is a failed attempt at being inclusive and falls short of being innovative.
Rather than restricting virtual communications, the city should leverage its technological prowess to develop innovative solutions that ensure accessibility for all. We should set a new standard and example for all legislative bodies in this state and the nation by using our creativity and technological means to maintain this much needed service.
Public Record: 1
This letter was agendized and approved by the Commission at the March 14, 2024 HCDC meeting.
We encourage the city to reverse this decision and reinstate the ability for the public to communicate via remote means. We should stand tall and proudly for our core values and ensure that all people have a voice within this magnificent city.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ryan Jasinsky
Chair of the Housing and Community Development Commission/Mobilehome Owner/Manager Representative
Roma Dawson Alain Mowad Barry Del Buono Ruben Navarro
District 1 Seat District 2 Seat District 3 Seat District 5 Seat Jen Beehler Huy Tran Don Jackson Roberta Moore
District 6 Seat District 8 Seat District 9 Seat District 10 Seat Victoria Partida Daniel Finn
District 7 Seat (Vice Chair) Mobilehome Resident Representative Public Record: 1
3/26/24, 2 48 PM Mail Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas Outlook https //outlook office365 com/mail/rulescommitteeagenda@sanjoseca gov/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. the challenge of finding solutions to preserve access for everyone while continuing to facilitate public comment by providing a virtual option.
Ending the process of remote participation, is to deny a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Some examples include:
Disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rides with Paratransit.
Immunocompromised residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room.
Working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours long council meetings.
Parents with small children who can’t take time off to attend City meetings.
For example, budget season is the most critical time of year for civic engagement. The ban on remote comments means the people most in need of an equitable city budget will be sidelined throughout the process.
The possibility that the ban on remote comments might only last months is no comfort to those who wish to comment on current City Council, Committee and Commission matters in order to ensure that quality of life in San Jose is maximized. I ask that you immediately restore virtual public comment to ensure that you and the City once again benefit from the voices silenced by your recent decision.
Paul Welch
95118
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s).
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United Community Working Together
3/26/24, 2 50 PM Mail Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas Outlook https //outlook office365 com/mail/rulescommitteeagenda@sanjoseca gov/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Public comment for City Council March 19, item no: 3.3, Fast Food Worker Ordinance
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Mon 3/25/2024 11:20 AM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Public comment for City Council March 19, item no: 3.3, Fast Food Worker Ordinance From: Karin Jeffery
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 11:05 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public comment for City Council March 19, item no: 3.3, Fast Food Worker Ordinance San Jose City Clerk Toni Taber,
I hope this message finds you well. As a resident deeply invested in our city's well-being and fairness, I urge you to vote in favor of adding one time funding to the City’s budget to study developing a Fast Food Fair Work Ordinance during the upcoming council meeting on March 19, 2024.
In San José alone, nearly 13,000 frontline fast food workers face job instability, unsafe working conditions, and unpredictable schedules. These challenges disproportionately affect women and people of color. A staggering 85% of fast food workers in California suffer from wage theft, and 1 in 9 unhoused workers in the state are employed in fast food, leading to housing instability or even homelessness.
Despite these challenges, a recent report by the Step Forward Foundation revealed that 88% of California fast food workers lack knowledge about their rights and essential benefits. The Fast Food Fair Work Ordinance aims to address labor violations by providing training to workers and offering paid time off to sustain their families.
However, the fast food industry has lobbied against this ordinance, claiming it would harm small, locally owned businesses and the local economy. Yet, the law's applicability to companies with over 30 establishments indicates they are not the small establishments they claim to be but rather big corporate enterprises, many with a history of labor violations. Good businesses should welcome their employees' awareness of their rights, but many of these companies have profited at their workers' expense. Their fear stems from the threat posed by informed workers to their exploitative business models.
Public Record: 2
3/26/24, 2 51 PM Mail Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas Outlook https //outlook office365 com/mail/rulescommitteeagenda@sanjoseca gov/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT 1/2 FW: Request Submit Comment for "Return to In Person Public Comment in Public Meetings"
Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Mon 3/25/2024 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Senior Citizens Commission 10
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Request Submit Comment for "Return to In-Person Public Comment in Public Meetings" Importance: High
Hello Toni Taber,
My name is Donna Tran, D10 Commissioner on the Senior Citizens Commission. Last month, our Commission board received news regarding the memo "RETURN TO IN-PERSON PUBLIC
COMMENT
IN PUBLIC MEETINGS" on February 1, 2024. Is there a way to submit my comments regarding this memo and ensuring it goes to the right leaders who make decisions regarding this matter? Happy to email from my non-Commission email or from this city email, please let me know what the right etiquette/rule is--
The Commission was informed that we must attend the meetings in-person to vote, or risk losing our appointed positions if we do not attend in-person (even if we are able to attend virtually). I am NOT in support of enforcing a strict in-person-only method. This decision poses an unnecessary barrier to civic engagement and the fulfillment of our Commissioner duties, failing to recognize the significant benefits offered by hybrid arrangements. Forcing Commissioners to return to meetings in-person undermines the progress made in fostering a flexible, inclusive work environment. Advocating for the needs of our community is our priority, and this decision does not align with creating an conducive environment for the public, especially senior citizens.
Thank you for your help!
Best,
Donna Tran
Donna Tran, MPH
District 10 Representative
Senior Citizens Commission
Public Record: 3
3/26/24, 2 51 PM Mail Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas Outlook https //outlook office365 com/mail/rulescommitteeagenda@sanjoseca gov/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT 2/2 Public Record: 4
RESOLUTION 2024-009
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION
OF AN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS
BLACKBERRY HILL ROAD NO. 06
APN: 532-25-011
APPROXIMATELY 2. 1 ACRES
ANNEXATION APPLICATION: AN23-001
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15405 BLACKBERRY HILL ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: MAURICE BREWSTER
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos has received a request for annexation of territory designated as Blackberry Hill Road No. 06 from Maurice Brewster; and WHEREAS, the property, is approximately 2.1 acres, located at 15405 Blackberry Hill Road, APN: 532-25-011, is contiguous to a Town boundary, and within the Town's Urban Service Area; and
WHEREAS, no special districts would be affected by the proposal; and WHEREAS, the annexation would provide for use of Town services; and WHEREAS, the Town Council enacted Ordinance 1453 in 1980 pre-zoning the subject territory with an HR-2½ (Hillside Residential, 2½ to 10 acres for each dwelling unit) zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos, as Lead Agency for environmental review for the reorganization, has determined annexation of the subject property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County has found the description and map (Exhibits A and B) to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56757, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road 1 of4
Resolution 2024-009 February 20, 2024
annexation policies; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos shall be the conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal have consented to this annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing to hear any protests on February 20, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the that the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does as follows:
1. That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated as Blackberry Hill Road No. 06, more particularly described in Exhibits A and B;
2. That the following findings are made by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos:
a. Said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 2.1 acres; b. The annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory within the Town's Urban Service Area and is consistent with the Town policy of annexing when required by the Town's agreement with the County of Santa Clara; c. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Title 14 Code of Regulations, Chapter 3: Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA Section 15061(b)(3): Review for Exemption; d. The Town Council enacted Ordinance 1453 in 1980 pre-zoning the subject territory with an HR-2½ (Hillside Residential, 2½ to 10 acres for each dwelling unit) zoning designation;
e. The territory is within the Town's Urban Service Area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County;
2 of4
Resolution 2024-009 February 20, 2024
f. The County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The County Surveyor has been reimbursed for the actual cost incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination; g. The proposed annexation will not create an area in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services;
h. The proposed annexation does not split lines of assessment or ownership; i. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Town's General Plan; j. The territory to be annexed is located within 300 feet of a Town boundary; and k. The Town has complied with all conditions imposed by the Commission for inclusion of the territory in the Town's Urban Service Area.
3. That all owners of land within the affected territory have provided written consent to the reorganization and no protests have been received;
4. That upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory described in Exhibit A will be annexed to the Town of Los Gatos; and
5. That upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory reorganized will be taxed on the regular County assessment roll, including taxes for existing bonded indebtedness.
3 of4
Resolution 2024-009 February 20, 2024