Chair of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Task Force.

Welcome to the sixth meeting of the General Plan Task Force General Plan 4 Year Review.

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

Remember, please remember to turn off your cell phones, the parking validation machine for the garage under City Hall is located near the entrance.

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

So first we'll start with roll call.

Vice Chair Bickford is not absent.

Commissioner Barossio is absent.

Commissioner Bundle.

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell is not here yet.

Commissioner Cow.

Here.

Commissioner Casey.

Commissioner Escobar is not here yet.

Commissioner Nguyen is not here yet.

Commissioner Oliverio is not here.

Commissioner Young.

Here.

And myself.

But we do not need quorum to proceed with this.

Is that right?

Okay.

Please note that public comment is listening as agenda as item number five on the agenda, and we'll take before take place before the task force discussion.

You can 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 in response to public comment.

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

With that, I'll hand it over to staff to begin with agenda item two, the agenda overview.

Thank you.

After that, we'll take public comment and then the task force discussion.

So a brief overview on our efforts with outreach.

Through the beginning of May.

And uh we held these in three community centers, and the first one was at Viva Calle.

We were targeting sort of trying a different approach, going to where we knew we would see and encounter a lot of people.

And so this picture here is sort of most of the folks that helped both the consultant team and the staff, folks here at the table as well as other planners that were helping us with the outreach at that event.

Just wanted to share a few pictures of each one of the open houses.

So overall, we spoke with 832 residents, folks that came in through the city.

The majority were through Viva Calle.

We had a really good location at Mexican Heritage Plaza where the event, one of the hubs where it started, so we were able to capture a lot of people.

Um poster boards.

We had roughly 13.

Five of those were had sort of an activity to engage people and seek their input.

We were uh sure to have multilingual staff in attendance, um, Spanish Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin speakers to help and ensure that we're able to communicate with our diverse community in San Jose.

We were also able to provide packets of the poster boards.

The poster boards were in English, but we did provide um packets in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

And lastly, we um provided activities for children, although I'm sad to say I don't think I saw any children attend.

Um but we did have those activities, so it's an adult mostly adults in attendance, as well as you know, light snacks and refreshments since we did hold three of these in the evening.

We are continuing with our open house virtually, and we encourage the public to um if they weren't able to attend the open houses, to scan this QR code and give us their feedback and input on our website conveyo, which is the same format, same poster boards and information that we provided in person.

It's just a virtual option, and um I um let me see.

Well no, I won't be able to share here, but folks can leave tag comments on the different stations and give us their feedback that way.

And then lastly, just want to share that we are continuing with other outreach activities that we've we started back in September and October.

Um partners in the Office of Racial and Social Equity have led two focus groups so far with two more to go this month.

Um we have presented at council district leadership groups, and we are that invitation is open.

You know, if we can accommodate the time and have some lead time to present to these groups.

Council leadership groups.

Do you remember?

Wait, one ten, and we have six scheduled upcoming.

And then we also have continued our check-ins with stakeholder groups, advocates that have you know wrote letters in the beginning and again open to meeting with uh neighborhood groups.

Um we're happy to go to standing meetings, that's probably the best for us, and um, just given the timeline for the project, and that is it.

So, the chair, I just wanted to note that we also have non-commissioner control on Ario and Rose Singles.

So we have a corn, is there a question on this topic on the outreach?

So, yeah.

I caught I was listening in the car but caught the end.

Are you saying that staff will visit other meetings?

Because at the beginning of the process, we were saying that staff time was limited, we can only do X amount.

So I've always been telling people there is no other opportunity for outreach.

You have to go to the one of the four sessions or virtual.

Jared Ferguson, principal planner.

Um, so that's primarily where we were directing people, and then kind of on a on an ad hoc basis, like it trying to limit it to one per council district if there's a neighborhood group meeting or a leadership group meeting.

We've we've tried to accommodate those requests where possible within our time and schedule, but generally we can't go to every meeting, but just trying to accommodate when we get those requests, and we've been working kind of through the council office as well to kind of point us to what they think will be, you know, kind of the key groups that we should talk to to try to reach the most people.

So that's kind of been the approach to manage it.

Thank you.

Uh the commission and the uh committee can see uh what was done.

Yes, can I have what would you like to say?

Well, I thought you had talked.

Uh if you could come up to the microphone, please.

We have attendees on Zoom who can't hear you otherwise.

I guess I just had a question on the protocol because I put in a request to talk about public comment and a request to talk about after the presentation.

Are you taking only comments at the public comment after the presentation?

Yes, that is correct.

The public comment is after the presentation is complete.

Okay, uh good evening, Commissioners.

Cora McNaughton uh planner with the planning division.

Um I'll be presenting this evening.

I'm here, of course, accompanied by Jared Ferguson and uh Michelle Flores, also of the housing unit.

So just a reminder about the agenda tonight.

Uh, we will be taking public comment before um before task force discussion, directly after this presentation.

So uh before we get into tonight's um substantive content, I'd like to recap what was discussed at the task force meeting in March.

The impetus for the work on missing middle housing is housing elements strategy P35 that requires that we explore allowing four to ten units on parcels throughout the city, including high opportunity areas.

And in addition, we've looked at the potential for establishing missing middle housing areas as buffers between higher density development in urban villages and in low density neighborhoods.

We provided information about the state legal context and how it has changed the landscape for small multifamily housing.

That includes Senate Bill 9, which allows up to four units on a single family parcel, and Senate Bill 1123, which allows up to 10 units through a subdivision.

So in regard to whether missing middle projects should be permitted within buffer areas or throughout the city, we discussed the difficulty of delineating consistent areas between urban villages and single family neighborhoods.

This is largely due to the irregular suburban street configurations in many areas.

And in addition, allowing missing middle housing only in buffer areas raises a concern about placing the burden of housing production on specific neighborhoods rather than the city as a whole.

So staff's recommendation was to increase the allowed density in one of our general planned land use designations, known as residential neighborhood or RN, from eight units per acre to 32 units per acre.

You may recall that the residential neighborhood designation applies to about 85% of all land that's zoned for residential use in the city.

So here's a table showing the number of units currently allowed on residential neighborhood parcels at the current density maximum of eight units per acre.

In addition to the density limit, the zoning code requires a minimum parcel size of around 5,500 square feet for most of these properties.

And as you can see here, on almost all residential neighborhood parcels, just one unit is permitted in addition to one ADU and one junior ADU.

Junior ADUs have to be converted from a part of the primary unit.

So let's compare that to how many units would be allowed at 32 units per acre.

The cells highlighted in yellow are parcels that range from about 3,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and represent about 85, 84 percent of all residential neighborhood parcels.

So in this range of 3,000 to 8,000 square feet, two to six primary units would be permitted under density of 32 units per acre.

When you include a year in San Jose, it was built in 1926.

When you include ADUs, the total number of units allowed ranges from four to twelve.

So as I mentioned, state law through Senate Bill 1123 already allows certain single family parcels to be subdivided into as many as 10 lots.

These units represent what is possible without taking into consideration any development standards such as maximum height or minimum setbacks.

So those standards could further limit what can actually be built on a lot.

So in March, staff was asked to analyze a higher density of 40 units per acre.

Excuse me.

This would allow six to 14 units on those RN parcels between 3,000 and 8,000 square feet.

If the maximum density for RN parcels is set at 40 units per acre, the city could adopt an ordinance exempting many RN parcels in Senate Bill 79 zones from using that law.

To recap Senate Bill 79 is a law that will go into effect on July 1st, and it will allow even higher density and height limits in zones of about one half mile around rail and rapid bus stations, and that would supersede any local zoning regulations.

The exemption from SB 79 would end in 2032 when the next housing elements cycle begins, so it wouldn't be a permanent exemption.

Staff's view is that it will likely be challenging for RN parcels to redevelop using Senate Bill 79 because RN parcels are relatively small lots, and the law has both a minimum unit count and a minimum density requirement.

So the result is that while those RN parcels would be exempt from Senate Bill 79 for that period, the density maximum of 40 units per acre would be applicable throughout the city.

Staff's conclusion is that 32 units per acre strikes a balance between meeting the intent of strategy P35 of the housing element and allowing a level of density that is compatible with existing single family development.

So the title of this slide and the presentation that was uploaded to the city website is projected capacity, but we've changed it to theoretical maximum capacity to clarify what we're talking about.

This is the maximum number of units that could be built on all single-family residential neighborhood sites under specific regulations.

So the theoretical capacity on RN parcels is currently about 432,000.

So that doesn't mean additional units to what exists now.

It refers to the number of units, including houses and ADUs that already exist that are allowed today based on the number of parcels, the area of those parcels, and the state ADU law.

About two-thirds of that capacity is accounted for by ADUs and junior ADUs, and for reference, the city issues about 500 ADU permits each year.

So even though that capacity exists, development of ADUs is occurring gradually.

Senate Bill 9, of course, has changed things.

Because it allows a duplex and two ADUs on a parcel, the theoretical capacity has increased to about 557,000 units.

Notably, that law has been in effect since 2021.

The city has received fewer than 100 applications for Senate Bill 9 projects.

So comparatively speaking, a density increase to 32 units per acre would increase capacity to approximately 1.2 million units on those parcels, but as mentioned before, development standards could be used to reduce a site's capacity to less than what the density allows.

It's also worth noting that many property owners may still choose to maintain their properties as single family, limiting the likelihood that the maximum capacity would be reached.

So moving now on to development standards, which are important for regulating building size, massing, and location on a parcel.

The goal of establishing development standards is to encourage projects that are compatible and scale with the surrounding neighborhood.

So first, staff is recommending a maximum height of 35 feet and three stories, and possibly a pot with a possible reduction of the maximum height towards the rear of the lot to enhance privacy.

Currently, in single-family areas, a height of 30 feet is allowed, although if the average height of existing houses on the block is higher, applicants can go up to 35 feet with a discretionary permit.

But the number of stories is still limited to 2.5, which reduces the amount of livable space on the third level.

The next three development standards work together to influence building massing, and how the buildings or buildings relate to the parcel.

In other cities with missing middle ordinances, front and rear setbacks have been reduced and or made more flexible, such that you can choose to have a larger setback in the front or the rear.

Floor area ratio, which is the ratio of the floor area of the building to the parcel, has been expanded beyond what was allowed originally for single-family houses.

In some cases, there's a graduated scale of FAR that's introduced and correlated to the number of units in the project.

Parcel coverage is another standard that can vary or can be made to vary by parcel size since small lots may need greater coverage to be able to build multiple units.

So in addition to parcel coverage, another aspect to consider is parcel size itself.

Increasing density could provide an incentive to merge parcels and build projects that extend over the combined area.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if the city chose to mitigate this, they could we could establish a maximum parcel size for missing middle projects.

There is some precedent for that.

For example, Senate Bill 1123 is limited to parcels that are one and a half acres or smaller.

And in terms of parking, we've received questions from both task force members and the community about whether there will be sufficient parking for missing middle projects.

And it's an important consideration.

To get a better understanding of how parking factors into residential development, we looked at small multifamily projects with 20 or fewer units that have been proposed in San Jose since the parking minimum was eliminated in 2023.

And we found that on average, 1.6 parking spaces per unit were included in these projects.

So here's some illustrations of development standards and just how they can affect the size and massing and location of a building.

Sorry, the image on the left shows a building limited to a height of three stories with a lower height limit at the rear of the site and minimum setbacks from the property lines.

We don't have any dimensions associated with this, it's just to sort of illustrate how it works.

Note that there's a rear setback in that left image, it's just not showing up very clearly.

In the picture on the right, we've introduced a floor area ratio of 1.0, which in addition to the heightened setback requirements helps to reduce building size.

So a floor area ratio of 1.0 means the building floor area can be as high as one times the parcel area.

So modeling potential projects by varying these standards to see what's feasible is the work that will be done in the implementation phase of this missing middle project.

So I'm going to change the order of a couple of these slides now.

So if I'm going to discuss citywide design standards, sorry.

Yeah, sorry.

Yes, I'm going to discuss citywide design standards and permitting before going into historic property.

So if you're looking at a printout of the presentation that was uploaded to the website, please turn to page 12 on citywide design standards and guidelines.

So these design standards have been in effect since 2021 and they apply to new residential projects except single-family houses and historic projects, which are subject to different sets of design standards.

Many of these standards wouldn't make sense in a small multifamily context or could affect project feasibility.

So for example, the project shown here on the slide requires the use of different colors, materials, and building planes, and is aimed at breaking up the massing of large buildings.

So it's not necessarily applicable to smaller projects.

Staff would need to analyze the standards and make recommendations about whether to maintain or modify them for missing middle housing.

Now onto the permitting process.

This is on slide 13 if you printed out the uploaded version.

So we heard from small multifamily developers that landholding costs can contribute significantly to the overall project cost.

Staff recommends that these projects be allowed to utilize a streamlined permitting process.

Currently, most missing middle projects in San Jose would require a discretionary permit process with a public hearing.

There are some properties where it may be advisable to maintain a discretionary process for missing middle projects, and these include projects in certain flood zones, in riparian zones near waterways, and on designated historic properties.

At the same time, there are areas of the city that wouldn't be appropriate for higher density housing, and those include RN properties in high and very high fire severity zones, airport safety zones, and environmentally sensitive areas.

We're also recommending that RN properties with certain types of rental units, such as rent stabilized or rent regulated units shouldn't be eligible for development of missing middle projects.

The goal is to protect that housing and ensure it remains affordable.

And I'll come back to the issue of renter displacement after the next slide.

So back to historic properties, increasing the allowed density on RN could also increase pressure to remove older structures.

To address that, staff recommends implementing a review and permitting procedure similar to the one implemented for Senate Bill 9 projects.

For those projects, the type of permit and review varies by the type of historic resource.

So for city landmarks, candidate city landmarks, and properties in city landmark districts represented by the image on the left, a discretionary permit would be required.

For historic properties of lesser significance, such as contributing structures to conservation areas represented by the older home in the middle image, a ministerial process with specific development and design standards that have to be met would be aimed at preserving the existing structure.

And then finally, for older structures that haven't been evaluated and aren't on the city's historic resources inventory, such as the house in the right image, a historic report would be required, and then depending on the report findings, the permit process would be determined.

So at the March 4th meeting, we also discussed the risk of renter displacement due to missing middle projects, since increasing allowed density provides an incentive for sites with existing housing to be redeveloped.

The state housing crisis act, which is also known as Senate Bill 330, would apply to any project that proposes to demolish housing, or currently applies to any project that proposes to demolish housing.

It requires one-to-one replacement of what they call protected units in the law.

So protected means the unit is either rent stabilized, rent-regulated, or occupied by a low-income household.

It also establishes rights for occupants of protected units that are going to be demolished, including the right of first refusal for a comparable unit in the new development, an affordable rent.

So locally, the city's Ellis Act ordinance requires noticing for tenants as well as relocation assistance and may require replacement of demolished rent stabilized units, but it generally only applies in cases where three or more rent stabilized units are removed from the market under the Ellis Act and wouldn't be applicable to most residential neighborhood parcels.

So staff is recommending that the city protect these affordable units, prohibit the small multifamily projects on those properties that have rent stabilized and rent regulated units.

A quick and dirty calculation is that there are approximately 1,100 RN properties with rent stabilized units and about 25 with rent regulated units.

We don't have a number for the number that are subject to the Ellis Act ordinance.

So a little bit of about the public feedback we received.

As mentioned by Ruth, members of the public have been able to provide feedback online, but also at the four open houses that were held in April and May.

We had very spirited discussions with community members, and we heard both support for and opposition to increasing the allowed density in single-family neighborhoods.

Those in support generally would like to see more housing options in the city and particularly more affordable options, and they tend to view more small multifamily housing as one way to achieve that.

Those opposed are concerned about changes to the character of their neighborhoods, including greater demand for parking and impacts on traffic, as well as privacy and shade on their properties.

There were also people who expressed support for increasing density but emphasized how important it is to use development standards to ensure that new projects are compatible with existing development.

So also at the open houses, attendees participated in a couple of activities related to potential development standards for small multifamily projects.

We asked people about trade-offs regarding height and space on a parcel.

There were about an equal number of participants who would prioritize height and more open space versus those who would prefer to keep heights low and allow more of a parcel to be covered with buildings.

In the second activity, staff talked with participants about some of the trade-offs that are inherent in allowing greater development intensity in single family neighborhoods, such as the need to remove mature trees to make way for buildings.

When we asked them about their priorities, ensuring the affordability of at least some units was chosen by 32% of respondents, compared to 27% who supported protecting renters and 26% for protecting the existing tree canopy.

And about 15% said historic preservation was very important to them.

So what are the next steps for missing middle?

Based on what's discussed tonight and other public comments received, we'll present the missing middle recommendation as part of the four-year policy, four-year review policy framework to the Planning Commission on June 24.

The commission's recommendation will then go to city council on August 18th.

And that concludes my presentation, and we're ready for any questions.

Thanks.

Are there any early questions from uh council?

Then we'll move.

And we'll start with public comment and then go into uh discussion by the task force.

All right, so public agenda item number four.

Uh public comment.

Please put 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 will respond to statements made or questions posed by members of the public or request after report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting meeting.

Okay.

So first we have if you would line up behind the microphone.

We have Alison single single Lani.

Singolani.

Sandra, Sandra D.

I think is the same person.

And then Lori Droste.

Okay, do we have a do we have a timer or anything?

She's good.

Danielle, no.

Okay.

Go ahead, Alan.

Thank you.

Good evening, Alison Cingalani, Director of Policy with SV at home.

I'm speaking on behalf of a local partnership working to expand opportunities for housing and community-serving uses across San Jose.

Supports the goals of the general plan for your review, especially around increasing residential capacity and advancing equity citywide.

We submitted a letter yesterday outlining adaptive reuse opportunities for faith and public school sites as demographic changes continue to reshape the needs of congregations and school communities.

We're bringing this to the task force because current general plan designations and zoning for these sites, PQP, allow only a limited range of uses.

Expanding options, including housing will require general plan changes.

Our goal is not to encourage disposition of these properties, but to ensure communities have more tools to retain publicly accessible community-serving uses, including educator workforce housing, affordable and mixed income housing, open space, and community facilities.

We recognize that faith institutions and public schools serve as critical community anchor institutions, and expanding potential uses strengthens this important role.

Our preliminary analysis identified roughly 500 eligible faith in school sites citywide, many located outside current residential capacity study areas, but in neighborhoods with strong access to parks and transit.

School sites average nearly 10 acres, large enough to support multiple community needs while still preserving land for future educational use where appropriate.

These sites also create important opportunities to advance housing equity and AFFH goals.

Nearly a quarter are located in high resource areas, while others are in areas of concentrated poverty, creating opportunities both to expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and to strengthen investment in underserved communities.

We appreciate the conversation so far with city staff, school districts, the Santa Clara County Office of Education, Faith Leaders, and the Mayor's Office.

And we hope to continue working with the task force as this process moves forward.

Thank you.

I noticed that it was either your letter or the letter from Spur was referencing changes made to the missing middle ordinance in Berkeley.

Was there anything specific in that in their changes that you uh you either Silicon Valley Home or Spur really wanted to endorse?

I can let Lori speak to that.

Okay.

Um this will not be part of my public comment time.

Uh, my name is Lori Draste, I'm the director of housing and planning at Spur, but prior to that I was a Berkeley City Council member and I authored the missing middle legislation.

So uh Berkeley ended up implementing a 70 DU per acre, and so that's part of our public comment.

Oh, this is already part of my public comment.

I'm sorry, I I thought I was responding to a question.

She can respond to the question.

Yeah, you this is fine.

Yeah, you can respond to the question.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'll give my public comment now.

Good evening.

Uh so earlier today we submitted the letter that um we, of course, recommended uh that you pursue a bolder action to allow more housing in San Jose.

We also really want to thank staff for preparing a thoughtful set of recommendations, and we really support a strong missing middle framework.

It's a significant step forward.

Of course, San Jose faces a severe affordability crisis, and we really support the move to address this citywide to allow children to grow up in high opportunity neighborhoods.

We shouldn't have uh someone's zip code determine their trajectory in life.

So we strongly agree with that citywide approach.

Um, and we encourage you to be ambitious on allowable density.

Um, while I I don't want to uh diminish the proposed 32DU per acre, that's a great step forward.

Uh once again, we encourage you to to be bold and seize the moment.

We also strongly support staff's recommendation to allow the market to dictate parking mandates.

Um, we see that many times when you require parking, it sits empty, it affects affordability, and it affects feasibility.

And so finally, we also encourage flexibility around setbacks, stepbacks, FAR, because there are many beautiful buildings throughout San Jose that would not fit into these various development standards.

Um the city should just focus on simple rules that work and are capable of producing homes.

So once again, San Jose has the opportunity to expand housing choice, reduce displacement pressures, strengthen its economy, and create a more affordable and inclusive future, and we urge you to seize that moment.

Thank you so much.

Chair, I have a question for staff.

We are in the first speaker.

Uh so staff, it sounds like there's a conversation about PQP that's going on that's not at the general plan hearing that's can going with staff.

So, and I we we touched on PQP early on, but I want to understand if there's anything that staff's gonna recommend.

Is that gonna come back?

Because I I don't really don't know all the facets of the discussion because those are private.

Um, our recommendation on PQP has not changed.

So I think at the last meeting we said we were not going to pursue it, and we were suggesting for um us to take the time to see how SB 79 will impact existing PQP sites.

Yeah, I think maybe the conversation was more the group that wrote the letter.

They've been talking, and we've they've given us information, we've had those conversations.

And it sounded like there was a conversation with uh the elected side of the city.

So I just not I mean, yeah, not with us, yeah.

Okay, so that may come out uh so if there's discussions around a particular topic that doesn't surface here, uh city council can make a recommendation to include, exclude, et cetera, whatever was discussed or not discussed here.

Yeah, they can thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

I have a few comments on affordability.

I think the city did, in fact, the city did do a study in 21, and it showed that going to four to eight units on single family lots as part of opportunity housing SB9 did not improve affordability.

Um I can send you that link and I will to all of you, so that you understand that just because you necessarily build more housing, you may not necessarily get lower prices because there's also a land impact.

And when you take land and make it uh income producing, it could become more expensive.

I'm also concerned about this proposal, may in the end cause less home ownership and less ability to build generational wealth if the units that are built end up being rented instead of purchased, and I understand there's condo laws and other things that may impact warranties.

I am concerned about the job and housing um ratio impact by this, also the city budget.

Considering how much population is and how the fire is under, the police is already under, and we're increasing population intensity, that will increase fires, that will increase probably crime response or police response.

And our city isn't even up with what the state and national and their own goals and meeting response times.

SB 79 came into this process after the housing element was produced and could have a tremendous impact on the amount of housing produced.

I'm also concerned on the recommendation for the cow fire ranking rating.

I think that's a good one, but we also need to look at the fare because I already have friends that are losing their insurance, and they're not in one of the two high rankings.

So we need to also look at the fair stuff.

By right concerns me, because some of us have deed restrictions, and that might not come up or be re researched, and so there needs to be some type of posting.

And on affordability, there was an interesting study in the San Jose Mercury News, which I will for uh send to you.

Thank you.

We will have David Hindel, Robert Wood, and Larry Ames.

I think I'll lean over.

Thank you for giving me a moment to chat.

Um I'm here in a lot of different capacities sometimes, but uh I'm here today basically as the all district leadership group, which sent a letter to the city council a while ago, and we testified April 22nd at the rules committee.

I'm not an expert on this thing, and I really want to compliment the staff for all the hard work they've done.

They've they've been put in a really difficult position between a lot of the people in the city and this demands being made by the state and the like.

But what I seem to understand is that the issue is really about eliminating single family residential throughout the city.

And um, which would I guess allow my neighbor to sell their house to a Wall Street investor and build anywhere from six to eight to twelve units next door to me, maybe on both sides of me.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

The housing element page 318 talked about the city committing to at least four units.

SB 79 versus citywide seems to be the issue at hand here right now.

And it seems to me that SB 79 and all these radiuses around there, if you said we build to the maximum there, we would satisfy our requirements under HCD and the housing element we have now, and the next one that comes up.

Um, I think that when my neighbors, city residents discover that their neighbor can sell their house to a Wall Street investor and build, demolish their house next door and build a very large building with no parking.

I think the meeting on August 18th at the city council will be one I'll attend, and I'll find it very interesting to hear how that goes.

Thank you.

So I want to say that I endorse what the uh the uh I'm sorry, Robert Wood, I'm the chair of the housing committee of the San Jose State Faculty Union, and I want to say I endorse uh what city planning is doing with regard to the residential areas, but I don't think it's a complete solution, and it's I'm concerned that it's being talked about as if it is.

Uh, in fact, um, what we take away from the um uh from what we're hearing so far is that we're not going to get from city planning a comprehensive view of how to change the plan so we will uh be conformal to the state law and we'll make significant progress against the housing crisis.

Um I just want to take make a suggestion that the um uh task force takes seriously two issues that kind of inexplicably haven't been fully addressed by city planning.

Um just before I say that, we've seen this uh chart that I've shown before that um uh after 2007 San Jose housing collapsed and Seattle's group tremendously.

I found subsequently that Sacramento uh uh San Jose, uh Sacramento, San Diego, and even Los Angeles have grown enormously since uh uh uh the start of the 2010s, whereas we have gone down.

Um, this chart uh uh this chart shows what happened in Sacramento about 10 years of 13 years ago.

Sacramento was producing about one uh less than 10% of what San Jose was, uh and they got a consultant and they worked on a new system, and they're able to produce now double the uh the housing per square mile that we do.

Um two points I want to have we need to work on are the um uh the um the growth areas which are producing zero growth uh and the use of the hundred square miles plus that we have in San Jose where housing is completely illegal.

Um we need I'm hoping that the uh I have a letter uh on the general plan review work site.

I'm over my time, we won't talk about it.

Um I hope that uh uh the the um task force can can push on that.

Um, we teachers are being uh uh um in a painful situation.

We hope you'll address that.

Thank you.

Thank you for giving me a couple extra seconds too.

Thank you.

So I'm Larry Ames.

I'm glad to hear that the projects within the riparian areas or historic districts will not be having ministerial approval, but instead will be discretionary, which would presumably will give us an opportunity to review and provide public input.

So I'm glad to see that.

And also to hear that uh things that in the flood zones and fire zones are ineligible for development.

I did a quick text search of the report here, and I did not see any mention about parks or infrastructure or fees to pay for them in this report.

I support the densification of the city rather than urban sprawl, but as the density increases, the private open spaces, backyards decrease, and so more residents will need to use our city parks to in order to be able to get the sunlight and fresh air.

So you need to provide collect fees, park fees, and maintain and enhance our city parks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

We'll have Greg Carlson and Cyrus.

Yeah, Greg Carlson with uh concern quarry neighbors and just advocating again for uh common sense when it comes to approving development and uh specifically the Winchester corridor and advocating for maintaining the integrity of the neighborhoods and uh currently zoned at uh 45 to 50 feet.

We could live with that going up above that does affect the integrity.

We know there's consideration for other neighborhoods.

Uh, for instance, you've identified the easterly boundary of the Alameda, but the more affluent westerly boundary of the Alameda has not been identified for development.

So we'd like some consideration for that as well.

Thank you so much.

Perfect.

Um good evening.

My name's Sarah Shahanian.

Thank you much so much, staff uh Cora, Jared, Ruth, for your presentation.

Uh my background uh recovering from affordable housing development and now in the world of market rate development and focusing on townhomes and small lot single families.

As uh staff mentioned, there's a lot of pro-housing state legislation already out there that's being utilized, and I really welcome and applaud just this effort of simplifying because the tools are there, but uh these guys all have a PhD now in housing law, which is crazy.

So if we can simplify that, hands on hats off to that.

Um we have a project, 12 units, uh.6 acre site, townhome, we're really excited.

Uh we got two appeals, one on planning, one on environmental.

It costs them 250 dollars each to fill that appeal, costs a developer $15,000 per appeal, and it's just like AI slop that someone throws up whips it up in AI and uh attorney's office knows what I'm talking about.

And um so we we just got our appeal hearing date five months after the tenant map approval.

So that's when Core was mentioning holding costs being like the real issue with development.

That's the issue.

So if we get these frivolous appeals, uh we add five months, and that's holding costs and so on and so forth.

So that's one challenge that I'm wanted to mention was expediting like these uh frivolous appeals.

So if we can instead of waiting five months, wait a month, two months, whatever that is, that'd be so much better.

Um, and then I'll circle up with you all on Ellis Act.

But thank you all so much.

Really appreciate your help.

Why does it take five months to get to have an appeal hearing?

So the chair um I can respond to that.

Manhuras and the deputy director of planning.

So typically most of our housing projects are currently heard at the director hearing level, and uh we don't have any staff reports prepared for those hearings.

We typically will just include the permit with the conditions of approval.

Of course, staff would have completed the full analysis.

Uh, if the project is appealed, or if the decision of the hearing officer is appealed, uh that typically goes to the planning commission if the permit is appealed, but it is also possible that it can go to city council if the environmental determination is appealed.

Uh, if the environmental determination is appealed, we do have to look closely to see if there's any technical analysis that might be necessary to address comments and concerns raised as part of the appeal.

And of course, our planning commission and council hearings do have an extensive review process and staff report preparation that does take a couple of months at least.

Um so my understanding is that you know typically it takes us uh a couple of months to just understand the appeal, get internal concurrence on whether or not additional analysis is needed, if additional conditions may be needed, and then the process to just get it to hearing.

Uh, of course that'll also involve noticing for the project.

Um but I I mean five months does seem like a long time.

I know we've also done it in three to four months at times, so it really depends on the project and the issues raised during the appeal.

And through the chair, is that about average in the Bay Area?

Would you say San Jose is no worse, no better on the appeal process?

I would say yes, based on my experience.

Like I've seen projects that you know on appeal can go in three months, but I've also seen them go in seven to nine months if they need additional environmental review or uh NEIR, for example.

So it really depends on the project and the topic of the appeal.

If we focused on speeding up the if we focused on speeding up the appeals, would it significantly affect housing development?

Well, for the proposals that we have currently on the table with the missing middle housing, we are proposing that these a majority of these be ministerial projects, so those are not subject to an appeal process and would not be subject to environmental review.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to discussion by the task force.

Uh Commissioner Peter Oliverio.

Hey, how you know?

Paralouigi Oliverio.

Um page eight of the presentation.

Okay, so we have a cap we have a current capacity of 432,000 units, which is the single family house portion of the city, is that what that's saying, or that includes you know, multi-unit.

No, that's sorry, that's for R and parcels.

Great.

And then when you look at Senate Bill 9 capacity and it gets to 557, does that assume every parcel has an ADU, or is that a a formula?

What is that?

Right, all of these numbers here are assuming a sort of maximum if if there was full build out.

Got it.

So then to your final conclusion, based on what you're recommending, we would then have if everyone built out to the three-story type of situation, we'd have 1.2 million units.

Yes, potentially, based on the number of RN parcels and the area.

And was that based on 32 units at acre or 40?

32.

Okay.

And I'll pass for now.

Thank you.

Commissioner Casey.

Uh same slide, thank you.

Kind of a follow-up.

Just trying to ensure that I mean the changes that we make actually will lead to further development because it sounds like there's already ability to do higher densities in many of these neighborhoods.

Um, and as you mentioned, I mean, I know just from my neighbor trying to do an ADU, it's taking them four years, and PGE just said they want 70,000 to hook up power for him now.

So I know we can do as much as we can here.

We can say density can go up, but do we feel we're putting enough other tools in place so that it'll actually be financially feasible for the developers to build more of these residences?

Yeah, I'll take the the first part of your question first.

So I think what we're we're we're not necessarily we're going slightly beyond what state law allows now, but really it's around, and this is what Cora talked about in our first meeting about trying to streamline some of the aspects of it to make it simpler, right?

Um to what some of the comment was of like there's sort of these you know specific requirements around owner occupancy, so trying to make ours a little bit more streamlined.

Um so that's really the the thought and goal, and so it goes a little bit above, but just trying to make it simpler.

Um on the um uh financing piece of it, um, you know, I think it there's a little bit of a a chicken and an egg with with some of this, you know, like when ADUs when we started allowing ADUs, you know, a slow ramp up.

Um it's it it can be hard to estimate costs right now because there's not a lot of this development.

Um, so you know, there would still be economic challenges, but it does provide this other pathway and this other type of development.

Um so you know, I I think there's room for us to stu uh study and analyze that more.

It's hard for us to predict right now exactly how that will go because there's not as much of it happening.

Um but what we do know is that this type of development being more wood construction, you know, is you know, in in in ways cheaper than sort of the the denser development.

So I think uh just follow up if I could.

Um because I think a lot of the public comment and I understand people don't want, you know, 12 houses built on the one lot next to them and things like that.

And I think theoretical is the right title instead of projected.

Um I guess it's just really trying to get handle, whether we make it 32 or 40 or 100, it's not happening today, uh, you know, with the current ability to build additional, you know, everyone could have an ADU today and they don't.

Um, and so yeah, I think if in much of what the public focuses on, I understand is the concern because that's kind of the big scary thing of of that going next to you, but highlighting, yeah, more of the the streamlined permitting process, um, you know, reducing some of the frivolous appeals if they are frivolous in that case, and and being able to close on that more quickly.

Just if there's more things we can do in that area to double down, and I mean maybe once in a blue moon that there's someone that builds a lot of units, but just something to actually uh allow for real capacity to get built, so we're not back here saying, well, theoretically it was a million two and we built a hundred units, um, is really kind of my concern of what we're might get out of all the work that we're doing here.

Yeah, and I I think you know, uh looking at the ADU experience, right?

Uh uh it was a slow ramp up and now you know producing at that 500 per year, um, which it which is still significant, um, but it did take a while for that to sort of get to that point.

Now we're kind of seeing that plateau at 500 a year.

Um, you know, which in the current context is you know, we're not producing enough of what we need to produce for Rena, but a significant portion per year is coming from that 500.

You know, so it is it is somewhat reliable in that sense, and so um, you know, this just provides one other avenue for for potential you know growth and and housing production.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Vandal.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you uh city staff.

Thank you, Coral, for your presentation, and thank you for the members of the public for your guys' time and input today.

Um, I do have a question on um if we uh raise the density for RN.

Um wouldn't there be conflicts with uh PD zoning or other overlays that have different standards?

Uh just for clarification, how would that all work out?

Um for the uh we'll need to look a little bit more about how we address PD zonings and other types of zonings like that when we get into the later phases of making the zoning modifications.

I don't know exactly how uh the 40, the 40 versus 32 would necessarily change how um we would address PD zonings where there's there's you know sort of uh single family.

That's something I think we'd have to do some more analysis on.

So not necessarily the 32 versus the 40, let's just say we went with 32.

How would that then co-mingle with you know the other uh the what the PD and the overlay, you know, you uh yeah.

I mean, I think to Jared's point, we we have we have to ensure that it they're consistent, right?

We can't allow something in the general plan and then those the existing zoning isn't sort of compatible, but that's sort of the next phase of the work is we're we're trying to develop here as a framework, the box that we want to work within, and that you know the task force is giving us feedback on, and once we get that direction from council, then we can sort of start thinking about how do we implement this?

How do we make sure that it's consistent and makes sense in those PD zoned areas?

Okay, thank you.

And then you know, given the the low take up of SP9 uh so far, I think it said 100 applications since 2021.

Um, what are the some like realistic assumptions that we have if we were to move to 32 units uh per the acre?

Like what at what pace do you think redevelopment would happen?

Would it just be like wildfire or would it be very slow or what's your guys' take on that?

Yeah, we're not expecting wildfire.

Um, we really don't know, but the experience um we're watching Berkeley and Sacramento pretty closely.

Um Sacramento, I think in the year, I want to say it's been about a year and a half that their um missing middle ordinance has been in effect, and they're actually revisiting theirs too because it was an interim ordinance, um, but I believe they've only had maybe I want to say like 35 applications for missing middle housing.

Um so they're also concerned that that it's not producing as quickly as they would like.

So as I said, they're looking at making some adjustments to it.

Um, and that is something that we can do, you know, we can sort of see how things go and make adjustments.

So I understand that uh at the moment there might not be building happening just because it the the economics of it isn't work out, right?

But to the uh member of the public that made a comment saying uh what if a Wall Street investor comes in on both sides?

What if they do in five years, ten years when economics do pencil out and work out?

So, I mean, are you know?

Right, so that that is what this proposal would allow would allow building more units on each parcel.

Um currently, for example, somebody, and we're seeing this throughout the city, um, we're seeing smaller existing homes torn down and replaced with much larger homes, uh, much more expensive homes.

We see that frequently.

Um, so there is redevelopment of single-family sites happening, um, especially in western parts of the city.

Um, and in addition to that, I mean, that's why we would have to be looking very closely at the development standards to see where we can apply those in a way that makes sense that doesn't that you know it again we'd have to strike this balance between allowing additional units but making sure that any development is not going to you know overpower what's what's around it.

So that's a balance we'll have to work on that, and that's definitely what the next year and a half would be focused on.

Yeah, think thank you for that.

I agree with that.

I think there should be a balance, and it shouldn't just be all Wall Street homes all across, because uh that could happen.

Um but that's it for my comments.

I'll come back after some more thoughts from others.

Thank you, Commissioner Kendrick.

I'll apologize in advance for getting on my soapbox.

Um, I think we need to look deeper.

Um I hear things in these meetings that are disturbing in a part of our tradition here.

Is deeper part of our tradition as the single family zoning?

There are far too many parallels between this zoning type, racial covenants, and simple redlining across our community.

And those impacts are born on their winners and their losers.

The losers have been losing for far too long.

And now the winners are beginning to lose too.

I'm looking in the audience.

You're looking at me, aren't you?

I'm looking at everyone.

All right, all right.

Okay, I'm just gonna say what I need to say.

And if you'd like to discuss it later, we can.

I'd be happy to.

I'd like to so what I'm saying is that if you look at remaining red lines, you'll notice racial, those communities had racial covenants that impacted mostly people who looked like me and brown like others, and maybe gay who were restricted from those communities.

So as we look at the single family zoning, it has consistently kept the city from the type of growth in other communities that's needed for us to all live here together.

As this is we talked about the cost of housing, we're not the first to do this.

So for example, in Portland, you can actually find a house for $230,000.

It worked, it can work here as well.

When you look at other places that have done this, like Seattle, you'll see good development that fits in communities and it works very well.

If you look at other cities that have been doing this longer, like Chicago, you see a very large diversity in housing types that helps a city grow.

So I think we also should think about the fact that supply can dictate price, and as we look at prices in this community, supply is definitely showing its ugly head.

If you restrict housing to single family this way, eventually you get significantly higher cost of housing.

That is what we have.

This is an opportunity for us to become the city that we want to be.

If you look at other cities with the same amount of zoning, by the way, San Jose, I think has the highest amount of single family zoning.

If you look at other cities that we don't want to be, you'll find they have significantly high single family zoning as well.

So if we'd like this to be a city where we can all live here together, where our children and our grandchildren can grow alongside of us, we're gonna have to make some changes.

That's what we're talking about here.

We're not talking about characters of community, we're talking about communities for everyone.

That's all, Commissioner Young.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um, thanks to the staff for the presentation.

Very very well done.

Um, so I have uh a couple of questions and then I have some comments.

Um first of all, I want to go back to the um issue of faith-based and educational reuse.

Um, which I think Commissioner Olivera referred to, but I I missed it.

I think probably a lot of people in the audience missed it too because you can throw out PCP.

I think that's what we're talking about PC, not PCP, okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so um we we got a really nice, well researched letter from Spur and S V home on this issue.

I brought up this issue the last meeting also, as well.

I think it's really I think it's very important that this task force address this issue and try to see if we can promote this from happening.

I think I heard that there was some influence made.

So I just I want to ask the question very simply, is staff going to recommend some changes in this area so that we could facilitate more development on faith-based and educational properties, and if not, why not?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um I believe we discussed this at the last meeting.

We did review PQP sites across the city and presented some information in terms of total land area acreage, and our recommendation again is that given SB 79, given the potential conversion of PQP sites under SB 79, and the number of sites and acreage, we felt that we didn't want to go and look at non-SB79 sites and identify potential conversions for this work for residential capacity.

We want to see how SB 79 is going to work out.

We want to see if that is sort of a mechanism to build housing in PQP sites, and that was our recommendation at the last um task force meeting.

So we are not at this moment recommending anything different.

Okay, so if you read the letter from Spur and SV Home, a lot of these sites are outside of SB 79 areas.

So again, my question is: why are you not recommending changes in other areas of the city?

Why not do like we're talking about doing, which I think is fantastic, look citywide, right?

We're proposing 32 dwelling units an acre citywide, which I think is the right way to do it because it's fair to everyone.

Everybody has to share part of the burden if you want to call it that.

So why not make a recommendation out of this task force to make it easier for educational facilities or faith-based facilities to convert?

Why are we not recommending that?

So if I if I could add some context as well, uh so PQP is public quasi-public land use designation.

Now many faith-based and educational um uses utilize that land use now.

Traditionally, principally, it's been one of public quasi-public use, so not a housing designation.

And so I think where our analysis and where our approach is coming in is wanting to understand the balance between what land is necessary to remain as land that could serve those uses that public quasi-public use, and then um to look at what could be potential for housing.

And so we've been a little bit more cautious in our sort of look at it.

And I think absent of 79, we we would have taken potentially a more holistic look, but given the um amount of sites changed to allow for housing that don't require any replacement of PQP uses on the site or any commercial uses on the site.

Um we felt like waiting to see what would happen with 79 and the the conversion of those sites.

And I understand that, you know, there are um a large number of of those outside 79.

There is still, you know, and and this is something we could revisit maybe at another meeting.

We did, you know, analysis, and there is still a substantial amount, and I know that the balance is is different, but there still are quite a few sites in those areas.

So that that's that's the approach, and I think um, you know, we still want to understand what should be maintained for those education and faith-based um lands in in for the future looking, you know, long term.

Through the chair, if I could add a little bit to what Jared said.

So uh PQP uh lands in our general plan um are intended as Jared pointed out for those institutional uses and we're and do allow for some residential.

Um our approach there was if there are certain schools or certain faith-based institutions that want to pursue housing, they certainly have paths available to them at this point however doing a citywide analysis on all of the PQP lands and identifying which ones are ripe for conversion is a very intensive exercise because we also don't want to lose PQP lands in certain communities where perhaps they don't have enough community services or institutional uses or lands that can provide those kind of services as these communities grow um and so that you know is a more intensive exercise and we felt uh is perhaps beyond the scope of you know what we can accomplish at this point it is certainly a topic that I think we will revisit certainly with the next general plan update as we see further school closures and further changes in how residential gets built across the city and what's happening in the different areas in different communities of the city but we felt that it would be premature to do this analysis at this point while we are still keeping the door open for you know those individual schools or individual faith-based communities who want to do residential so thank you um the problem with that approach is that as one of the developers pointed out when it when a hearing is involved it can become very complicated and very expensive for the developer we just had one on the union school district site where we had AI-based opposition come in very clearly um and I'm not sure how much money that's gonna cost union school district to go through all that and the appeal and this and that but that's the problem right commissioner was talking about like we need to make it easier for folks to build housing period right however we can do it so I I just I have a diff I'm gonna have a difficult time as a task force member if we come out of this process without a recommendation on PQP and the final question I want to ask and I'm not gonna put the staff on the spot but I'm gonna put you on the spot manera I'm sorry did we did you receive input from other elected officials in the city to not pursue this?

No.

Okay Commissioner Oliverio mentioned that so commissioner do you have other information?

I was only going based on the speaker's comments who reference planning staff and elected officials so don't know I mean we can replay the tape but that's what I was making a comment from.

Through the chair if I could clarify I do know that was it the mayor's office they had an intern or a fellow who was you know exploring what could be um done with PQP lands but city staff was not influenced or our recommendation was not influenced by any uh elected official okay during the during the first meeting of the task force the joint meeting with city council didn't the mayor recommend looking into PQP uses yes we did that's correct and we're not there was a discussion from that it was a study session and so you know as a part of our analysis on residential capacity and looking at ways that's that was our look at PQP and given the 79 you know aspect that was our recommendation around PQP was that because of the impacts of 79 and because of the reasons many explained sort of having to the amount of properties to look through in order to what would be substantial to to go through more and so that that was our recommendation coming from that and our response on PQP.

And if I can add I think if the task force collectively if all members of the task force feel strongly on this topic like when you get an opportunity to make a recommendation to council you can certainly you know include it there.

We as staff are just presenting sort of our rationale and our approach at this moment in time I certainly completely agree with the task force members that this is an important topic and has to be addressed at some point we just felt that this was not the right time to address it citywide we do understand that if proposals come in, you know, we'll certainly look at them and evaluate them on an individual.

If I could just make one comment recommendation to you, we do so we have two more remaining meetings of the task force, one more meeting on residential capacity.

If we could maybe um collect some of more of our thoughts on PQP and have it uh as a part of that discussion.

I'm looking at Ruth, it's more her team.

But maybe but it might be in the presentation.

I don't know if we can get it in the staff report, but we can touch on it.

But I would because I right now I mean we're this is really focused on the missing middle, and I you know I I welcome the comments, but I just want to make sure we get everything in on missing middle and and maybe provide the space at the a future meeting to discuss um since they're related but but not quite related to the the missing middle piece.

So, yeah, no, Jared, I appreciate that, and I and I appreciate that.

Um you have a limited staff, the staff has a limited amount of capacity.

I'm I'm not trying to be critical at all.

Um I would sure hope that we could come back to this in a future meeting because I would hate to just kick this can down the road and say, well, in the future, because a lot of times nothing happens, right?

When that approach okay, I've got uh a couple of Commissioner Young, do you mind I asked one clarification question based on meeting dates?

Sure.

It sounds like staff is then saying that the tentative June 17th date could be potentially programmed.

Is that what you're saying?

That's what we we had shared at the previous and and I think it's reflected on the website now that we will be utilizing that.

It's still tentative on the website.

So okay.

That there we need, yeah.

So it'll be the third and then okay, thank you.

So thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh okay, a couple other couple other questions.

Um Michael, can I just add just a quick thought in to what you're saying?

Yeah.

Maybe at least consider those outside of SB17.

79.

Nine.

Sorry.

Um, it's like words and um just those that would not be impacted by that is a smaller number um that might be more palatable, um, which would actually create motion forward at a minimum.

Thank you.

Um, let's see.

Okay, now I'm gonna make some comments.

Um, first of all, um, you know, we got a really nice letter from Spur and SV Home.

We've heard input that 40 dwelling units an acre would be desirable.

Sure it would, but we also have to make a recommendation that is doable, right?

And you know, this is a very contentious issue.

As one of the speakers mentioned, it's gonna get more contentious.

The more attention that's given to it.

That's why I've really encouraged staff to get this out as widely as possible.

I think 32 dwelling units acre is reasonable.

Um, I would support that.

I I would not be in favor of going higher.

I understand the reason for asking that.

But um I think one of the most the best thing I've seen you all propose is ministerial permits.

That is so important.

It's so important.

We as planning commissioners see these appeals come in, and um, you know, quite frankly, sometimes I I just wonder, right?

I just wonder.

So ministerial approval I think is wonderful.

Um, okay.

I have a question on page 15.

Uh per let's see.

Height versus parcel coverage.

Could you could you could you folks talk about that again?

Because I'm not sure I understand.

Sorry, which page?

Page 15.

I believe it was.

Oh, the recommendations.

Okay.

So just to be clear, this was a uh activity that we had um or that we asked attendees at the open houses to participate in.

But um basically there's kind of a trade-off in terms of when you're talking about how much building you can put on uh on a parcel.

Um there tends to be a trade-off between how tall you go and how much of the how much of the parcel you cover.

Um, so if you allow people to go to go higher, you can then require that they provide more open space on the parcel, which to some people is more desirable, versus if you sort of maintain a lower height maximum, but then allow more of the parcel to be covered, which other people prefer.

And there are, you know, caveats.

We can't just do whatever we want to do.

Um there are some limits to uh sort of there's a box that we can move within, but that's basically what we were asking people to sort of if they could think through would you know is height more of a concern for them, or is more of the parcel being covered more of a concern for them?

Thank you.

Um so based on the input you've gotten from residents and also best practices in other cities.

Do you folks have a sense of where you'll be going on that?

Building height versus parcel coverage.

To really figure out where to land on those, um, you know, I mean, I think the spur letter sort of gets at some of the issues that we have to consider.

Um so I I hesitate to say anything now, except that I think generally what what you see in missing middle ordinances in other cities is a reduction in development standards to allow you know more building, and so that is part of the package.

So the question is how do we sort of um you know balance those so that we still provide a certain amount of open space on the lot, you know, those types of things.

So, again, I'm not trying to avoid the question.

It's it's going to require some modeling and really um looking at you know what you know how you calibrate those standards and what you end up with when you move them up and down.

No, thank you.

I can see how complex that would be.

Would it be fair to say we'll come back to this issue at a future meeting?

Will we have time for that?

So, what we're saying process-wise, is we would we have this we have this general policy framework, and that would be what would be going forward to planning commission on June 24th, and then with the follow-up to city council, and if, you know, if those recommendations are to continue to move forward, we would we would refine that as a part of development of the actual changes to the zoning ordinance and to the general plan, and it would come back at the end of 27 when we approve all of those specific general plan changes, zoning changes, and the environmental review of all of those changes.

So, and as a part of that, we would also do you know additional outreach as well to discuss how the different impacts would go when we did it for kind of the S Senate Bill 9 expansion.

Um, you know, we we did some work around modeling to show what it would look like and work, you know, had discussions with the community on kind of both sides of it to better understand it.

So we just we don't feel we haven't had that time yet, but you know, just getting through this first step and getting agreement on the concept is helpful to then have us go forward and do more work on it.

Great, yeah, great.

That sounds terrific, and um again I compliment planning staff and um planning management for all the hard work you're doing.

Okay, time for me to get on my soapbox.

Uh Commissioner Cantrell was very eloquent, and um I'm gonna go along the same lines, but um, you know, modifying single family zoning or even eliminating single-family zoning is not a radical thing.

Uh, as Commissioner Cantro mentioned, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Seattle, and many others have done this in one form or another.

It's the right thing to do.

We need to do that.

We're not gonna be able to get affordability in San Jose.

We're not gonna be able to get more housing capacity in San Jose without doing this, so um, we're going in the right direction, and I think it's important.

I understand residents who are concerned about where this is gonna go, although I will say throwing out the uh Wall Street investors that's a throwaway line.

That's a that's a whistle, whistleblower.

What's it called, Commissioner?

Yeah, to scare people, really.

Um, and I don't appreciate that.

I think it affects the credibility that we hear.

Um, I would look at it another way.

Let's look at it another way.

Um, I own a home in Cambrian, right?

At some point, I may not be able to live there anymore.

Um, I'm not sure my kids could afford to buy each other out.

So what if I said, you know, um, rather than just selling it as a single family home, I'd like to redevelop it as a triplex, as a four-plex, whatever.

Why shouldn't I have the right to do that?

Why shouldn't the people who own homes in San Jose have the right to do what they want to do with their property?

Some people will just say, I love my house, I'm gonna, you know, sell it, give it to my kids, whatever.

Other people may choose something different.

Why shouldn't they be able to do that?

So, um, anyway, that's the end of my soapbox.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cow.

First of all, I want to say thank you to staff for the presentation, and thank you to the task force for what's been a really spirited discussion so far.

And I'm really hoping to build on what has been shared.

Uh Commissioner Young, just to respond to what you're saying.

I represent that younger generation, probably your kids' generation, and I have no shot at owning a single family home here.

I just want everybody here to understand that very clearly.

Being part of the younger generation, um, and that's my son back there who was trying to provide public comment earlier.

Um my wife and I have virtually no shot to buy home here.

My son, who is nine months right now, will have even less of a shot than my wife and I today.

I'm a policy aide by day.

My wife works at our county hospital, so we do okay, but combined income, we still have zero shot, and I think I need every I'm hoping everyone here in the task force and in the public can understand the the plight that my wife and I are having to go through representing that younger generation trying to find our way, and once again, my wife and I make a decent living together, but we somehow have zero shot, which seems impossible.

So I just want to impress that on all of you, as we're thinking hard about the decision making.

It is my wife and I who you are affecting most.

It is my now nine-month son who we are affecting most, and to that I'll share that the whole PQP conversation.

I know it's not appropriate really for this evening, um, because we're talking about missing middle.

The only comment I'll say there then is as one commissioner, one task force member, I genuinely hope we do have more conversation about that, because for very, very many reasons, local jurisdictions have not been able to figure out how to do more housing.

So the state, big picture, has come in to say we're throwing in SB 79, we're throwing in SB9, we're throwing in a bunch of things into the hat to broaden the local jurisdictions toolboxes to build more housing.

So to that point, I I hope the planning staff can help work with the task force and the commission broadly to then work through all those opportunities and leave no stones unturned in that sense.

So I'll I'll leave it there with that comment.

I think the next point I want to make is perhaps in my eyes, the most important point that the most important thing I see from this whole conversation.

There's a there's there are two seemingly two discussions at play.

One about our theoretical max capacity, right?

And the the conversation, I think, between the 32 units per acre and then 40 units per acre.

Personally, I fall on the hey, let's try to do as much as we can, 40 units per acre.

And yes, that is a lot.

But kind of on the other side of that theoretical max capacity would be the actual capacity, and I don't know if there's a more formal term for that, but I'll just call it actual capacity for what it's worth.

And I think this goes back to Commissioner Casey's point about, sure, we have a max of what is it, eight dwelling uh units per acre right now, but we're not getting very many people to even work within that space, and now we're proposing 32, and there's 40, you know, dwelling units per acre on the table.

Um realistically, now I'm putting on like my parents' hat, they own a home in Santa Clara, so not quite San Jose, but their homes 7, 8x in value, it'd be nice to redevelop, but do they have the money to redevelop it?

I'm not sure.

And for a lot of people who own homes in San Jose, I would I would imagine the situation's quite the same, quite similar.

Where you have you got lucky buying the home way earlier, way early, and now the home's appreciated in value so much that either you sell it and move out of this entire region and live like a king or queen elsewhere, or you just kind of suck it up and stay with what you got, old home, that kind of thing, and make modest improvements.

So, anyway, back to this overarching idea that I think we're I'm starting to see here a theoretical mass capacity conversation and an actual capacity conversation.

I think we as a task force really need to hone in on the actual capacity conversation more so now as we're finishing up this task force work, whether it's staff giving us more ideas to provide input on, or whether it's the task force members and commissioners willing those conversations, and making those recommendations to the planning commission, uh sorry, the planning staff or city council to think about further, it is imperative that we broaden the toolbox for those who have the land who own the homes, the properties across single family homes and so on so forth, to then be able to say, hey, if I want to build housing and support our housing crisis in San Jose, that they actually have the tools to do that to make things easier to build, to reduce the red tape, to increase the options available at their disposal, especially if they have the money to do it.

So maybe in closing, I'll say I'll agree with Commissioner Young's comment on you know the fear mongering with you know Wall Street buying up all the homes.

That is very possible, but more unlikely than likely for at least the majority of projects that would be in this area.

And to close out my comments, just once again, these decisions that we make, these recommendations that we make, the conversations that we will our way into will ultimately affect folks in my generation, my wife and I, and my son's generation.

And I'm thinking about my son, I'm thinking about my buddies, I'm thinking about my own self and the prospects of owning a home here, and right now that is pretty much zero.

So thank you.

Commissioner Cow, when you were just talking, you spoke about the uh inability for folks to be able to redo their own house.

Are you sort of speaking to the capital gap?

I think it's typically called.

Whether it's called the capital gap or something else, uh, yes.

I I think I understand what you're if I'm understanding what you're saying, then I think my response is yes.

I think so.

So generally, mom and pop developers can't turn their property into a multi-unit uh thing, right?

Or building, right?

Have uh you guys addressed this or has staff addressed this at all?

If I just what I could get to that, but I just wanted to make one response as well to on sort of the theoretical versus the actual piece of it, and the 32 versus the 40.

We did um take a look at so we had the kind of the list of the the developed properties that where we looked at parking.

We also calculated what's their average density of those ones that have been built, and it's around 18.

Um, so still kind of well within that 32 range.

Um, so that's why we we feel comfortable with 32 that it gives enough flexibility, um, and you'll remember too that there's the ADU piece of that as well that could be factored in.

Um, so just it kind of gives you a sense.

It's hard for us to um do more of the economic modeling of it versus what's the more actual theoretical building capacity.

Um, you know, it's something I don't think we're gonna be able to provide in the next month in terms of you know, kind of a fiscal analysis, it's something uh we could consider doing as a part of the future work, um, but yeah, anyway.

Um, and then I think sorry, to the uh uh your question around I think I guess what you're you're asking is so you have equity in in the home, but you don't have necessarily the cash to invest in the re-productive.

Right.

So typically you have your typically you have your 30-year mortgages, then you have your the financial products for building very large buildings before these triplexes and whatnot, you don't see a lot of banks offering those types of loans as the city considered partnering with credit unions or uh CDFIs, community development financial institutions or housing authorities for different types of loan products to make this actually feasible.

It's it's something we've looked at in the past.

It's really I think it's something, you know, if if we go through the land use changes, it's something that I think we could continue to look at and work on.

Um, there are a number of different kind of regulatory factors in the number of units and what's backing certain types of loans and things.

I think where there has been a challenge, and we we talked about this with with SB9 is having that owner occupancy requirement does not enable those potentially looking for an investment opportunity to redevelop those sites where they may have some capital in order to do that, but having that requirement could be limiting.

Um, and so our approach would would enable that, right?

Um, where that could happen a bit more.

But I think it's something where if we went down this path, we could do more work on, but it's sort of a separate body of work.

But I think is one that could be could be interesting.

Um, sorry, I'm sitting on my hands.

Um actually I think you're you're on to what will happen.

When you open up a market like this, the market will respond.

Um as well as the city has a compelling opportunity to have his economic development um really respond in ways that make sense as well as um other models, plenty of other financial models that could work here very well.

Um, and as you as you look at how this has worked in other cities, it didn't lead to the type of development that people think.

It actually led to infill development that was fairly consistent with most communities.

Now that's not all, um, but it also led to development of financial instruments that made it possible.

When you don't have a possibility, you don't have that creation.

Yeah, to the extent we staff can look at that financial instruments.

I mean, is there I think it would be tough for us to do in an amount of time that we have.

I think it's it's something if you know, I think we could take on going into that future implementation phase to sort of consider it.

But I think to Commissioner Cantrell's point, as well as you know, you kind of create some of the new environment and then allowing the market to respond to that.

Um and that that gets at why, you know, when we talk about the scaling of the ADUs, how it took some time, you know.

There's there's sort of an adjustment period, right?

And then you get um new industries, new contractors that are experienced in it, and then that's why you saw that ramp up and now kind of that steady progress is is that that's the adaptation, and it doesn't always happen as fast as we would like it, you know, but it but it it does happen um over time, you know, the response.

So, speaking of the ADUs, there are how many different types of pre-approved form ADUs are there now?

So we've we were one of the early adopters to have a pre-approved program.

Um based on our experience so far, they're not typically as utilized.

I don't think that it was necessarily um as beneficial as you know, in concept it sounds, um, but I think because you're at adapting it to fit certain contexts, it's it's it hasn't been as helpful.

Um, but it's something we offer, but it's not not utilized at a very high rate.

There was like four or five different choices.

There's I don't know the number.

There's there's quite a few that are that are pre-approved, but the utilization is is very low based upon experience that we've had.

So Michelle says about 20.

Have you discussed the same type of thing for um these multifamily units?

Something we could consider.

I think given the experience with the ADUs, it not it it there's a lot of upfront work required, and then not having the high utilization, it hasn't proved to be something that that was was benefit beneficial based on the experience.

Um I think there's still a possibility that that it could be done in the future, but um yeah, I mean that I think that's further down the road.

Um, but yeah when you guys when we're thinking about uh so say somebody does build one of these you know multi-family units, does the utility connection cost, is that does that tend to go up when you have these multifamily units, even though they're the same square footage, let's say.

If you had more units, I mean that there would be a per unit you know connection on on each of those.

It would so it would it would sort of scale with the number of units, but it would it would it would vary, yeah.

Um have you thought about you know, since it's the same amount of square footage on whatnot, um working with the utility companies to reduce the amount of costs for a mold.

Thank you, city attorney.

I appreciate your wonderful guidance here.

Uh, there utilities are very closely regulated by it by the state.

Yeah, and and and our most of our utilities are are private as well.

So if I could just chime in based on the ADU experience of my neighbor who I've been close contact, it's the first person who request it pays the entire upgrade fee.

So they're paying the 60, 70,000 to upgrade.

Then the whole neighborhood can take advantage of it.

But the first adopter um pays the fee.

Um, have we ever considered shifting from uh floor area ratio to form-based uh codes?

Um we do have form-based zoning, and it's only for a specific area of the city along Alum Rock.

Um, I think it's King Road and maybe 101.

Um that was implemented maybe 2011, 2012.

But it's the only form-based zoning code that we've ever, like we've done.

We've typically done the heights and uh densities and setbacks as a way to control the form.

And our design guidelines as well.

Wasn't that just wasn't there a discussion about expanding that?

I think back when.

Where do you go?

Uh I think purely we Commissioner Oliverio's been on this commission longer than any of us.

Wasn't that discussed?

I think, when he was here, and um what was her?

Mirabelle and Commissioner Bonia were on the planning commission.

Sorry, I wasn't following the meeting that time.

I don't recall.

Sounds like a good question here.

I like that.

I don't know.

I just had questions.

All right, I'm done.

I'm done.

Yes, Commissioner Barroso.

Alright, perfect.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Staff, for your presentation.

Uh it was mentioned that although there's no parking minimums, that um the average is 1.6 parking spaces per per unit, which is which is great, right?

Um, good to great, depending on how you look at it, in terms of the market itself, developers to get people to buy units, they understand that there's a demand to where to put a car, right, or one and a half cars.

Um with that, I wonder if there's ever a possibility in the future.

Is there a possibility in the future for there to be to kind of capture that as a baseline and say, okay, for any future units housing that are more than 20 units per parcel or something like that, that the minimum is 1.5, right?

If the trend show that naturally it's happening, could the city put in place a minimum?

And the reason I bring that up is just because in certain neighborhoods, we see a lot of cones popping up, people claiming public domain, and on my street across the street, there's three cones, and now I see a sawhorse coming out of someone's garage.

So it's happening, um, and I wonder.

Well, one, I wonder if that's just my neighborhood in District 5.

Um, I wonder if that's a phenomenon happening across the city.

But I am curious, or I do assume that with more people contacted in smaller areas that this possibly will begin to happen.

And again, that creates some stressful situations, right?

Like that doesn't build community, right?

That basically builds fear.

I'm not gonna park there or else my car's gonna get scratched or keyed, right?

So, is one part one of my question is could we use it?

Parking minimums, and then two, um, could there be some complementary parallel ordinances or something where we do something about these cones in the streets?

So to answer your first question, the the cones are are not allowed, so that's already not permitted to be used.

I mean it's it's a it's as you were indicated, they're public rights.

Could we raise the fine to five thousand dollars?

In other words, is there something to deter it, right?

Because I think we have to recognize that we just can't say there's no minimums, let's use bioins, all this good stuff, but you know, kind of um the reality is they're popping up, right?

They're pumping up, people are claiming their spot, right?

They don't want to give it up because it's front of their house or that's where they park for the last 20 years, right?

So it's is there something more that could be done to um to neutralize that phenomenon?

So it's possible for the city to revisit it's you know, adding a parking minimum for this type of development.

Um, one caveat I would add to that that we haven't discussed yet, and it wasn't something that the city had discussed because of the timing, is that there are certain um at least one state law that preempts our ability to add a minimum parking, depending if the development's within a half mile of high quality transit.

Um, so but for those areas outside, then it's presumably possible for us to impose uh a minimum uh parking requirement.

Okay, I just put that out there because it is something that as we begin to um enter this space of raising um the number of units per acre.

Um, um I think that's something to watch, right?

In terms of how do we build community through sharing space, and I think we don't want to negatively impact the public domain on the street and have there be um competition that creates animosity among neighbors, right?

So that's just kind of one of the fallouts that we want to avoid.

So for me, I'm okay starting at 32, not capping it at 32.

Not that we're never gonna get to 40, but I would like it to be sustainable, something we can watch, right?

This is a four-year, a four-year process, so I think 32 is a good starting point, um, and then we'll see how that experience goes right for a couple years, um, and then explore higher higher density.

But I think 32 is already a big jump from from where we're at.

Um, not to say 40 is impossible or 40 is not desirable, but I think 32 is a good on-ramp and a good thing to study before we really begin to increase beyond that.

Um, yeah, so I'll stop right there, but I do have something if time allows at the end about PQ PQPs.

Um, and it's more of like what exactly are we talking about?

So I kind of want to frame that conversation if there's time at the end, because I know that that's not the main topic tonight, Chair.

Could I um could I chime in on the parking?

Sure, go ahead.

Okay, great.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with my colleague.

I am absolutely opposed to any um changes.

We voted as a commission and it was adopted by the council to get rid of parking minimums in the city.

And I do not think I don't think it's a good idea to devote space that could people could live in to cars.

I mean, is it gonna be inconvenient?

Yes.

Is it gonna be a change?

Yes, it is.

Um but I think change is not easy.

Change is hard.

And if you look at major cities, is it a little harder to find a parking space?

Yes.

Okay.

Is that worth helping more people, as Commissioner Cow said, gain the chance to buy a home to be able to afford to even rent a home, right?

Look at the east side of San Jose.

We have four or five families living in a two-bedroom apartment because that's the only way they can survive, right?

The folks that I talked to today that came out and took care of my yard, you know.

This city is becoming unaffordable and it's becoming untenable for all of us because if the folks that do the work here, the work, the hard work, can't afford to live here.

Guess what?

It's not gonna be a very nice city to live in.

So I'm absolutely opposed to any that goes away from what our commission's already adopted and the council's adopted, getting rid of parking minimums.

I don't think we should be discussing that.

I don't personally, I would be opposed to that.

Thanks.

Commissioner Bandal.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, yeah, I do agree with uh keeping it at 32.

I think that's already a 4x uh increase.

Um, I know we need the housing, I know we need the density, I understand all that, but I just don't want to forget quality of quality of life as well.

And uh did you want to share my thoughts on parking as well?

I think parking is it's a concern uh amongst our our residents.

If you go back to the slide, no don't don't actually go back, but if we were to go back to the slide uh in which it entails what the the community feedback that was held, parking was mentioned on there.

So is it affecting quality of life?

It it it absolutely is.

We shouldn't ignore that.

Um because you know, at the end of the day, we are a single f single like single family sprawl, as that's our identity as San Jose.

And when you can't park your car, it's that's an issue.

Then you're looking for parking, you're coming home from work, you're spending 15 minutes for parking, you're trying to put cones up, and you it's it's not a healthy living, I I I would say so.

Uh we need the housing, we need the extra housing.

I know it makes it easier to pencil out for builders.

Um if they're able to eliminate the parking, add more units uh that drives the cost of rent would go down because of that.

If there's parking um required and less units for them to pencil it out, rents would be higher.

So I and I I agree with the housing we need it.

I agree that rents need to be a little bit more affordable, but we should not forget parking.

Um especially for areas that are higher VMT.

If you look at South San Jose, East San East South East San Jose, Northeast San Jose, uh parking is a required commodity in those areas to have a healthy living.

If you live in a higher uh transit oriental uh oriented um areas, then cars are maybe much not needed or could not be needed.

So would staff considered a hybrid approach to this?

Um where there is no minimum in low VMT transit area, so no minimum for parking requirements, but have a conditional minimum for parking plans and parking requirements in high higher VMT areas.

Uh that's a solution that I just came up with.

So I just wondered your thoughts.

Thank you.

Well, so as I mentioned, the the state law wouldn't allow us in in kind of high quality transit areas to have a parking minimum.

Um so if we were to pursue any kind of minimum, that would already be sort of a limiting factor in kind of what you're suggesting in terms of if if there's if the parcels within a half mile of the high quality transit and that sort of goes even beyond the 79 areas, it's any places where you have a um an intersection of uh bus with 15-minute headways.

Um so Jared just just jumped just to clarify, so if it does qualify for SB 79, then there wouldn't be a requirement for parking.

Uh but if you were in a higher VMT area, then could we explore looking into having a parking minimum?

Yes, we we could we could we could consider VMT as as a criteria, um, but we would still be precluded from having minimums already by state law in those certain half mile of transit areas, so that that exceeds already what 79 is, and maybe we can share a map in the future of those areas, but um that's where we'd already be preempted.

So, no, so I I understand that I get that we can't have any minimums there.

I'm saying can we have minimums that are outside of those SBC?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

But I'm but what I was saying is that that's already a guide for us, so we could we could use the VMT as a as a metric, but already built into state law is this standard of high quality transit.

So I mean we could do it, but I was just if we as a policy approach, it might make sense to follow what the state law is, but we could we could consider either at that was just my discussion point.

So, and through the chair, if I could just add on the parking question, so there are other models that the state has put out as well, such as for ADUs in terms of when you require can when cities can require parking versus when they couldn't, and similarly for SB9 units or a density bonus law has certain uh minimum requirements for parking that you cannot go over.

But I don't know if there'll be minimum or maximums at that point.

So there's certainly models that could be explored, um and you know, the staff could look at precluding those kind of requirements for those transit rich areas as well.

I I think if we were if it were the, you know, going and looking at the the 24th meeting, if if there was a majority of the planning commission, you know, that wanted to make the recommendation, it would be, I think, something that we would analyze in that next implementation phase as we're developing the other zoning standards.

Um I don't, in in kind of our period now, I I don't think we're gonna be able to evaluate fully all the different parking types of options, but um, you know, where we would look for guidance is if you know there was a a will uh a desire to look at parking minimums, then we would we would do that as a part of that that next phase, and then we could evaluate some of those different models and and everything else.

Um I actually have a sawhorse on my street, just FYI.

I'm just gonna cat and red paint.

Sure, I wanna keep us here longer than we need to be.

Um, I'll just make a suggestion.

Um I don't not to I'm not being critical of your capabilities.

I I just don't think that economic modeling is within your wheelhouse.

Um I would suggest that you actually um start working with uh OED to do some modeling uh to get a better understanding of what the likely outcomes will be.

Uh I would have actually suggested modeling on the the unit cap or the unit minimum, I guess, uh between 32 and 40, because something that impacts that greatly is the ability to actually get uh the necessary resources to build that.

Um so between 32 and 40 could make a big difference in the the way that these projects can pencil out.

Uh certainly parking is a big part of that too.

But I I would I'd like to see our city action all of its capabilities more often in concert together, uh, to really focus on building out a model so that we can stop guessing and we can have a better idea of what what the impacts will be.

The developers do criticize your financial wherewithal occasionally, behind the back.

Um, anybody else?

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes, um, just going back, and if we do end up talking about PQPs again, my understanding of PQPs and when the discussion comes up, um, just got more broad today, because when we talk about it, I wonder what each task force member commissioner um is thinking when we hear PQPs, and I wonder what the mayor was thinking.

I wonder what everyone else is thinking, I wonder what staff's thinking, because I guess there's a couple of entry points, right?

One is should we be including these open lands that was already well, not open lands, but PQP lands and throwing that into the models.

And I could understand why we should not do that, right?

Because schools, especially in the school area, the land is not even controlled by elected other elected officials, right?

And their decision making body and their money to invest into recruiting developers, putting out bids, so it makes perfect sense on why we we would not include that in our models.

It's not a chicken or the egg.

Um, we can't count our chickens before the eggs hatch.

We don't even have the eggs or the chicken in our area, right?

We're talking about other land that other people control, right?

So it does make perfect sense where we can include that in the model.

But I don't know if that's the discussion point.

Should we be pressuring them?

Should we be pursuing influencing them?

My stance is no, because think about the giving tree.

They've already given a lot, right?

They're wheeling because declining enrollment, and and we wouldn't want to poach their lands now.

If like the union school district, a recent example, if they come to us and they say, Hey, we want to develop this land without influence, without pressure, because I don't think that that would be something that we would want to do.

But if they come to us, what can we do to support them?

I think that I'm for sort of like the daycare center law that just passed.

That makes sense.

Why create why create this whole other path when if there's a new development, daycare center wants to come in, let's streamline the process so they don't have to go through another route.

Let's just kind of bake it into their paperwork and the procedures.

Um make it more efficient.

That makes sense in terms of let's pursue PQP procedures to make it more efficient once they come to the table.

Okay, yeah.

I'm okay exploring that kind of concept, but in terms of including in our models, um influencing them to you know, school district and faith-based organizations to do their part, they've done their part and they're doing their part.

I don't think that we need to go in as as big brother or however you want to look at it and pressure them to say, hey, you got to do your part, give up your land.

We're expecting you to come in.

No, no, no, no, no.

Again, not in our jurisdiction, they have their own elected officials.

I think that's very, very murky territory for us to go in.

But that's it.

So again, taking a step back on why I brought this up.

I wonder where everyone is trying to, or what people hear when they hear we really got to do something about PQPs, because there's many entry points, there's many perspectives around that.

All right.

Anybody else?

All right.

Uh well, before we end, I just wanted to say that I you know I really feel for uh Commissioner Cow, and that was a nice trick bringing the kid to the meeting.

But um I think in reality, I think there are many people from our generation, and I think I'm talking about people 55 and under that feel like they don't have a shot at uh owning a house, your average house in San Jose at median price is 1.5 million, uh median single family home is 1.75, which for a 36 to 40% debt to income ratio, you would need to be making 350 to 450,000 per year, which I don't think many people in this room make.

Um, so for I mean, that reason alone, I'm certainly for these proposals because I don't know how we're going to get this 350 to 450,000 a year to live here.

And I think you see a lot of folks.

I mean, I'm the vice president of the D2 NLC.

We have a lot of folks on that NLC that uh enjoy that enjoy their single family home or certainly don't want to see multi-family dwellings coming up next to them, or multi-apartment or sorry, sorry, multi-multi- multi-unit.

Um, but we're already seeing, you know, plenty of multi-family, multi-generational housing is just becoming more and more popular.

And I certainly would like a wall between me and my mother-in-law, but I think with multi-general, I think with multi-generational housing, you see more health issues, uh, and that affects your quality of life, you know, creates a lot of friction, interpersonal stress.

You're taking care of your parents and you're taking care of your kids.

It's tough.

I think you should have your own door to lock if you wanted to build something like that.

So, anyways, I think people should have the freedom to be able to do what they want with uh the land that they have, and I mean parking is uh I sort of view it as a necessary reality, and that's all I got.

So with that, um, just wanted to uh quick reminder before we we wrap up.

Um, so our next meeting, June 3rd.

Um, we will come back and talk about residential capacity, and then June 17th is on we'll update the website.

It's not um, what was it, tentative?

We will be talking at that one on urban village strategy and um giving you an overview of our environmental review process for the um the task force.

That will be the final task force meeting, and a week after we will come back with our recommendations for your vote to the planning to the city council.

Can I ask a planning commission question?

Is the meeting next week canceled?

Okay, uh, we have a study session next week on the General Plan Annual Progress Report.

That'll begin at five.

At five.

So it's only a study session, not no meeting after, so at five, yeah.

Thank you.

Um by the way, the three hundred and fifty to four hundred and fifty, that's if you don't have student loans.

If you went to law school, and you could face a significant monthly payments.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And uh the student loan overhaul is coming.

So those of the general plan task force is adjourned.

Thank you.