In a prior blog I wrote about the “mystery” of closed session meetings. These meetings occur every Tuesday morning and cover real estate, litigation and labor negotiations. In addition, everything covered at the meetings is confidential. Last week, the city council voted to release a revision of a closed session memo for public distribution called “Confidential Legal Advice Related to Imposition of Appropriate Conditions in Land Use Approval.” This memo was released on May 16 so it could be shared with the general public and the development community.

The issue at hand is whether or not individual council members may ask for neighborhood amenities (like architecture, trees and parking for examples) when residential developments are being approved, so they may fit better into the existing community. The problem is that items the community asks for may not be required by existing city rules; therefore, those requests may not be allowed.

The release of this memo got me thinking of other things that should be released from closed sessions.  Why stop at a memo about land use when our largest financial decisions do not see the light of day?

For example, labor negotiations are a long arduous process. In the past, the city and the unions have both pointed fingers at each other.  Perhaps if these meetings were discussed in public, then there would be no finger pointing.  In the era of sunshine, maybe we should consider making these meetings public, as is done in other parts of the country.  It would be interesting to know, for example, the full dollar amounts of costs on proposals from each side through each stage of the negotiation, prior to final agreement.

If the city was being unfair, then everyone would know. If labor was asking too much, or they had good points about cost-of-living adjustments, then we would know.  With the bankruptcy of our neighbor, Vallejo, it seems like we should shine more light on collective bargaining, or, at least, the city should provide some type of summary of the negotiations to the public at an earlier time. If allowing the public to view the negotiations in real time would harm privacy, then, perhaps, the negotiations should be taped on video and shown after the agreement has been reached.  The negotiations could be viewable on the internet or channel 26.  That way, the public would at least get to see what took place.

In the end, we on the council vote on compensation and benefit increases. However, we as a council will be long gone when the aggregate effect of past votes impacts the budget and neighborhood services. If decisions are made behind closed doors without public scrutiny, then it is easier to make unrealistic financial choices.

Making negotiations public will not take anything away from workers or make negotiations a game of “winners” and “losers.”  People need to be paid a good wage with good benefits, that’s for sure. However, these decisions are nearly 70 percent of the budget and I think that public awareness is important.

So, in my opinion, if we can release a closed session memo on land use, we should certainly consider allowing more sunshine into collective bargaining that is currently done behind closed doors.

What are your thoughts? Constructive suggestions are welcome.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about my biggest regret as an elected official: my support last year of the unanimous vote that converted commercial property to residential on Lincoln Ave—820 units to be exact.  Going forward, I will vote on what is best for San Jose and our future.

Last week I was put to the test. A project was before the council requesting the conversion of a prime seven-acre commercial parcel next to Santana Row to residential. Was I going to stand true to my genuine principle that converting tax-generating land is bad, or was I going to pick apart all the “exceptions” to the rule and cave in?

Santana Row generates over $2.2 million in sales tax each year.  Two million is not a number to dismiss, especially when we are suffering through budget deficits and nearby cities are filing bankruptcy. This prime seven-acre parcel has great potential for office space right next to Santana Row.  It is a prime piece of commercial real estate and clearly more centrally located then the Evergreen industrial land that was highlighted in 2007.

The employment land framework was unanimously passed by the city council in October 2007. The goal was to stop conversion of land that generates jobs/taxes for the city. On the dais I spoke of the lost opportunities of not having land available for jobs, and the loss of a revenue opportunity for the city, (sales tax, utility tax, 911 fees, etc). The city has already converted hundreds of acres of employment land. Conversion of these parcels creates two problems: the loss of commercial land and the strains on neighborhood services which end up costing the city more money.

Unfortunately, some property owners will choose to neglect their property in hopes of convincing the council that a commercial use is outdated.  This excuse will not work for me.  If commercial owners can’t take care of their property, then the city should use code enforcement resources to cite and remove blight.

The real estate agent for this parcel spoke at the meeting and said that he “only had two offers for the office use.”  Two sounds good to me. Don’t you only need one? Or, since the parcel is seven acres, perhaps the two interested parties could share?

Unfortunately (as I have seen many times before), the public speakers that night, including nearby residents, spoke in favor of the conversion. In fact, none of the activists who say they are against the conversion of land neither showed up to the meeting that night nor sent any written correspondence against this conversion.

Professional developers and knowledgeable lobbyists showcase some of the best salesmanship I have ever seen, using terms like “LEED certified” and “extraordinary benefit.”  However, I still stand by my belief that good housing projects need to be built on land that is already zoned for residential.

I made the motion to deny the applicants request of converting the land which passed. The developer is probably going to blame the city, the process and me, saying that we were, and are, not consistent. However, the only “inconsistency” would have been if we converted the land. The land has always been commercial; conversion would have been an inconsistent use of the land.  Because of the Reed Reforms, the next time conversion of land will come before the council will be in the spring of 2009, instead of every 3 months.

Over and over and over again, I hear from developers and lobbyists that vacant commercial buildings are of no use and we should convert the land the building stands on to housing.  With that said, should we then convert the empty Sobrato building downtown to housing? It is vacant, after all.

Berkeley and Santa Cruz have a reputation of voting on proclamations or supporting causes that are outside their domains, such as the independence of Tibet, the genocide in Darfur, and federal issues like immigration or going to war. Topics like these are worthy of discussion on a blog, in person, or for our elected officials in Washington DC. However, is it the best use of time dealing with these at a level where you have limited influence instead of spending time on what you can really make an impact on? Like the “City” Council meetings?

Last week we were asked to support certain federal bills. These bills start one way and then end up out in left field, and before you know it, you are supporting a bill that has a pork barrel amendment that is paying for a bridge in Alaska.

One particular bill was on immigration—a program for people from another country being able to live and work in the US. (I do acknowledge that a sizable portion of our agricultural labor is made up of non-US citizens.) My job as a council member gives me plenty to do already, and having to read through federal legislation on top of it is too time consuming. The city does not have a role in immigration or agriculture. These are issues that must be dealt with at the national level.  I do believe in supporting legislation that directly impacts the city, such as transportation legislation with dollars tied to a Santa Clara County project, for example.

In discussing the immigration bill at the council, it was said that it would help with the escalating food prices we have seen locally. Actually, food prices are rising globally and it has little to do with farm labor. We have seen riots break out over food in Haiti, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Cameroon, where 24 people died. In fact, hoarding rice in the Philippines is now punishable by life in prison! Prices for rice since January have soared 141 percent, and prices of other grains have also risen sharply.

The reasons for price increases are the growing affluent populations of China and India, who are eating more grains and meat, as well as using grains for biofuels like ethanol, quotas and tariffs that restrict trade, and the USDA paying farmers not to plant crops on their land.

Whatever the reasons, I just don’t see it as my main focus on the council to spend 30 minutes peeling back the onion on all the nuances and amendments in a single federal bill that does not have a direct impact on San Jose. I remember as a candidate filling out questionnaires for organizations that asked me federal questions, and I would write in “N/A” or “bogus.”

NOTE: If you happen to be reading this on Monday, April 28, there are three important meetings that deal directly with San Jose tonight. One is the General Plan 2040 which will be discussing water and population growth; another is the 3-Year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group; and, finally, the Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force.  Public comment is welcome at all the meetings.

Last Tuesday, the city council had two agenda items to vote on that would allow for applicants to sell alcohol: one for a Whole Foods grocery store and the other for a gas station.
State law limits the number of liquor licenses in an area. The City of San Jose went one step further by blocking certain new liquor licenses at the planning commission level. The planning commission must deny liquor licenses so they are heard at the council level upon appeal. I understand this is because the prior council wanted to ensure that the council would hear liquor license applicants. Unfortunately, I think the extra step is a hurdle in encouraging new grocery stores.

Who should sell alcohol? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Gas stations?  My answer: grocery stores and restaurants. I believe we should use the prize of a liquor license as a carrot to promote neighborhood-facing businesses.

Liquor licenses are a source of major revenue for the grocery and restaurant industry.Most grocery stores and restaurants would go out of business if they did not have a liquor license. The profit margins from alcohol allow for the creation of new business, jobs, sales tax and community. Residents feel a sense of community around grocery stores and restaurants as they are where we gather.
In a prior blog, I wrote about grocery store economics and the sad fact that grocery stores are missing in San Jose’s neighborhoods. I think of the many grocery stores that have closed and have been converted to gyms, drugstores, discount shops or, worse, converted from commercial land to housing. Grocery stores make very thin margins on food, but they make good margins on beer, wine and spirits. Carrying a variety of different products is how grocery stores keep the doors open.

There are arguments that if you grant a liquor license to a gas station, they will make more money which they can use to spruce up the station. I acknowledge this point and would agree. However, what happens if one gas station gets a liquor license and the one across the street doesn’t? What happens when all the gas stations in one area take all the liquor licenses? What happens when someone wants to open a grocery store or restaurant in an area that is already concentrated with liquor licenses and they are not able to open for business? Let’s face it: alcohol will produce profits for anyone who sells it.

Can you imagine a young family buying a house and one spouse saying to the other, “Wow, honey, let’s buy this house. Even the local gas station sells beer!” Or, can you imagine the same person saying, “Let’s buy this house. It even has a neighborhood grocery store.”

I voted for the grocery store and against the gas station. Both passed.

The end of March marked my first anniversary as an elected official. As I reflect on my first year in public office, I am amazed at all the different topics I have been involved in as a councilmember. I am pleased that employees who work at companies like Cisco and Adobe are now allowed to volunteer in our parks and that the Rose Garden was adopted by volunteers. I am ecstatic that Coyote Valley has been shelved—for now. I am feeling positive about the evolution of residential towers downtown and saving our city money on technology.  The council is making progress with balancing the budget and I enjoyed being part of the efforts of updating the traffic calming policy.

With that said I still have one vote that causes me pain—literally. After reading my blog for a year, do you want to try to guess which one it was?

I think we can all relate to experiencing a bit of trepidation when we start a new position at a company. When you start a new job you inherit what was there before. You might be asked to complete a project; the only problem is that you don’t agree with it.  It’s too late to stop it, promises have been made and people are depending on it to be finalized and it’s up to you to see it through.  Because you are new, and you don’t want to let people down, you do what’s expected.

A month into office there was a land use proposal before the council to convert industrial land to housing on Lincoln Avenue. I am against land conversion, as you may know. My gut said no. In fact, it screamed NO! It is not the right decision to convert light industrial land to housing! The loss of jobs! The strain on city resources! STOP! Time Out! Especially when there are large parcels right next to this one already zoned for residential.  This particular industrial land was in a much better location then the widely publicized Evergreen industrial land that the council voted down the same night.

As usual, the landowner whined that the land sat vacant for years and that no company wanted to locate there. The problem with that line is that a few months after the vote, a new company called Vocera Communications relocated to San Jose from Cupertino. Vocera, the leader in “instant voice” technology, brought 100 high-wage jobs and a business that produces sales tax. Just think if the land Vocera is now sitting on had been converted to housing. Who knows where Vocera would have ended up. Sunnyvale? Campbell? Santa Clara? Sometimes land needs to sit idle to allow for greater future opportunities.

This project was supported by my predecessor. In fact, District 6 had lots of commercial/industrial land converted to housing in recent years. For example, Fiesta Lanes and Lou’s Village on West San Carlos were both commercial properties. Also, K-Mart on Southwest Expressway/Fruitdale and Del Monte Cannery were on industrial land in the midtown specific plan that got converted to housing—tax revenue-generating land that was lost forever.

In this particular case, we had a savvy property owner and lobbyist that chose to work with the community over an extended period of time regarding design and height, and who was offering amenities like trees. Hold me back: trees, the carrot that gets the community every time. What would we have done without the developer including trees? Well, I recently spoke to the RDA Director and I could have provided the area with trees without having to convert land.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame anyone but myself.  Even if I voted “no,” some members of the community supported it. They even showed up and spoke in favor of the project. In reality, my “no” vote may not have made a difference on the council since it was a unanimous vote and the project would most likely have passed.

This is my City Hall diary and I wanted to share with you that I do have regrets. In fact I have had retrospective conversations with other elected officials and they have regrets as well. My diary is open so you see the good and the bad. What I have learned is that I will listen to my gut as I move forward on votes that are best for the future of San Jose—and even promising me trees won’t change me.

Many people ask what my biggest surprise has been since becoming a council member. I have shared that my biggest surprise has been closed session meetings. “Closed session” meetings are private meetings which include the mayor, city attorney and city council. The city manager and two other attorneys who record the minutes are also present. Sometimes, depending on the subject material, specific city staff will also join the meeting, but the public is not allowed to be present.

Closed session meetings occur every Tuesday morning and are held in the “green room” which is located behind the council dais. The green room is large with a TV monitor on the wall and a very large table and chairs in the center. Mayor Reed sits at one end of the table and Rick Doyle, the city attorney, on the other.

The mayor leads the meeting agenda and will recognize council members to speak. Usually the city attorney starts the meeting with information on pending and ongoing litigation and threat of litigation. I have found people love to sue the city. It could be anything. Many times the council settles out of court. Settling a case out of court could be less then the cost of going to trial and possibly losing and having to pay out more. $3.5 million of the city budget is allocated each year to legal settlements and that amount is really a best guess since lawsuits do not follow statistical trends.

In order to prepare for closed sessions, each councilmember receives advance information in sealed envelopes with the word “confidential” on the front.

The city attorney will talk about a case and then the appropriate city staff will add more detail or explain technical issues. After that particular case is done then the next group of city staff will join us to start on another issue.

Some of the confidential matters are personnel related. The one that attracted the most attention lately was the issue of our former city auditor. We received reams of paper that we needed to read through, and as with all closed session material, it cannot be shared with staff. It adds another level of stress knowing that you are reading information that impacts a person’s career.

Labor negotiations are also covered in closed sessions. It is similar to talking about litigation; however, instead of talking about winning or losing, it is more of a discussion about balancing resources and priorities.

All comments that are made in closed session are to be confidential and not to be revealed to anyone, including staff and family. We are allowed to talk about closed session items in generalities, but not specific cases or quotes from other council members or staff.

Closed session meetings are serious business.