Welcome to the second meeting of the 25 26 General Plan 4 Year Review.

For this four-year review, the planning commission will serve as the task force.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine for under the garage of City Hall is located near the entrance.

Agendas and sign up sheets are available in the back as well.

Starting out with roll call.

Carlos Chair, myself, I'm here, Vice Chair Bickford.

Commissioner Barroso.

Commissioner Bondal.

Commissioner Kentrell.

Commissioner Cow.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Commissioner Olivario.

Commissioner Young.

And that is nine here with one absent.

So we do have quorum.

Please note that public comment is listed as item number five on the agenda and will take place towards the end of the meeting.

You can fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes in response to public comment.

The planning commission is limited to the following two options responding to statements made by questions posed by members of the public or responding or requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting.

With that, I will hand it off to Steph to staff to begin the meeting with agenda item number two.

Thank you.

All right.

Agenda overview item two.

Yes.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Jared Ferguson, Principal Planner with the Planning Division.

I'll be one of the main presenters tonight along with Cora McNaughton, Planner Three with the Planning Division.

This is Task Force Meeting Number Two.

And let me go to this clicker's working.

Okay.

So uh our agenda overview for tonight.

We'll be uh going over some notes from the last meeting.

Um, and then we'll be talking, we'll be diving into our main topic, which is around urban village planning and the urban village strategy.

Um, and then we'll have time for our recommendations, a task force discussion and public comments.

So for the first item, I'll pass it off to Ruth to discuss some follow-up from our last meeting.

Thank you, Jared.

Um, good evening, planning commissioners.

Uh, just want to quickly note that the synopsis for the last meeting has been posted, and we captured the questions and responses to most of those um questions that were raised.

There were a few outstanding uh ones, which I'll dive into here.

So the first one is um there was some requests for information on the cost of development study and the study session.

This has been scheduled.

It's a council study session that is scheduled for December 8th, 9 30 to 12.

It will be um broadcast via Zoom and YouTube and will be held in person in the chambers.

Um and staff is also working on scheduling a separate study session for the planning commission on this topic.

More details to come, but the agenda for this study session should be posted at least 10 days in advance, as uh most meetings are.

Uh we've determined that's not possible due to the policy we have in place that limits hybrid meetings such as these.

Uh we also um so we encourage members of the public to email us questions as they have been or their thoughts prior to the meeting, after the meeting, and we will respond.

Um, the third bullet here, SB 79.

So there was a question posted about whether the city will join other cities to challenge SB 79.

At this time, staff is focusing on the implementation of the law and the impacts it will have on housing and land use in San Jose.

The presentation that follows will have some more highlights on SB 79.

And lastly, there was a request to modify general plan policy IP 5.12, which allows 100% affordable housing in unplanned urban villages.

Um, the request was that we lower that threshold to 50% affordability.

Um, in order to do that, staff would need council direction to modify that policy, and currently, staff um does not propose to change that threshold.

We believe it's been successful in providing affordable housing in these urban villages, granting access to commercial sites to those affordable developers ahead of market rate developers, which essentially reduces competition for land.

And again, the presentation that follows will talk a little bit more about what we've seen in terms of development for IP 5.12.

And lastly, it's not written here, but just want to give you a heads up.

We do have a community meeting, virtual community meetings scheduled for December 15th in the evening, likely at 6 30.

We'll broadcast and post on our website and social media.

It's an informational meeting for the public to get a better understanding of what we're doing here, and it'll be sort of a discussion of what we've done so far, where we're going with this policy work.

And then in the spring, we will have the in-person open houses.

That's it.

Thank you.

Alright, thanks.

Alright, on to agenda item number three.

Alright, thank you.

Okay, so getting into the topic of urban village planning, just some background on that.

So, as we discussed at our study session, one of the major strategies in our envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan is focused growth.

That would both increase employment capacity as well as housing capacity in designated areas of the city known as growth areas.

Establishing urban villages as growth areas is another major strategy in our general plan and a key means of realizing that focused growth strategy.

The vision of these areas is that they would be walkable, mixed-use areas where growth of both housing and jobs is concentrated.

Given that these villages are some of the key growth areas for our new housing and jobs, evaluating their planning process and overall strategy is one of the elements of this four-year review scope.

This is a map of the general plan and all of its growth areas designated in the city.

The areas in red are our urban village areas.

We have some other maps later as well that better show this.

There are a total of 62 urban villages throughout the city.

They're split up into four categories of village types.

The types are related to the scale and location of the village.

There are regional transit villages, and those are those villages located near high capacity transit, such as BART.

An example of this type of urban village is the Barias A Bart Urban Village.

We have local transit villages.

These are along our local transit, such as Light Rail and Rapid Bus.

An example of this type would be our Southwest Expressway Urban Village located along Southwest Expressway along Light Rail.

Um we have our commercial corridor or center, urban villages.

These are less access to transit, but along significant corridors or thoroughfares.

They'll still have some transit, but not rapid bus or light rail.

So a good example of this village type would be our De Anza Boulevard urban village in West San Jose.

And then lastly, neighborhood villages.

These are much smaller villages.

They're typically clusters or small groupings of commercial centers around usually a major intersection along significant streets, but much smaller in scale and size than the other villages.

The general plan includes many policies related to the implementation of urban villages and their planning process.

Villages must generally have a separate plan that is adopted by city council before residential and mixed-use projects can move forward on commercial sites, unless they're eligible for a couple of special policies that we'll talk about in a minute.

Each village plan has also has certain required elements such as development and design standards and transportation and circulation plans associated with the future village and its growth.

Each village plan is also intended to show how it can properly allow for the growth of both jobs and housing that's assigned to it in our general plan.

And that's done through the associated policies and land use for each village that's adopted.

There's also an emphasis on community outreach that's tailored to each specific urban village plan to meet the local needs and how the village plan can meet the local needs of the community.

So there are two specific or significant policies that allow for residential or mixed use to move forward on non-residentially designated sites ahead of urban village plans.

About 80% of the land area in unplanned villages is commercially designated currently.

The signature project policy allows for mixed-use projects that help further both the housing and jobs for the village, help further the housing and jobs goals for each village, and they have to show how they're going to do that in order to move forward.

And so that means they have to meet certain minimum commercial requirements as well as meeting certain minimum density requirements as well.

It must also include publicly accessible open space and meet a number of other policy criteria.

So this policy was established as a part of the creation of the general plan, so it's existed since 2011.

We've had nine projects entitled through the signature project policy.

Two have been built and one is under construction.

And then the second policy, which Ruth mentioned, IP 512 is the technical number.

It was established in 2016 through one of our subsequent four-year reviews of the general plan.

It allows for 100% affordable housing projects to proceed ahead of an urban village plan.

And these projects are also eligible for state streamlining such as SB 35.

And this has been a successful policy.

We've had 15 projects entitled through this process with two built and eight under construction, and two are currently under review right now for entitlement.

There are 16 completed and or adopted plans to date out of the 62.

There are two currently in process, technically three.

Those are the Saratoga Avenue and El Paseo Urban Villages, which are being planned together in West San Jose, and then the Alum Rock East Urban Village on the east side of the city.

The four villages around the future BART station, the five wounds area, those were the first plans that were completed after the general plan was adopted, and those are being updated right now.

And this also includes the Deirdon Station Area Plan as well as one of those.

So while 16 of the third of 62 have been completed, there was an emphasis given to villages located in areas where there was significant development interest for the most part, and also focus on many of the largest of those villages.

So while only 16 have been completed, 43% of the total land area across those 62 villages is under a plan currently.

And once we complete the planning work underway right now, we will be over that 50% mark.

So this map, it gives you a little more detail, and this was included as part of your packet as well.

It shows in the shades of green here either the adopted or in progress villages.

And then in the shades of red are the transit regional transit and transit corridor villages.

The orange are the commercial center villages, and then the yellow are those neighborhood villages.

So it kind of gives you a sense of the city.

So as I mentioned earlier, the general plan establishes required components for each urban village plan.

The intention was to ensure that these plans accommodated job growth and housing in a way that addressed the local character and needs of the community and also to meet the jobs and housing goals assigned to each village within the general plan.

So some of the required aspects include reviewing the boundaries of each village and making any potential modifications there if necessary, setting the specific height limits or densities within the land in the village, as well as adopting any standards that might better reflect the community's character or needs.

Part of the process is also identifying locations for public facilities, including parks and open space and also transportation facilities that are necessary for the growth.

Each plan and process engages with the surrounding community, involves them in the development of the plan.

And then all of these components get incorporated into a final urban village plan document that gets adopted by the city council.

So getting into a little more detail about what that process entails.

So as an initial step in the process, you know, something grant funding or other additional funding is also typically needed to complete the process, and grants come from different sources.

One example would be the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

So the first step typically includes researching for potential grants and then applying for those grants and then reporting and tracking the grant funded activities.

And then, as I mentioned, outreach is a key component of the planning process for the urban village.

Outreach typically includes at least three scheduled public events or meetings, such as open houses, and it can also include additional activities such as presentations to specific stakeholder groups.

In some cases, there can also be a citizen advisory group that meets and further informs the planning process.

The Alum Rock East Urban Village, which is underway right now, has one of those citizen advisory groups.

Staff utilizes consultants to help augment our work, particularly with certain aspects of the outreach process and to prepare technical studies or analyses as needed as well, such as economic analysis.

This helps reduce the workload on staff, but it also does require staff time to manage that consultant work.

Then another key component of the process is an analysis of the urban village area, such as its existing uses, and the outreach effort helps gather further feedback from the community that informs the proposed land use changes and zoning changes for the properties within the urban village planning area, as well as to define or set the location of public infrastructure such as parks and open space and transportation facilities.

And then additionally, there's agency coordination.

So given the broad impact of the planning effort, there's coordination with internal city partners such as our parks department, department of transportation, our housing department, as well as other outside public agencies such as VTA as well.

And so to make sure that the plan's policies align with the goals of those other departments and other agencies.

And part of the creation and adoption of an urban village plan requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act, so or CEQA.

And so the specific level of clearance varies depending on the changes and specifics of the village plan and policy, but does require time and coordination in order to complete that work.

And then the last step, of course, is a public hearing process.

So each village plan is considered by the planning commission with a recommendation to the city council for their final approval.

Can you say what the duration is of that?

Yes, I was just about to get to that.

Yeah.

So getting into a little bit of our lessons learned around that urban village planning process.

So typically on average, the process has taken about three and a half years from the first community outreach meeting until the full adoption by city council.

So we've continued to make adjustments throughout the process or throughout the life of these, or throughout the life of this planning process based on experience.

Some of the lessons that we've learned from previous planning process processes, including you know trying to reduce the number of scheduled public outreach events or try to facilitate or streamline those, trying to simplify the actual plan text within the document to make it um more easily readable, easily digestible, which also reduces potentially the time it takes to produce that document.

Um, really focusing on actionable goals and policies, and then also um bringing the actual document drafting in-house.

Um, it used to, you know, in earlier versions were done by consultants, and we found that having it done by staff is a it produces better outcomes and improves the efficiency of completing the plan.

Um, so the measures that we've implemented so far have have helped cut down the planning time timeline.

So North First Street Urban Village and then the Capitol Cal Train Urban Village, which are some of the most recent ones adopted.

Um, the North First Street process was completed in about two years and nine months, so about nine months less you know than than typical, and then the Capitol Cal Train Urban Village, which was a smaller urban village area, was completed in about 18 months.

Um, Jared, just quick questions.

What you're talking about right now are answers to questions that were listed in strategy P40 of the housing element, is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah, so one of the one of the reasons why we included this as uh element of the scope of this general plan work was for a couple of reasons.

So, one reason I mean it's always an embedded item within the general plan for your review that we evaluate urban villages, and then additionally, as we included in our in our housing element, we had strategy P40, which was a significant, you know, uh strategy policy work and included in um in the housing element and was to do a very robust evaluation of our urban village planning process.

And so summarized here some of those things that were included in that strategy, um, you know, whether to maintain um all of the existing urban villages, um, you know, understanding whether or not you know a one-size fits all approach makes sense for urban villages, considering consolidating urban villages into single planning processes, processes, and then understanding whether all the you know plan components are necessary, and so as we get into our recommendations, you know, you'll see kind of at least the things that we've outlined, do try to address this evaluation, and um so I'll I'll pass it to Cora now to kind of get into that.

Good evening, commissioners.

Um, I'm going to present staff preliminary recommendations for streamlining urban village planning.

Thanks.

So staff has four preliminary recommendations to address strategy P40 of the housing element and after review of the urban village planning process.

Um the first is consolidating the transit corridor urban villages that are located along the same transit line or within close proximity to each other into a single plan.

The second strategy is to create a new streamlined planning process for neighborhood urban villages, which are the smallest plan areas.

The third is limiting the outreach process for the urban villages that are planned using the conventional method to make the process more efficient, and the fourth is continuing to simplify the plan text to reduce drafting times.

So the first recommendation, as I mentioned, is to consolidate the transit corridor urban villages for planning purposes.

There are currently 16 transit corridor villages that do not yet have an adopted plan.

So for planning, we are proposing grouping those urban villages into six plans, which would reduce by 10 the number of plans required.

So the urban villages that are listed here with the same colors would be consolidated, consolidated, sorry, consolidated into one plan.

And so here's a map that shows the location of the urban villages that would be grouped together.

Planning for two or more urban villages at the same time will enable staff to look at similar development patterns and complementarities between uh or among the station areas.

So starting from the north and turquoise are the five urban villages on the blue line on North Capital Avenue, so those would be consolidated into a single plan.

Also on the blue line and shown in purple on the map, the Kirtner and Capital Urban Villages would be planned together.

On the green line and shown in dark blue, the two race street light rail urban villages on the southwest expressway, urban village would be part of the same plan.

The two urban villages around Oak Oak Ridge Mall, shown in yellow would be brought under one plan.

And to the east, the two urban villages on Blossom Hill shown in red would also be planned together, and finally, the Arcadia East Ridge and East Capital Expressway, Silver Creek Road Villages, which are shown in green, would be consolidated into a single plan.

So those are the six plans we're proposing.

So moving on now from the transit corridor urban villages to the neighborhood urban villages.

We are proposing that two of the neighborhood villages, the Hamilton Avenue, Meridian Avenue, and the Cooser Road Meridian Avenue villages, would be converted to commercial center urban villages and would undergo a conventional planning process to develop plans for each one.

These are urban villages that we see that there's a high probability of redevelopment because of their size, there's a significant amount of commercial development, and the VMT impacts in those areas are average.

So for the remaining 17 neighborhood villages, staff recommends targeted changes to general plan land use designations and zoning to allow for housing and mixed use village mixed use projects in those urban villages.

So in other words, those urban villages would be grouped together into a single general plan amendment and rezoning package.

The process would include outreach beyond the public hearing process, but separate urban village plan documents would not be developed for those areas.

So here's a map of those neighborhood urban villages.

So two of the urban villages which are shown in red would be converted to commercial centers and would undergo that conventional planning process culminating in an adopted plan.

The other urban villages shown in purple would get targeted changes to land use and zoning, but no urban village plan per se.

So with the addition of the two converted neighborhood urban villages, there would be eight commercial corridor urban villages in total.

Each would have its own conventional planning process.

In addition to those six transit corridor plans mentioned earlier, the total number of plans to be developed and adopted would be reduced from 14 to 40, sorry, to 14 from 42, plus, as we mentioned, a planning process for those targeted changes in neighborhood urban villages.

We are recommending, however, that the outreach involved in the conventional planning process be more clearly defined to avoid prolonging the planning process.

As a baseline, outreach events would be limited to three scheduled community events, and then other outreach with specific stakeholder groups would be provided as warranted.

So the fourth strategy, which to some extent has been implemented for the most recently adopted plans and will continue to be refined is simplification of the urban village plan text with a focus on actionable goals, policies, and standards.

This has resulted not only in shorter plans but plans that are easier to implement with clear standards for development in each area.

One of the helpful things in this regard is for example the citywide design standards, which were adopted in 2021, and those already provide a great deal of guidance for development that creates a sense of place, encourages connectivity and walkability.

Sorry, yes, we're going to talk about the plans for our regional work at some point.

Today we're really talking about sort of generalities in terms of reduction of that.

Sorry, limiting that outreach process to those three planned events, which are sort of the greatest lift for staff, but we're open to suggestions on other aspects of that.

Okay.

Sure, just wait till you're done.

Sure.

So as I mentioned, the citywide design standards are provide a robust set of standards.

So rather than create an entirely new set of standards for each urban village plan, the focus would be on design requirements for specific areas within each urban village plan area that may require some kind of unique treatment.

So to summarize, we currently have 42 unplanned villages, and as a result of our recommendations, we would reduce that to 14 plans, or if we add in that single plan for targeted land use changes in neighborhood urban villages, 15 planning processes, six combined station area plans, eight commercial center plans, and targeted land use and zoning changes for the remaining neighborhood villages.

And just a final note about Senate Bill 79, which was signed last month and affects transit rich areas, including many of the city's urban villages.

So the planning division is currently working on an analysis of the impacts, but here's what we do know now.

The law allows for increased building heights and density and floor area ratio within a half mile of heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit.

It also allows residential development on commercially zoned sites, which, as Jared mentioned, in the urban villages with that don't have a plan adopted at this time, is not permitted in much of those.

About 80% of the unplanned area in urban villages is has commercial land use designations that do not allow residential development.

We don't have an official map of the affected uh areas by 70 by SB 79 yet, because there's still a lot of questions about you know the correct interpretation of the language of the law as it relates to distance from transit stations.

So that's still being worked out.

But by the last task force meeting next June, we'll complete our analysis of the new context created by SB 79 and provide some final recommendations based on feedback we receive for the urban village planning process.

Next slide.

So that concludes our presentation, and as I mentioned, we're ready to take any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioner Oliver.

Thank you, Chair.

On the SB 79 map, uh to be completed by June 2026.

What's the level of complexity?

I mean, it seems that it's a half mile radius from a particular stop.

Can staff tell me why that's not interpreting it?

Okay, it is we'll have the map done in the next month or two, and we expect to produce an info memo to city council on it with a more precise map.

Um so that'll be done.

It's it's really like I think we want to.

How would 79 affect or maybe change our recommendations around urban villages specifically?

That's what we want to come back to the task force in June with.

So by that time, we'll have a better understanding and some time to think about what it might mean for those unplanned villages that are affected by 79.

Are there changes to the planning process or approach we want to take because you know a lot of sites will have allowed for mixed use already?

So that's what we would come back to.

Now, I could there is some complexity to the mapping because of how the radius is the radii are drawn because it's based on pedestrian access and so an understanding which sites it affects.

So that does take some time, but we should have it by January at the latest.

And if you don't mind, so uh a bus rapid transit site or a light rail station, is it a question of where does the dot go?

Like, is it at the parking lot of the light rail station, or is it at the I mean, let's go bus rapid transit?

I mean it's a pretty small structure.

Is it is it on the left side or the right side?

I mean, what's the yeah?

For those, it's a little easier for ones where the access might be more limited, it's a little more complicated.

So it's we'll we're gonna get to something, but it it's it's not as easy as here's the center of the station, here's a radius around it.

So when the legislature votes on it, that's what they do, right?

And then um, will the content also include okay?

Here's our here's the location, here's the radius, here are the number of parcels, that current number of parcels, let's just make up a number.

Let's say it's 300 uh units, housing units.

But with SB 79, that might become 1,600.

Will staff come back with a map that says, here's the map, and at all these various points, 1600 here, 1200 here, adds up to something large.

Will will that work contain that?

Yes, so that and and that's the so as we're looking at some of the next topics around residential capacity and the growing residential capacity.

Ruth and her team are already looking at that.

They're actually the ones kind of helping prepare the map because we want to understand how the increases in density and increases in capacity of affect our plan capacity moving forward so that will I guess be another touch point in terms of this task force and SB 79 will be looking at what you're talking about in terms of how capacities change because of what the law does.

Yeah I think it's it's critical to know what that number is because if staff has a goal of X and the current new state law fulfills 90% of it or 110% of it or 50% because then you don't have to do other things and I just think it just seems like it would be the most uh important I mean there's a lot of important things here but it would seem to be one of the more uh immediate uh uh information finding facts that would be important for this update so thank you.

Commissioner Casey um the the half mile it's part of the complexity I think I heard you kind of say it as well is it the half mile as the as the crow flies is the old saying or is it half mile in terms of someone walking out their door getting to the station which would make the map far more complex than just uh it is as the crow flies but from the pedestrian access so defining what that pedestrian access is is really where the challenge is.

Okay.

Okay.

We have some ideas of how we would interpret that but I think we're looking for guidance from the state as to how you know we don't want to start mapping something and then they say no it should be this one.

Yeah.

Can I just sorry I just want to chime in on what Commissioner Oliverio asked is that um information something you can also provide to the planning commission as you make it available to the city council yes definitely Commissioner Kantro um trying to I'm I'm not sure when we get to more specific details I assume that's going to be much later in this process or how are we going to inform that how's that going to work um I guess which which detail talk about um the urban villages and the neighborhood villages and density is there any change in densities are we still what are we doing?

Are you asking if there will be different densities across the different types of urban villages we have the transit we have the neighborhood urban villages.

Men's and max um I'm trying to remember if we've done any neighborhood urban villages but um I think we will consider the context and what we think makes sense in some urban villages maybe the neighborhood ones versus the transit I think you can probably make the argument that when it's closer to like light rail or BRT higher densities can be supported versus something that just has one or two bus lines but that's part of the evaluation and um I'll let Jared jump in here if he has more like when we'll get that we won't get that specific until we actually start that process for the neighborhood urban villages.

Yeah I think there's kind of two elements to it I think getting to the the more site specific density question that that's more in the individual urban village process or for the neighborhood context when we go in and make those specific land use changes some of it will be addressed in the future conversation around capacity because we will have to adjust or address what the capacity of each of those villages are so that gets that density doesn't directly set a minimum or maximum but it does sort of define what the future is like so that's kind of the the two avenues for those actually you're you're hitting my specific question on the nose there because I I think there should be more flexibility than there has been in the past because one market forces are important to recognize and and two if we require such high density that it's all steel or maybe we can consider dimensional uh um lumber or or something else to help get a kickstart.

I'm just wondering how we're going to make those decisions and who will be involved in those decisions.

Yeah I think during the conversation a bit more about residential capacity that would be something that that we could discuss.

I mean I'm we're certainly open to hearing conversations around as as we as we talk about maybe the types of villages, you know, maybe that you know some comments to take in.

I I think as Cora was alluding to we've only or I think Ruth we've only really planned planned one neighborhood village and that was part of the five wounds planning effort which was and we so they were always I think envisioned for slightly less density you know if you look at the signature project policy for example I think it it it starts at 30 you know versus I think in other villages it was like 55 would be you know kind of the threshold for signature projects so I think those were always intended to be you know a a slightly lower but having not gone through the planning process for one it's never been that firmly defined you know and that we've never really set minimum densities per se per village it's when we go in and do the plan and we change the individual land use designations that we kind of get into that that sort of effort so okay so yeah I'm very interested in that process and how we decide that I think you're right about certain villages or certain areas being different than others and I think it's important to recognize that um specifically on minimum densities because I think that's part of what locks us out of much development sometimes that minimum problem and maybe reserving some land for um market shifts so that we can be able to build something and continue to build um rather than just stop and wait for years at a time but anyway my next question has to be has to do with um the selection of consultants that you work with how are you how are you selecting consultants now and and what proposed changes are there in that process.

So for the consultant's election process typically um for the planning department we have a list of qualified consultants so we just went through this process recently um and so they're consultants who who specialize in in planning and outreach um and so from that list we typically um do uh request or a mini request for um them you we write up a proposal have them come with cost estimates and then we go forward with the service order based upon their responses uh so it's from a pre-qualified list.

Are we still um actively seeking minority consultants to participate anymore or has Trump stopped the universe from working that way.

So as as part of our um RFP RFQ process there is a a local and small preference that's that can be applied to to businesses.

So that's that's the aspect that that is informed in terms of our procurement process that we have.

Okay so we're not calling minority businesses.

Small and local okay okay um I'm also curious about that the process of engagement and what you plan to take out of it.

I'm just I think we all know that I don't think that process has been working terribly well.

So my concern would be to take things out of it without clearly identifying what's working and what's not working in my mind at least um leads to a potential additional failure.

So how what's the process and how we're gonna do that.

Yeah I think w where we're going with with the recommendation where it currently is was we're trying to strike a balance um you know there are elements that take time you know drafting the document takes time but generally one significant element of time is is the outreach and engagement component at least what we're defining here now we're not going below necessarily what what we've done in the past but we're trying to articulate more precisely what is what the expectations are so you know our process has been typically that there's three kind of workshops or meetings and that is the main body of the outreach or engagement component of the village planning process but trying to be more upfront about that that's kind of the expectation.

We're still saying you know in cases there can be justifications or you know warrant situations that warrant more outreach, but trying to just define it more more clearly up front.

Is there a minimum standard?

That would kind of be it that that three meeting threshold um and with some with some other elements um but that that's where we're we're sort of going at.

I think it's it's challenging um because I think we're we're trying to, you know, it is an important element of the urban village process is you know, a lot of it is uh, you know, it's about hearing from their community, but it's also you know, trying to get the uh helping educate the community on the process, how they can get involved and how they can voice their opinion.

A lot of them, it may be their first experience kind of engaging with planning.

I think that's exactly where we fail, to be quite frank.

Um so in my mind, we we need to really break that process down to make sure the engagement actually one includes different groups from the community, specifically um marginalized communities, specifically.

Um that the way we do that outreach is really actually best facilitated by people who know those communities well, and ensuring that we do that to ensure a better outcome, and and three stopping and doing a check if it's not working.

If we're not engaging the community, we're failing.

We just need to pivot somehow.

Um, and I think that should be a part of our process.

If the engagement level is significantly low, something's not right.

There needs to be an adjustment.

Otherwise, we're just doing this stuff for ourselves and no one else.

And I think that does play into how we do things today.

I mean, I mentioned part of the Alum Rock process, right?

We have that community advisory group.

I mean, that that was was done in that effort to try to better engage that community.

Um, but that that's kind of the balance that I'm talking about, though, is that you know, I think we've always strived to do that, but then that's what can add time and complexity to the process, right?

And so those are kind of the trade-offs that I think we're we're trying to highlight, right?

Is that I think those are things that we as planners want to do, but then it it can make the the process go from that you know two and a half years to three and a half years if if there's added you know time and I I get it, you know.

We don't want to elongate the process too much, but we do want to actually have a process that's effective.

True.

Otherwise, why bother?

Um, on that note, also when you're selecting consultants to do that outreach work.

I know in the past, I don't think any case happened where a black uh community organization was selected to do that work.

How do we ensure that we're doing that?

One of the ways we are uh working with the Office of Social Racial and Social Equity, so that we do consult with them on our outreach plans on all aspects of planning.

So that's you know, we can certainly um ensure that that is you know an important part of our outreach planning and and as we go forward in this process trying to determine what that looks like really working very closely with them, and we've already had conversations with them about that.

Okay, I that that would be great, though I know that office is overburdened because there are very few people left there, right?

Yeah, and they were actually directed by city council to work with us on this effort.

So, um yes, very you know limited resources, but I think um we agree sort of it is difficult.

Land use and planning is kind of up here and kind of goes over people's heads, and this is this actually the four-year review is one opportunity for us to kind of make it accessible, and I think we were hoping, you know, we hope we did that and kicked it off with the study session that you participated in with city council.

Um we do have some ideas for sort of shorter videos, taking some of that information and sharing it, but I think I think it's gonna be part of a longer process where um, you know, regular folks in San Jose can say, I I know what the general plan is, or at least I have the sense of what it is.

And for our open houses, that will be sort of one of the um the what do we call them easels or sort of the stations.

We're gonna have different stations for the open houses.

One will be general plan 101.

Like, why are you here?

Why do we want you here?

Why do you want to be here?

And so just to sort of outline that we we understand that outreach, especially outreach disadvantaged communities, is very important, and we have to start kind of at the very very beginning again to your point.

I think a good example is what is the high-speed rail uh work that they did in the gardener community.

Um was uh it was a lot of lifting, and you know, they but they did it, and they got a lot more engagement that way.

It didn't work out for the community in terms of what was decided so much, but at least they were involved, and actually with that, there's a lot less complaining.

They were there, so they know what happened.

I w I really want to make sure that we don't lose track of what we're doing here.

This is really, it's important to me, and it's important to a lot of other people in the community to make sure we get this piece right going forward.

Um, you mentioned also that the plan work would be done by your staff instead of consultants.

I thought you were understaffed.

So one of the things that we we modified was the um actual drafting of the plan document itself is something done by staff.

Um, you know, we could use more resources and then we're gonna say we couldn't, but um, that aspect is something you mentioned kind of having folks that are connected with the community be involved.

Um, you know, our our staff does tend to have that better connection and understanding, and so it's been actually more effective for that process to be done in-house, both for time and then for the actual end product has resulted in a much better product because of that change.

So that's actually.

I don't think that's gonna cause any delays, um staffing issues.

So that was something we did for those last two ones that I mentioned that went faster.

So it's it's been a change that's been been beneficial.

Just something I was I wanted to add to on your last comments too, you know.

One of the other resources available to us now, um, through the city manager's office, they have a list of community-based organizations that we can utilize, and so that was wasn't an urban village example, but on our work around the Pleasant Hills golf course guiding principles, we engaged uh two of those organizations as a part of that process to help reach um communities as well.

And so that's something that can augment a bit and involve those other um communities.

And at the same time, specifically that project had very little black engagement.

Okay.

Um I think that is it for now.

Thank you so much.

I just want to add something to what I trust said.

That is a weird here in the house of Silicon Valley, and I don't feel like we do very well as a community getting in touch with um the people that live here using technology.

And I I'd like to see if we can find some ways for this outreach.

I understand that it needs to be one directional and that people need to show up, but I think there are still ways to solicit input in more fashion than having three community meetings where we're expecting people to show up.

Um I I get that that's historically what we've done.

We kind of live in a different time, and we ought to be able to collectively find some other ways to solicit constructive input from our community.

So, as a part of this process, we are looking at um a vendor that offers uh uh more unique um or a newer type of online engagement.

Um, so I think it is it is something we would like to consider.

I think um I will say just especially on kind of the long-range planning efforts, um, and it it varies for for sort of individual projects, but for kind of the the wider area plans, the in-person engagement really tends to be very effective in terms of having conversations and having deeper conversations around what's going to change in their community, what they want to see, and having a more prolonged back and forth.

Um, and so it's it's sort of trying to find the right balance, but I I know from our experience that the in-person is very effective at you know, kind of having those those conversations.

Yeah, I'm not challenging the effectiveness of in person.

I'm I'm sort of thinking about the number of people now who are uh out of time to to spend four hours to listen to us for two, wait their turn to talk and and provide input.

I think there's got to be a way that enables our community to interact with us more quickly than that.

Yeah.

Alright, I'll go.

Um so we generally have four recommendations, so consolidate the 16 transit corridors into six.

Consolidate the way we are doing neighborhood urban village planning so that those are all the same.

Define the outreach for conventional urban village planning.

Was that not defined before?

It had been defined in practice, but being very clear in our writing and maybe even in the general plan in terms of what the kind of standards are for that engagement and outreach process.

And then the last one is simplifying the plan documents.

And the goal of this is so that when we're kind of out of this bus cycle, when we start more of a bull cycle, we'll be prepared to get folks through the process for building our villages more quickly, right?

Yeah, I think it makes for individual project review easier.

If you look at some of the older documents, they have a lot more background and sort of you know narrative around what was what was going on, which which can be good, you know, historically, but when you're trying to build your project or a planner's trying to review a project, having the simplified text that gets to you know policy one, policy two, and what kind of what you need to do, that does kind of help what you're saying in terms of streamlining you know that effort.

Um, and it it cuts down on the actual document we need to produce too, which which helps save time.

I don't know if you want to talk to that too.

You can have a little more experience in that directly, right?

You were mentioning it.

Yeah, I was previously in implementation planners.

So combing through a lot of text as an implementation planner when you're reviewing an actual project that is being proposed in a specific area, having to comb through a lot of sort of background information as opposed to okay, what are the actual standards or guidelines that I need to implement for this project?

Um the standards are usually, you know, are those are musts guidelines, are good ideas, shoulds, but that's something you can discuss with the applicant, go back and forth and see you know what they can do to change their project and make it, you know, bring it more in line with um you know what the community has said that they want.

Um so it's not to say that we don't we don't want the background and we don't want the the the local information um and really the care, you know, often there's like a character element.

This is the type of character of the the development that we want to see in this area, but um we really think that can be you know shortened and has been as as Jared mentioned in the last um two plans that were adopted, and it's been um sort of much more effective for the implementation planners.

How much do we think it would shorten the process and will it move the needle?

Shorten the process of developing the plan itself.

That's right.

Um well, I mean, the as Jared mentioned, the um, you know, the average for the plans overall is three and a half years in terms of their development.

Um the North First Street uh plan, which was developed in the lot within the last four to five years.

That one um was two years and nine months, so there was some reduction there, and then the Capital Corridor one was 18 months.

So there really was a focused effort to you know bring that that planning time down.

Um and I know that the the urban village implementation team is or sorry, the urban village planning team is is definitely working towards as far as I understand a two-year maximum for getting those plans done.

Obviously, if we can do it faster, that's that's great, but I'm great.

The other question I had had to do with the transit corridors, so moving them from 16 down to six.

Um where did we get this idea from and how is it in how is it going to improve?

I guess how quickly plans are put together, or what was it intended to achieve when you have one urban or urban village plan for an area near the plant and then an area near Capitol Auto Mall.

So uh there's a couple of of reasons.

I partially, I think initially driven a bit by MTC's uh TOC transit oriented communities policy.

Um it requires us to kind of look at station areas and look at minimum densities, um, look at parking and everything else, and so that's a body of work that we have to do, and so try to think more strategically about stations as and station areas together makes sense in terms of that policy direction.

And then from a streamlining perspective, since they do share that shared connection, planning them together, you know, kind of makes sense and shortens the timeline.

So it's not, you know, it's not three separate processes or documents that we're producing.

It's one process and one document that results, you know, um from that.

So speeds up.

Has that been effective elsewhere or no, we kind of have done other villages planned together.

I mean, technically, Stevens Creek Urban Village was identified as three originally.

We're, as I mentioned, we're planning Saratoga Avenue and El Paseo.

Um, those are technically two villages we're planning together.

Um so that work has you know is effective in terms of of kind of shortening while also not necessarily um reducing you know the the level of outreach.

Um it just covers a larger number of sites, right?

So thank you.

Commissioner Kell.

Yeah, first of all, thank you so much for uh sharing all this information.

As the new kid on blog on this commission, uh, I think a couple things stand out, um, Vice Chair Bickford, when you mentioned the um three open houses as like you know the only opportunities to get feedback.

I wholeheartedly agree with that because I know I have family and friends who live in San Jose who one either don't have the time to allocate, you know, to sit and listen to all of us and then you know wait until an opportunity to speak for a couple minutes, and two, even if they had the time, the interest level in actually just doing this would be pretty low unless they were highly highly motivated for some specific reasons.

So I just wanted to point that out as like I'm thinking from you know the vantage point of you know, my my own cousin, you know, who I think would you know, even if she wanted to participate in this, I think there are multiple barriers at play here, and that to Vice Chair Bickford's point, I think some attention to how we can gather community input while at the same time achieving the department's goal of you know making the timeline shorter, like I see that there's a concerted effort to shorten this timeline from however many years down to like you know a couple years max or you know just shortening the process overall.

I think there might be a way to do that while still getting more community engagement, and I don't know exactly what that looks like, but any effort that you all would want to take embark, you know, on this process of gathering more input from community members who might have a might want to have a say, but like I said, just for multiple barriers for various reasons, just wouldn't want to give that input.

I think that'd be great.

Um, and then to Chair Rosario's comment earlier, as the new kid on the blog trying to read these recommendations.

I see, you know, the four recommendations that have been stated by you all and restated by the chair.

I think something, you know, as the new person here I'm having a hard time grappling with is the rationale for each recommendation.

Um I in some sense I I think I get the logic behind what why the recommendations were put forth, but I think um whether it's through the memo or maybe in these presentations, you know, as someone new to this, like completely new to the space.

I think it'd be helpful to see um okay, here are the four recommendations, and like here's why.

Like this was motivated by the MTC, this was motivated by some community input we got five years ago that now we're trying to roll into the work we do.

I think that would at least give a little bit more context for not only me, um, but I think a lot of people who you know may not follow the planning commission super closely, but then you know, at a certain point in time, they jump in and they want to understand why there's certain recommendations to have that additional context would probably be helpful.

Just um and maybe this is something to add more, not on the individual recommendation level, but maybe on more of the the macro level on kind of why we're looking at the the village planning process and strategy here as a part of the four-year review.

I mentioned it a little bit in the slides, but maybe just clarifying is good.

You know, I think one of the the major things we're we're trying to accomplish is to get as many or the rest of these villages over the goal line.

Um, as I mentioned, until the village plans are done, there's significant um numbers of parcels where housing development isn't allowed currently.

Now there's some changes from SP 79 that will you know potentially modify that in certain areas, but you know, as we're trying to look for new places to you know grow our housing capacity both to accomplish our six cycle housing element goals, but then look to that seventh cycle having these plans done, um, and you know, kind of those land use changes done are really important to providing that that new capacity.

So that that's kind of the the global of kind of why why having these plans done is important.

Now that said, we want to try to balance you know the the want and need to like talk to the community and do that engagement.

So that's why we're we're trying to strike the right balance between still doing having those planning processes where we do engagement with the community, but where it's faster and we can get to you know having those sites unlocked for for housing potential.

Um so I just wanted to you know mention that as well as the sort of the high level um and I and one other thing too.

Sorry, just you know, I I should probably clarify.

I mean, we do typically have online polls and an online engagement component, and then we do often, you know, meet with individual neighborhood groups, you know, go to their meetings and talk as a part of the the planning process as well.

So we are you know, we do try to look for those other opportunities for engagement as a part of the process, but in terms of what we're talking about is really like city-led meetings, you know, and that that can take a lot of effort and time.

So, got it.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Bandal.

Thank you.

Thank you for the beautiful presentation as well.

I'll have to agree with some of the things that the new kid on the block had to say.

Um, more community engagement and more community input is always better.

Uh the more the merrier and we see we got it, we got to witness that last time in the first meeting when a few of the members of the public came up and spoke and that there are some billion mines out there, so if we can find a way or different avenue to kind of incorporate them, I think it's a win-win uh for this four-year review cycle.

Um I have two questions.

One's for Ruth and one's gonna be for Jared.

Uh Ruth, you mentioned that on December 15th, uh, there's gonna be a virtual meeting.

Uh are we allowed to attend because we I would love to attend.

Just to sit back and just watch and listen.

Yes, yes, the commissioning attend.

Okay.

And then what was the timing again?

Um, I think we're gonna go at 6 30, but we will share that information on our website, and we'll be sure to email the commissioners so that you can save it on your calendar.

Okay, beautiful.

Um, and then second question is for for Jared.

Uh Jared, you mentioned that the eight-step process uh takes roughly three and a half years, and then Cora mentioned that they're trying to reduce the time to maximum of two years.

Um what's the cost per study?

So honestly, we we haven't actually determined that yet.

Something we're still looking into.

It's very complicated to go back over all of these processes over many years.

We have to um just from an accounting perspective, we have to go back and look at all the various consultants that worked on these plans and then all the staff time that was involved.

So we are looking into that, and we do hope to provide you with a response to that, but we don't have that information right now.

Okay, so you're you're asking, like, what has been the cost per plan or what has been the cost overall for the eight step cycle that we have.

Right.

So it would it would vary by plan, but um, we're definitely looking into that.

Sure.

Okay.

And then have the unplanned, I'm I think there've seen this 15 unplanned, I think I seen um but those studies have been done yet or they have not been done that they're unplanned so right now we have 42 unplanned villages yeah so those don't have any completed um or council adopted urban village plan so so again that means that most of the the sites are designated uh commercially um sites that are existing residential within the village have residential designations but none of the sites that are commercial have mixed use or residential uh land use designations until we do that urban village planning process okay so the study hasn't been done yet for the unplanned ones right that's right okay okay and then the study hasn't been done because of there's a budget restriction or why hasn't the study been done for the unplanned ones it's just one thing.

So we've we've completed 16 um and you know typically so we have generally we've had three staff allocated to the urban village planning process over the course um of of since 2011 um when we we adopted uh the general plan and then each each of those plans typically as I mentioned requires that grant funding so it's been where we've been able to find that grant funding and identify the work um so it's really been around um uh you know capacity and and time it takes to complete those plans so that's why you know helping to reduce the number that we do will help try to get you know going from 42 to 15 you know it's still a still a body of work to be done but much smaller than than it was before so that's kind of been the challenge as to why okay so the only reason I ask uh that is because um you know if assuming a developer's application comes in and then you're kind of playing uh you're kind of playing from behind at that point if you the the study hasn't been done for uh the the right I mean that that kind of gets at what I was saying around you know we since we don't allow that mixed use then you know that development can't proceed unless it uses you know that either that signature project policy or uses that affordable housing policy so that's why you know having these plans then lays the groundwork for development in in the future and so it it creates a clear pathway for what the community wants to see what the city wants to see out of new development um and allows it to proceed when it comes in versus uh much longer process if they had to do a general plan amendment or other other type of process to develop it.

Yeah okay thank you those all yeah thanks.

I have a question about oh sorry commissioner yang please kind of chime in commissioner yeah okay thanks um question for uh the new commissioners and all of us um how many housing units do we have to build in the next housing cycle our total allocation was 62,200 correct so 62 thousand by what year uh 2031.

Okay that's why we're streamlining folks simple as that okay a big issue around the country now is what affordability people can't afford to live here why is that there's not enough housing period right I mean if you're a landlord and you can charge whatever you want because there's going to be 20 people applying to live in your apartment right so what staff is trying to do what the probably planning staff throughout the state are trying to do is streamline these processes so we can get more housing built and the problem with the urban village process currently is you can't do that until there's an approved uh urban village plan so um I just think we need to keep in mind that word affordability it's a it's a big problem throughout the country but particularly here in San Jose um you know let alone trying to buy a house the the average working folks here are trying to pay rent.

They're trying to pay rent and live here, and they can't.

They can't do it on even two salaries.

So, you know, you have folks out on the east side living three and four families in one unit because that's the only way they can live here.

So, you know, I just I want to give some input back to staff.

I'm very supportive of your ideas.

First of all, thank you for the presentation.

It's really really helpful, but I think you are heading in the right direction because we need to streamline, and there's a tension there between engagement and process moving along.

So prior to coming on the planning commission, I was on the neighborhoods commission, and the neighborhoods commission really tried to get input from all of the residents in our uh council district.

It's very difficult, very difficult.

And you know, Commissioner Cow mentioned one of the reasons.

A lot of people don't care.

They either don't care or they don't know, but you know, I Commissioner Cow, I think you hit right on the head.

People in this valley are busy, they've got lives, they've got jobs, kids, um, so we can't expect the staff to pull you know blood out of a turnip, let's say, right?

We have to have open engagement processes, but the folks have to give input back, right?

So I think what I'm hearing from staff in streamlining that, and I agree with this, is fewer big large meetings.

Um, you know, my experience again on the neighborhoods commission when when you have an issue, and you know, planning.

We've and I was in the uh I was a president of neighborhoods association, and I was in the district nine leadership group, which had, you know, multiple neighborhood associations coming in.

Commissioner Oliveira is very f uh familiar with this too.

Um you'd have this very large meeting, and you know, three planners would come out with lots of neat stuff, and you get three questions, right?

So I think, and this is gets to Commissioner Cantrell's issue also, is I think it's more effective to reach out to the stakeholders, and I think that's why it's important that you're working with the Office of Racial Equity to make sure that you're reaching out to the non-profits, faith-based groups, um, you know, associations uh to try to get input from folks that we normally wouldn't hear for.

Um, another thing that I have found effective is um outreach through the council office.

Um I know in District 9, our council member has a huge email uh outreach, and it's it's very effective.

And I've found people actually tend to read those emails because they've got a lot of good information on just different things going on in the district, and so I I know in in district nine, um council member Foley's emails have been going out with a significant blurb on this process, like you know, folks who are looking at the general plan, this is going to be important.

Please go to these meetings.

If you're not able to go to the meeting, please, you know, provide input via email to the staff, and and I think staff's done a good job of developing a website where folks can do that.

Um, but anyway, I just want to say I'm supportive of the streamlining.

Um I wanted to uh I'm very supportive of doing more work with staff and less with consultants.

I I worked in local government for a long time, and consultants are great if you have a very specific problem.

My experience with consultants is they'd make a report and then the staff would have to redo the report, right?

Because the consultants didn't know the problem as well as the staff.

So I'm very supportive of that, but I also recognize that we're living in a world of dwindling government resources, right?

I'm I am sure if we talk to our uh planning director and assistant director, they don't have enough staff to do the work they have now, let alone.

So it's really important to streamline.

I think your idea of consolidating districts is really good.

Um, and I think what what I see you folks trying to do is get the process going better, try to reduce the impact on staff, so that you can do one report for you know 10 villages rather than report for each.

Um, I'm just I'm very supportive.

I'm very supportive of all the recommendations.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

And I think we can use an outreach method that is more stakeholder-based and outreach and then meet with those groups individually.

I I've I found that to be very helpful actually when I was on the neighborhoods commission I would go out sometimes those meetings and they were really good versus you know these large meetings so yeah I just wanted to say I you know I think it's very very well done and I I think you're definitely moving in the right direction.

Thanks.

Vice Chair Bickford I agree with Commissioner Young I think you're absolutely on the right track.

I love recommendation number one specifically I think it really gets to the heart of consolidation.

I have a question about recommendation number two related to streamlining the neighborhood village planning process.

Creating one planning process targeting land use and zoning changes for those 17 locations my question is does that mean you would undertake a single process and evaluate all 17 of them individually and make individual recommendations or are you going to lump them all together and say it's a good enough wag we're going to do the same thing at all 17 of them.

It would be an we would be we would do it all under one process approach but each village we would look at independently so in some villages there may only be you know one or two sites that make sense for a change in other villages you know maybe it's there's a lot more opportunity that's why I'm asking I mean I I think people in the community want to know that we are thinking about their neighborhoods as unique places and I just wanted to make sure that that that was part of this single process.

Yeah one of the things to add you know we we spent a lot of time the staff did looking at these neighborhood villages there you know it it varies a lot because they're all a little bit unique but in terms of opportunities I mean there's definitely some but it's it's much more limited than when I think we typically think about an urban village you know like Saratoga Avenue or like West San Carlos.

These are really small uh opportunity might be pretty limited in terms of and and oftentimes too it's maybe the neighborhood retail that really serves that greater area so you know to see that can convert to housing or mixed use may not really make sense.

You know maybe there's some smaller periphery sites where it would make sense but I think that's where we would go in and do that approach on each but it wouldn't result in like a separate document right it would just be that targeted those targeted absolutely a single document I think is is the right way to go and and a holistic view.

Thank you.

Commissioner Oliveira Commissioner staff treating these all the same or different or they're unique aspects SB 79 doesn't care.

I know.

Yeah so SB 79 is you know that's what that which I think is part of the reason for this consolidation because part of it is SB79 is going to lay out what's going to go next to these things.

So that's interesting as it is I and I want to clarify an urban village nullifies SB 79 if it's a protective barrier around it because the um the uh the density bonus doesn't you can go above and beyond an urban village with density bonus I'm assuming SB79 goes above and beyond an urban village correct uh it supersedes our general plan or our zoning so which our urban village plan would be that so okay well I think that's another clarifying thing and then I wanted to take a moment to to share you know I think a lot of people well first of all I'm supportive of these recommendations because we want to make these things faster because I think for a long time there's been a lot of criticism of all these unplanned urban villages, and because of the process was in a way that took so long, and as you mentioned in your report, we're often relying on grants to pay for staff time.

So I think making these things, I think you know, there's a lot of thoughts here.

But one, I think the in-person meetings are important.

People can engage in a lot of different ways digitally, but having those in-person meetings and having attended countless number of urban village meetings myself, people are engaged, and part of it's the staff doing an education process, right?

Because yeah, people aren't concerned until it affects them, right?

And I think most people that are at these meetings that are involved or sort of have a selfish point of view because they're curious on how it's going to impact their home, their neighborhood, etc.

And that's just uh where it is, otherwise, there are other folks that are there for advocacy reasons, etc.

Um, so I I think from what I saw, I I thought there was plenty of engagement.

Whether or not people got what they wanted was another story.

I think where staff in the past maybe spent too much time was with these aspirational goals, where they really thought this whole thing was going to change and they were gonna get a park and they were gonna get a frozen yogurt, and they were gonna get their brand of restaurant and a gap, and that's just that's not realistic.

And I think I think to help things, staff just needs to be realistic.

Like, here's the street, here are the heights.

It's really simple.

You know, this is what is potentially coming your way because either the general plan requires it, the arena goals requires it, SB 79 requires it, and just get to people faster rather than um I think how it's been done in the past.

And I think some of the non-success of the urban villages have been non-SQL clearance, right?

They saw the applicants still had to go through the SQL process, which was incredibly long, and I think we had discussed, but there wasn't the money to do it.

Do sequel clearance on the urban village.

So every applicant can come forward and get approved right away because the sequel clearance is already already been done.

You know, high interest rates, nothing's gonna happen, no pension fund, no sovereign trust fund, no uh bank is gonna finance it, so therefore the project stops.

And then all these urban villages, there's not one big owner, right?

These are individually owned parcels, often waiting till someone dies in a family before development occurs.

So I think these are just long-term plans that we put forward, and when development occurs, it occurs.

There may be a time, and that might be in the near future, where you're gonna get more development than anyone ever expected or wanted, but those are uh things that are bigger and above us.

And I think on uh hiring consultants, you know, oftentimes they were just a facilitator at the public meeting.

I don't even think you need an outside facilitator.

Someone in the planning department who's got an outgoing personality can just simply manage the facilitating process.

It doesn't have to be someone we have to pay much extra money to, and staff will get paid for those hours, and and let it just be that it's a staff-led involvement.

Because I think um, you know, facilitators can be good or bad, but I don't want to get into you know who that person may be.

I just think it can be done by staff, or you might like the facilitators not gonna know the content area any better than staff, so it was might as well be just a staff-led process.

And then on the North First Street plan, did that get approved faster because state laws have changed limiting objective standards?

Because there was less that you could do in an urban village when you did North First Street versus when you did urban villages eight to ten years, twelve years ago.

That was part of it, but it it was also, as Cora mentioned, coming after our citywide design guidelines, so there was a real effort to really shorten the document, so it kind of predated a little some of the housing stuff that superseded us for the most part.

So it's kind of a combination, but really you know, trying to simplify streamline the document itself and rely on those citywide design guidelines.

And then would you equate the uh Alum Rock uh form-based zoning process as the same amount of effort or as an urban village?

Because you had community meetings there, but it was really simple, form-based, this tall.

You know, wasn't so much into all these uh, you know, these thick books that you were talking about, the history and details and things that'll never happen.

Um, the um adoption of that predates, I think at least Jared and I, uh, as planners in the department, but it it it was it's something that lives in our zoning code.

There was no actual document where you have the history of the neighborhood, um, but however, since then we did adopt uh or the council did adopt by resolution.

Um, I can't remember the name of the document, but it was sort of like the community's wishes, um, the guiding principles for Alum Rock again.

They're guiding principles, sort of um guidelines and not really standards that would hold that would hold developers too.

Yeah, and then and then finally, and you're simplifying the urban plan village documents.

Yeah, I mean, you could just throw that thing into the latest technology of AI and say make this four pages and it'll be done, and maybe people will uh you know view it because it's it's a it's achievable versus uh you know 200 pages.

So uh appreciate it.

Thank you.

And are we taking motions in these hearings or just simply listening and that's it?

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Barroso.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um of the points that my colleague here um brought up.

I uh I want to revisit in terms of form-based uh zoning.

Uh in the Alamark area, that's that was a very controversial approach.

Um, can you say a little bit more about how it's if it's tied in and how it's tied in into the urban village approach model framework?

Um, and what we learned a couple years ago in terms of the need to create some guiding principles.

Is there any lessons learned that are being carried over?

Um, I mean, I think I'm sorry, the question lessons learned from the form-based zoning.

Just maybe just paint the picture if it is connected to urban villages, or if form-based zoning is a separate thing that sometimes gets lumped into urban villages just because either proximities or not is my first question.

And then the second one is if it is tied in, is it is it tied in into the area of um the lessons learned?

Uh, slide or page 17.

Um, we're gonna ask Martina Davis, uh, division manager that oversees the urban villages to respond.

Thank you.

I think it's on.

So on.

Come on, Martin.

I think you need to see.

There's an FPC here.

Okay, hello everyone.

My name's Martina Davis.

I'm a division manager here in planning.

Um, I will say the form-based zone does predate me as well, but I probably have the most history, so I'll do my best.

Um, so that was our first attempt at a form based zone.

So it was just kind of open zoning the area with development standards and none of the vision, none of the amenities, none of the transportation, none of the parks improvements, none of that.

It was just purely looking at the form of the buildings out here.

Um, it did predate the urban village planning process.

Then when the city created the concept of urban village plans, we wanted some easy wins, you know, and so we said, well, this maybe this looks like what an urban village plan might look like.

And so we deemed that it was an urban village.

It was complete and it had a plan, and that plan is the form-based zone.

Um, we have had a lot of frankly negative feedback on that, um, and it has been because you know, the community does very much desire that visioning discussion.

Um, it doesn't speak to transportation, all of the other plans do speak to transportation.

It does not speak to parks, all of the other plans speak to parks.

Originally, the urban village plan had the amenities framework, so we were going to try to get above and beyond public amenities because of the legal framework we had found for that required properties to be rezoned because we'd already adopted that zoning.

They were also going to be left out of the um amenities framework.

Um state law came and took the amenities framework from all of us, so no one got amenities in the end.

Um, so those were some some real challenges with that form-based zone.

Um, that said, from a tool to just purely guide private development on the property, it is pretty effective, right?

It is some pretty effective standards.

Um, but we have found it's missing those other components that when you're coming to a community and you're saying, hey, we're gonna, you know, expect to see potentially thousands of new units in your area.

Um, it's it's difficult to impossible to have that conversation without the transportation conversation without the parks conversation, without the amenities conversation.

So those are the downsides to it.

That said, it is a nice streamline approach from like a land use, purely land use standpoint.

So it sort of sounds like Commissioner Oliverio says we aren't gonna get your favorite restaurant in here, but let's get buildings, these heights, but at the same height, form-based zoning, the folks didn't like it because it didn't address transit parks and the rest.

So we're kind of balancing these two.

Yeah, that and you know, a picture is worth a thousand words, so all the other plans have pictures and images, and you know, and so you can kind of see, oh okay, I can see what we expect, and that is literally just text.

Um, that you know, the community very much feels that they they missed out on that, um, that everyone else is getting, and you know, again, as you know, a person you understand that kind of desire to see something to actually see it and not just have some words on paper.

Okay, kind of a follow-up question.

So, with that said, um, as we move forward in this uh with the recommendations and what um staff sees is the best direction, are you?

I don't know if we can make it this simple, but do you think that moving forward it's gonna lean more towards the pretty pictures, the explanations, the amenities, the parts, the visioning, or is it going to be more on the other side where it's you know, just black and white text, expect report memo style communication or presentations?

Some remember to yeah, that that's right.

I think it's a it's a balance that goes to the balance that I think we've been talking about around wanting to both discuss and educate the community and then also try to streamline the process.

So we need to provide some certainty to developers and folks that want to redevelop their property of what they can do, but we also want to engage the community.

So I think I think it does we're trying to strike the right balance between the two.

If it goes one way or the other, it it's hasn't been successful in our experience, right?

So we want to try to strike the right balance between the two.

Awesome, thank you.

And I think this is my last question.

So if we consolidate into I don't know if page 27 is the best one, but the regional local transit um uh category, the commercial center category, the neighborhood uh category.

Um does the form-based approach or its its essence is it in all three, or is it in the neighborhood one?

Where would we find its influence mainly?

So I think what we've talked about is um not necessarily in the zoning code, but in our our our citywide design guidelines, and relying more on that to define what the development looks like and trying to write less specific guidelines in the individual plans, right?

That makes it more complicated for review and adds complexity.

So adopting something citywide and refining it and then applying it in those villages and still going through the individual process to see if something more is warranted in certain cases.

That would be less the case in the neighborhood village process process as an example.

You know, they would still be subject to the citywide design guidelines, but there would be no additional specific guidelines or design standards adopted for those since those are really strategic land use changes within those villages.

Okay, thank you for the clarity.

Yes, just to provide historical context on form-based zoning.

Number one, it wasn't invented in San Jose.

Form-based zoning is a uh national or international phenomenon that communities have used, and what happened was that this was a process that was started under one council member in District five and then completed by another council member in District five.

It was a multi-year process that involved community meetings, uh, but the major reason for these council members to initiate and finalize this process was that they felt their part of town wasn't getting the level of investment and development that was uh other parts of the city were getting.

And they felt if they pushed in or uh initiated, pushed whatever uh form-based zoning, that then that would streamline the development opportunities for that street and that community.

That was the intention at the time.

Right.

Okay.

Let's move on to public comment then.

Agenda item number five.

Uh please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes in response to public comment.

The commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements or questions posed by members of the public or requesting staff to report back on a matter.

So we can get in line behind the uh microphone as I call your name.

So Dr.

Robert Wood, um Rico Gallardo, and Ruth Callahan.

I'm Robert Wood.

I'm the uh chair of the housing committee of the uh California Faculty Association, San Jose State chapter.

Uh nine uh uh professors, three of them from urban planning.

Uh and we're dealing with something that's a little bit strange in the presentation today.

Uh, I showed last month with this slide, this chart, that um uh the plan that we've got is pretty much a failure um uh because housing declined dramatically as soon as the plan took effect.

Um uh and um uh that's why my teachers union members are suffering, that's why the homeless homelessness has risen so much.

And I believe that city planning really does understand the need to facilitate more housing, but they focus today on extending a work that's been pretty much failing in the 43% of the urban villages that have been planned out, they're not really producing housing.

Uh and our perception is that a key reason for that is overwhelmingly in those area urban villages, city planning's been requiring 50 units or more per acre, which is taller buildings than San Jose is used to.

Those are great where you can do them, but most people in San Jose haven't been able to afford them, and it's clear from uh slide 10 uh of the city planning's presentation that they focused on the villages that were most likely to be able to afford those high density areas.

Um so uh as we move into the the the planning of further villages, um they're in places where people have even less uh experience with paying high rents.

Uh and so therefore um we're gonna advocate um uh building uh at lower densities um uh to allow um uh for lower costs at lower densities you can build mostly with wood or with low-cost uh uh modular approaches.

Um uh city planning is gonna need additional resources to fix the plans, it has to thoughtfully identify where 50 units per acre can work and where setting a lower minimum, allowing cheaper, mostly wood construction to to work is going to happen.

There are, in fact, quite a few sites available in that's been two minutes.

South of yes, okay.

There's quite a few sites available.

Um these are gonna sit unused if we don't have uh appropriate uh density requirements and not excessive density requirements, and I understand how much pressure and how much difficulty that is for the city planning.

And if it results in uh bag pushing too high of a goal for the next round, uh professors will try to stand behind how stupid.

Thank you, Dr.

Wood.

Thank you, Mr.

Gallardo.

Uh good evening, uh ladies and gentlemen of the Envision of San Jose Task Force.

My name is Rigo Gallardo, I'm a field representative of the NordCal Carpenters here in San Jose.

As San Jose begins to plan the future of development.

Let's not forget about the men and women who will be building these structures in our community.

Let's not overlook the importance of strong labor standards.

Standards that reflect our city's values and our commitment to fairness.

Good labor centers, such as healthcare, local hire, and apprenticeship are not just policies, they are foundations of responsible growth and the key to ensuring that progress benefits everyone who calls San Jose home.

Healthcare must be a at the forefront of any development that receives city support or tax exemptions.

The workers who pour the concrete, frame the walls, and bring these projects to life, deserve access to quality health care for themselves and their families.

When we invest in their well-being, we strengthen the entire community.

Local hire is equally important.

Our residents, the taxpayers, and the families who live here should have the opportunity to work on the projects that shape their neighborhoods.

Keeping those jobs local means keeping the paychecks in our community, supporting local businesses, and building a stronger, more connected San Jose.

Apprenticeships are the bridge to our city's future.

They provide young people and career seekers with real training, mentorship, and the skills they need to succeed in the trades.

These programs ensure that San Jose continues to lead in innovation and opportunity while giving workers a pathway to stable middle class careers.

By adopting area standards that include these principles, the planning commission can ensure that development in San Jose is both ethical and sustainable.

These standards don't slow progress, they make it stronger.

They hold developers accountable, ensure quality workmanship, and guarantee that public public investment truly serves the public good.

So I ask you today, as you plan for the future of the great city of San Jose, stand with the working men and women who build it.

Let's make sure San Jose grows responsibly, built on fairness, opportunity, and respect for those who make it all possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next will be Ruth Callahan, followed by Bob Levy and Larry Ames.

Good evening.

My name is Ruth Callahan.

I am here representing the Coozer Woods Neighborhood Association.

And I wanted to speak to the first uh process, the area analysis.

You uh and when I came tonight prepared to speak, I was going to speak about the Coozer Urban Village.

That is 60 feet.

Okay, it's a beautiful Princeton Plaza mall.

It's a very important part of our community.

But we are under construction for a seven-story, 191 unit, section eight, complete Section 8 housing with a minimum standard of rent for people who make zero wages to 80% of the median.

This is going into a neighborhood, a single story, single-family homes, and I came here in the state of shock when I realized that this cruiser urban village is out in the middle of D9, and there's no one else around us.

I think we've been targeted unfairly.

Now you tell me it's going not to be an urban village, but a commercial village.

Urban villages, commercial villages, and neighborhood villages.

Could a commissioner explain to me what the reassignment of the urban village to the commercial means.

Thank you for this time.

Could you go ahead and uh define that?

I think it's actually a transit is a transit corridor, uh urban village.

Um, it was a neighborhood village.

Princeton Plaza where they used to have the Murvyn's.

I think the 27 goes from there to Overage.

So it was one of the neighborhood villages that we're proposing would be defined as a commercial center, which means it will get its own individual plan and is not one of the neighborhood villages where we would do the strategic changes to.

We thought, given the size and location because of that mall, that it should remain as an urban village plan that gets its own urban village plan.

So, it would actually be more there would be more input and it would have its own plan as opposed to the more consolidated plans, the plans that are all the same, right?

All right.

Let's see, Ruth, uh Bob Levy.

Yes, good evening.

My name is Bob Levy.

I'm a currently member of the San Clara County Planning Commission, former member of this commission, and have served on both the county and the city's General Plan Task Force.

The urban village process is a wonderful process.

They can create walkable, rideable communities that are densely populated and have plenty of amenities.

Urban villages, however, require detailed planning to fulfill their promise, identifying where to cite different land uses, how to effectively link transportation networks, and where the parks can go.

Acquiring additional parkland within the city is extremely difficult.

This is the one rare opportunity where parkland can be acquired to mitigate the impacts of development.

Successful urban villages also need to seek out and incorporate the needs of the community.

Comprehensive urban villaging uh planning requires opportunity sites not get developed prematurely.

They need to follow uh the signature project guidelines.

Focusing focusing too much on streamlining the process, limiting public input, merging urban villages, prematurely allowing development in key opportunity sites, and ignoring parking recreation opportunities really is going to result in a lot of lost opportunities.

This is exactly what happened with the Saratoga urban village plan.

Two urban villages were merged, and one of them was the Westgate area, which had incredible opportunity sites, and it's been watered down by looking at all of Saratoga at the same time.

Um the planning process has been extremely limited.

There was really only one public pro meeting at so far.

The second one was a complete waste of time.

It was just a writing questions on a card and having them answered, you know, very limited in a limited way.

And there's no parkland being planned for.

It has to encourage public input, has to provide for adequate parkland, and it has to be able to use a signature process so that it's not developed prematurely.

Thank you.

All right.

Larry Ames and then Harry Neal and Ken Hiddelmeyer.

Hiddelman.

So hi, Larry Ames here.

Urban villages are a key feature of the gener of the 2040 general plan.

They're planning to be walkable communities and transit nodes, high-density housing to absorb the much-needed demand, so that the established housing stock and existing communities can remain undisturbed.

But it is, but as we found out the hard way in district six, you need to have a on the at Race Street in San Carlos, you need to have quantum quality quantitative specifications.

The state law does not allow for the enforcement of guidelines or qualitative requirements.

You can't just say it has to be designed to fit in.

Also, the uh district six thing we found out, got it ended up having a parking lot and just a fast food restaurant in a place that was supposed to be high density housing because we did not have the quantitative requirements.

Urban villages also include amenities, including parks and the high rises will probably have swimming pools and barbecue places and uh rooftop gardens and so forth.

So they have some amenities.

The challenge is the interface between these urban villages and the surrounding neighborhoods.

How to deal with having a high rise in the backyard of somebody's back, just back behind the back fence.

So you need to have some type of transition.

The solution is to have a buffer zone, a transition zone around these urban villages, a block or two wide, where you have mid-rise high housing.

Might I guess this can provide the missing middle housing land with both affordable between the affordable land and the high high-end luxury housing.

Give them the options.

So you don't have to sell and make the high-d mid-rise housing there, but if they want to move, they can sell out and do that.

You want and these things definitely do need to provide parkland because they will not have probably not have backyards.

It probably won't have swimming pools and so forth.

So you'd have to design this middle range buffer.

Alright, and that's been two minutes.

So as I say with everything, every time I speak, you need to have some parks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Harry Neil.

Good evening.

My name is Harry Neal.

Uh I'm a member of VTA Citizens Advisory Committee, but I'm here on my uh own behalf.

I'm not representing them.

Uh a couple of things.

Uh one, uh I remember uh last month's meeting uh one of the discussed topics was um simplifying the urban village process by removing uh a dedicated urban design um guidelines for urban villages and just going by citywide guidelines that I strongly support uh where possible unless it's somewhere like uh little Portugal or Japan town where you have a specific architectural style that you want to to honor a community in that case, sure, go for it.

Uh but with uh urban uh with urban design guidelines uh generally, whether for an urban village uh or for uh citywide, please make sure that we are simplifying them as much as possible.

There are a lot of uh frankly ridiculous requirements that disallow existing buildings, they would not be able to be built again under the current guidelines we have.

Uh for uh affordable projects uh uh before a plan is is fully complete.

Uh I recommend uh reducing that threshold for uh for anything under um eighty percent AMI, that would be uh reduced to a 50% threshold for anything under 60% AMI reduced to a 25% threshold for affordability of that project.

Uh highly recommend strong incentives uh and aligning incentives um where they already exist and aligning fees where they already exist to to push for redevelopments of parking lots within uh urban village areas.

Uh lots of North First is uh guilty of this.

Uh lots of the the Tasman Corridor as well is guilty of this too.

Uh if possible, pre-approved building designs um would help to to speed things up.

Say we just have um uh we have a uh you know a uh a selection of of maybe six or seven story building designs.

Uh and a developer says okay, I want to build this one, and they can uh have some streamlined permitting for within an urban village.

Uh and please prioritize as much as possible transit stations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Ken Hiddleman.

Hi, my name is Ken, and I'm very supportive of the idea of you know getting lots of housing out there and getting it out there quickly.

But I was a little concerned with what I heard tonight about, you know, in the street, you know, I think it's good to streamline, but from the specifics of streamlining um for re you know, basically you're reducing the amount of community involvement.

I don't think that that's the best approach.

I mean, I think it's good to make it more efficient, but all I heard in terms of specifics was reducing the input.

Um I'd like to hear some specific steps forward and and maybe the existing idea of meetings, yes, may not be the most efficient, but I'd like to hear some concrete other things that are being done.

I heard a couple of ideas, but nothing specific in terms of how to get better outreach and get uh the the involvement in there.

Um and I think it's important to get the outreach in uh input early, because you know, if you create a big plan and then you go for the outreach, all you're gonna get is negativity where it's like, okay, you have this great plan, but it doesn't match what we want to do.

And then you have to go back and replan.

Had you gotten that input earlier, maybe the original plan could have been molded along the way and could have been a better plan.

Thank you very much.

All right, is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Okay, in that case, uh, we will adjourn this meeting.

Please make note that the next task force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21st at 6 30 in the same room.

The uh meeting is adjourned.

And uh Director Burton, I would love to see your list of outgoing personalities within the housing department to um make the uh study sessions a little bit more exciting.