Second General Plan 4-Year Review Task Force Meeting – Urban Village Planning - November 12, 2025

This was the second meeting of the 25-26 General Plan 4-Year Review, with the planning commission serving as the task force. The meeting focused on evaluating the urban village planning process and strategy, including staff recommendations for streamlining. Commissioners discussed consolidation, outreach, and capacity issues, and heard public testimony. No votes were taken; the next task force meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dr. Robert Wood (Chair, Housing Committee, California Faculty Association, SJSU) argued that the current urban village approach has failed to produce enough housing, citing declining housing numbers since the plan took effect. He advocated for lower density requirements (e.g., 50 units/acre is too high) and cheaper wood construction to reduce costs, urging that the city avoid pushing excessively high density goals that are unaffordable.
• Rigo Gallardo (Field Representative, NorCal Carpenters) urged the commission to include strong labor standards in future development, including healthcare, local hire, and apprenticeship requirements, to ensure responsible growth that benefits the community.
• Ruth Callahan (Kooser Woods Neighborhood Association) expressed shock that the Kooser Urban Village is being reclassified as a commercial center village, despite a 7-story, 191-unit Section 8 housing project under construction in a single-family neighborhood. She asked for clarification on the reclassification.
• Bob Levy (Santa Clara County Planning Commission, former San Jose planning commissioner) cautioned against over-streamlining, warning that merging urban villages and limiting public input can lose opportunities for parkland and community needs. He cited the Saratoga urban village plan as a negative example where two villages were merged and public engagement was inadequate.
• Larry Ames emphasized the need for quantitative, enforceable design standards (not just guidelines) in urban village plans, and advocated for buffer/transition zones (mid-rise housing) between high-density urban villages and surrounding single-family neighborhoods, along with parks.
• Harry Neal (VTA Citizens Advisory Committee, speaking personally) supported streamlining but recommended reducing the affordability threshold for projects under IP 5.12 (e.g., 50% for <80% AMI, 25% for <60% AMI), incentives for redeveloping parking lots, pre-approved building designs, and prioritizing transit stations. He also urged simplifying design guidelines.
• Ken Hiddelman expressed concern that the streamlining recommendations focus only on reducing community input rather than improving it. He called for concrete ideas for better early outreach to avoid plans that do not reflect community desires.

Discussion Items

• Follow-Up from Last Meeting (Ruth) : Staff reported that a council study session on cost of development is scheduled for December 8, 2025 (9:30-12). The city is focusing on implementing SB 79, not joining a legal challenge. Staff does not propose to lower the IP 5.12 affordability threshold from 100% to 50%, as it has been successful. A virtual community meeting is set for December 15 at 6:30 PM.
• Urban Village Planning Presentation (Jared Ferguson & Cora McNaughton) : Staff outlined the existing 62 urban villages (4 types) and the current planning status: 16 completed plans, 2-3 in progress, covering 43% of land area. Two policies (Signature Project and IP 5.12) allow residential development before a plan is adopted. The typical planning process takes ~3.5 years, but recent expedited examples (North First: 2 years 9 months; Capitol Caltrain: 18 months) show improvements. Staff presented four preliminary recommendations:
  1. Consolidate 16 unplanned transit corridor villages into 6 plans.
  2. Convert two neighborhood villages to commercial center villages with full plans; for the remaining 17 neighborhood villages, make targeted general plan amendment and rezoning (single process, no individual plan).
  3. More clearly define outreach for conventional planning (limit to 3 community events as baseline).
  4. Continue simplifying plan text, focusing on actionable policies (rely on citywide design standards where possible).
• Commissioner Discussion:
  • Vice Chair Bickford stressed the need for modern outreach methods (beyond in-person meetings) to engage busy residents and supported consolidation.
  • Commissioner Cantrell questioned minimum density requirements, consultant selection (minority-owned businesses), and the effectiveness of engagement. He urged ensuring outreach reaches marginalized communities and that the city pivots if engagement is low. He noted the Office of Racial Equity is overburdened.
  • Commissioner Bondal asked about the cost per plan (staff said they are still calculating) and why 42 villages remain unplanned (due to staff capacity and grant funding limitations).
  • Commissioner Young strongly supported the streamlining recommendations, emphasizing the need to build 62,200 housing units by 2031 and that affordability is tied to supply. He suggested more effective outreach through stakeholder groups, council offices, and less reliance on large meetings.
  • Commissioner Oliveira noted that SB 79 will supersede local zoning, making streamlining even more important. He supported in-person meetings for deeper conversation, urged realistic expectations from outreach, and favored staff-led facilitation over paid consultants.
  • Commissioner Barroso asked about lessons from the Alum Rock form-based zone. Martina Davis (Division Manager) explained that the form-based zone lacked vision, transportation, and park elements, leading to community dissatisfaction, though it was effective for guiding development. The city now seeks a balance between streamlined standards and community visioning.

Key Outcomes

• No motions or votes were taken; this was a discussion meeting for the task force.
• Staff will complete analysis of SB 79 impacts on urban villages and present final recommendations at the next task force meeting in June 2026.
• The next task force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 6:30 PM in the same room.
• Staff will provide a virtual community meeting on December 15, 2025 to inform the public about the review process.