East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, welcome to the Planning Commission.

My name is Carlos Rosario and I am the chair.

This is the third meeting of the 2025-2026 General Plan four-year review.

for this four-year review the planning commission will serve as the task force

thank you all for coming please remember to turn off your cell phones

and the parking validation machine for the garage underneath city hall

is located near the tent near the entrance

agendas and a sign-in sheet are also there we're going to start

with a roll call

no flag in here huh

alright we'll go straight to the roll call today

Vice Chair Bickford

Commissioner Borosio, Commissioner Bondall, Commissioner Cantrell, Commissioner Cal, Commissioner Casey, Commissioner Escobar, Commissioner Nguyen, Commissioner Oliverio, Commissioner Young,

I myself am here so

and here we are ready to go

alright please note that public comment is listed as item

listed as item number 6 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 options

responding to statements made or posed by members of the public or requesting

staff to report back at a subsequent meeting with that I will hand it over to

staff to begin the meeting with item to the agenda overview

Thank You chair

Good evening, everybody.

Sanita Ghoshal, Planner 4, Planning Department.

We're going to kick off the presentation.

Can you go to the next slide, please?

And review the agenda.

So on tonight's agenda, we have the main items, item number 3, 4, and 5.

That's a quick update on public outreach.

Then discuss residential capacity background.

And then we will be presenting the recommended strategies.

After that, there will be task force discussion

and public comments.

All right, shall I repeat?

Okay, that's the agenda review.

Go to the next.

I can jump into public outreach.

Speak into the mic.

Okay, this is better.

Thank you.

So I'm going to give you a quick update on the public outreach that has been taking place so far,

and that is going to take place following this meeting.

The four-year review website and social media channels are being used to share information

and post documents for public review.

Staff is developing five short informational videos covering general plan fundamentals

and four-year review focus areas to support public education.

The first video, What is a General Plan?, was posted on Instagram earlier this week and

has received strong engagement so far.

An informational webinar was conducted in December.

Interpretation in Spanish and Vietnamese language was available and 29 members participated

in this webinar.

Regarding comments that we received included how housing growth will be balanced with employment

land preservation, the relevance of long-term job growth given the current market conditions,

need to better align overall growth intensity with available transportation infrastructure

and existing community amenities, including parkland, concern about the compressed timeline

for public input, and lastly, there was support for advancing missing middle housing that

also increases homeownership.

Planning staff has contracted with Conveo, an interactive online platform that allows

the public to review planning documents in a more accessible format and provide comments

directly on specific sections.

The platform is scheduled to launch in February.

Planning staff is working to secure contracts with an outreach consultant who will assist

us with next phases of public outreach, which includes four in-person open houses.

And planning staff is also working with the Office of Racial and Social Equity to reach

out to heart to reach populations.

Next.

Between October and December, planning staff met

with these stakeholder groups that you see the names

on the left side of the slide and presented on the background

and scope of the four year review.

Staff also presented at the Youth Commission in December.

The Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee,

or TAC, that includes staff from departments

transportation housing environmental services community energy and parks recreation and

neighborhood services staff conducts one tack meeting leading up to each task force meeting

staff has also been coordinating with vta that concludes the update on public outreach thank you

i can move on to the next one okay let's move on all right so that brings us to

the main topic of this evening which is residential capacity. I'm going to start

with the background with some numbers in some methodology that we have been

working on. Next slide please please. Okay so as adopted in 2011 the general plan

2040 has been planned for significant growth through the horizon year 2040 of

the general plan with 120,000 new housing units and 320,000 jobs over what was

existing at the time and these were all allocated to be in growth areas

designated growth areas throughout the city which you can see in the map on the

right hand side since 2011 approximately 57,000 units have either

been constructed are they are under construction or are entitled and an

additional 44,800 units have been earmarked for the housing element site

inventory which is a state mandate so this has left the city with a remaining

capacity of 18,000 units out of the 120,000 units that was originally

planned in the general plan next so in evaluating how much additional housing

capacity may be needed staff reviewed population projections from both

Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC and Department of Finance California

Department of Finance DOF MTC's regional forecast this forecast you see on the

web on the slide MTC's regional forecast continue to protect population growth in

San Jose which is an increase of roughly 266,000 people since 2023 in contrast

DOF projections are more conservative. The difference between these two

projections reflects the distinct purposes of these forecasts. DOF

projections are conservative demographic trend estimates. They are based on births,

deaths, and migration designed for statewide consistency. In contrast, MTC's

forecasts are developed for regional land use and transportation planning and

incorporate economic and household projections assumptions in their model

and then it distributes regional growth across jurisdictions. For housing planning

purposes the state relies on both DOF and MTC's projections when determining

the regional housing needs and then for the sixth cycle housing element the

regional share was determined using MTC's projections. In addition to

population growth, the regional housing needs allocation or RENA also accounts for factors

such as overcrowding, housing costs, vacancy rates, and the balance between jobs and housing.

For the fifth cycle housing element, our RENA was roughly 35,000 units and for sixth cycle

it was approximately 62,200 units. The seven cycle RENA methodology work is estimated to begin

in 2027 or 28 so we do not know the potential number so in determining the

capacity target staff considered a few things we anticipated the arena for seven

cycle will exceed the current capacity of 80 18,000 that's remaining in the

general plan we also need to ensure that we have sufficient capacity for two

housing element programs, P40, which is urban village planning, and P35, the missing middle

or the small multifamily housing program. And lastly, we have direction from council to consider

expanding growth areas. So based on all this, staff is recommending increasing the capacity

to between 30,000 and 60,000 units. And as mentioned, we don't yet know how many units

we will receive for the next cycle, but we are preparing ahead of that.

We will continue to work on this number and report to the task force again in April.

I'm going to hand over to Ruth for the next slide.

Chair, can we pause?

That's a lot of stuff to take in, a lot of reading material there.

I don't know if this is on or not.

Hello?

Yeah, Chair, I'm wondering, I don't see SB 79 referenced in the presentation, and I keep wondering, SB 79 alone, what would that net towards your number that you're proposing?

We have a few slides on that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So before we jump into this conversation around residential capacity, just wanted to give a

bit more context, sort of to your point, Commissioner.

You'll hear in these next few slides that we are increasing residential capacity largely

in response to anticipated state mandates, so housing element, RENA, regional housing

needs numbers.

And it's work that staff is going to formally begin in late 2027, early 2028, which is when

and we want to finish this work.

So this mandate for housing element requires us

to show that we have the ability through zoning

and land use tools to accommodate housing.

We're not required to build the housing,

we just show you have the zoning,

you have the land, and et cetera.

And so the options that we're going to run through here

in the presentation, they are consistent

with our general plan major strategies and goals,

and they're also very high level,

So there's sort of a starting point for staff

to introduce this topic and this concept

of increasing residential capacity.

And we will come back in April,

getting your feedback, community feedback,

refining those strategies, refining the numbers.

So just wanna set the tone that this is the first of two

or hopefully three conversations when we come back in June.

And then lastly, I do wanna acknowledge

that sort of the elephant in the room, or maybe not,

is SB 79.

And we are still working through that analysis.

We are going to city council next Tuesday.

We sent the staff report to the planning commission,

but that is something that's out there

that's going to allow in July,

housing on sites that are within a half mile of transit.

And these are sites that may not necessarily

accommodate or contemplate,

have been contemplated to do that much density.

So it's possible that we can achieve

some of this capacity through SB 79.

But we don't have those exact numbers yet.

There's some analysis in the staff report.

So again, there's SB 79 out there.

We're sort of trying to figure out

how we fold it into this conversation.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that

in the next slides.

Okay, and then I'll go ahead

and let Sanhita take it from here.

Commissioner, can I just ask,

all right, one question.

You know, we have some numbers on capacity

or growth, is it possible to add who,

what growth by community, by race,

what are we expecting to see?

Demographic data on future projections.

I don't know that we, does MTC provide that?

No, we don't have that data.

I think maybe the state has some data

on racial data from the DOF,

but we haven't looked at that so far.

We've just looked at overall population growth.

And their data is actually by the county level.

It's not by the jurisdictional level.

So we're just assuming a percentage of the county at that

sun.

So it would be hard to extrapolate perfectly what is the

population if they're only looking at a county level.

We know it won't be perfect.

What I want to do, what I want to ensure is that we're using

what's required in our equity ordinance to actually think about

that same equity and just project that out as well.

That's all.

We'll look into that.

Okay.

We can find that data.

All right.

Yeah, we can.

So tonight we are proposing, recommending four strategies, as you can see on the slide.

And I am going to go to strategy number one, and Ruth is going to take over after that.

So strategy number one is new growth areas.

The general plan's current growth areas were largely selected on the basis of being served

by regional and local transit like BART, light rail and bus rapid transit or BRT.

As an alternative staff looked at high-quality bus lines that connect people to jobs and

services or other regional connectors such as bus lines to BART.

As we know, high-quality bus transit corridor means an existing corridor with fixed route

bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

And in terms of area, staff is proposing a two-block depth from these transit corridors.

The boundaries of current growth areas are conservative and typically don't extend beyond

one to two parcels fronting on the main corridor to protect existing residential neighborhood

from density increases.

The staff is revisiting this approach,

especially considering the new state laws like SB 79,

which create a half mile zone

for significant up zoning near transit stations.

The evaluation criteria for this analysis

for new growth areas also took into account

current land uses.

Most of the areas that I'm going to present after this,

they have a residential neighborhood designation,

but a mix of single family, duplex,

and multifamily uses in different proportions based on the area.

And some of these areas even have urban residential

or transit residential designations mixed in them.

So from this analysis, I've identified six areas

as potential candidates for new growth areas.

And I'm going to show the maps.

As mentioned, most of them,

David, you can go to the next one.

Most of them have different kinds of residential mixed in,

although you will see a sea of yellow, which is residential neighborhood general plan designation.

So on the left-hand side, you see the close-up map, and on the right-hand side,

there is a map that's showing the broader context in where this area is located.

This first one is located along 66 bus line, which this bus line goes down 10th Street and up 11th Street,

located between West Heading and St. James Street.

This line 66 connects to downtown via East Santa Clara Street.

This area is adjacent to Jackson Taylor specific plan area to the west

and East Santa Clara Street urban village area to the south.

Next one.

This area is along 73 bus line, which goes down 10th Street and up to come back up 11th Street

and is located between St. James Street and Key Street.

This line connects to downtown via East Santa Clara Street.

This is adjacent to East Santa Clara Street urban village area to the north

and close to Martha Garden's specific plan to the west.

Some single-family homes in this area are historic resource,

and part of the area is in Nagley Park Conservation Area.

Next.

This area is along 77 Bass Line on King Road.

between Las Plumas and Highway 680.

This line connects to Beria Sabat to the north.

The area is located to the south of the Beria Sabat urban village,

and current little portable urban village area is located within this boundary.

And once the five wound urban village plan update is approved,

the new expanded area of the five wound will expand to include

Some of the west side of this area basically will be within the boundary that we are showing on this map

Next one

Taylor Street, this area is along 61 bus line on Taylor Street between Highway 87 and Highway 101

This line connects to various abarth to the east and light rail along North First Street on the western side

The Bedi-Sabart Urban Village is close to the east and parts of the Jackson Taylor specific

plan area, central part of it, and North First Street Urban Village, the west part of it,

is within the area. You see the darker colors in the center. That's the Jackson Taylor specific

plan and the little pink on the left side, west side, is the North First Street Urban Village.

historic areas are mainly located in this between the Jackson Taylor specific

plan area and the North first street urban village area next time this area

is along 22 522 bus line on the Alameda between highway 880 and Lenzon Avenue

this line connects to downtown the area is adjacent to the urban village Alameda

urban village to the south and the Alameda West urban village to the north.

The existing residential units on the west side of the Alameda are

mostly single family and on the east side of the Alameda are a mix of

single family and small multifamily. Some historic

houses are located throughout this area.

And this last area is along 60

pass route on Winchester Boulevard between Forest Avenue and Santa Clara

Catholic Cemetery. This line 60 connects to Stevens Creek Boulevard, West

St. Carlos Street commercial corridor and connects with Milpitas Bar, San Jose

Airport and the Santa Clara Transit Center. This area is adjacent to Santa

Nero Valley Fair urban village areas to the south. Many of the residential

parcels have R and again land use designation residential neighborhood

land use designation and mainly with R1 single-family zoning accepting a small

area of R2 duplex zoning the existing residential units in this one are

mostly single-family residential uses so that concludes the strategy number one

and I'm going to hand over to Ruth for the next strategy

hello thank you so just want to confirm SP 79 when it comes to historic

resources and conservation areas are they exempt from sb 79

short answer is no got it so if you live in a conservation area district you live in a historic

resources in a sb 79 area that structure could be demolished and multi-unit could be put up for sb

79. it's not it's more it's a little more nuanced so feel free um historic resources would still

have to be assessed under our historic preservation ordinance and still would have to be reviewed as

resources under sequa so they're not explicitly exempted outright from sb 79 but they still have

some protections and some things that they would need to go through in order to for them to be

developed on but like um like but like density bonus would the city be at risk legally if they

said oh we think this is a historic structure we don't want to have this development come forward

and then the applicant would say, well, SB 79 says I can.

Or we haven't got there yet.

Yeah, it's going to mean we haven't quite got there yet.

Okay.

Yeah, and we can get to it.

There are some provisions where,

which is what we're suggesting to city council,

where on historic resources that we've designated,

the city has an option to exempt those sites temporarily

until the next housing element cycle.

And those historic sites that are not listed,

are extremely vulnerable okay and then on any given of these growth areas the

staff have any idea like pick any one of them I see the map you got the zoning

on there it has X amount of units today and with what staff may be proposing

that my net a thousand additional units will we go down to that granularity and

I know that's takes some effort you got to count the parcel and do you count

the parcel as there's different ways account right you might assume

development happens on one or someone buys three parcels and does something

much different could you speak on that yes that would be the next level of

analysis that staff would conduct so looking at the sites we we have parcel

data we have some use data that we get from the county assessors so that will

help us determine sort of existing uses existing units and then the capacity

that it could achieve given a change in land use and is the effort involved best

done to do all of them at once or could you do one earlier so then that the commission uh this group

members of the community would understand what's the difference you know we've got 800 units here

under the current and under what's proposed it would be 1500 or sb9 says 2100 whatever is that

utah i don't want to create work i just want to know what is best for your staff i mean i i our

initial thinking is that we would take each one at a time but i think i think we have sufficient

time to do that analysis and come back to the commission in april it will be a lot of work a

lot of mapping effort because we're also trying to figure out how sb 79 works with some of these

sites as well and just in general sure and yeah and then if you're saying it's going to be too

much work then i mean i don't want to be the person to suggest that if it's going to screw up

your work plan but um if you know if there's something if you think for example like the sb

79 analysis is way more important than one specific district then i'm okay with that because

i think sb 79 is a larger one so thank you sorry we'll arm wrestle here to which one thank you

i think it is helpful if we do questions kind of as we go instead of way at the end so

So just a suggestion, if we keep track of time,

I think it'd be helpful to interject as we go.

I agree.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All the growth areas you went through,

they seem like, was it a general guidance

that you were looking at adjacent to existing growth areas?

It sounds like most of them you referenced on the north

it's bordered by this growth area, by the south is this.

So are these generally extensions somewhat

of existing growth areas,

or are there some brand new ones in the city

that are not anywhere near existing growth areas.

Yeah, I kind of did most of the analysis of this

to begin with, but yeah, we looked at the VCA lines,

the ones where there was high quality,

and then looked like where could they connect

our existing growth areas,

because those are already planned for higher density.

So it seemed like a natural connection to try and,

because they're not all connected very well like that.

There's gaps kind of in between,

so this is the way to kind of fill in those gaps

in between those.

Okay, and as you mentioned,

A lot of them seem to be based on bus lines.

And I mean, bus lines, unlike rail lines, are fluid.

They can come and go.

And we've seen VTA do cuts and other things like that.

Conversely, if there's an area that we think

should be a growth area and it doesn't have existing VTA,

then we can also influence that to have a bus line added.

So just putting all our eggs in kind of where

there's a bus line today, by the time these things get built,

I'm not certain there's going to be a bus line there

at that time.

So I don't know how we kind of mitigate that risk as well,

as well as use it to our advantage

to have new bus lines where we want growth.

I think that's sort of the chicken, egg sort of dilemma,

right, with planning for land uses and growth.

I think Sanhita mentioned this in her discussion points,

but we thought about this in a way

of like our existing growth areas,

like they're already near rail and like sort of the VTA,

so what's left?

And so our thought was like, you know,

People do take buses and maybe that's where we should be a little bit more flexible in terms of the growth areas.

Thank you.

I have a question as well.

On each of these growth areas, have you already evaluated the amount of available land?

Or are you assuming you're going to turn over buildings that already exist in these locations?

We have only started with identifying the locations, and that next analysis will be

the potential capacity.

There'll be an overall calculation, just rough, like acres and density, but I think looking

at the existing uses are important, too, because that lends itself to, like, okay, what is

likely to happen, and where would we see the growth?

My reason for asking the question is there's a significant amount of single-family homes

that I don't think are going to go away,

which severely limits in each of these areas

what available space we actually have.

You know, in terms of the single-family homes,

I'll say, especially I think the Taylor Street corridor,

when you look at it, you know, looking at these maps

and its proximity to downtown, North 1st Street, Urban Village,

it is a very already sort of more dense

than your typical single-family neighborhood.

so what we're thinking is maybe we just go up one level which is MUN mixed-use

neighborhood the townhome the missing middle you know 16 to I'm sorry up to 30

dwelling units per acre and not necessarily like every like it's all

gonna happen at once that I think that is maybe more reasonable than like urban

village in the middle of Taylor Street. Thank you.

Questions on this area. So I see the term walk shed in the report. Is that a real word? That's not a typo?

Okay. What does that mean? I've never heard of that before. It's like that area that you can walk within either a certain amount of time or a certain amount of distance.

distance and we usually a lot of time you can use like a street networks to

kind of determine like how far can you actually go within five minutes and they

usually make an assumption of you can walk this amount of miles per hour and

so you can get this far but it's usually the whole area that you can maybe get

from one point within a half an hour or ten minutes or a five minute walk

something like that that's considered like your walk shed okay great thanks

for that. So as I understand it then SB 79 the criteria is a within one half mile of

transit. Okay does that mean within let's take a bus line now is that within one

half mile walk of a bus stop or and the reason I'm the reason I'm asking is I

know you wanted some input from us on the two block you know that you're

recommending two blocks from a high-frequency bus line and that seems

very conservative to me I mean if you take I just throw out like 450 feet in

in an average city block, then that would be,

half a mile would be six blocks to the street,

but I don't know if the bus stops come into that.

So if you could clarify, that'd be great.

Yeah, we kind of looked at several different options

and we're open to suggestions on that,

but I think a two block radius was kind of a simple place

to start and that can kind of encompass

all areas between bus stops as well but you know an analysis closer to around the bus stops themselves is a

potential but it

It's easier to kind of start with sort of a simple two block radius around the corridors

Okay, so

The the frequency of a bus line in order to meet that is

15-minute frequency is that correct?

Okay, do we have a map of where those qualifying bus lines are in the city?

Can I just clarify to you so first SB 79

generally, it's it's rail and then bus rapid transit with dedicated Lane so the

bus routes being contemplated here have have kind of the 15-minute headways they're discussing but aren't

79 eligible stations, so okay generally just at the quick summary

Bart light rail

Electrified Caltrain and then bus rapid transit with dedicated lane

Which we only have a couple of those stops along Allen Rocks

So a lot of the transit that we're talking about here doesn't

Generally and there's some exceptions fall within the half mile

zone for 79

Okay, so the the

Really looking at the the high frequency bus lines is more something we as a city are looking at okay great

That makes sense too. Do we is there any kind of a map that shows?

Where those bus lines are in the city?

Yeah, it was it was a map from the VTA website that we used

Bring it up or not, but it's just their nice big map

And it shows it has like a thicker darker red line for high frequency rail to make it a little easy to

Visually see versus they're not as high frequency ones which are you like blue with thinner lines and stuff

So we just kind of looked where those could match up with our groceries and see like where there was a match

Where we maybe had a gap and there was good transit available

Okay, so just I'm not sure if you have this information

But if you do so out in district 9 for example, we have Camden Avenue Hillsdale Avenue pretty large streets

Do those have a 15-minute bus route on them? Do any of you know?

I'd have to check we'd have to

Check we can check as we move forward. Okay, that's fine. I'm just curious so

Yeah, I'll just say my opinion is

We're being too conservative on this.

We're in a housing emergency.

It's all hands on deck.

And if we're thinking about half a mile, which I think is reasonable,

I think most people that go to work are willing to walk six blocks to a bus route.

I would like to see that number, that two block number increase for sure.

I don't know if maybe six blocks is too much.

Maybe it's four.

I'm not sure but just in general

You know I'll just throw kind of a general

Comment of my feeling on this you folks did really by the way you folks did a really nice job on this analysis and the report

It's really good. It's very readable

understandable and concise

But I think we're being too conservative

I think that

again, we're in a crisis mode and

We need to be trying to build up density as quickly and as much as possible.

I mean, there are cities in the United States that have totally eliminated their own zoning.

We haven't done that yet.

I'm not suggesting we should, but I think we need to be more aggressive.

Commissioner Young, maybe we could stick to clarifying questions and just keep things moving.

Sure, that's fine.

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe we could still clarify questions and then we could

participate.

You'll clarify a lot for me.

A little at the end.

Is there any, actually I wanted to ask if there is, is there a block to rezoning more

of the single family density that we currently have?

I mean, it wouldn't necessarily change home ownership or anything like that.

Rezoning is a ordinance or property change,

but those homes would still live there, right?

Could we rezone more?

I'm sorry, how so?

My thinking is by rezoning,

we're not necessarily dictating anybody's standard of living

in the homes that they're already in.

What we're doing is giving opportunity for growth,

an opportunity to grow.

I'm just wondering what could be the negative impact of doing a more broad rezoning.

Through the chair, if I may chime in, Manir Assembly Deputy Director, I believe we do have some strategies where there are those broader rezonings or density considerations in strategy three.

So perhaps once we get through all the sides we can come back to that. I

Look forward to that. Thank you

I just wanted to chime in to Camden Road is not listed as a high quality

Okay, thank you. All right, Commissioner Escobar. Thank you. You can keep it to new growth areas though

It is relative to that

because what I am asking is related to traffic mitigation.

And I ask the question because the areas that you've identified

are already robust with traffic.

It's a nightmare, quite frankly.

And so in choosing those areas and choosing to increase density,

are we trying to look ahead at some of traffic mitigation measures

for those who do not choose to use public transportation

and end up locating there?

Or are we going to do that on a project-by-project basis as it comes forward?

Because I think that that is something that is very real and necessary to look at

when we talk about these particular areas and what is already existing in traffic.

And again, we're not the best public transportation county connecting BART and services together,

so it's very real to me that something like that is relevant with these zones.

We have not yet looked at the vehicle-mised traveled analysis.

That is one of the things that we think we are going to do as part of the next steps.

Most of these areas are located near growth areas,

so V&T is usually low near these areas,

but we haven't done the analysis.

Anything else anybody wants to add?

Yeah, I would just add to what Tinehides has,

it is something we would look at as part of the environmental analysis,

as part of the next phase, when we kind of know more from details

about what growth we're considering,

so then that would look at potential mitigation.

But just one overarching comment I would mention, too,

in some of the ways that CEQA exemptions have expanded and changed,

particularly under AB 130 that passed in July.

It's really kind of taken away the VMT analysis

or requirements that are typical of projects.

And so on a project level, there's likely to be much less

of that as it pertains to housing projects.

To the chair, if I can also add,

so we do have transportation demand management requirements

when it comes to project level analysis.

So as areas or growth areas intensify or densify,

there are required TDM measures that would be part

of those projects as well.

And we can also pack the VTA meetings.

All right.

Let's continue.

Yes.

So we'll move on to strategy two,

which is missing middle state housing laws.

So this second strategy is actually work

that's on a separate track.

You will hear a presentation on missing middle

specifically at the next task force meeting in March.

But we are including it here just as sort of an FYI.

This is part of the residential capacity work.

And again, the purpose is to ensure compliance

with our housing element program,

specifically P35 of the work plan

and find ways to support gentle density throughout the city.

So since the time we started this work on the four year review developing and refining

the scope, the state has introduced new laws and updated other laws such as SB 9, SB 684,

SB 1123 and other changes to ADU laws that are already sort of allowing that additional

density in single family neighborhoods and single family areas.

And while both of these, SB 9, SB 684, 1123, are in early stages of implementation, we

are evaluating how these laws can also help us achieve that missing middle housing.

Okay, so the other state law that we've talked about that is going to impact the work here

with the four-year review is SB 79.

It's called the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act.

The law will become effective July 1, 2026, and it would allow housing on residential,

mixed-use, and commercial zone sites within half a mile of qualifying transit.

The image to the left of this slide is an example of one such area.

It's Snell Station.

The half mile buffer is that lighter blue circle, which encompasses, as you can see,

a much more greater area than our typical urban villages, the one block or two blocks

sort of from the corridors.

And SB 79 would permit densities up to 160 dwelling units per acre.

And that's for those parcels that are within 200 feet of the station's pedestrian access points.

So again, could substantially increase the capacity.

We do have 25 urban villages that are located within SB 79 TOD zones.

And I do want to point out, so you can sort of see on this map, there's a lot of yellow

underneath that blue.

That's residential neighborhood, your single family neighborhoods.

That allows up to eight dwelling units per acre.

SB 79 that sort of lighter blue area could potentially see minimum densities

of at least 30 dwelling units to the acre which is consistent with missing

middle so we see sort of that the synergy with SB 79 and some of our work

on missing middle and we're continuing to evaluate the implications and we will

follow up in the next task force meetings likely in all the task force

meetings that follow staff is presenting to city council next tuesday on this item we have a report

we have recommendations as well but really i think it's sort of um we have a lot more work

and analysis to do but it does have that potential to allow for missing middle type of housing and

if we can go to the next slide this is just a snippet of our draft sp79 map it's available now

online you can find it on the staff report for the city council item and um i will leave it at

that for this one and then we if we have questions we can take questions on this strategy one clarifying

question sure does it make a difference what the land is zoned whether it's residential commercial

or you can turn the commercial to residential and build the density you can turn commercial to

residential yes to the chair my understanding is that industrial lands

are exempt from SB 79 the heavy industrial and light industrial lands

are exempt

okay so the next strategy is sorry residential neighborhood and allowing

flexibility in that designation if you recall our land use map it's sort of

everything in yellow that's our end residential neighborhood it covers most

single-family neighborhoods and typically limits density to eight

dwelling units per acre our current policies allow up to 16 dwelling units

per acre on these sites but only in limited circumstances and it's determined

by prevailing density.

So we do have some areas in the city where it's RN on the map,

but you might have a few duplexes or an apartment complex

on the street.

And that's where you might be able to go up to 16 dwelling

units on those sites.

We want to consider this as part of the residential capacity

work because of our housing shortages,

these mandates from the state to encourage higher density

in these areas.

And some preliminary analysis does

reveal that some RN areas usually around downtown already exceed the eight

dwelling unit per acre and lastly state laws permit this already so we want to

sort of find that alignment with the state laws and are the way that

residential neighborhood is currently written so our approach is to update the

language in the general plan allow for the up to 16 dwelling units per acre and

not have that prevailing density requirement.

And I think, yeah, that is it for this slide,

for this strategy.

So clarification on that.

So I think sometimes people will point out, they'll say,

hey, look at this development that was built decades ago

and its architectural style really fits in.

It feels like single family home.

But I believe the ability to control architectural style

is no longer allowed.

And so whatever new developments would come in

may not be like those.

Is that correct?

It is very limited now with new state laws.

Our design guidelines have to be very objective.

And I think with those kinds of things,

they're usually subjective.

Thank you.

Is there a reason why we're not considering greater density in those areas than what can

already basically exist?

Our analysis is that 16 could exist now with state law, so that's why our hope is just

to align it in that way.

Right.

I'm asking why not go a little bit further?

Maybe not necessarily everywhere even, but is it possible to look beyond that?

This is where this sort of overlaps with the missing middle conversation.

This is really a broad approach on the residential neighborhood designation on taking it to 16

and then kind of going back to the other strategy around missing middle.

That would sort of look and be a little bit more nuanced of where maybe it goes above the 16

or where there's some difference.

Yeah, they're separate but related.

Okay, thank you.

GP amendments.

Okay, so this last strategy is what we're calling targeted general plan amendments.

Again, these are targeted rather than a citywide change to increase residential capacity.

capacity. We are evaluating three types and designations essentially of sites throughout

the city, neighborhood community commercial, mixed use commercial, and public quasi public.

So the first set of sites that we're calling just generally commercial sites, these are

parcels that we've identified that have long-standing residential uses. They've been identified

as part of the SB 1333 rezoning project.

Several years ago, we started this process

where we had to align our general plan and the zoning maps.

And we found that there's sites that, for example,

have neighborhood community designation and they their apartments

or single family homes, and they've been such uses for

decades and before this general plan and before the general plan,

the 2020 general plan.

And seeing as residential uses rarely convert to commercial,

we figure this is an opportunity to continue

with the residential use and just allow

for housing on those sites.

And we did preliminary analysis that

shows there's roughly 80 parcels in this bucket of work,

and it could yield 500 units.

And that's just that sort of very basic back of the envelope

math of density times the acreage of those parcels.

The next site, the next candidate sites are mixed use commercial sites.

So mixed use commercial is a designation that allows densities up to 15 dwelling units per

acre and has a minimum floor area ratio for commercial uses of 0.25 or 0.5 in the mixed

use context.

This is different from mixed-use neighborhood or urban residential, transit residential,

in that it requires commercial.

The idea was that the emphasis would be more towards commercial.

You might have an office and then maybe a few units.

The focus, again, is more of a commercial use.

However, since the adoption of the general plan, there has been a change in the context

and landscape of these sites and projects that come forward where, for one, we really

don't see this type of mixed use viable in San Jose where the majority, again, is commercial

with a little bit of housing.

Secondly, density bonus law does allow projects to essentially concession their way out of

the commercial requirement.

We've seen several projects, you know, maybe they were required that .25 or .5 and they're

providing 0.1 or just like very minimal commercial uses on the ground floor with lots of housing.

And then lastly, the council adopted a general plan policy H-2.1 that specifies that 100%

affordable projects no longer have to provide for commercial uses. This strategy also aligns with

the direction we received from the March budget message for this scope of work, which is to

eliminate ground floor commercial requirements for housing developments that are not on vibrant

business corridors.

Seems like we still receive a lot of draft drawings of commercial operations

underneath residential units though.

Yeah.

they reduce or come back and change and they're not that viable. The next set of sites that we're

looking at are PQP sites, public quasi-public. So these are where you find usually schools,

corporation yards, daycare centers, private community gathering facilities, including those

for religious assembly. This designation currently supports 100% affordable housing,

so long as 25% of those units are reserved for permanent supportive housing.

And I just want to note that we do have a general plan policy, LU-1.9,

that very strongly supports the preservation of PQP lands.

During, I think, the last general plan, maybe before that,

we just saw a lot of conversion of public quasi-public lands to other uses,

either for assembly uses or residential uses.

And so there was that push during the general plan 2040

to preserve these lands again so that we have spaces

for religious assembly or community gathering facilities

and also to reduce potential conversion of employment lands.

So we have those three sort of buckets of sites

and then what we're doing with each of them

is we develop criteria.

So we're looking at, we will look at the existing use

of these parcels and their long-term viability.

You know, again, the NCC sites with housing,

we sort of know it's very unlikely

that it would convert from a residential use

to a commercial use.

We are considering parcel size and location.

Are these near services?

Are they near already residential uses, industrial uses?

We definitely don't want to mix those.

We're looking at proximity to transit and services.

And then in terms of public, quasi-public,

we have had discussions on how we can implement

these changes and still retain some type of community benefit.

Many of the PQP inquiries that we get

are from schools and churches, and schools in particular,

and I think that there's interest from the community

to maintain open space, or if we convert it

to be affordable housing, those types of community benefits.

So we're still sort of thinking through how we can implement

that change.

And our potential approach is designate,

redesignate these sites with either residential use,

like transit residential, urban residential,

mixed use neighborhoods, something that would allow

for housing in the future.

And we want to evaluate the mixed use commercial requirements

as well as redesignate those selective public,

quasi-public sites.

I will say part of the analysis here too,

especially with the public, quasi-public sites,

is to see where there's overlap with SB 79,

because then they can just move forward under that state law.

So SB 79 is everywhere in our work.

And that's it for our strategies.

Okay, have you guys done yet an estimation of how much of the city's single family zoning

these changes represent in percentage?

No, we haven't, but we will.

Because it doesn't look like very much, right?

For, I mean, RN is single family zoning.

That's most of the city.

The increase in density.

okay what i'm saying is that how much the changes that you're putting forward what percentage of all

of the available single family zoning do those changes represent

well we're recommending all of oh you're okay i thought you couldn't be saying that

yeah oh oh to go up to 16 dwelling units at least citywide regardless of buses oh okay

Okay, fantastic.

I won't say that.

Okay.

Then the other question is,

and I mentioned this to you earlier,

at least in these opportunity zones

or these growth areas,

I think it'd be very helpful to do an overlay

of previously or currently redlined communities

just to examine at least, again,

the equity that we should be considering when we do this

understand if we're going to reinforce red lines or what we actually might be

doing we can do that

Commissioner Casey thank you chair I just wanted to give one suggestion and I

respect Commissioner Young's suggestion oh I suggest I respect Commissioner Young

suggestion to go six blocks in if there's a way to do layered because I

I'd rather see thoughtful development, not a larger complex six blocks in and one that's only two blocks in where it's kind of willy-nilly.

If there's a way to do layers, like if we do two blocks in, we get to this target.

If we do three blocks, I don't want to overdo it.

You figure out the right categories there and not go further than we need to initially, maybe in the next four-year plan or something we do.

but I just it's understandable as you go down Bascom and things like that you're

seeing the larger dwellings on the main street and people can kind of come to

terms with that yes it impacts the neighborhood but it's that main street

if you suddenly put that up six blocks in and there's nothing in between those

two I think that definitely has more of an impact on the neighborhood feel so if

we can kind of do it in layers maybe and go to the point that we need to go to

One question.

Additional.

To the last point that was just made,

that would be in areas that would be non-SB79

because SB79 would allow you to do the tallest,

densest thing at a half mile, 0.49 miles,

versus what he's mentioning.

That's where city still has discretion.

That's correct.

Yes.

One of the questions I have is,

I know some of the folks on city council

are looking at public, quasi-public land

to build housing on.

when we're thinking about using schools and we're projecting out in the future

the number of children in schools that we're going to need how far in the

future are we projecting I'm on the board of a school and I see and our

numbers show almost a third of the number of students in the city or in the

county the number of students in the county shrinking by almost a third over

the next 10 years but then coming back up after that and that's according to

the state's Office of Economic Development so when we're projecting how

many schools we're going to need in the future how long are we projecting out in

the future and is that something we are doing or are we thinking about that I

mean I think that information is something we should consider when we do

our large sort of general plan update we do those types of projections that type

of analysis informs the land uses that then we eventually do but I think for

this process we would want to consider some of that information that you're

sharing but I don't know how because we're also looking specifically for the

the PQP work it's not going to be all PQP sites it'll be select sites but we

could consider the information from the state and I also think the check point

as the number of students dips you're going to see more inter-district

transfers to schools on the west side of the city and more closures on the east

side of the city so that might be something we want to consider being

cognizant of as we build on PQP land

Commissioner Young yeah chair

Actually, I'd like to just talk about one brief thing on PCP and then I have a question.

So in regards to trying to preserve PCP facilities,

I know churches in particular are downsizing a lot.

and they have a lot of land usually

and what many of the churches are trying to do

is reduce their footprint

and take those lease or whatever they have

to put into their services to their community.

So from that standpoint,

I would hate to see us have a policy

that would discourage that

because I think that is kind of the future

of faith-based communities

that they tend to not put as much money and effort into their buildings and more into their people.

So I would hate to discourage that.

The other thought I had is if the desire is to maintain places where people can meet and get together,

perhaps a PCB could be converted if it had a community room available,

much like the community rooms we have in libraries.

to provide a meeting place for folks.

Because I think the world we're in now

and looking forward, the amount of times

that we're gonna have a large amount of people together

in one place is probably gonna reduce.

But I think small group or medium group settings

like this will be continuing.

So just a thought there.

And then Chair, I just have a scheduling question.

Would it be possible to have the public comment now

and then let us come back to commissioner comments?

I don't see a problem with that.

But sure, we have public comments scheduled for 7.55,

and we're almost there.

Yeah.

But if that would be OK, I'd like to do that.

Any objections from other commissioners?

Times aren't on the public agenda, right?

like public comments at 7.55 p.m.

I don't think so.

Okay.

All right.

Someone might just show it up at that time.

All right.

So it is on the agenda, but I feel like public comments

is probably going to go until at least 7.55,

so I think we're all right.

All right.

Let's see.

I have a few cards right now, but as a reminder,

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

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

And as I mentioned, the commissioners can respond to questions or request staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting.

So let's start with Robert Swierk representing the VTA.

VTA.

Hello.

Good evening, members of the task force, city staff.

My name is Robert Zwerg.

I'm a principal planner at PTA in the planning division.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to receive our comments, and thank you very much to city

staff for taking time the last couple of months to talk through some of these issues.

We recognize, for instance, some of these challenges of SB 79 being introduced very

late into this planning process.

We appreciate the collaboration.

I wanted to just provide a couple highlights of the letter that we sent to city staff just

before the holidays, which was included in the packet.

One is just, you know, in principle, I wanted to emphasize the importance of streamlining

development, transit-oriented development near both rail stations, and we're happy to

see actually a discussion of increasing housing capacity near high-quality bus corridors.

We are a little bit concerned about the timing of the urban village planning process, just

that the consolidation that was discussed at one of the last task force meetings may not

move along the urban village planning as much as quickly as it needs to go so we recommended in our

letter a way of just continuing to consolidate the transit urban village plans basically maybe into

three overall plans we are glad to see the increase in housing capacity that was mentioned in the

slides today and there was discussion previously of maybe a need to look at the jobs to employed

residence ratio for the city and encourage the city to consider that, we recognize that

there's trade-offs of housing capacity as well as economic sustainability, fiscal sustainability

for the city.

And I just wanted to mention, we're still kind of digesting what was presented today,

but as I said, we think you're certainly going in the right direction looking at residential

capacity near high-quality bus corridors and kind of to the point about will these be here,

you know will this frequency be here if you looked at our transit maps 30 years

ago if you looked at them and 2008 when we did a redesign 2019 when we did a

reason I redesign you would see frequent transit along the Alameda you

know along King Road Winchester 10th and 11th and so forth so these are

corridors that are proven and we're committed to thank you very much

All right, let's move on.

Robert Wood to speak about residential capacity,

and then I think we will get to the folks from 95128.

I just want to mention that it seems to me

that there's a little bit of a difference

between what we're studying when we talk

about what seems to be nominal capacity,

what the planning people are able to report

in their housing element proposal versus what the statute talks about,

which is realistic development capacity.

We've seen a lot since the adoption of the 2011 general plan

of failure to get development in the places where the city wanted development,

and therefore that seems to be a big driver in the shortfall of housing.

So I'm disappointed in how marginal the changes are, with the possible exception of the move

to 16 years per acre in residential zones.

As a representative of teachers and students, it feels like we need bigger changes than

seem to be on the agenda so far.

Thank you.

All right.

All right. We'll have Jeff Santuca, followed by Ben White and Dolores Nelson.

So it's Jeff Santucci.

Santucci.

So I'm actually a construction manager for housing, but here we are trying to recommend urban residential, I think, for the Winchester neighborhood.

and I'm really curious is that the city of San Jose

on that property or on that corridor,

which is borders to Santa Clara,

just put in a pedestrian flags and safety ballers,

just a block of North of this,

right smack in the middle of this corridor here.

And curious if there's been any coordination

with Santa Clara on this,

because this is a pilot program they put in.

I don't know if there's any coordination

to find out what their results are on that,

because it seemed to be a little bit too proactive,

or not proactive, if we haven't discussed with them,

and they're still looking at safety programs

that we already know we have a problem there.

We just put up bollards, we've got a community center,

and it just doesn't seem,

And we're holding yellow flags to try to get across the street.

So that's a concern to that there.

I don't know if the committee looked at that first.

If it had any discussion.

And without that discussion, I would think the Winchester Corridor wouldn't even be a valuable place to even look at.

Because we already know we have a traffic problem and a pedestrian problem there.

and it seems that that corridor that you're proposing there is 300 residential units and

only like six or eight commercial units there so it seems kind of odd that we'd be looking at that

because i don't think that there's going to be enough residential single-family residentials

they're going to leave just for commercial.

I mean, it's going to be a few high-rises,

all they're going to be in that area.

I don't think it's a viable look at that

when you're only talking a block deep.

That's fine. Thank you.

There we go.

Can I just add that we haven't actually proposed

specific wind-use civilizations for those new growth areas yet,

so not necessarily urban or residential in that area.

It could be something like a mixed-use neighborhood

or a new land use designation that we're looking at that would be between residential neighborhood

and UC and Rd. So we haven't made that decision yet.

All right. If you could please pay attention to the time, I cannot see the clock from where I'm sitting.

Hello. My name is Ben White. I live in the Winchester Boulevard corridor.

One of the commissioners mentioned during the earlier discussion

and that reowning doesn't affect quality of life for existing homeowners or existing residents.

I wanted to say that I disagree with that.

I'm going to assert that increased density leads to increased littering in people's front yards,

increased noise levels, and my impression is increased levels of petty crime as well.

So for that reason, I am opposed to changing the zoning in the Winchester Boulevard corridor.

And I think I'll make up for the speaker who went slightly over.

I'll end it there.

Thank you.

All right, next we'll have, let's see, Lindy Hayes, Daniel Mai, and Kevin Hittleman.

Good evening, folks.

My name is Lindy Hayes.

I'm with Concerned Cori Neighbors.

You will remember us from last year with the fight over the 17th story apartment building

at Winchester and Heading.

We are here from the Cori neighborhood.

Raise your hand, folks, if you're here from Cori.

We are here because we are concerned about the future of that piece of land.

We are also concerned now about our neighborhood because the Winchester

corridor, that's us between Forrest and Newhall.

If you go two blocks down, that's half of our neighborhood that goes to Monroe.

We are here to recommend that that piece of land and that corridor,

if you're going to rezone it, it'd be mixed use neighborhood. That is the most consistent with

what is already there and it fits with what is already in place along that corridor. Now,

I know you, Commissioner, are concerned about the demographics and the racial makeup of the

neighborhood. On my block alone, one third of the homeowners are from other countries. Japan,

China, Philippines, Mexico, Pakistan, and India.

So this is something we already have

and we'd like to be able to hang on to it.

Again, we are recommending if you're gonna rezone,

if you're gonna make us different,

make it mixed use neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you and we also appreciate the letters

that you sent we did read them before uh coming to this meeting yes commissioner

how different would be that the mixed use zoning to

you know just residential rezoning across the city how much different would that be

well mixed-use neighborhood allows up to 30 dwelling units per acre and if we do the our

what we're proposing 16 dwelling units per acre for residential neighborhood

it's almost twice roughly you guys know the height 30 45 feet it's pretty similar

45 yeah it's about 30 between 35 and 45 feet the difference would be between rn and mixed

use neighborhood so not a lot of not a major jump i don't think from rn to mun

it's probably more in line too with what can already be done with SB 9 so it's

gonna be more in line with what can already be done under state law

significant difference

all right

Ms. Nelson

My name is Delores Nelson.

I'm here with the Corrie Neighborhood Group.

Also pro-growth, but pro-growth in a smart way

and in a respectful way and for fixed use as well.

I have lived in Corrie for 30 years,

and I'm here to urge you to maintain guidelines

of some of the general plan.

But my primary concern with this area is specifically

specifically for our most vulnerable residents

and our road users.

The current zoning is there.

We have a senior citizen center

and a senior living facility on the block.

The elderly residents must navigate intersections

that are already dangerously congested,

adding high density.

Residential development will exponentially increase

the vehicle volume on this intersection.

And they face increased risk of simply crossing the street.

And as mentioned earlier,

There's just recently been bollards put in

and flags put in to try to create safety

for these crossings.

Bicyclists at this intersection are also being affected.

I'm also one of them.

Based on the backed up traffic,

I've personally witnessed cyclists forced

into unsafe positions as vehicles jockey for space

in the intersection of heading and Winchester.

Increased density means more vehicles at this intersection

resulting in more conflicts between cyclists

and frustrated drivers.

There is also the issue of emergency response times.

when I sit through two full lights of cycles

just to make a turn at heading in Winchester,

which happens regularly during evening commutes

and especially during the holidays,

I think about ambulances trying to reach our senior residents.

Every minute of delay in gridlock

could be the difference between life and death

for someone in emergency.

While traffic studies often rely on average car counts,

they fail to capture the reality

that residents already experiencing daily

during the peak commute and the severe holiday congestion

being near Valley Fair.

For me and many, it's about safety, emergency access,

and protecting our most vulnerable neighbors.

Before recommending any zoning change, I urge,

which was mentioned that they haven't been evaluated yet,

but I urge you to require a comprehensive traffic study

to examine peak commute times

and holiday traffic conditions given the mall,

evaluate the impact of existing bike lanes,

pedestrian safety at the intersections,

assess emergency vehicle response times,

and address the parking shortage

that would result in increased density.

Again, thank you.

Please keep our neighborhoods safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ken Hittleman and Daniel Mai.

Hi, my name is Ken.

And my main thing that I wanted to mention was I noticed

on the public outreach slide that you guys presented

in the stakeholder groups, a big absence of neighborhood

associations from that list.

And I think that is a big omission.

and I would invite you to contact neighborhood associations.

There's a number of people here from the Cory neighborhood,

members of the Cory Neighborhood Association.

We often, you know, quarterly have meetings,

and we would be happy probably to have people like you

come and talk.

Many of you have actually talked to them with other topics.

Please reach out to people on that,

and I'm happy to put you in contact

with the Cory Neighborhood Association

if you're looking to do that.

On a personal level, I would highly agree

with the recommendation for mixed use neighborhood

for the Winchester neighborhood corridor.

And I won't go into the details, save on time,

but just please read the comments that were posted

to the group and what people have been saying.

Thank you very much.

I don't have a comment.

My name is Daniel Mai.

I'm the owner of a company, NovoTech, over at East Bay.

We are a company that builds telecom infrastructure.

We like to work with the city as well as real estate,

multi-units real estate developer,

making internet affordable for the tenants and residents.

And so my question here is that I noticed

during your presentation you have several locations

that is in terms of growth.

And I just wanna know where could I find those locations?

I mean, in your area, the planning department,

where do I find those developers in those areas in terms of growth-wise?

So I maybe have the opportunity to work with them

to lower the resident internet costs.

Were the developers in the growth areas

that were pointed out in the presentation today?

That's correct.

They haven't been identified yet.

No.

So the maps only show areas that we would like to plan for growth,

but I think we have a map of all active planning permits on our website and it

usually has like project file information and then you can find the

contact for each project Jessica

Hello everyone.

I'm just trying to join the community and see, you know, understand the project a little

better.

So I live in the Cory neighborhood, just like the majority of the people here.

And then, you know, I guess my question is, you know, city is or county has supported

for building more housing.

So I live in the Cory neighborhood for almost 20 years

and then I live right behind the building of the Winchester.

It is the most quiet place that I ever had.

And then the two story building currently was abandoned

but at that time I can see when people is working

during the day that I'm able to see

that they are coming out taking a break.

So what does the city stand for

if you're building a high tower

and then you have people living there 24 seven,

what is my privacy is going to look like?

And what is my quiet neighborhood is going to look like?

And also we have a lot of neighborhood

that they have the solar system on the roof.

And if your building is very high,

I don't think they're gonna get the power

and worth their money for the investments.

So how is the city stands on that point?

So we haven't looked at the specific general plan designations that we might put in that

area, but we do look at those kind of contextual cues about like what makes sense for the area.

So you know something like MUN, it doesn't have a very different height than what is

already existing there.

Some of the higher ones like urban residential does go up to 125 feet, but we haven't made

any decisions yet on that unlike what kind of designations would go in those

areas and we would look at the context of the areas to determine what would be

the best fit yeah so I had my neighborhood that they built a drug and

alcohol rehab so they had like 40 people living in our house right now okay so

building another house so I have a left side has a place now leaving 40 people

and I'm going to have another place living behind me for like 500 units.

So please consider how much impact this is going to be in the neighborhood.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And then somebody in your neighborhood is also growing a garden, I believe,

which may be disrupted by a 17-story building.

Can we get some clarification on whether or not the 17-story building is moving forward or not?

It was denied at the early consideration.

consideration I mean the developer is still interested in doing something on

the site so I think they've met with the neighborhood and they've met with us but

that application was denied so they have to do come up with another and if it's

rezoned and that's not going to happen right I'm sorry there if we you know

this area is rezoned I mean yeah if we haven't we haven't decided yet but I

I think depending on what designation we propose

and if council approves it,

then they can come in with a project

that meets those densities.

That would meet the densities

that the Corrie neighborhood is worried about?

I think they're trying to understand whether or not

there's still enough chance for a 17 story building

to go in there, is that about right?

Yeah, the developer has shared their new project,

if you wanna call that,

they said they would go up to or their proposals eight stories um we have not yet discussed what

what land use designation we would want to recommend on that site it's currently ncc

we're hearing the neighborhood would prefer something like mixed-use neighborhood you

wouldn't be able to get eight stories with mixed-use neighborhood just um so we're still

evaluating what would make sense on that site and on that corridor okay chair per the city council's

direction after they said no to the 713 story building they asked staff in the

general plan to review the parcel to say what should it be and so I think that's

what staffs gonna come up with and with the quarry residents who obviously want

to be involved in that discussion or have some idea of what it is but no 17

Thank You Commissioner Olivero Kelly you're already

Kelly Arardi, Director of Entitlements with VCI.

I was sitting in the back of the room just to watch everything,

and we've been watching this whole process the whole time,

and really appreciate staff's work on kind of uncovering

all possibilities and opening up a really good dialogue at the same.

And you are correct, we were early denied for our previous project,

and we have been having dialogue with stakeholders

in the community and we continue to work with the community

and staff to come up with something

that hopefully works for everybody.

But again, and as Commissioner Perry Luigi said,

the council directed staff to take a look

at this parcel in this process.

And I think it's great that the community showed up

and you're getting input from them.

And we're still here trying to thread the needle

and trying to provide needed housing in this update

and some meaningful amount of housing.

And I think given what's happened with SB 79,

and I think the city kind of dodged a bullet on that

because there was a tier three consideration

SB 79 which would have taken into account these projects but that was dropped at the last second

as I as I understand so I think it's it's very uh forward-thinking of staff to kind of look at these

potential growth areas and really kind of run out what works what doesn't and uh do what you call

flexible would you call it flexible forget the word that you said maybe

flexible density exploring that so again we're here we're listening and we'll

continue to work with people and understand it's a process thank you

thank you chair if I can just we wanted to respond to the comment can I think

Thank you, Ken.

On not seeing neighborhood associations

on the stakeholder list,

and I probably should have used a different word,

but these were groups that during the,

when council adopted the scope of work,

they sort of listed, they named certain advocacy groups

or nonprofits that we should reach out to and talk to.

However, we are open to attending,

and we have attended the larger council district

neighborhood groups,

like the District 1 Leadership Group.

And just given the capacities, staff resources

that were stretched very thin,

we could go to those larger ones,

at least try to meet a few more during this process.

We do have our open houses, as we mentioned,

that we're planning for soon,

that we want to get residents

and neighborhood folks to come out to.

I'm actually the vice president of the D2 NLC.

And I know Commissioner Olverio is very active as well,

So very important for us also.

And we appreciate your work.

With that, I'll turn it over to the commissioners.

Go right ahead.

What order do you want to go?

Commissioner Oliveira.

Okay.

On the topic of neighborhood associations, yeah, I mean, I think with some of the proposals,

you do want to hear from these single-family home neighborhoods.

If it's not enough time for staff to do that, then you've got to ask the council members

to make sure that those neighborhood associations are fully notified

and they go to those central events that you have planned.

And then it's on them to understand what might be happening

and for them to show up if you're trying to minimize your workload,

which I totally get.

Other two questions or things.

One, in tomorrow's news, we'll see Apple has finally occupied

a building on Orchard Parkway,

and we always have this jobs-housing imbalance.

That building was vacant for 10 years.

So the jobs housing balance is still terrible and still has to be remedied.

Otherwise, we don't have money, revenue, to pay for city services for the residents.

And my final thing is, where are we on the water district's evaluation of future population

growth and what may be proposed in the new general plan?

Because always the question is, what's the water capacity?

And so I'll just take the only response I would like to see is on the water capacity,

if that's all right, if you have any direction there.

Yeah, so during the environmental review, there'll be an assessment of water supply.

So that's when that's looked at.

And that'll be after this?

That's right, yeah.

Commissioner Young?

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for staff. So

Actually first, thank you to everyone who came out

Really appreciate it. Appreciate your input very much. That's why I wanted to hear from you before we started talking again

question for staff

The mixed-use neighborhood

designation and then what is the next

Denser one up from that that you folks might be thinking of in this update

Well, if we're talking about density, technically the mixed-use commercial is the next highest density at 50 dwelling units per acre,

but that requires commercial, like we talked about.

So it would always have to be in a mixed-use context if you were going to do residential.

The next highest designation is urban residential, which has a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre

and a maximum of 95 dwelling units per acre.

Okay.

so

For for me to try and simplify it so I can understand what is the difference in height?

So for example mixed-use neighborhood, we're talking normally three to five-story buildings. Is that?

Correct mixed-use neighbor I had I think goes up to like 45 feet so yeah

That's probably four stories

Maybe five and then the next the next one up that you mentioned what would?

Mixed-use commercial goes up to I think 85 feet which is about

Six or seven six or seven stories, right again those ones

Yeah, ten feet per story, right?

Would you folks be proposing anything higher than that higher density than that? It's in this general plan update. I

Mean, I don't want to put some of them are very specific targeted changes

So it may be I think the broader changes were anticipated to be on the lower side

so okay mixed-use neighborhood or maybe even a new land-use designation between

residential neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood

We haven't really quite you know looked at that yet

But I think it's more towards the smaller end except for maybe some of those targeted ones more specific site-by-site ones

okay just to add to I think generally and this is something we want to look at

more but generally where we would recommend kind of those types of heights

it's already kind of been granted through SB 79 so I that I think you know that

those go up to heights up to 160 feet and so yeah they're by transit that's

typically where we have our densest designation transit residential so in

terms of where we're looking at kind of beyond those areas I don't know that we

would be proposing those that level of height or intensity okay I the reason

I'm asking the question is you know I know there's a lot of concern from folks

on height you know several many of the emails we we saw the term towers by

entitlement a tower to me is a high-rise high-rise you're talking ten stories or

more I'm not sure that's the direction this task force is going in so I guess

I would like to if we're talking about a difference between a three to five

story building and a seven to nine story building it's certainly a difference but

it's not it's not a tower but that generally be correct what I said yes I

would just say that we we can bring more of that analysis at the April meeting

and start talking more about heights and densities for specific areas okay okay great

chair i have a process question and i'm not sure the best way to figure this out but it's good to

discuss which is this um i'm i'm sure that all the 10 11 of us have a different idea maybe of how much

more density we should have

How what process are we going to use to try and give some kind of consensus to the staff?

You know in a if we're at a planning Commission meeting we would take a vote, right?

I I don't think that's the process here, and I'm not proposing it. I'm I'm saying is there a way we could

Either give a consensus or

To the staff because their staff's gonna hear a lot of different opinions here

Mine included

So I'll stop with that. I'm not

Just just a question staff will come back with a recommendation and then

Cut that further and agreed to send that on to City Council

But

Okay, okay, but let me step in here. I don't think that's a good process

I really don't to wait until the final meeting and then vote up or down. That's

I don't think that's the best way of doing things.

I think it would be better for us to come to some kind of consensus

before that final hour when we have to vote it up or down.

That's all I'm saying.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a more nuanced vote than up or down

on what staff's recommendation.

But, yeah.

Through the chair, I just checked with city attorney as well.

It's okay if we want to do a straw poll,

like just to understand how many folks are comfortable on the commission with going two blocks deep.

Because we also have to do some analysis, the parcel-specific analysis, that we'll bring back on April 1st.

So it would be helpful to understand where this task force lies in terms of how deep or how much further you would like to go.

or as each commissioner goes through their comments,

perhaps you could indicate whether you prefer to stay

to block deep analysis on the expanded growth areas

or would like to go further as Commissioner Young was recommended.

That could be another option as well.

Would that be a straw poll tonight?

Or would this be at the next meeting?

I think right now is a fair time.

I don't think we need to get too detailed, like in terms of two blocks versus six blocks,

but I think generally if we can get a sense if commissioners are comfortable with the two blocks

or if they feel that more is needed, that would be really helpful to know.

If I can interject, we can do the analysis for both two blocks and six blocks.

So if that satisfies the commission, we'll bring back both for April.

Okay, great.

I'm gonna say one more thing and shut up which is I'd really like the other

Commissioners to put their two cents in on this we've got some time left so I

would just encourage you to do so thanks okay my two cents and a nickel I'm

uncomfortable even suggest that without further analysis because I want to be

clear on potential negative outcomes that we are not seeing so the analysis I

I think is important to me.

I don't like it being the last day.

I completely agree with you on that.

But the analysis is key.

And I also think, I think I said this here before,

I think sometimes we're too prescriptive.

And maybe we need to consider a set of tools

based on market conditions that allow us more flexibility

so that we are not doing what we seem to do a lot,

which is drive a car with either a gas pedal or a brake.

We don't have levers to move in different directions

when the market moves in different directions.

Because when it comes right down to it,

no matter what we say here,

the market will tell us what's gonna happen.

If the market says, no 17 story building in a community

because the absorption rate's gonna be too low anyway,

that's what's gonna happen, like it or not.

So it would be nice if we could have,

really think more creatively about a set of tools,

not just a blunt instrument.

I know that's, I don't know how much time

you have in your days to imagine,

but I think maybe a little imagination might be helpful.

I think generally as planners we agree with that concept of flexibility I think

where we've become increasingly constrained is with state law especially

as it pertains to housing is we have to be objective in the criteria standards

we apply and in that objectivity creates it doesn't allow for that flexibility

that you're asking for and so we have to set these clear standards and criteria

and it's also really hard if we kind of increase density

or go higher for us to kind of go backwards

if we decide we've went too far.

So it's sort of, it's one directional

and it has to be very clear and straight.

So I mean, I think generally, like I said,

you know, that's how, you know,

cities have approached zoning in the past,

but all of that sort of changed in the context

of state law in the last five years.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I get that part, but you have places like Texas

where you do what you please.

And to some extent it works.

It's not probably the most well-designed place.

Well, Dallas is horrifying, but it's not.

But still, they can still have growth in periods, for example,

Seattle has growth in periods where other cities don't.

Chicago has growth in periods where other cities don't.

I think they have some more flexibility in terms of land use and things.

I think it would be like the Fed saying, well, you know, the economy is the economy, and we have to deal with it.

That's not how it works.

We have tools.

We use those tools incrementally to make adjustments.

Well, not this president, but previously.

So that we can sometimes come in for a soft landing instead of hitting the ground with a thud.

I think it's possible.

I know that you're constrained

but it's possible if we believe it is

and we work towards more solutions like that

it's going to take time

I'm not saying do this tomorrow

I'm saying let's start now

and really start making some changes

that make it easier

so we don't have feast or famine markets

like we have had for a couple of generations here

Commissioner Borosio.

Thank you.

I'm looking at slide or page 20 and I'm just curious,

could you remind us a quarter of a mile would be roughly how

many blocks and half a mile would be roughly how many blocks?

I'm looking at our example on SB 79.

I don't know exactly how many blocks, but I can tell you in that for the Snell, half

a mile appears to be, well, depends how you measure it.

The Snell one on page?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Our friends at Google say it's roughly eight to ten blocks, half a mile.

And I think it depends if you have like cul-de-sacs or sort of the street grid, if that's helpful.

Okay.

Well, when we're talking about two blocks deep or six blocks deep, doesn't SB 79 just

include that and eight to ten sb 79 is a larger buffer than what we've presented here

for the new growth areas okay so the analysis that's being requested

why is it stopping two to two to eight or two to six why not

10 since that's sort of what s sb 79 is going to push us towards

Some of these areas are not by the transit stations, so the growth areas, right?

Yes.

So it's sort of looking at that, the gradient, right?

These are not, some of the growth areas are actually, they do overlap with SB 79, so we'll

have to come back and maybe carve those out and not do anything with those.

But we are trying to be thoughtful in our approach, but at the same time, sort of, I guess, in

way pushing the envelope here and being as expensive as we can but we appreciate through

that feedback that two is not enough for us or at least i'm hearing that from several people and we

want to look deeper and the idea right now is just an analyzing that's right looking at this so we can

come back and present that data and have that information maybe we end up with two we don't

know but we're happy to bring back that that feedback and that analysis right on and

And question on, does the city keep information around when new development comes in and private citizens buy property,

do we know how many of the owners live in those homes versus it's their second home, it's investment, it's being leased out for rent?

We don't directly have comprehensive data in that.

You know, I know this has come up before and there is some data available from like the

assessor's office depending if they claim the homeowner's exemption or not.

But it can be a difficult question to answer.

I know that's come up in other communities, right, nationwide in terms of who owns the

homes and how they're being utilized.

I don't know that we have a great source of that information.

It's out there, but it's sort of disjointed in terms of what data and where it's at and

what it tells us.

Right on.

Commissioner Borossio, just a moment ago, were you asking whether or not staff should

explore eight to ten blocks?

No, no, no, no, no.

I was just, it was a clarifying question.

Okay.

I was looking at the circles, and I was just curious about the two to six, but it looks

like half a mile includes more than that.

So I was just getting clarity about where we were when it comes to two to six in comparison

to the half mile circles.

I'll just add to that.

Some of these areas, they may have stopped where they're stopping to because there's

other constraints.

Maybe it's like a very large commercial area next to it and we don't want to change anything there or

You know like we've mentioned some of these are near historic areas. So maybe those historic areas. We don't want to change at all

You know, we will

View those, you know some of them too. Maybe it's like

Guadalupe Gardens, which is you know, you can't build residential because it's in the airport influence area

You know, so some of there's other constraints that kind of can prevent being more than say two blocks

But I mean we're definitely just kind of at a starting point. So you know if we want to look further we can definitely still look further

Thank you

And the only reason I ask about that is because I think

the

the promise of more more homes

to

You know to bring in more residents to bring in you know young families into the neighborhood. It would be good to see

how many of

the properties being sold are going towards first-time owners, right? Going towards people

who we intend, and I think the city intends, to give opportunity for young families, first-time

homeowners. So if the city could keep track of that, I think that would allow, you know,

nonprofits or grants or just entities to provide, even banks, loan towards people who are interested

to buy homes but unfortunately are priced out because investors or people with homes

already are just pricing them out, doing cash-only offers and stuff like that.

I'll end with this. The PQP lands. We may be over relying on that. Yes, every school district I've worked in, and I've worked in five in Santa Clara County, all experiencing declining enrollment.

but the homes still exist and if we bring in if we put the homes on top of schools

then we just increase the capacity and potential for maybe 30 30 years later and where are those

kids going to go right so I think the demographic the demographers at at the city level no at the

school level really need to take into account potential economic shifts because once the

school sells a land like Cupertino and then kids come back because the homes are still

there the potential of the community to absorb families back doesn't go away so so the dip may

be okay so in this pocket of attendance area 15 percent have children from four

to 18 and that's you know I mean don't quote me on that but it's roughly 15

percent maybe even 10 or 12 sure it dips to 9 and that's where we see the

clanging enrollment but the homes don't go away so it could go up to 20 but again

if we see that surge where are they gonna go if we just built over a school

So I would say schools have regretted selling land because 20 years later people come back.

I know right now there's a lot of layoffs so we are seeing a lot of people that were

brought into the Silicon Valley with the promise of a job leaving.

But who knows what the next 15, 20 years may bring.

and school districts may regret selling lands.

So I don't know how much pressure they feel

from the city wanting their lands,

but I would suspect that we should be friendly

to our districts and not make them feel

like their lands are being poached.

I'll just add that it's been interest

from school districts and school district representatives

to convert, it's not the city wanting to.

to convert these lands.

So it's more what we're hearing from folks.

Grove school districts

survived off selling schools.

Right, but it's one time money, right?

Like you get, say in Barriessa, when they sold,

when the family sold the flea market,

the district got I think three acres or five acres.

And they sold the district through the board

and sold the potential of a school being there.

And Vinci Park is probably the only school west of the 680,

and they would benefit from another school.

And now they're leasing out a district office off of Brokaw.

So I think once you sell one-time money, it goes away real fast,

especially with the increase of salaries, materials, curriculum, and stuff like that.

So it's not a sustainable model.

it does it does sustain a district for a little bit but not for the long run yeah

I think Oh gross sold Calero and that that money is running out in 2027 if I'm

not mistaken and that'll cost them four million dollars per year so in a hundred

and sixty million dollar budget four million per year is going to really

hurt that district so I agree and I'm glad you're here Commissioner Borosio

Commissioner Cantrell. Yeah actually I think we forget a rising tide lifts all

boats and you're absolutely right. I wanted to first say actually I didn't

properly address the fact that you did create a new tool that could make a

significant difference in the rezoning. That is allowing the market to perform

as it will within the constraints of what people are willing to live with and

And I think that that's a very good set of tools.

And I agree with you, Commissioner Borossil,

that the schools should be very careful,

because that rezoning will likely be a rising tide

in the number of families who can live in those communities.

So they should think with caution.

But now that we've done this, they

can project increase in populations that are really

generally a 20-year cycle.

That makes sense.

And I think you're absolutely right.

And I hope they'll really consider that, given these changes,

because that's an important thing for them to consider.

Commissioner Bondal.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick question on strategy three.

I know the current policy is to allow 16 dwelling units

per acre, but only in a limited circumstance

when the prevailing density is to be met.

And the potential approach is we allow up to 16,

but eliminating the prevailing units,

the prevailing density to be met.

So did we look past the number 16

or is that kind of what we just studied?

That was a max that we considered for this area, yes.

And then for that zoning, is 16 typical

or is 20 would be too high or?

I mean I think most existing they're between eight eight and most are eight

dwelling units per acre and then we have these sort of outliers that go up to 16

so the existing use is sort of within that range okay thank you and then for

strategy one the new growth areas um what would the zoning be would it be

urban growth area or so that's the work that we still need to to complete so

looking at each area we would determine what makes sense as we've discussed

Taylor Street right now we're sort of leaning towards mixed-use neighborhood

so the zoning that we would want to propose is mixed-use neighborhood other

areas that may still be the same maybe it's although urban residential was very

high we want to consider you know maybe there's something in between or a new

designation between both of those two okay and then with the idea just be I

I mean, most of the maps that we looked at today,

they're occupied already by buildings or commercial sites.

Would the idea just be that the next person comes in

or whoever's living there right now

demolishes and reconstructs?

Yes, we're constrained by sort of the way our city's built

and our policies that we have to look at what we call infill sites.

And what we are hoping this would do in these circumstances

is allow for redevelopment.

So we would have to wait for some interest,

maybe consolidation of sites.

But yeah, we have very limited vacant lands in our city

that we can just sort of plan free.

OK, that brings me to my next question.

So I think all the slides and pictures that we saw today

already are occupied.

New growth areas.

Is there anything available where it's not occupied

and we can perhaps potentially have a new growth area

or we're just literally out of land now?

I don't think so.

When I think of our vacant lands, I'm thinking of the hillsides.

I'm thinking of areas that don't allow for any kind of housing.

And it just contradicts with our major strategies.

We're trying to stay inside.

And it helps us achieve all these other goals, like environmental, sort of quality of life too, right?

We don't want folks out in the hills and safety.

But really, I think when it comes to vacant lands, it's very, very limited.

Thank you.

The other day on next door I saw somebody post that what's going on here. We have plenty of room to build in San Jose

I refrained from responding

Commissioner Bigford I have a question about the new growth areas all of them seem to be in

I'll call it north central

And sort of northeast and northwest there doesn't seem to be any growth areas sort of

past the downtown area going south and I don't quite understand that.

A lot of that has to do with where the high quality transit is.

So there is just better quality transit in those areas where we recommended those new growth areas.

There are some in sort of areas south of downtown.

They weren't really connecting existing growth areas that much

or they didn't really take you to any major destinations.

They were kind of maybe cross-town routes,

so we were kind of trying to focus on those that went to downtown

or went to a BART station that could kind of get you regionally.

And so some of those other bus lines just don't take you to those circumstances.

So, I mean, it could be maybe if we still needed more capacity

and we didn't find enough already with all these things we were doing,

those might be additional areas that we could look into.

but those are also areas that are typically like only single-family right

versus some of these other areas we're already seeing a mix of residential

types and so it's probably more palatable to the people in the

neighborhoods because they're already used to you know four plex next door

a twelve plex next door whereas these other areas that are kind of further

south are kind of majority single-family and it's kind of being looked at again

with like the missing middle sort of strategy where you know like increasing

RN or maybe some other strategic areas getting some density maybe around urban villages and

stuff. We're still looking in other areas across the city, but these specific growth

areas were more because they were good quality transit connecting growth areas and the transit

was connecting to major destinations.

Okay. I appreciate that. And I still think it puts a significantly unfair burden on those

areas of the city and sort of remove some of the burden from some other areas.

And I feel like maybe it's a different conversation because it maybe is about

what transit corridors can we build in places that, and maybe some of it's taken care of

with urban village planning and that.

But I still think there's room in there, maybe not as a new growth area,

but as an expansion area or something, that there's a place to go for that.

And when Commissioner Cantrell was asking about the creativity and, you know, what knobs can we turn,

it felt to me like that was another knob that we could add.

And to be a little more forward-looking, we know these numbers are not going to go down.

we know that SB 79 is going to do some things to us not for us and I feel like

we have to start and and and and we have to I feel like be a little more

aggressive and on that note I just wanted to chime in I do believe we need

a layered plan between two blocks and six eight or ten I don't know what the

right number is wave your hands but you know something larger near the the

corridors and going down more as as you go further in probably makes sense I'm

with the the woman who said she didn't want 17 stories looking down at her

house no but if you have I live in a condo because that's what I can afford

in San Jose and there are single-family homes all around me and I don't look at

them and I don't look at their backyard right so so I think there's room for this

too in the city and we need we need those levers to adjust we need to plan

for it and we need to assume these numbers are going up I believe the fine

people of South San Jose would say that people in district 4 and downtown move

there and should expect that unlike the folks of district 2

Just having attended a few of those meetings

Commissioner Bigford very supportive of what you're saying. So let's face it folks. Nobody likes change, right?

That's why the folks from Cory are here. They love their neighborhood. They moved into a certain neighborhood

They don't want to change I get that so along the lines of what Commissioner Bigford said

um you know d9 and d10 there's nothing there right now right that's not right i mean it's kind of like

uh when we did uh what was it the tiny houses or the other we decided each council district was

going to have one project maybe we should look at that that there needs to be just because we don't

have a high frequency bus line in d9 we've got some really large major streets that we could

we could build up on so yeah I'm just you know I'm just supporting what you're

saying and I think the change is hard nobody really likes it maybe that maybe

the pain should be spread around a little bit I absolutely agree with you by the

way the reason I asked for a red line overlay is because the way that these

that the city has developed that has I just wanted to ask it directly yeah okay

and that's that was my concern as well so that we're clearly identifying how

this really works and get to that greater conversation thank you so much

for that. Commissioner Cowell. First of all I want to just say thank you Vice

Chair Bickford for your comments. I was kind of mulling in my mind what exactly

it was I was trying to say and one of the things that I noticed in the

presentation was the absence of new growth areas in various parts of the

city which is massive including D1 where I'm from and I just wanted to make a

point that it is my observation under strategy one the first slide that the

first bullet literally says expand growth areas along high quality transit

bus corridors. That makes complete sense.

I think to what Commissioner

Cantrell was saying earlier about the knobs and levers and what are the

other opportunities to other tools and opportunities

here. I think

at least it's my observation that it seems like we're trying to just

build or think of the strategy

just along the high quality transit corridors,

but are there opportunities to reverse this

and think really hard about growing into areas

that don't currently have high quality transit

or whatever that specific definition looks like

and then work with VTA and neighborhoods

and whoever else to say,

okay, we want to entertain an idea or multiple ideas of growth, and then can we get the support

of additional transportation in the area?

Can we turn an area that's today not high-quality transit into high-quality transit three years,

five years, ten years from now?

and think about that from the perspective of not just yes the areas

that vice chair Bickford brought up which I did notice it was concentrated

in certain areas of the city but everywhere else and I think to

Commissioner Young's point it it does feel unfair that the onus falls on just

several districts and I understand there are a lot of counter arguments as chair

Rosario brought up just speaking for myself I think that it is fair to at

least look at what the additional possibilities are outside of just this

narrow focus of growth areas in high quality transit thank you for that

feedback and I think we're hearing it from several commissioners so we can

sort of put our thinking hats on after this and think about how do we look at

how maybe we modify that criteria or not use it or just consider other ways that

we can identify other growth areas that we're currently not not doing and I

think that overlaying of the map and looking and we usually also do like by

council district you know how people like to cut these things up we can do

that and we can come back with with that analysis and maybe some other

suggestions for criteria I think it's just kind of a planner thing to want

that transit and the land use together right but I we see that too in our

analysis so we appreciate that feedback and we can we can come back with

something else I just I wanted to add to I think the other context here you know

the other the related conversation to this is actually our next meeting talking

about missing middle because that is a conversation citywide you know it's four

to ten units citywide on all properties and so there is there is some overlap

you know I think the growth area is a bit different and may go a little bit

denser than that but there is some overlap in what we're talking about in

terms of increasing density in in sort of all areas of the city and so I think

you know having that conversation next and what we might propose at a larger

scale citywide and then that having the second conversation around growth areas it might help

kind of give more context and framing to what we're considering and that you know it isn't

i think we're internalizing this as ruth is saying we can look for other areas but there

there is still a lens that that's citywide and more growth citywide so i'll also add that uh

part of council's direction was like not to expand growth areas into high vmt areas and a lot of the

outskirt areas of the city in the south are in high vmt areas so that was partially why but there

are areas south of downtown that are still not in high vmt areas that we could look at but

definitely along the outskirts it was sort of council's direction not to expand our growth

areas into those areas we're not using bmt yes we are we do we have bmt as a tool we're still using it

Commission oh vehicle miles traveled it's a tool that we use to evaluate impacts of development

housing and jobs and how far people have to travel for their jobs or for services and things like

that Commissioner Escobar thank you as someone who has worked in affordable housing previously

for about 10 years, we always looked at where do people locate and why.

And a lot of people that do not have a higher income that can afford a vehicle, maintain a vehicle,

yes, they do use public transportation and do end up locating exactly where they could easily access that.

Now, with that being said, that does not mean that given the opportunity to live elsewhere

rather than a high-dense area that they don't want to raise children in

or they as a single person don't feel comfortable living in,

that we can't expand options in a different way.

I live in District 3.

I represent District 3.

I am two blocks up from Santa Clara Street.

So I'm aware of what it looks like when you start to go too high

in a neighborhood like Hensley, Japantown, that sort of thing,

and where you start to go too low and it doesn't make sense.

The gradual inclination of it works best as you exit the core.

also from the same perspective everything is always located in district 3

it is not a fair assumption that because people are used to living by something that they prefer

that and that that change continue in that way and I hate to say that but I it is very true

sometimes you locate because that's where your bus line is and that's all you can afford so

I feel like to not look at the piece of the humanity of people who live in these neighborhoods

and yes we do absorb change but that doesn't mean that it all has to be fixated in one place

and we do have BART lines coming in we do have light rail corridors that are not all focused

in the downtown core that do have transportation options of connections to the major bus lines

taking you down to Deeradon getting you wherever you need to go so Berryessa has a BART station

why aren't we looking in that direction to also create another area I just I just don't think

it's fair again one more time that district three always absorbs everything because we're so-called

used to it. We have a quality of life that we're also trying to maintain those that just choose to

live here because we like the craziness of the Corps. But not everybody does. Sometimes they're

forced to. And I think that if we put the humanity piece into this a little bit more and we say we

want to provide new areas of growth that people can choose to live in because it is next to a

rail line that connects them to a bus and they can afford it not because they have to live there

and don't want to live there but that's their only option and so that's from the perspective again

of having worked quite frankly with section 8 housing as a senior analyst for 10 years

that those things are important and federal government does look at that not necessarily

this administration unfortunately but they do look at that and they do fund according to that

They will issue additional housing dollars in vouchers if you can locate residents in better neighborhoods, if you can utilize other zip codes.

So these things all do factor in.

So taking it back to the original, how many blocks in, I personally would like to see a 2, a 4, and a 6, but with high to low as you go further in as the options to look at.

with four being the middle between a two and a six.

And what does that look like?

So that's my two cents.

Very salient points.

I think I've heard more people mention the district that they're from

than any other meeting that I've been to.

All right, anything else?

All right, hearing none, Ruth?

Yeah, just before we close, we did want to take a picture with the task force members.

we're going to put up a thing here so if you please don't leave it until

you can say adjournment and then we're all going to go over there if you wouldn't

mind but we will be back in about a month

all right that the meeting is adjourned at 8 41

Thank you.

Thank you.