The County of Santa Clara


Held from September 11, 2018 (Item No. 15): Adopt Resolution certifying the County of Santa Clara Civic Center Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), making the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, and adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, approving the Civic Center Campus Master Plan, and adopting the Design Guidelines for the Civic Center Campus Master Plan. (Roll Call Vote) (Office of the County Executive)


Department:Office of the County ExecutiveSponsors:



There would be no fiscal impact from the recommended action.


The following documents have been revised as discussed below to address several concerns raised at the Board meeting of August 14, 2018:

a)     Resolution, including a revised Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP);

b)    Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (Revised FEIR) dated August 2018; and

c)     Revised Design Guidelines dated August 2018. 

At the August 14, 2018 meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed Administration to address the following:

Traffic Impacts

Concern: Regarding a potential Board approval of a project whose traffic impacts are not mitigated to less than significant level

Response: The EIR for the Civic Center Master Plan made conservative assumptions based on a “worst-case” scenario and did not consider certain factors that, had they been considered, would have otherwise reduced the projected traffic impact.

Specifically, while the Public Safety and Justice Center would primarily relocate employees from the West Wing, Reentry Resource Center, Sheriff’s Office, and from leased office spaces around the Civic Center, the Phase 1 development was assumed to be net new square footage in the near-term.  This was assumed because there is no proposal in Phase 1 to demolish the West Wing, Reentry Resource Center or Sheriff’s Office, and, as such, the buildings could be occupied by other County staff at the same time the Public Safety and Justice Center is occupied. 

The analysis also assumed the standard VTA trip reduction of 10 percent based on the site’s proximity to transit.  No formal Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was prepared as part of the EIR process and, as a result, no additional trip reductions could be justified in the analysis. 

Therefore, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conservatively assumed Phase 1 as net new construction and only used a 10 percent TDM trip reduction. 

It should be noted that the EIR evaluated the entire project—all four phases—under the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) standard, which the State legislature has directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement as a replacement for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Under OPR’s proposed guidelines, this significance criteria will take effect by January 1, 2020. Under the new significance criteria and with implementation of the Master Plan’s minimum 10 percent trip reduction goal, full build out of the project would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. It should also be noted that the Phase 1 development project, the Public Safety and Justice Center, is late in the County’s 10-year Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, it will not be constructed and occupied until after the VMT standard is in effect, and traffic congestion is considered a non-CEQA impact.

The Board directed that Administration have the flexibility to propose additional mitigations to the Board regarding mitigating impact on freeway segments.  In response, Administration has added two new project mitigation measures to the revised Resolution, the Revised Final EIR and the Revised Design Guidelines.

Mitigation measure TRAN 2-1 requires the County to pay fair share fees to applicable future Caltrans or VTA projects that would reduce the County’s impacts on the identified freeway segments. 

Comment: The County would work with its Caltrans and VTA partners to identify candidate projects.  This is a mitigation that would not reduce the impact to less than significant, because currently there is no specific project, no funding mechanism, and no CEQA clearance

It should also be pointed out that the freeway impacts occur on four different freeways. Even if Caltrans/VTA identified a project on one freeway that improved the impacted segment(s), the project would still have a significant and unavoidable impact on the other freeways. Projects would need to be identified for all four freeways and would have to address all 37 impacted freeway segments in order to allow this impact to be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation measure TRAN 2-2 requires implementation of a TDM Plan to reduce daily traffic trips to and from the Civic Center site.  While this measure would reduce the project’s impacts on freeways, the measure would not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Estimates have been made of the percentage trip reductions that would be needed to avoid creating the identified freeway impacts. While some freeway segment impacts could be avoided with a robust TDM Plan, some segments would need to experience a 70-80 percent reduction in trips in order to avoid impact on all 37 freeway segment impacts. Because impacts cannot be mitigated on all 37 segments, the impact(s) would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Revised Design Guidelines include revised and additional TDM goals (T1-T8) that would guide future development within the master plan. The most significant changes include the following: 

Goal T-1 (new) would adopt a Sustainable Transportation Policy that will serve as a foundation for the recommendations of which alternative transportation measures to implement in order to decrease single-occupancy vehicle commuting.

Goal T-6 would increase the percentage of designated electric vehicle charging station parking spaces and carpool parking spaces in phases to encourage the use of alternative transportation and decrease greenhouse gas emissions that are currently attributed to non-electric single-occupancy vehicles.

Goal T-7 would implement a First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Program to improve public transportation connectivity from County facilities and public transit stops by providing alternative transportation options to complete the first and final one to three miles of a trip, when necessary. Typically, First Mile/Last Mile Transportation Programs include, but are not limited to, partnering with Transportation Network Companies, also known as rideshare, (e.g., Uber® and Lyft®), ADA-compliant curb ramps, crosswalk upgrades, traffic signals, bus stops, carshare, bikeshare, bike parking, context-sensitive bike infrastructure, and signage/wayfinding.


Regarding Phases 2-4 of the Civic Center Master Plan, specific projects to be proposed in the future will be subject to Board review and approval including potential additional evaluation of impacts and inclusion of additional mitigation measures (if available and feasible). Such Board review may incorporate project performance standards to ensure appropriate mitigation of potential impacts.

City of San Jose Urban Village Plan - Status

Concern: Status of City of San Jose Urban Village Plan adoption and alignment of EIR with the Urban Village Plan

Response: Throughout the master planning effort, and since as early as 2012, Administration has been in contact with the City of San Jose related to the Urban Village Plan for this area. Subsequent to the August 14, 2018 Board meeting, Administration spoke with City staff about the North First Street Urban Village Plan that encompasses the former City of San Jose City Hall and Annex. At no time during this conversation did City staff indicate that the City of San Jose was contemplating altering its timeline for the North First Street Urban Village Plan (currently slated to begin sometime in the Fall). While Administration emphasized that the County would seek to maximize flexibility for re-zoning its lands during the upcoming process, Administration received no indication that the City would encourage consideration of County housing outside the normal Urban Village planning process.  Pending adoption of a North First Street Urban Village Plan, the current policies of the City require that development that creates employment take precedence over housing developments.

The San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan, adopted in 2011, established more than 65 Urban Villages throughout the City. Thus far, the City has approved 12 Urban Village Plans.

Administration will continue to work with the City to move forward with preparing and adopting the North First Street Urban Village Plan.

See Attachment – San Jose Urban Villages for additional information.


Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21081), no public agency can approve a project for which an EIR has been certified, and which identifies one or more significant environmental affects, unless the public agency makes one or more findings relating to the significant environmental effect and adopts a statement of overriding consideration, which reflects the public agency’s views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving a project despite the identified significant environmental effect. 

The findings to be made relating to the significant environmental effect may include a finding that (1) changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environments, (2) those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency, and/or (3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

The findings and statement of overriding considerations are set forth in Section 3 of the attached revised Resolution.

With respect to the finding relating to changes or alterations within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, the Revised FEIR and the revised Resolution now include the following additional mitigations in Section 3(F):


Prior to occupancy of the Public Safety and Justice Center, the County shall contribute its fair share of fees for any projects identified by Caltrans or VTA that would mitigate one or more of the Project’s significant impacts on the identified freeway segments.  Any project that would qualify for fair share fees shall have an established funding mechanism.  Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection by the County Office of Building Inspection.


The County will take all feasible actions to reduce the Project’s peak hour trip generation, including but not limited to implementing the transportation demand management measures set forth in Transportation Sustainability Goals T-1 through T-8 of the Design Guidelines for the Civic Center Campus Master Plan.  

With respect to the statement of overriding considerations, Section 3(G) of the Resolution sets forth the benefits of the Master Plan project. 

In accordance with CEQA, the Revised FEIR has been provided on or before August 17, 2018, to all public agencies and organizations that commented on the project.  Such edits require distribution to public agencies that have provided comment 10 days prior to certification of the Revised FEIR but do not require recirculation of the EIR.



The recommended action has the possibility of creating a positive impact on Every Child Safe, Every Child Health, Every Child Successful in Learning and Every Child Successful in Life indicators. The Civic Center Master Plan is intended to promote efficiency of government by ensuring that any new development meets the need of this community. Children in the community are positively impacted when the provision of direct services has the support of appropriate, safe and efficient infrastructure.


The recommended action has the possibility of having a positive impact on seniors. Seniors in the community are positively impacted when the provision of direct services has the support of appropriate, safe, and efficient infrastructure.


The recommended action would have positive sustainability implications. The County’s investment in modernization of facilities, energy conservation and energy efficiency projects, and transit-oriented development results in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and reduces the cost of government operations and maintenance. The project would also conserve water and reduce water quality impacts through water reuse, stormwater management, and potential use of grey water. This provides for a healthier environment and social equity through the provision of services.


·        On December 4, 2012, the Board approved Ordinance NS-300.854 authorizing the possible lease, sale, joint development or other disposition of County-owned property, where applicable, and the issuance of requests for proposals or competitive bidding in a manner prescribed by the Board, of approximately 55 acres (or portions thereof) of County-owned real property in the Civic Center for purposes of public, residential, commercial, industrial and/or cultural use or development.

·        On April 9, 2013, the Board initiated a Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposals (“RFQ/RFP”) process by inviting the development community to submit their qualifications for master development of the Civic Center properties.

·        On April 29, 2013, the RFQ was issued.

·        On May 15, 2013, a pre-submittal conference was held at the County Government Center to answer questions about the RFQ process and requirements, which attracted 42 individuals representing developers, brokers, consultants, and sub-consultants.

·        The County received only two submittals prior to the RFQ response deadline, one of which withdrew prior to the oral interviews. 

·        On August 14, 2013, the team of Lowe Enterprises and Gensler Architects (the remaining applicant), was interviewed by a panel of County representatives and received high reviews.

·        On September 12, 2013, the Board authorized preparation of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Lowe Enterprises and Gensler for the redevelopment of the Civic Center Campus based on the results of the RFQ / RFP process.

·        On December 10, 2013, the Board unanimously approved an ENA with Lowe Enterprises and Gensler Architects relating to the County Civic Center, which contemplated preparation of the proposed Predevelopment Facilities Agreement.

·        On May 24, 2016, the Board adopted Resolution BOS-2016-79 determining that the approval of the Master Development Agreement (“MDA”) is exempt from CEQA and delegating authority to the County Executive, or designee, to implement and carry out the terms of the MDA.

·        On June 7, 2016, the Board took action regarding final adoption of Ordinance No. NS-300.894 amending Chapter I of Division A21 of the Santa Clara County Ordinance Code authorizing entering into a contract (the MDA) for the future development and use of a portion of the Civic Center property.

·        The MDA with Lowe went into effect on July 7, 2016.

·        The MDA with Lowe was allowed to terminate without cause effective July 30, 2017.

·        On May 24, 2016, the Board approved a professional services agreement with David J. Powers to prepare an EIR for the Civic Center Master Plan.


If the EIR is not certified and the required statutory findings are not made, then no environmental clearance would be provided under CEQA for implementation of the various aspects of the Civic Center Master Plan.

Meeting History

Aug 28, 2018 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Held to September 11, 2018 at the request of Supervisors Wasserman and Yeager.

President Simitian requested that Administration consider the use of tiny homes within the range of options relating to the Civic Center Master Plan.

RESULT:HELD [UNANIMOUS]Next: 9/11/2018 9:30 AM
MOVER:Cindy Chavez, Vice President
SECONDER:Ken Yeager, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
Sep 11, 2018 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Held to September 25, 2018 at the request of Administration.

RESULT:HELD [UNANIMOUS]Next: 9/25/2018 9:30 AM
MOVER:Cindy Chavez, Vice President
SECONDER:Mike Wasserman, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
Sep 25, 2018 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Heard concurrently with Item No. 20.

Twelve individuals addressed the Board.

MOVER:Cindy Chavez, Vice President
SECONDER:Ken Yeager, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager
NAYS:S. Joseph Simitian


Sep 25, 2018 9:30 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

3:11 PMOf care funding by 72%, and we are taking steps to analyze our system. This is a good symbol of our supportive housing system. It's 59 units in sunnydale. Next door 58 units. 29 of those units are set aside as [ inaudible ] including some of veterans. Both of these developments are on the site of the old armory, and the county working with the city of sunnydale established a new site now known as the sunnydale shelter. I would like to pause there and turn it over to dave.

3:14 PMSite. And the second was to do an environmental impact report for the rest of the site that would allow the county the flexibility to make revisions when for example it got around to proving. [ technical difficulties ]
3:15 PMCampus that contains the annex. according to the city's planning dp, the community meeting process should start this coming january. If it is anything like the east san jose urban village plan with three community meetings and check-ins with the planning commission and the city council, this process will take a year or longer to be completed. Then the county could pursue a comprehensive development of housing and other private development, including public outreach to vet any proposed projects. Currently the county and the housing authority are working together on the southeast santa clara plan. Similar to how they anticipated the campus moving forward, the vision of east santa clara campus is to create a highly implemented mixed-use project that builds different affordable levels, provides flexible office space for county and other users, and offers a variety of other spaces that support day and night actives. Most of all, the county seeks to maximize the site, inviting a safe center for the community. This is possible, but only if approached comprehensively and not by piecemeal development.
3:17 PM[ inaudible ]. so the decisions before the board today, and they are separate decisions, are to approve the eir and master plan and approve the approved demolition of the city hall annex. The administration recommends approving the eir, and in the future it can be supplemented by other ceqa projects. If it is not approved, the public safety and justice center are off of the table as would be possible demolition of the annex. Furthermore all of the work for developing the eir would not be able for any other project. This slide is a reminder that the only buildings that would be touched would involve the former richie sight, the sight of the proposed public safety and justice center, which are it indicated in the light blue buildings, and to the left, the darker blue buildings. And demolition of the former san jose city hall annex, which is shown in the cross-hatched ground. All of the other buildings would remain until a project is formulated for them. I would reiterate that is a program level eir for the entire area, and a project level eir for the richie sight and the proposed annex demolition. If there is a change in this project description, it would require reanalysis of the eir, the city would be performing this analysis, if it includes housing, and that would likely mean a supplemental eir. We have advised that this can be up to an 18-month process, including bidding. Furthermore any work on the existing annex building would have to be performed in compliance with all health and safety codes. For all of the reasons mentioned in this presentation, the administration recommends not only certification of the final eir, but also approval of the demolition of the annex. The team is available for your questions.
3:19 PMColleagues we do have some cards. would you like to hear from folks first? And again, we have a little bit of a challenge -- we have two items that are obviously interwoven, but on item number 19, which is distinct from item 20, I have got a card from phil, and from -- bear with me. The cards have been folded in together. Sandy perry. Matthew reid. And an unnumbered card from stephanie munoz. So if those four people would like to come up on this item.
3:20 PMMr. President -- sorry just -- if I could interrupt you for a second. >> please.
3:21 PMBecause these items are so late. I think our speakers might have a hard time separating their comments from one, and then having the next group come up. I think it's easier to talk about both of them together. At your discretion, but it is hard to divide it, and speakers May not know when they should come and speak.
I take your point. I think it's a good idea. the challenge is do we offer people four minutes per speaker. and i'm guessing that is not what you are suggesting.
Not what i'm suggesting. >> shall we give people two minutes and be a little flexible. But ask them to try to adhere to two minutes.
Yeah, if I may, I know Mr. [ inaudible ] gets frustrated, and maybe give him five minutes to be able to cover more of his points.
I think you're presumely because he had a proposal. >> yes.
3:22 PMOkay. we're going to ask Mr. [ inaudible ] to come up and tell us -- what i'll refer to as a plan b. And we'll give you up to five minutes to present, and then call all of the other folks who have put in cards for either 19 or 20, and take all of the public comment at this point. And ask folks to try to limit it to two minutes. If you need to run a little bit over, we'll try to be flexible. Thank you for working with us. Mr. Sollota.
Thank you. thank you for the extra time. this has been a long hall, started back early in the spring of this year, when I went to the annex and could not understand why it would be demolished. This has turned out to be a journey that I did not expect in my wildest imagination. What seemed to simple and so right has met with tremendous resistance, and that comes primarily from the county, not the public. He resistance has ranged from consent calendar tricks, six-page waivers, claims of vermin and outrageous construction cost claims, misinformation and lack of information. I have hired an attorney under the public records act to get drawings. I couldn't get drawings from the architect because they were put under a non-disclose agreement in july. I don't know why or by whom. And I found out some people from the county had tried to bash my reputation. That weed a ulterior motives. It doesn't make any sense. This has a lot of people scratching their heads because other than building is no good, which is not accurate, there is nothing else that we could see why there couldn't be homeless in the annex. I have learned so much from this process and one of the things that stands out the most is the lost faith in the public process. That's the biggest thing. I have found great respect for the homeless advocates and those people who put themselves on the line. John unbelievable tenacious guy, learned a lot from him, and talking to homeless people, I have developed a greater compassion. I see how a lot of them are beaten down. It's sad, and then I worry a lot seeing the drug alcohol mental issues on the streets. It's very, very serious. But given all of the pushback, all of the negativity, all of the non-answering the emails, all of the nonsense, yesterday we submitted as part of the record a $33 million budget. It's not perfect. It's a far cry from the 100 million that people keep talking about. That's over a thousand square foot. We can't find any buildings that cost more than a thousand dollars a square foot. And the county saying that the annex is going to cost that much money doesn't make sense. Also submitted from some of my great union people, allegations on elevators that can't be used. It can be recommissioned. A letter regarding mechanical costs, 30 to $60 a square foot. The county's estimate is 200. Why is that? and $1. 2 million to replace the electrical, and 185,000 for the main. We have a preliminary structural report that shows no change of occupancy, so potentially there May not be a seismic retrofit. Comments on restoration budget from the county and cost estimates I have from two bonafied contractors that the cost to rebuild the structure alone at today's dollars, over $6 million just for the concrete. All we're asking the county is to work with us. They have never done it. They have never asked one question why. It's also no, no, no. Let's go out to the media and try to thwart what they are trying to do. The annex is a good building. It should not be demolished for the sake of a parking lot. It belongs to the people of santa clara county, and the people are speaking out, and it should be at least studied, not demolish demolished.
3:27 PMBefore you step away fully, let me make sure, supervisor yaeger, do you have any questions? we got it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. >> phil master cola, sandy perry, matthew reid, stephanie munoz, and I believe ron johnson in that order, folks. Come on up. I appreciate everybody's patience. I know it has been a long day.
3:28 PMThank you. i'm [ inaudible ] i'm a private citizen, a resident of north side neighborhood of san jose, so this does impact where I live, and i'm glad to hear that there is a master plan that includes projects throughout the civic center [ technical difficulties ]
3:31 PMThe housing census is going up, it's not going down, so the numbers that appear on the osh report, forgive me for being spectacle. We're actually in a situation now, where the tech industry has an agenda to colonyize silicon valley even more than they have. They are likely to display tens of thousands of long-time county residents until we as leaders can force them to take responsibility for the ongoing worsening housing crisis that they are creating. We're just going to have to continue to play catchup with proposals like this one to house the homeless at the annex. It's time to stop business as usual. thank you very much.
3:32 PMThank you. matthew reid, stephanie munoz, ron johnson, and then robert. welcome.
Good afternoon. matthew reid from silicon valley at home. We submitted a letter on this item. We really have two recommendations. First we urge you to make sure that housing is a priority on the master plan site. We have been working to maximize housing and affordable housing in particular in master plans throughout the county. This is a great location on transit, access to job centers north and south, and it is in an urban village. And city policy says that 100% affordable developments can move ahead of the urban village planning process, so there's no need to wait. We can start moving right away. The city has set a goal of 25% aboardable urban village wide. This is a real opportunity because it's public lands to make a dent in that goal just like you are doing with the -- the sites in -- in the east san jose -- east santa clara. We have high expectations, and we think you are in a good position to meet these goals. Second as this body knows, as well as any in the county, the challenge of homelessness is multi-layered. You ak j noed this earlier in the day. While we are strong supporters of the housing first model, there is an important role for interim housing, which provides more stable options for people living unhoused in our streets, a long our creek beds. The reuses of the annex should be considered for this use. thank you for your time.
3:34 PMThank you very much. stephanie munoz, ron johnson and then we have a number of other cards. Robert, sean, susan, and let me sort through what I have got after that. welcome.
Okay. this is the hard one. I want to assure you people that I have the greatest respect and admiration for anybody who goes through the trouble of running for public office day after day, night after night. It's -- I -- and so it really pains me to have to say that there seems to be a kind of a tragic flaw. Maybe it's capitalism. I don't know, but it just seems -- it's like one of those religious things that was the [ inaudible ] instead of -- it's -- we always get whatever experts say that it can't be done. It has to be thrown away. And then it turns out, just to be sure -- the insurance that they can't preserve this valuable thing, they go behind your back to the state legislature, and they say pass a law that says if you change occupancy use, you have to go up to today's or tomorrow's standard of seismic perfection, which none of the other houses on the block have, which nothing else has. Something like 50 years ago, I and a bunch of other people tried and tried and talked to the then supervisors and they were good people, jerry williams, ron dearadon, betsy. And we begged them not to destroy the branch line. Does everybody know there was a railroad overall of these thousands of cars are going every day. They wouldn't keep it. Please save that housing. Get somebody that says it's okay. And that it can be fixed and change the state law that -- that it was so conveniently made for the occupancy use.
3:36 PMThank you miss munoz. >> thank you. thank you, please.
Next speaker. >> my name is ron johnson, and i'm representing an ad hoc group of housing activists who came together in response to [ inaudible ] proposal for the annex. I have a letter I would like to give to the clerk. Perhaps she could describe you to the board. Dear board president, and members of the board we the undersigned are sending this letter to urge you to remodel the old city hall annex building to provide up to [ inaudible ] homeless individuals and families. We support this proposal because the need is great, the location is excellent, and because john has agreed to play the construction project. Your efforts in the past to solve the county's critical need for housing for the homeless gives us support that you will support this providal. You will see -- sincerely, you will see the list of 22 individuals and the organizations that have endorsed this letter. Thank you.
3:38 PMThank you. thank you very much. cards from sean, robert, suzanne, carol gillett, and john a sabotto.
Thank you. who are the houseless? I am the houseless, one of the 77,300 and counting. I'm a divorced parent unable to afford rent. I'm a senior on a fixed income unable to afford rent. I became homeless because I can't afford rent. I'm a homosexual teen kicked out of my parent's house when I came out. I'm houseless because I had to choose between paying medical costs or ren. I'm a mental health patient. I became adicked to drugs as a result of being houseless and dealing with the trauma of having to constantly move after sweeps. I'm working two full-time jobs and spending 70% of my earnings on rent. I could be houseless any minute. I'm a student sleeping on different couch every week, because I can't afford a police to live. I'm living in a tool shed paying a thousand dollars a month. I'm a felon, paid my debt to society. Completing my parole successfully, and I can't find housing. I have been on a waiting list for three years, and have no prospects. I'm suffering from ptsd as a result of not having stability in my life and getting swept every week. I can't wait until measure a builds enough for housing for this year. Please support the use of the annex for building 150 units for all f these people and the other people that did not get mentioned. thank you.
3:40 PMThank you. next speaker is scene to be followed by susan, to be followed by karen, to be followed by john.
On average a homeless person dies every three days. No matter how much work has been cited, that statistic has not changed. And when the new census report comes out, that probably be go up. What we can do right now is look at the positive things. The zoning is moving forward to change the zoning for the annex site. What we can do is we can make sure that the folks who are living at the annex when you approve it are folks from the re-entry center. It can be seniors. The senior death race among the unhoused has gone up 320%. We can fill it with seniors or folks from the re-entry center. We can fill it with lgbtq folks. Because even though there is a new shelter, it is a faction of the folks out there. The green party, the democrats, and the republicans, they will never come together. And we did it. And we did it, because it's a darn good idea. Hope village also brought them together, and you approved that earlier, because we need to think out of the box, because the crisis is so urgent that we need to stop doing what we have been doing, and a lot of what we have been doing is hang on, wait, we have got this idea coming down the road, but while we wait, people keep dieing. So we -- if we keep working out of the box, we can bring people together that don't go together. I know you have the letter from enrique earlier. We have labor support. We have green party, republicans, democrats working together. We have pact, luna, naacp, and pairs. It is a good idea. It's an idea we should use right now. we can get this done quickly. thank you.
3:42 PMAnd our next speaker.
Good afternoon. yes, it has been a long day. I would like to ask the question, can I ask two questions of staff? is that permitted?
We don't accommodate back and forth between public speakers, i'm going to be ask that the time be reset. We don't allow back and forth questions. You are welcome to surface the question, and if somebody wants to respond --
3:43 PMWell, because I need clarification. that's why.
I understand. and that's why I say if you would like to raise a question, staff May or May not respond, or you May get a member of the board who says he or she wants to follow up. go ahead.
Thank you. this question, have you heard of point in time study? I was here a few weeks ago. And I pulled up on the internet the point in time study, which santa clara county did. In that report it said the increase in homelessness in santa clara county increased by 13%. But in the report that you guys did, 74% of the homeless that you were tracking were unsheltered, you have got these great numbers up here, and i'm just wondering why does that fit? I handed you guys the report. My second question, you are doing this master plan -- and you want the supportive housing. When is that going to actually happen when that housing is going to be ready and that master plan? Ten years? 15 years? we're talking people need help right now. Thank you.
3:44 PMThank you. next speaker. >> yes. my name is still karen gillette from this morning. I think as a homeless advocate, what i'm most concerned about is the fact that we don't seem to recognize in this case that there's a housing emergency. Other people -- this afternoon have spoken about that. We spoke about it when we were discussing hope village and the encampment concept. I -- I am concerned when I hear staff from the office of supportive housing, and i'm quoted -- wrote down what he said; that certain dollars will go towards something -- go towards in the future, or funds will be committed from measure a for certain things in the future, but I think that it's a challenge when we are confronted by people day after day who are homeless and need help right away. So whether this is on -- on this annex property, this can be possible or not, I thank you all for hearing us out and considering this possibility, and that's all I have to say thank you.
3:46 PMThank you. and I believe we have one final speaker. john is the final speaker on this item. Tell you what, just line up and we'll make sure you get heard if you haven't already been heard. Forgive me if we overlooked your card or it got lost up here. Welcome.
Thank you. I really want to commend keith and his department with all of the permanent supportive housing projects that they have in the pipeline. I think that's terrific. However, we still have 5,000 people on the street under overpasses -- excuse me, living under overpasses, waiting for these permanent houses to be built. That's why we were proposing transitional units at the annex, and it's not going to be a shelter. A lot of folks don't want be in a shelter. They want to have a dog. They want to have privacy, and what we're planning there are 150, two-bed units. That will temporarily house homeless adults and children. We have a situation where unfortunately the staff is hanging their hat on an engineer's estimate, not a developer, not a builder, making a recommendation that it was going to cost 80 or $90 million to convert the building to an office building. Certainly with those kinds of numbers, it doesn't make sense. It was never analyzed it as a residential project like Mr. Solatta has analyzed. so instead of having this attitude from staff, I would like you to direct staff to become more collaborative with us. Try to work with us. If we can overcome some of their objections, which we think we can, I think this master plan is a wonderful thing, but by the time it gets implemented, you are talking many years from now, i'm glad to hear that eventually there will be permanent units on the annexed property, but in the meantime, we have this dire need to solve this crisis where people are dieing on their streets, and that's why I personally have committed to raise half the to -- of the $33 million to philanthropic sources, and I also have a commit from the mayor that if proposition v passes, they'll pay the other half. We're not talking about the county paying anything for the construction project --
3:49 PMThank you very much. and we have one more speaker. >> yes, good afternoon, i'm [ inaudible ]. I live downtown in a downtown [ inaudible ]. We have heard a lot about the homeless today and the need for housing, and the homelessness will continue faster than the housing can be built. And I think we all forget -- we think of homelessness as a commodity, these are human beings, as we heard a few minutes ago, with real needs and real crisis, who are desperate for housing. It's a crisis, and it's critical. The proposal by jim and supported by Mr. [ inaudible ] will allow the county a unique opportunity to engage in a public/private partnership that will not only benefit the homeless community, but that will make the county stand out as a leader and an innovator in coming up with new immediate housing ideas. It's time to think out of the box, and supervisor chavez, you said earlier, you can choose to act, or choose not to act. So I ask you to please -- and urge you to please act in a humane and positive way, and reconsider demolition of the annex, and ask your staff to work with Mr. Solotta in coming up with a plan that could work and that can serve our community. thank you.
3:50 PMThank you. now let me see if that's our last speaker on items 19 and 20. it is. So if we can bring the voting panel up, please. And let me just confirm once again with staff on item 19, the requested action is as contained in our public agenda which is to adopt the resolution certifying the master plan project environmental impact report making the required california environmental quality findings and approving the civic center campus master plan, and adopting the design guidelines for the master plan, and that is a roll call vote. Now -- could I ask one quick question. That vote is required or requested by staff regardless of whether or not we go forward with the item in number 20 for subsequent development, is that question or no.
3:52 PMThat's a question. >> okay. thank you. all right. Now supervisor yaeger, your light was on first and then supervisor chavez.
Thank you, I -- I did have a slight inkling to talk about the annex then the eir, even though the eir is very important. they get a little linked, because I think as most people know in the eir, it would allow us to demolish the annex, but that would have to take a separate vote. All it really does is allow us -- it doesn't have any effect on whether it is or isn't, but we couldn't be able to demolish it if it wasn't part of the eir, so that's how they are sort of linked together. And i'm very much in favor of approving the eir. I think it takes us where we want to go, particularly with the richie sight, that is a very important project that is -- that we need to take action on. I -- i'll probably save my comments about the -- the annex. I'm not in favor of demolishing it at the moment. But I think if we make the decision on item 19, we can move on to item 20, which is about the demolition issue, which I think most people are here for that.
3:53 PMOkay. supervisor chavez.
Thank you. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question, because Dr. Smith, you raised the opportunity to put housing on the site. and I know the city of san jose under the leadership is looking at fast tracking a zoning change, and frankly, in the last discussion we had, I thought the city told us no housing -- when we began -- no housing on the site when we began the eir, because of the time line of the urban village. So if we adopt this eir, how does it impact the ability to put housing on this site, irrespective of whether it is the annex or permanent housing on the site?
3:54 PMIf the board does as I suggested approve the demolition and ask us to come back with a project, we'll have to process that project through the city --
But the envelope of the eir would allow that? >> we would do a supplemental eir.
Oh. >> well, the city would do it, but yes, there would have to be a supplement.
So the city would be responsible for a supplemental eir for us to put housing on this site.
3:55 PMRight. because -- >> right, I forgot about that. but even if it's permanent supportive housing, which is entirely county responsibility -- no matter what, we would need city approval?
Right. >> okay. >> but I should say, the eir that is before you has got pretty much most of the information that they would need, so --
So really it would be a supplemental eir. >> right. >> and the second question is obviously we would have a compensation with the community. And then here is my third question. Have we looked at available properties that are already zoned for high density residential housing as an opportunity to jump start more affordable housing, and really I guess this is a question for you, key.
3:56 PMThat's for key. >> i'm remembering a long set of community meetings that we had for properties between us and this neighborhood, where we were looking at -- I think three towers where we only have one, and i'm really asking the question in terms of opportunities, especially given our proximity to light rail and buses and all of the rest.
We have not, but are happy to move on that with direction. >> so I know this is the eir, and Dr. Smith, your request is that we include in this motion the opportunity to -- to do a supplemental eir looking at housing -- or is this just eir up or down --
I would request you do the eir up or down. >> okay.
And with the next item, if you hopefully move ahead to grant the contract, to direct staff to come back with a process and program for developing affordable housing in a new building on the site.
3:57 PMThank you.
Multi-story new building. >> yeah, I would hope so. thank you. >> on this item, supervisor wasserman.
I think we're all in agreement here, i'll just make the motion.
Motion has been made. >> motion has been seconded. i'll be happy to vote in favorite of the motion. yes, I totally get that.
I have a couple of questions on item 19. supervisor wasserman has now voted. The last vote is mine. And I want to go back to an issue that has been little discussed in this exercise. My understanding is that -- not withstanding staff's best effort, we are once again being asked to adopt the necessary ceqa language they read from the enclosure, which includes a statement of overriding consideration because we are not able to fully mitigation the impacts of our own development. Is that still the state of affairs?
3:58 PMYes. >> okay. and could you briefly describe again why that is? because my understanding was the issue was traffic. Staff, with help from our board at the last meeting, and I thank my colleagues again, said let's see what we can do to bolster the commitment to transportation mitigations, but staff has essentially come back and said for reasons that are somewhat complicated and process oriented, we can't make a commitment to fully mitigate the impacts of our own development. If I understand it, correctly. Is that where we are?
3:59 PMWe have since -- as you summarized summarized, since we brought this to you in august, made additional -- added two additional mitigation measures, and we having looked at the transportation demand management program and goals in the design guidelines, and flushed that out, and made them more robust. I will, I think one of our -- have one of our ceqa team handle the question of, so why are we still in a situation of needing to make a finding of overriding consideration. Perhaps dave with our planning staff.
4:00 PMYes, dave raider, planning department. so we -- you know, we can participate in any future mitigation for the freeway impacts, but at this time, cal tran which owns and operates those freeways has not identified projects that would expend the property. So we don't have a way to fully mitigate those impacts. And we have added means as we go forward, but, you know, to be honest, there is -- you know, we can't make a conclusion that that would reduce all of the freeway impacts. So for purposes of having a legally defensible eir, we need to disclose that -- that last bit of risk that we can't fully mitigate those impacts.
4:01 PMYeah, I don't belabor the point. I do appreciate the good faith effort to try to bolster the transportation mitigation issues. It's a bit of a catch-22, I think, which is we can't mitigate our impacts if there's nobody willing to take our mitigations or to commit them to or pay fees to, but the difficulty that I articulated last time, is essentially we're being asked to approve an eir that says we're not able to commit to fully mitigate the traffic impacts of our development, and that's a problem, because that's what we expect of development applicants when they come before us that they fully mitigate their impacts. And saying others have to, but we don't have to, it's hard for me to say do I really want to be telling my constituents that we think what we do is so important that we don't have to commit to a mitigation of impacts, which others do on what is arguably one of the two or three most pressing problems in the valley, which is traffic and transportation, along with housing. I know staff has said this is sort of a technical compliance challenge, but i'm not comfortable voting for overriding consideration. And that will be five folks. And the measure carries 4-1. Thank you very much. Item 19 is resolved.
4:03 PMThank you. I would like through the chair to ask if Mr. Sobrato could come up and answer a couple of questions that I have.
If he is willing. and he appears to be.
Yes, sir? >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. it has been a long one.
Yes, it has. from when the civic center master plan the whole idea was started, one of the things I was in support of was permanent supportive housing being somewhere on the master plan.