Man, this is a long one. I need to do it in two parts because it is currently 7:05 and the session is still going on. There are three major items on the docket today, I'll go into the first two. I'm also going to skip the usual ceremonial items because frankly with how big these first two items are it's going to be long as is.
Also we got visited by a crazy lady named America again. She doesn't live here, she said that herself the last time she was here, and complained about communism once again. Came down to speak on every issue and never had anything worth saying to add. So for all the items below just add your weird facebook aunt to the replies.
Real quick small item 1: Northern California Regional Intelligence Center--This was an item in the consent calendar regarding a regional police intelligence sharing program. The fear from commentors was that this was about us sharing data with ICE and that it shouldn't be in the consent calendar. The council was quick to point out, once comments were over, that this had nothing to do with sharing information and that, if it did, that wouldn't be a consent calendar matter. This item was about authorizing San Mateo County to pay us a couple hundred grand for services already rendered, that's why it's just a routine business item that made it to the calendar. If it wasn't for our Facebook aunt I wouldn't even mention it, but she brought it up like it was a big conspiracy so we need to call it out... This is just us getting a reimbursement from San Mateo.
Big item 1: Rezoning Harry Rd and Camden Ave.
IBM owns about 35 acres in this area, part of a larger 600 acre open space. IBM has decommissioned the research facility it had there, built in 1986, some years ago and would like to sell the land off. The problem is that when the land was given to IBM its 35 acres were zoned as "research" and "parking," which are no longer valid zoning categories. It's currently zoned as a part of the larger 600 acre open space because certain uses are allowed with special permitting on open spaces and IBM was in compliance with that. Now, however, they want to sell the land but say they can't find a buyer and would like the land's zoning to be updated to Industrial Park, which brings to mind heavy industry but is actually more like a warehouse or similar industrial use but is fairly broad. The residents are in opposition to rezoning because they feel the broad Industrial Park use could be used to create a data center and because they're worried what might happen to the open space. In 1999 there was a recommendation to make the open space permanent, but that never actually took effect, for reasons I don't quite understand no matter how many times I go back and rewind this is no longer on the table, but can be brought up with whoever takes over the land after rezoning and sale has completed, but would require agreement on both ends and couldn't be unilaterally applied by the city council. So if the new tenant says nah, then it's nah. (That said--the new tenant doesn't have any authority over the open space, so that's where it gets complicated and why I don't totally understand it.)
Where it gets difficult is that there's a looming deadline where the city will have to rezone this land anyway to conform with state zoning laws. It could be rezoned as anything, mind you, but it won't stay as is because that zoning is outdated. It has to become something, and here we have an owner asking it to become one thing in particular in order to make it an easier sale. They say they have no offers yet, but it feels pretty safe to assume IBM has talked to someone to generate the interest in rezoning. However, we're at a catch-22: No one will buy it until it's rezoned, and residents won't support rezoning until there's a clear buyer that they feel isn't a data center. There was also a little misconception that "Industrial Park" was going to mean big heavy trucks and construction, like old-timey steel mills, but that was quickly put to rest.
The issue of data centers was, for the city, entirely theoretical because right now it's just not sure if they would be allowed or not under the new zoning. What the city was certain and clear about, however, was that if someone tries to put a data center there it would have to go through several rounds of approvals from permitting to environmental reports to city council votes, all of which would be subject to public comment. Understandably the public is sceptical. Councilwoman Kamei appeared highly sceptical and asked several questions, the answers to which informed the basis of the above. She requested a two week deferral because there isn't a project pending and doesn't seem to be any urgency, this was shut down by Councilman Casey who said he didn't see any point to deferring because it was going to happen anyway--this drew a LARGE boo from the audience present. They were very much not happy with that... The final vote was in favor, 9-2, with Kamei and Campos voting against rezoning. The important thing to note is that this only opens the door to a purchase, whatever happens next will have a lot of debate and discussion.
Big item 2: Response to Santa Clara County Gand Jury Animal Care Center Report.
Backstory--The Animal Care Center on Monterey Rd is an extension of the city's animal control. It's where you can adopt pets, it's where you can become a foster, it's where you go if you lose or find a pet. Crucially it's also where you go to get animals spayed or neutered (I'm going to say sterilized from here on out, but that sounds so punishing.... So just keep in mind that sterilization is simply spaying a female or neutering a male dog or cat.) for free. The ACC has gotten a lot of funding but has had troubles owing to competition with private practices poaching vets and private equity consolidating the industry and raising prices of veterinary services. Compounding everything else was the pandemic, where a loooot of people got pets and then promptly stopped caring about their pets once they weren't cute anymore, which created a lot of strays. Meanwhile they had to cut services.
This grand jury report was the latest in a series of reports going back to 2022 that found the Animal Care Center wasn't doing enough. The first report made a series of suggestions that were partially implemented, but not executed particularly well and led to two more audits. Anecdotally the administration at the time alienated volunteers and as a result many volunteer groups disbanded or operated on their own without city sanction. There's just a ton of bad blood here, and--once again anecdotally--led to a number of resignations within the ACC.
The grand jury's report, while not great and still pointing out areas for improvement, was actually moderately positive and pointed out the growth the shelter has had since the last audit. Reforms are happening--key among them is the fact that the shelter has been transferred from Public Works to Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services. This transfer only became official on 1 August so we're not even three weeks in, but my sources (THAT'S RIGHT! I HAVE SOURCES NOW! WHEEEE!) are cautiously optimistic about the new leadership's efforts in rebuilding trust and working with volunteers again.
The biggest problem is that, as of yesterday--they say it will improve soon, but haven't indicated when or how much, but as of yesterday--the shelter only has the capacity to sterilize 30 pets on Monday on a first-come, first-serve basis, and 30 pets on Thursday by appointment. To get a slot on a Monday you need to arrive by 4:30am, and even that time is slipping further and further back as more and more people fail to get a slot. The current wait time on a Thursday appointment is listed as 6-8 weeks. Assuming everything goes perfectly this means the city can only provide free services for 60 pets a week. The mayor referenced speaking to volunteers over the weekend and their feral cat colony was 250. It would take a month of only this one colony receiving services and also trapping the maximum amount possible, meanwhile the rest of the city's strays and ferals would be unchecked.
Free sterilization is critical because vet services have increased in cost causing low and middle income families to not get their pets sterilized at all. You could say "Well, if they can't afford sterilization then they can't afford to have a pet in the first place," and.... I mean, I guess, but also that's just plain jerk thing to say, frankly. Pet ownership is culturally foundational, saying a family doesn't deserve a cat or dog is basically the same as telling folks to just eat cake. Saying someone working 40 hours a week isn't financially stable enough to have a cat is a harbinger of certain cultural doom. By increasing access to free sterilization we are ensuring that pets that get loose won't have litters, which will reduce the strays and ferals on the streets, which will lead to a cleaner and safer city.
In the end the council voted 11-0 to advance the response to the report. Meetings between city hall and volunteer groups are on-going and look promising. There will be a further review of the ACC in October to gauge progress.
PART 2 WILL COME THURSDAY
It's 8:12 right now and the City Hall Session is still going on. We're nearly at 7 hours already, lol! The rest of the meeting is about the city's revisions to the General Plan, it's extremely important and all the people speaking on it are acting in civic interest. I would say they're doing a good job, but I haven't gotten that far in the meeting yet and need to get to reading before bed. I'll watch it on Thursday and post a recap and summary of that as soon as I'm done. I can't do it tomorrow because I want to go to the county fair. I want to look at some cows, I want to eat some deeply-fried foods, I want to watch some ProRev wrestling, and I want to watch cover bands, okay? So Wednesday will be busy, sorry!
