Good evening.

My name is Carlos Rosario, and I'm the chair of the Planning Commission.

Welcome to the seventh out of eight meetings of the 20 and 25, 2026 General Plan 4-year review.

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

Please remember churnal cell phones, the parking validation machine for the garage underneath City Hall is located near the entrance.

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

We will start with the roll call.

Commissioner Barroso is not here yet.

Commissioner Bondal, not here.

He's back there.

Oh, all right.

Commissioner Kentrell.

Here.

Commissioner Cao.

Here.

Commissioner Casey here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Here.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Here.

Commissioner Young.

And I am here.

That makes nine of us.

Please note that the public comment is listed as item number five on the agenda and will take place before task force discussion.

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

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

In response to public comment, the planning commission is, the task force is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public or requesting staff to report back at a matter of subsequent meeting.

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

Thank you, Commissioner.

We will share our presentation shortly.

So we will quickly go over the agenda.

So the next item is going to be an update on outreach efforts, followed by the residential capacity analysis and recommendations.

We will then have public comment and task force discussion.

The outreach and engagement plan for the four-year review staff conducted four in-person open houses in April and May, held at various locations throughout the city.

As much as possible, information was presented using plain language through informational boards, mapping exhibits, and interactive activities designed to gather input on the strategies.

Planning staff worked with an engagement consultant, winter consulting, and the Office of Racial and Social Equity to execute these four events.

Winter Consulting also partnered with two local community-based organizations, Vietnamese Volunteer Voluntary Foundation, and Los Amigos de Guadalupe, to support engagement and participation from underrepresented and underserved communities.

These events were promoted through the project website, targeted social media posts, and email announcements, and was amplified through emails from council offices, the parks, recreation, neighborhood services, neighborhood engagement team, and the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits.

In addition to the feedback received on each policy area, there were general themes heard across the four events, support for mixed-use neighborhoods with amenities, the need for deeply affordable housing, and increasing increasing transit options where we plan for growth.

In addition to the in-person open houses, staff launched an online platform for the virtual open house.

The picture on the left is a snippet from the website showing the Spanish version of the urban village station and a comment in Spanish calling for tenant protections and support for mid-density housing.

The virtual open house was open for comments from mid-April through late May, and we received approximately 260 comments in multiple languages.

A summary of that feedback will be presented at the next task force meeting.

An effort led by the Office of Racial and Social Equity.

Two of the focus group meetings were with the disability community, and one was conducted with San Jose for All, the advisory group to the Office of Racial and Social Equity.

The current advisory group members span across the various council districts, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural communities.

These members are also connected to the disabled community, LGBTQ community, and immigrant community.

While not a focus group presentation, the Office of Racial and Social Equity and Planning Staff presented an update on the work completed thus far to the youth commission in May.

Other outreach conducted over the past several weeks includes presentations at neighborhood group meetings, such as the Almaden Valley Community Association, the District 6 Leadership Group, Families and Home San Jose, and the District 1 leadership group.

Lastly, we wanted to provide an update on conversations that planning staff has had with VTA.

Last month we met with VTA's real estate and TOD team to discuss Cerroni and Santa Teresa sites as VTA has interest in redeveloping these sites with a mix of uses, including residential uses.

Staff determined that we could fold in the review of Soroni, the Saronny site in North San Jose into our future work plan item, North San Jose Housing 2.0.

That is another program that we have to complete as part of the housing element.

And that work is scheduled to begin next fiscal year.

And in terms of Santa Teresa planning and BTA staff will continue to discuss potential paths for a mixed use, mixed use potential on that site and as the months come.

And with that, I will hand it over to the team for residential capacity.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Are those VTA sites PQP?

I can't remember now off the top of my head.

They're not PQP.

Do you remember?

Jared Ferguson principal planner.

They are industrial parts.

Okay.

Thank you, Ruth, and good evening, everyone.

Sanhita Ghosha, supervising planner of the general plan team.

So today I'm going to present on the residential capacity of a neighborhood community commercial under SP 79.

At the April Task Force meeting, the task force requested more information about the realistic potential capacity of Senate Bill 79 or SP 79.

Staff evaluated the impacts of this bill on one of the journal plan designations, the neighborhood community commercial designation.

Before I get into the presentation, a quick refresher on SB 79.

SB 79, also called the Abandoned and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, will take effect on July 1, 2026.

It overrides local zoning on eligible sites within one-half mile of certain transit stops and allows housing on land currently zoned for residential, mixed use or commercial uses.

It sets new height, floor area ratio, and density standards based on the distance from pedestrian access points of qualifying transit stations.

The city has 56 transit stations and roughly 40,000 properties that could be impacted by SB 79.

SP 79 prescribes densities that range from 100 to 160 units per acre near Tier 1 stations and 80 to 140 units per acre near Tier 2 stations.

At full build out, these densities could result in significant additional housing capacity.

However, this represents theoretical capacity, actual or realistic development potential will depend on lot size, existing uses, market feasibility, and site constraints.

To better understand the impact of SP 79 and the potential unit yield, staff reviewed eligible sites with the neighborhood community commercial designation.

These are the third largest category designation within SB 79 buffer zones behind residential neighborhood and mixed-use neighborhood designations.

There are a total of approximately 1,243 sites in 745 acres of land designated as neighborhood community commercial within SP 79 buffer area.

Staff used a methodology that was similar to that used to identify opportunity sites for the six-cycle housing element using criteria such as parcel size, existing use, and existing flow radio ratio or FAR.

Staff then classified sites by existing conditions as follows existing residential, vacant lands, parking uses, underutilized sites, and all other uses.

The all other uses category include sites developed with banks or auto services or restaurants, the uses that you would usually see in neighborhood community commercial designations.

Approximately 43% of these sites, neighborhood community commercial sites in SB 79 have existing residential uses.

As properties with existing residential uses may be less likely to redevelop in the near term than non-residential sites, staff removed them from the exercise.

So that leaves us with the non-residential parcels only, which are 57% of total neighborhood community commercial sites in the SB 79 buffer area.

Next staff narrowed down the analysis to parcels that has uses and site characteristics that suggest a higher likelihood of redevelopment and these criteria are vacant parcels meaning those that has no existing structures parking lots which are beneficial in some respects but can be considered less valuable when compared to other existing development and underutilized sites the ones with fluoride ratio of 0.2 or less so this is a definition of underutilized sites that's established in the envision San Jose 2040 general plan policy H-2.9 and the assumption of focusing on these parcels the vacant and the parking lot in underutilized is that parcels with all other uses that other category I mentioned before and those with the FAR of 0.2, they could potentially redevelop but are less likely to do so.

And lastly staff focused on parcel size ranges of 0.5 to 2.0 acres because that's the parcel size range that's most common in current development applications in San Jose.

So for the results the table on this slide shows the breakdown of parcels in the target parcel range of 0.5 to 2 acres they are non-residential and in the neighborhood community commercial category applying the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre and a meat density range of 100 dwelling units per acre that are allowed under SP 79 the potential unit yield could be between about 1900 and 6600 as you can see in that pink box at the bottom of the table.

For comparison if we take into account all non-residential neighborhood community commercial parcels in this given size range of 0.5 to two acres the maximum yield would be about 18,800 parcels sorry 18,800 units.

So to conclude this capacity estimate presented today they are based on a series of assumptions and actual housing production will likely vary from these estimates staff will continue to monitor implementation of SB 79 as additional data on proposed development becomes available.

That concludes this part of the presentation shall we move questions Oliver?

Hey so the staff have a spreadsheet with all the thousands of parcels with their parcel number acreage all that type of stuff and then you're telling me that you can then manipulate that spreadsheet to show different possibilities.

Yes.

So we have characteristics of each site, like the site size, uses, I think age of building, different characteristics.

So filter sort, yeah.

And then how many cities did you maybe communicate with that did their own assessment of SB 79?

We've been in conversations with cities throughout the state that are impacted by 79, most of the large cities.

I don't know that we've had specific conversations in terms of looking at methodologies to predict what we think might happen.

It's been more around the calculation and some of the implementation steps of 79.

So I haven't I haven't seen anything like this.

I mean, we can certainly, you know, ask and inquire, but I haven't seen this sort of effort done yet on these sites.

And then any municipality can have an interpretation of a state law.

Um believe our interpretation is pretty conservative of the impact.

Let's let put it this way.

You could say I'm just allowing every parcel as the SB 79 makes that impact down it, and it's not up to me when it develops, but the theoretical capacity is actually much larger.

That someone a city could come up with that framework versus I'm taking this out, I'm taking this out, I'm taking this out.

That's kind of what it is.

Yes, yes.

And I think we may have presented that very large number in a previous presentation, and so we just wanted to give some parameters and suggest, okay, if it's sort of the typical site size, you have the underutilized uses that we've seen redevelop, maybe this is what we will get.

Okay, thank you.

And I think the only thing I would say it further is I know that the the word theoretical is used, but you know, if the mayor of Los Angeles strongly opposed SB 79, there's probably a reason because of the potential level of impact, right?

The potential level of development.

We might say the LA market is different than San Jose, or you might say they're very similar.

I don't know, but just want to throw that out there.

Thank you for your work.

To the chair, if I could just add, so I think the methodology staff used was the one that we use for the six-cycle housing element.

So it is something that was vetted by HCD when we went through the certification process for for the housing element.

Now, completely acknowledge the point that you made, Commissioner, that it is limited to just the NCC sites, but you know, there are also residential areas and other zoning districts within SB 79 that could be developed as well.

But again, it's hard to say what the impact of SB 79 will be because that isn't effective yet.

It goes into effect July 1st.

I don't think we've received any applications at this point, although there might be some projects that may be considering the SB 79 path.

So it's still to be seen what the actual effect would be on development of this new law.

Mr.

Cow.

All right, hello, and thank you very much for at least this first portion of presentation.

Um couple couple questions here.

Um on page 11 vacant focused on vacant parking lots and underutilized sites.

How does the department define underutilized?

So we used um a definition that we have in um the the general plan right now that's found in policy H-2.9.

In a previous four-year review process, we were asked to develop a policy that would allow affordable housing to be built on neighborhood community commercial sites, sort of giving them a pathway that other types of developments won't have.

And so in that process, we decided we should look at sites that again are underutilized, and in that sense, we um came to the determination that it should be um it's either vacant, completely vacant, so a parking lot or nothing built on it, or if it does have a building, an FAR of 0.20 um uh or below, and um I think the definition said if it was above 2.0, it would um have been vacant, like the structure itself would have no tenants for at least five years.

Um, and that just seems like just very on the low end, the point two, right?

Um, it's generally the the building doesn't take up a lot of the site, and from an urban planning and sort of a more urban perspective, we want to use as much of our the land area as possible.

Right, okay.

Thank you very much for that.

Um, as for the site size of half an acre to two acres, how do we determine that range?

Um, especially if we're thinking of any sites that are just out of that range, like a little below or a little higher.

Um the point five was something we also uh found through the housing element um six cycle.

Um that was the minimum site size for affordable housing that the state determined would be viable for affordable housing, and generally that's we don't see anything below that for multifamily housing.

It's maybe in downtown we might downtown we have smaller and we have more density and less uh setback regulations, and point five to two is generally what we see right now for um residential development in San Jose.

Got it.

And then going off of uh what Commissioner Olivario just brought up, uh, had me thinking on a related note.

For these sites that are identified, I think it was what 1243 um parcels.

Yeah, on page 12, wherever, yeah.

Um that the yield could be anywhere between almost 2,000 units to 6600 units.

Um out of curiosity, is there a way for the task force to s like see this on like do you have like an RGIS program where you we can actually see the sites that you're talking about and be able to click and get info data on it?

Like is there anything like that?

Um we could create something like that, it's just gonna take a lot of time and um it would require um support from our GIS mapping team.

Okay.

What we used in this instance was a spreadsheet and you know, finding the sites and the site size.

And and is that spreadsheet available to we're happy to share that and sort of the math behind it.

Got it.

And I think what had me thinking about our GIS and just essentially like a way to visually see this is it's helpful as helpful as it is to have, you know, maybe a spreadsheet with just rows and rows of parcels, data.

Um, I think if we're able to visualize that at all, I don't know how time-intensive it is.

It sounds like it would be would be.

Um, but I would just say that it would be a very quick, easy way for us to be able to see not only the city of San Jose, but then this some of the parcels that are under consideration and the overlays that could possibly be built on that to show, okay.

This is the density that we're at today, this is what you know that 30 dwellings uh yeah units per acre versus you know, if we were to do a hundred units per acre, like what I'm trying to get at is there's a range of possibility and density, and to be able to see that visually, I think would be a really helpful thing.

I don't know how much time that would take.

So just actually you can almost get there.

You can't get it to the GIS system for the city will let you put it in parcel and really identify what it looks like and where it is.

Okay.

So you could easily take the spreadsheet and go and review those individually.

Okay.

You won't get it would be beautiful to have, you know, a drive down the street, see what it looks like perspective, but uh that would be very complicated.

We do have another mapping tool um that has a lot of this data in it that we need to add the 79 layer in now that we have kind of the MTC map in, and it has a lot of the data that was utilized in terms of building size, year built, and so it wouldn't necessarily show the the model that we're showing here, but would at least give you kind of the data that we would be using on a site basis to make those predictions.

I will say it even if we put it visually on a map, it's a lot of data to display.

So it's it it may or may not be be helpful in terms of of giving you a better idea.

Yeah, yeah.

And I completely acknowledge what I'm bringing up right now.

I have no clue how much effort it would be from staff perspective, so I'm mindful of that, very mindful of that.

I think it's just more of you know what can we do to visualize and see data differently and as nice as it is to see spreadsheets and you know, rows and rows, columns of data, to be able to see it visually, makes it a lot easier for us to pick up on.

That's just a suggestion.

Just need a healthy infusion of AI.

You can just import a spreadsheet structured data into the GIS software.

Yeah, if you don't want to do one by one, you would do thousands at a time.

If we're able to add it quickly to this other mapping tool, I think it will get out what you're what's so we'll we'll work on that and try to share it with with the public and with the commission.

So thank you.

Copilot, everybody's thinking the same thing.

You don't need co-pilot.

It's already been around for years.

Oh, the danger with high tech people that sounds good.

Are we going to move on?

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Laura Moore.

I am uh planner, uh next we will go into um our residential capacity analysis and recommendations.

Uh the first topic for discussion is gonna for residential capacity is going to be on the potential land use designation changes along the Winchester Boulevard and the Alameda corridors.

The two pictures on the left here showcase some of the typical building forms found along the Alameda.

Uh one of them is a mid-century office tower on the top, and then a historic single family home converted to office use on the bottom, both with the historic 40-foot setback and the large mature trees.

At the four open house community meeting meetings that we had in April and May, the community was presented with boards that showcased the two corridors and the sites under review for potential changes, where staff was available for any questions or comments about the sites.

Additionally, the board activities for the two corridors asked community members to provide feedback on what they thought the city should prioritize when planning for more homes in these areas.

For the Winchester corridor, the feedback received had mixed support for additional housing and placed an emphasis on moderate neighborhood appropriate density.

The main concern centered around maximum heights to enable neighborhood compatibility, potential loss of commercial space if ground floor commercial is not included in new developments, and increased vehicular traffic.

For the Alameda Corridor, there was also mixed support for additional housing along the corridor, with some people advocating for higher density and others preferring little change to the current density.

There was also more emphasis on new housing to be affordable.

The main concern centered around preservation of the existing historic buildings and trees and the historic compatibility of any new structures, as well as potential loss of existing businesses along the corridor.

For the Winchester Boulevard Corridor, which is between New Hall and Forest Avenue, staff conducted a site-by-site analysis of 20 sites with either the neighborhood community commercial land use designation or other designations with commercial uses, which are outlined on the map in black.

Staff reviewed each site's lot size, use and age of the existing building, how close the site was to amenities and services, and the vacancy rates for commercial and office businesses.

The analysis revealed that sites were mainly commercial uses, which with some small office uses and some residential uses.

The buildings along the corridor are mostly older, built pre-1975, except for two single-family homes along Fernwood Avenue that was built in the late 90s, and Krung Tai, which was built in the early 2000s.

The vacancy rate for the corridor was 0.6% over the last 10 years compared to a six to four percent citywide retail vacancy rate.

However, two locations at 826 North Winchester Boulevard and 600 North Winchester Boulevard have been vacant for many years, which isn't captured in the vacancy data.

For existing residential uses along the corridor, staff is recommending changing their land use designations for five sites to residential or mixed use designations that match or slightly increase the density allowed on these sites.

For example, at 770 North Winchester Boulevard, pictured on the bottom left and located in the middle red box on the map, is an existing multifamily residential building with 30 rent controlled units.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation to mixed-use neighborhood, which is more which more closely matches the existing density.

For commercial and office uses between Forest Avenue and Fernwood Avenue, as well as 826 North Winchester Boulevard, outlined in red on the map.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation to urban residential with an 85-foot maximum height, which is consistent with the nearby Santana Roe Valley Fair urban village plan and is below the normal 135-foot maximum height for urban residential.

For example, at between 600 and 690 North Winchester Boulevard, which is pictured in the bottom left, and part of the outlined red box on the right on the map, are commercial and office uses with older buildings located closer to amenities along Winchester along Stevens Creek and Valley Fair Mall.

And staff is recommending changing the land use designation to urban residential with the 85-foot max height.

Urban residential designation allows commercial and higher density residential uses.

Is a single-family home that was converted to office use.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation to mixed-use neighborhood.

The mixed-use neighborhood designation allows commercial and mid-density residential.

For the Alameda Corridor between I 880 and Pershing Avenue, staff conducted a site-by-site analysis of 73 sites with a neighborhood community commercial land use designation outlined in black on the map, and one site with a public quasi-public land use.

Staff reviewed each site's lot size, existing uses, surrounding uses, the age and historic designation of the buildings, and the vacancy rates for commercial and office businesses.

The analysis revealed that the corridor is mainly comprised of small and large office uses, with smaller offices more likely to be in historic single-family buildings converted to office uses.

Additionally, the corridor contains several rent controlled multifamily buildings and some single-family homes.

Nearly all the buildings along the corridor were built prior to 1981, except for two offices at 1746 and 1764, the Alameda, constructed in the mid-90s.

A large proportion of the buildings along the corridor are either historically designated or could potentially be designated.

The vacancy rate for the corridor was 6.6% in the last five years compared to a 13.8 citywide office vacancy rate, and the vacancy rate was 3.1% for the last five to 10 years compared to a 9.2 citywide office vacancy rate.

Due to these low office vacancy rates and the historic context of the buildings on the corridor, there are limited infill opportunities for residential development.

At 1860 the Alameda, pictured on the bottom left and outlined in red on the map, is the Rose Garden Inn with an attached restaurant at the front of the building on a 1.46 acre site.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation to a higher density mixed-use designation like urban residential.

At 1541, the Alameda, pictured on the bottom left and outlined in red on the map, is a YMCA with a large surface parking lot on a 3.8 acre site and has a quasi public quasi public land use designation.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation of only the parking lot portion of the site to a mixed use designation like urban residential.

And now I'll pass it over to David for the next section.

And let's just questions.

Thank you, Laura.

David Fall, planner.

We're now turning into the third topic of tonight's presentation.

This is mixed-use commercial or MUC designation.

The MEC designation was originally created in 2011 to support mixed-use redevelopment with a strong commercial component and some housing above.

The following slides will describe staff's analysis, findings, and recommendations for MUC sites.

So starting with the big picture, citywide, there are 779 MUC parcels covering approximately 218 acres.

The median parcel size is just 6,000 square feet, which is about the same size as a typical single family lot.

And that small parcel size is key to understanding the challenges here.

56% of all AUC acreage is located within designated growth areas such as urban villages, specific plant areas, and downtown.

This means these sites are intended for intensification.

As you can see from the map on this slide, there is significant variation by location and context.

Some clusters are in urban villages, others are along busy arterial corridors outside of urban villages, and some are scattered across the city in more isolated locations.

Because of that variation, our key takeaway is that a site-by-site evaluation is recommended.

It's important to understand what we heard from the community.

There's general support for more housing on MUC designated land.

Respondents consistently emphasize stronger walkability, pedestrian friendly streets, and more local amenities like grocery stores, retail, and community spaces.

There were also concerns that overlap with what we heard about missing middle housing, worries about overcrowding, infrastructure strain, and the impacts of upzoning near single family neighborhoods.

The strongest support was for concentrating growth in areas that already have transit access and higher densities.

Here's how staff approached analysis.

First, we separated out MUC parcels with existing residential uses because these sites operate under a different regulatory environment.

Then for the remaining non-residential sites, we reviewed both the policy and regulatory context for each area and group sites into three categories.

Those are parcels within urban villages or planned areas, corridor-based sites along major arterials, and dispersed isolated parcels.

Within each category, we evaluated the potential for redevelopment and the importance of preserving commercial uses.

You can see on the slide two examples that illustrate the spectrum.

There's the legacy mixed use project at 13th and Jackson, which reflects the original MUC vision, with ground floor commercial uses taking up more than 0.5 FAR of the site and a few residential units above it.

Then below is the rendering of a project currently under construction at 1141 West San Carlos.

Town homes with no commercial component because state density bonus allows it as a condition for two units of affordable housing.

In terms of MUC parcels that already contain residential uses, there are 284 such parcels.

About 44% are single-family homes, roughly a fifth are small apartment buildings, and about a third are townhomes or condominiums.

These sites raise distinct set of considerations.

Since 2011, when the general plan was adopted, the regulatory environment has changed significantly.

State and local tenant protections have become stronger, and projects involving existing residential units are now required to replace demolished units.

That means redevelopment on these sites is much more complex and constrained than it was when MUC was first established.

Staff will continue to evaluate these parcels individually to identify where conversion to a residential land use designation might be appropriate.

Moving on to the sites within urban villages, approximately 260 MUC parcels, about 41% of the total MUC acreage, are located within urban village plant areas.

These are concentrated in some of the city's most active planned corridors, the Alameda, East Santa Clara, Stevens Creek, West San Carlos, Santana Road, and South Winchester Boulevard.

The existing uses are predominantly commercial.

Here we have mostly auto-oriented retail, strip malls, surface parking with some residential infill scattered within.

These parcels tend to cluster along arterial streets.

While they are larger than the average MUC parcel, most are still under half an acre, which means high density residential development would typically require a parcel assemblage.

And land use changes in these areas should align with the adopted urban village policies and objectives.

So we're going to look at example here.

This is West San Carlos Urban Village.

This area along the north side of San Carlos Street between Race and Synol have active commercial uses, including grocery stores, strip malls, used car lots, and independent retail.

Commercial vacancy here is low at 3.21% for the last 10 years.

When we evaluate whether to convert MEC parcels to residential, staff will consider how that effort can support the plan's vision and goals for a vibrant pedestrian-oriented area.

The second major category is corridor-based sites along arterials outside of urban villages.

These are clusters of adjacent parcels along major streets like Keys Street and South First Street.

The character of these areas is typically older, auto-oriented commercial development, including small retail, restaurants, offices, auto services, and used car lots, often interspersed with single-family and small multifamily residential.

Parcel sizes are small, the median is still around 6,000 square feet, which limits the potential for higher density redevelopment.

The Key Street area between South 7th and South 12th Street is a good illustration.

It's a high activity corridor with a mix of commercial uses and residential buildings, and it has the lowest commercial vacancy rate of any MUC area in San Jose at 0.27%.

When a corridor is performing this well commercially, converting individual parcels to residential could lead to displacement of small businesses, potentially weakening a commercial district that serves the surrounding neighborhood.

At the same time, we recognize there are older and lower intensity buildings along these corridors that may have redevelopment potential over time.

These don't function as part of a larger corridor or commercial node.

They tend to be larger parcels.

The median of this group is about 0.78 acres, which is significantly larger than the citywide MUC median.

That size difference matters because larger sites are generally better candidates for standalone residential or mixed use redevelopment without needing assemblage.

However, because these sites are so buried in context, each one needs to be evaluated individually.

One of the dispersed parcels worth highlighting is the site at the northwest corner of Lundy Avenue and Murphy Avenue, also known as the Pacific Rim Plaza.

It was developed around 1995 with 75 townhomes and about 46,000 square feet of commercial retail and office space.

The commercial uses are active and well-occupied, but here's the policy tension this site illustrates.

Under current state housing laws and density bonus provisions, the commercial portion of this site could face redevelopment pressure for additional housing.

Despite the fact that the commercial uses are thriving, the MUC designation intended to promote mixed use may create vulnerability for the commercial component.

This is one of the broader issues staff identified in some areas, retaining the MUC designation may not be enough to protect viable neighborhoods serving commercial uses over the long term.

So a few takeaways.

Strong commercial corridors are present in several locations throughout the city.

These areas typically have low vacancies.

So given that a site-specific approach, while taking into account the local context is recommended for further research.

For sites being considered for commercial redesignation back to commercial or mixed use, we look at low vacancy rates, importance to corridor continuity, presence of neighborhood serving uses, and consistency with urban village objectives.

For sites where residential redesignation makes sense, we are prioritizing larger parcels, transit accessibility, underutilization, and locations where residential use is already de facto condition.

So this brings us to the end of tonight's presentation.

We're open to any questions.

All right, any quick questions before we go to public comment?

Commissioner Alvario.

Page 17, there's a parcel where there were 30 rent restricted units, and you would zone it to something different based on state law.

I mean, how many what type of density is required to overcome 30 rent controlled units, right?

Because it that generates an obstacle, correct?

Yes, resident, I think residential of any type.

It is a little bit more complex.

It requires if you if you're demolishing existing residential units, you have to replace, we have relocation requirements as well.

Right.

So just out of curiosity, so if it's if it's 30 on a parcel and you're trying to incentivize, incentivize development, then what's that density staff's belief that where it makes sense that that would happen?

You could say X number and nothing will ever happen, or you could say XX, and something's much more likely to happen.

Um I don't know that we know exactly what that density would be, yeah, to incentivize the redevelopment of the site.

Okay.

I would just add to, I think generally our approach is around protection of units so that we wouldn't be looking to upzone to incentivize, you know, um redevelopment or displacement.

So wherever there is a rent-controlled uh dwelling unit, then we should ideally have or staff believe there should be a policy to keep it as is.

I don't know that that's necessarily the case, but as we are looking at this corridor in particular, and we had a site where there's residential on the site and it has a commercial designation and changing it to residential, we felt it most appropriate to match what was on the site.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Through the chair, perhaps I could add a little more context as well.

And I forgot to introduce myself earlier when I spoke, so many are sending your deputy director of planning.

Um, when it comes to rent control units, so the city does have a number of tenant protection requirements as well.

So if there is redevelopment proposed, uh the applicant has to meet those standards, and then the state has a requirement for the no-net loss of units of affordable and rent restricted or deed restricted units, and so any applicant who chooses to redevelop a property has to make sure those units are provided at that same uh income level, affordable level.

All right, we will go on to public comment.

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

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

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.

So if you would feel free to line up behind the uh microphone right there, Liana Olive, Greg Carlson, and Michelle Hiddelman.

Thank you.

My name is Liana Allah, and I'm a third-generation resident of San Jose, and this last 50 years I've been living in the Corey neighborhood.

Um the city of San Jose is respectfully trying to preserve existing neighborhoods and not to destroy them.

North Winchester is not a main traffic corridor.

It consists of small neighborhood service businesses, senior residences, and churches.

Putting in large multi-story apartment complexes in this area will result in severe traffic, parking, and safety issues.

So I urge you to preserve our neighborhoods, as I know you would like to do.

We don't have a lot of parks in our area.

And it's to see that land and the housing just be utilized in high-density ways is going to be very devastating.

So I thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

My name is Greg Carlson with a concerned quarry neighbors.

And just a few questions along with a comment and a suggestion is I ask who among you will be the voice of reason.

And who among you, while supporting growth will support the integrity of the neighborhoods.

And who among you have been to our neighborhood, especially during commute hours, to acknowledge that the Winchester Corridor will struggle to support structures over four stories.

And I would suggest that when considering development along the Winchester Corridor, you might look at Willow Glen for a model that benefits from and supports its community.

And I might make a suggestion that you visualize if you can along the Winchester Corridor all the way to New Hall Street, perhaps partnering with Santa Clara and visualize a tree-lined street with bike lanes and controlled traffic and cafes that support the neighborhood and bring people in without causing more traffic.

Thank you.

What's excuse me?

What staff is proposing along the Winchester corridor will have an outcome of converting successful businesses to pure residential, which seems at odds with San Jose's goal of preserving the business tax base that is already too low.

Mixed-use commercial would be a better option.

It has the same 85-foot height limit, but would have a better chance at preserving thriving community businesses such as the new Krung Tai restaurant, Forest Tailoring, Burger Barn, Baskin Robin, and others.

As stated tonight, the commercial vacancy rate is very low compared to average vacancy rates in San Jose.

Urban residential rezoning here would create a large grouping of new, dense, super high buildings with no parking mandates.

This will cause spillover parking and congestion from hundreds of cars entering and exiting each new building.

This will negatively impact businesses all along Forest west of 880 and the residential houses nearby, which are already impacted by overflow parking from Valley Fair, especially since they've just recently raised their parking rates.

The proposed changes would likely cause these businesses to decline or fail once many customers stop coming because of the congested roads and lack of convenient parking.

Even if the businesses try to tow offending vehicles, it will still be a problem to deal with.

It would be a mistake to allow urban residential density along all along this corridor.

Businesses, established residents, as well as new residents will suffer terribly.

We cannot count on builders to provide adequate parking even when it's in their own best interest.

Just look at the number of large apartment buildings that have gone bankrupt due to less than 50% occupancy, which has been attributed to lack of provided parking.

We need to preserve commercial businesses in and around this corridor as well as the commercial tax revenue they bring to the city.

If there is concern that mixed-use commercial discourages development, stipulate in the plan that the commercial mandate could be waived on an individual basis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ken Hindleman and then Robert Swick and Benjamin White.

The Cory neighborhood supports smart, reasonable housing.

There's tremendous need to create additional housing, but it must also be attractive to new prospective residents and not destroy existing communities.

It seems unfair that the Winchester corridor is being asked to provide urban residential level densities along an already congested road that has no street parking, while no other similarly situated community is likewise designated.

It seems mixed-use commercial is being proposed at these other sites, not urban residential.

This is not fair.

The Winchester corridor should not be singled out in this way.

Staff is proposing changing most of the existing businesses along the Winchester corridor to urban residential.

This density is not needed.

Mixed-use commercial is more than enough.

While mixed-use commercial starts with a base of 50 dwelling units per acre, it can quickly be increased by 50% to 75 units per acre using the state density bonus law AB 1287 and even fully double to 100% if 1v6, an additional 5 to 10% of units for very low-income households at 5 to 15% for moderate income families.

Consider the traffic impact of infusing 100 to 160 cars for each building directly into the already congested Winchester Boulevard.

Recall that studies show a minimum of 1.6 parking spaces per unit are needed to avoid low vacancy rates and bankruptcies.

It is will be overwhelming.

Now imagine the congestion parking problems when the stackable density bonus doubles the urban residential density from 95 dwelling units to 190 in each of these buildings along the corridor.

The quality for the new residents, existing residents, and even commuters just passing by would be horrific.

Now and in the fact that qualifying for all these bonuses also mandates a granting of one to five concessions and incentives.

All the more reasons would be granting mixed-use commercial zoning and not urban residential.

Mixed-use neighborhood, which has a base of 30 dwellings per unit increases to 60 units after the 100 bonus using the stackable density bonus provisions.

Given the local conditions, mixed-use neighborhoods should be zoning of choice for the Winchester corridor.

SB 330 prohibits rezoning that results in a reduction or downsizing.

Once hydro density is granted, it cannot be removed.

One can always increase the zoning upon petition but never reduce it.

Also, arguments might be made to recover zoning characteristics that were overridden with limitations, so overriding to add height or density is safer than limited.

Given these considerations, mixed-use commercial with appropriate modifications upward seems to be the more safely enforceable than specifying urban residential and modifications downward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was impressive.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Rob Swerk, I'm a principal planner with VTA, and thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly.

We submitted a letter earlier today, which should be at your desk here, and I'm just going to provide a few highlights.

We appreciate the opportunity and we thank city staff for the ongoing collaboration regarding transit oriented development opportunities in San Jose.

Today, VTA owns approximately 20 TOD sites within the city.

Under current land use assumptions, these sites have the potential to deliver more than 6,000 housing units, including approximately 2,400 affordable homes.

VTA is a proven partner in delivering affordable housing.

This past Friday, VTA and its partners broke ground on a new 195 unit affordable housing development at the Barriessa Bart station.

And in January, we opened, we cut the ribbon for a new 135-unit affordable housing development at the Tommy and Light Rail and Caltrain station.

So we appreciate the productive discussions that we've had between city and VTA staff regarding potential land uses or land use solutions to allow mixed-use development, including housing on Cerroni TOD site, building on the upcoming North San Jose 2.0 housing process.

We look forward to continuing these discussions.

Similarly, we remain interested in working with city staff to identify a path forward for housing on the Santa Teresa TOD site.

If housing opportunities can be realized at Serone and Santa Teresa, VTA's housing capacity within San Jose could increase to more than 8,500 units, including 3400 affordable homes.

So we stand ready to be part of the solution with our city partners.

We look forward to continuing our collaboration to leave no stone unturned to borrow a phrase from Commissioner Cow at the last task force meeting to identify opportunities to help address San Jose's housing needs.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is uh Benjamin White, and uh I live in uh one of the partials uh that faces Winchester Boulevard and uh is uh uh potentially going to be rezoned and um I'm not uh thrilled about that, but um the main thing I want to uh speak about tonight is that I notice that some of the other parcels uh on the Winchester corridor are potentially uh going to get another new designation, a new zoning that would allow for up to uh up to 85 feet height, and I think that was called urban residential with an 85-foot max.

Um, I am I'm not thrilled to have something that big in our primarily residential neighborhood, but uh I'm especially worried that that designation allows more wiggle room for a future owner of the property to uh go even bigger.

Uh if we're going to say 85-foot height, let's give it a designation that is already firmly established as an 85 foot limit.

Um, and with my remaining time, I wanted to just pass along one comment from a neighbor of mine who told me earlier today that increased density alone is not going to guarantee affordable housing.

Uh and so I know that doesn't directly speak to uh this rezoning, but uh it's something that I hope uh the commission can keep in mind as the process goes forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll have Alison.

Um, Kelly Air Rosti, and Kevin Gold.

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

We appreciate the work you're doing to address San Jose's housing challenges and expand opportunities for more people to live in our community.

We ask that you recommend council direct staff to expand permitted uses on all PQP school lands citywide, with the exception of sites located in higher fire risk areas.

We submitted a letter to each of you yesterday sharing some of our research and supporting our recommendation.

School enrollment in San Jose is declining.

Public elementary school enrollment here has dropped by 27%.

Nearly 18,000 students in the decade leading up to 2025.

School districts in San Jose are making the difficult, painful, and necessary decisions in close partnership with their school communities to close schools in response.

These lands will have to convert use.

Districts need to be able to leverage their land to improve financial stability, ideally by providing ongoing revenue streams while continuing to serve community needs and strengthen commun schools' role as community anchors.

However, restrictive land uses create barriers, and those restrictions incentivize districts to sell to deep pocketed developers if there is not a clear and timely path forward for community-serving uses, including but not limited to affordable housing.

Expanding permitted uses for PQP empowers school districts to make the best of a difficult situation.

It allows districts to retain public ownership of land, strengthen the role of schools as community-serving anchor institutions, and stabilize their finances to protect the future of public education in San Jose.

Affordable housing and especially family housing can also help support and sustain school enrollment and fortify school communities.

It's critical to take these steps now as the impact of ongoing enrollment declines become impossible for many school districts to continue to absorb placing San Jose at the leading edge of a wave of additional school closures.

A site-by-site approach to PQP uses, not only unduly burdens city staff, but also interferes with school districts' ability to determine with their communities how best to move forward with each site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening.

My name's Kelly Arardi.

I'm the Director of entitlements for VCI.

I've been following the and attending the four-year general plan update task force meetings.

The process has been thoughtful, informative, and has provided an opportunity for stakeholders with differing differing perspectives to participate in the meaningful discussions regarding the future of San Jose.

I'd like to thank the city staff, task force members, community representatives, and all stakeholders that have dedicated a significant time and effort to the four-year general plan review process.

We support the staff global approach and recommendation contained in the May 28th memorandum from Ruth Cueto recommending UR with height limitations for several parcels located near Valley Fair and Stevens Creek Boulevard that are near transit and have commercial amenities nearby.

It's important to recognize also that the state of California's housing laws continue to evolve and increasingly limit local discretion over housing development.

In this environment, maintaining a thoughtful four-year update to the general plan helps ensure that the future growth is guided by local planning objectives to the greatest extent possible rather than being driven solely by state mandated processes.

As you already know, uh SB 79 has tremendous influence in the city now, and uh this area just barely dodged it uh at the last second when this these tiers of transportation were taken out.

Uh again, we believe staff's recommendation memo strikes the appropriate balance by providing long-term planning, flexibility, while ensuring that future development remains subject to evaluation and community input.

We remain committed to working collaboratively with the city staff, neighboring property owners, residents, and elected officials to help ensure the future development is thoughtfully designed.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right, we'll now turn it over to staff.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Kevin Golden.

I'm a resident of uh Valley Fair for over 50 years, and I just want to speak on this Winchester corridor.

Uh we've already a mixed-use residential of 85-foot tall buildings is not what the residents asked for, or the Santa Clara City residents either.

We filled the city council chambers going against 826 North Winchester, and we spoke loudly.

And I don't know if you guys remember that.

If anybody was there, I know Pierre Luigi was there, but I think you guys should take that into consideration when we fill a council chambers in opposition to a similar proposal.

So hopefully you'll take that under advisement when you make these zoning changes.

But it just doesn't do any good for the neighborhood.

We already suffer with Valley Fair, traffic, parking.

Now you want to stick 85-foot buildings on top of single-family homes?

You gotta think of the residents.

It just doesn't make any sense.

I mean, I've been here a long time.

A lot of these residents have been here a long time.

And to do that to the people, I think is not what the city of San Jose is about.

I think San Jose does listen to the residents, and hopefully you you'll listen to that and not make this drastic change to the Winchester corridor.

Thank you.

Staff, I have a quick question.

Why do we go so hard on this Winchester corridor?

I feel like the Hiddelmans are here more often than I am.

Or why do we often talk about the Corey neighborhood compared to the hundreds of other neighborhoods in the city?

So both Winchester and the Alameda were.

Yeah, the McCandry GPA.

So at both of those, um, during the the council action, council asked us to look at the surrounding areas for potential growth.

Thank you for the answer.

Commissioner Bundle.

Thank you, Staff for the President.

Um, thank you for all the residents who came on and spoke today.

I think somebody broke the world record today for orders per minute, right?

But very impressive yeah so just going back to the Winchester Boulevard uh corridor recommendations um like why are we proposing some commercial sites be changed to urban residential I I get that might have been direction from council um but why are we not proposing M U N there as some folks mentioned the proposal for Winchester and the ones for the Alameda we are trying to um find an opportunity here where I think we will get the most units possible with M U N the maximum density right now is 30 dwelling units to the acre.

If we change through our process it would be up to 50 um but for us given that Winchester is the Winchester sites in particular are close to an existing growth area the valley fair there is transit there is interest there in developing we think that the higher density is what would make sense so the you know I understand that it's not for the whole corridor that you guys are recommending urban residential right there's specific sites and the specific sites that were recommended are the bus are the the businesses that they're thriving or are they closed or what's the current situation and status of those businesses on um the block of Fernwood between Fernwood and forest so the one that is right now we're recommending the entire block go to urban residential I believe there are businesses and in that corridor there is one vacant site maybe an old dentist office or dental office and it's um that's the challenge that we're facing with Winchester the Alameda and also the mixed use commercial sites that we talked about is that um in San Jose we like we don't have green fields we don't build in the hillsides um infill is limited and just based on um the I guess since the adoption of the general plan it has been one where where we're putting our growth has been areas that have commercial and so we're we're trying to balance I mean we could have come with you to you with all of the pink turning to urban residential but we're trying to balance and make our recommendations based on the things that I mentioned before the proximity and uh where we can see more density but um it's a balancing act as well so it definitely is a balancing act and being in your shoes in your position uh it's not easy either I just want to make that very clear because you know you're trying to make the residents happy you're trying to make the city goals and what we have for for building happy it's not it's not easy but respectfully I would love to sorry to say this but I I uh I disagree with this um just because I don't think any commercial spaces especially with you know businesses already thriving there should be switched to pure residential just because our city lacks so much commercial spaces already and like I always say once you use it uh you lose it so I'm not in favor for this uh it's a case by case scenario but especially not for this specific site just my two cents and I I will have other comments on other sections of the slides but I'll let everybody else go first and I'll come back to it but yeah and I'll just clarify urban residential does allow commercial uses but as you've seen before ground floor commercial in a mixed use format is not very it's not typical in San Jose but it does allow for commercial thank you.

Commissioner Vandal can you please clarify are you suggesting a change to the recommendation and if so can you be clear on what the change your uh requesting is?

So I believe it's commercial right now, right?

So mixed use is on it if staff, if you could bring up maybe page 18.

I think that might be the one that you're uh that you're talking about, where there's a a shift from some commercial office sites and a twenty six North Winchester to urban residential with 85 foot max height.

I think that's the one you're talking about.

Yeah, because the others are all recommendations for mixed-use neighborhood.

So is it is it that particular one that you're s recommending or or proposing that we change?

Yeah, okay.

I just wanted to be clear, since we are at some point gonna have to determine if we want to make that change.

Thank you.

All right.

And I apologize for interrupting you.

You said you had more.

Um, I'll come back to everything.

Yeah, I have some comments on the VTA and some other topics, but okay.

Everybody else go first.

I don't know if no one else.

Let's go.

Okay, so on when uh the proposal came forward to planning commission and city council for the uh the I think it's 826.

Was that 110 feet was the proposed?

Uh the proposal was for a 17-story building.

And what was the feet roughly?

I mean, assuming that's like 170.

Yeah, it's about uh 10 feet per story.

So got it.

And then what staff specifically is proposing that for that site is 85?

That's correct.

And then with state density laws, what could that go up to?

Um it depends on what they um they propose.

I think that they could request um uh waiver of heights so they can propose whatever height they deem sort of fit for their project.

Are there certain state laws where it's just you know 50% more or something like that?

Um that would be there are some sites where I'm sorry, there's some um provisions of density bonus law that allow you like 50% density bonus.

Um there's also provisions that if you're near a certain type of transit, you can get at least 33 feet um addition and to what to what that max is, but then you also have concessions and waivers that you can employ to just sort of essentially get the height that you want.

So, in a generalization, uh not this parcel, any parcel, when cities are looking at zoning height or uh allowing a certain height, is it pretty much in the back of the head of every planner knowing that well, I'm gonna do it for 60, but it can easily be 90.

Um, and is there anything are cities allowed to contemplate?

What could happen with certain state laws are applied?

Could could every city just say 36 feet, I'm done?

Because I know the state law is gonna change it to something different.

Um they could, and that could be considered a downzoning or an upzoning, I guess, downzoning in this case, and then you would have to find sites to upzone so that you meet that um what what you're losing in terms of potential units.

Right.

Local control is something that we are constantly thinking about, and our development planners are sort of working through because many projects do request concessions and waivers of design standards, density, um, you name it.

Right.

And to the chair, if I could add so to your point, so the state, you know, has allowed for these concessions and waivers through the state density bonus law, and so that height can be increased.

However, there is the market feasibility question.

So typically 85 feet is sort of the standard for the uh podium style construction for multifamily units.

Uh if you go beyond that, then suddenly a lot of fire requirements kick in, and what I've heard, you know, in my tenure as landing manager and deputy director, that it's really infeasible to go to like 11 or 10 stories or 11 or 12 stories.

It's usually then you start to go into like 14 to 16 stories.

Um, and so it goes into the tower, like the high rise construction model.

So it's unlikely that a lot of projects will go from 85 feet to like 90 feet or 100 feet because adding that one or two-story is so expensive that it typically doesn't pencil out, um, and typically they have to go a lot higher.

Uh now to Ruth's earlier point, you know, the state law doesn't say for height how much you can go out for the most part, it just says whatever you can fit on the site, provided you're uh including the affordable housing units that is required for the state density bonus requirements, and then using the concessions and waivers that are available to those developers under state law.

So it can really depend on individual projects what they propose to do.

Um and I also understand that in San Jose, a lot of projects, the market rate projects don't always include affordable units that they pay in new fees for those units, and then they cannot avail themselves of the state density bonus uh require uh laws provisions.

And then one more.

Um if I recall correctly, HCD came to the city and said, hey, if you have that inclusionary rate, uh you really things won't be feasible to happen.

Am I correct about that that HCD, you know, maybe in critical of a certain inclusionary percentage, or am I thinking of another city, or is HCD never because you could say I want you could say I want 50% affordability, which we know nothing would ever get built, right?

So then there's the 15%, whatever, you know.

Yeah, that was more limited to North San Jose when we were looking at certain types of overlays where we said we wanted 50% affordable, they they they felt that that was too high, and that was applicable to a certain set of properties that were looking to rezone for the housing element, so not necessarily our inclusionary or IHO requirements, but more in that North San Jose on those overlays where we're looking to try to get increased uh affordable housing development.

Got it.

And my last thoughts are overall on all these properties you showed us.

You know, they're so unique, right?

A lot of these are just random small parcels, all the things that you share.

And you know, I think there's one thing, you know, you just could rezone it for uh, you know, uh non-distinctive residential housing in the city at a certain scale that you know will be quite different than it was, and maybe this outside the scope of the general plan, but you know, these little unique businesses kind of make a neighborhood, right?

They provide walkability, and there's all sorts of uh uh examples of that.

And uh again, I think this might be outside the scope, but you tell me, but you know, the uh buy right environment or for a small business to open uh in a commercially zoned area uh that doesn't need city council approval or planning commission approval, as since we're talking a lot about buy right housing approval.

Are we considering anything of of a buy right nature for commercial small businesses?

And if that's out of scope, you let me know.

We are not considering that as part of the the four-year review.

I mean, I would just say, you know, you uh if there's existing buildings and you're talking about you know, tenants doing tenant improvements, that that is typically by right, you know, depending on the type of of user there, but typically that just proceeds directly to building permit and they move in and they open their business, you know, just with those building permits to do interior modifications, but it depends on the use.

Um, you know, something the city council has asked us to look at is ministerial approval for certain types of manufacturing and other things.

So it's something we're looking at not necessarily through the four-year review process, but is something that we've been asked to consider in our work plan separately.

I have a couple.

Can you uh whoever's presenting, can you go back to slide 17?

I have a question about the the one that's highlighted the specifically those uh three boxes where we've said either residential neighborhood or mixed-use neighborhood.

They're zoned residential now.

Um is the proposal residential neighborhood or mixed use neighborhood?

I'm just I I don't really understand the diff, and I want to make sure so the two uh the two yellow sites on the far like bottom right, those are existing single family houses that were zoned uh neighborhood community commercial, and they are recommended to go to neighbor uh residential neighborhood, which is currently our single family zone neighborhood, but through our missing middle, we are obviously changing that and recommending 32 dwelling units per acre, but it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood that is there, and so it's basically changing it to something that's a more matchy what is there.

Okay, um, the the middle box, um, excluding the pink area, just for ease of drawing boxes, um, but those two sites that are uh recommended for mixed use neighborhood is the 30 um rent controlled units and then their um parking lot is the second it's kind of small lot that's attached to that, and so um the mixed use neighborhood currently has a dwelling unit of 30, but we are recommending 50.

So at 30 dwelling units per acre, if you add in the parking, it's it's actually more like 40 just for the site itself.

If you have the parking, then it's like 30 dwelling units per acre.

So again, sort of bringing it more in line with what is already there, and then the one on the far left is currently like uh it's like two houses basically.

It's it's uh sort of a remnant left over from when this was farmland in the past.

It looks like it might have been the original farmhouse in the area, um, because it's been there before everything else was developed.

So and it is a larger site, so we are recommending mixed use neighborhood, since it is a slightly larger site that it could maybe you know um two single family homes on about an acre is is not a lot of density, so what I was trying to clarify is it's not indecision, it's it's a difference depending on the parcels.

Uh yes, correct.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Through the chair if it's helpful for the task force to understand like what you know the capacity that would be generated by the suggested changes.

So I did look at those numbers and Laura, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it like two ninety-five units?

For the urban residential, yes.

Okay.

Uh I and I'd like to just go back to page 18 and the one that Commissioner Bandal was talking about, and uh, I'd like to focus on the farthest right hand set of I don't know if it's six units, and that um can you say something about why the evaluation was too urban residential?

Um yeah, so this is the one that um where we were suggesting urban residential because of the proximity to the valley fair um growth area, urban village growth area.

It's also um so it's closer to those amenities, it's closer to the transit hub, or there's a little transit hub there, and just balancing out the remainder of the Winchester corridor where we felt like we had to make a again balancing the existing commercial with opportunities for building more density, it for us made sense to cluster it here.

Okay, I haven't I haven't gone there recently to be honest.

Because of the parking um at the at the mall, but my my question is about the 85 feet height and the comparison to what would be built in the urban village were it to be what what's the comparison in mind?

Uh comparison to the urban village urban village designation.

Designation, yes.

Um with uh it it is it does allow typically for more height, urban village designation.

Um we'll ask the team if they can pull up the urban village zoning district, yeah.

Um, but in this case, what we're proposing is an 85 foot limit in the zoning code right now, urban residential allows up to 135.

That was what I was driving at because I I I knew that there was a great difference and I couldn't remember.

We knew it was higher.

Yes, okay.

And so the urban village that's already designated there is 130.

No, so in the zoning code, the urban residential designation allows up to 135 feet.

So we could simply apply that here.

But given the context, given some of the feedback we got from the community, and then looking at the adjacent um Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan, um their urban residential goes up to 85 feet.

So just being consistent with what's permitted.

And in that specific parcel, if it or set of parcels, if we were to go mixed use neighborhood, what would be the the potential impact to the amount of housing there?

So right now, mixed-use neighborhood allows up to 30 dwelling units to the acre.

We can try to do that math.

Um, and if our our proposal for the general plan four-year review is to go up to 50, so we can calculate sort of that difference between 50 and what the 295.

That that's that's what I was so it would be it would be less.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

My dentist is actually on that street.

It's a lovely neighborhood.

Bustling economic activity.

Commissioner Young.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Question for staff.

So I understand you focused on Winchester and Alameda at you know at the request of the Count Council for early consideration.

But because we are talking about an update to the general plan for the whole city, what I'm I'm guessing I guess I want to ask is the approach you're using in these two areas might then be used for let's say Camden Avenue or Blossom Hill Road or other parts of the city, like Commissioner Casey and I or District 9 and 10.

Are you kind of using this as a model of what you might look at in other areas as well?

Our review is uh for this general plan for year review are um it's limited to these areas, Winchester, the Alameda, and then the mixed use commercial sites.

So uh we're not proposing to do that same analysis in these other areas.

That wasn't within the scope of the four-year review.

Okay.

Um let me f okay, I understand.

Let me phrase this another way.

Um the answer may still be no, but I'm curious.

So um, you know, in this in this four-year review, we're looking at ways that we can increase housing capacity, because it's critical that we do that.

So um the philosophy that you're taking with these two areas, I know you were specifically you know asked to look at these two, but um would it be the same philosophy that we would take going forward if there were development proposals in other parts of the city on similar, you know, commercial commercial streets, boulevards?

I I think generally, yes, it would be how we would we would look at it.

I think in trying to look at other areas of this, I mean there.

It would be a large undertaking for us to do this type of analysis in the areas that you're talking about, you know, particularly given, you know, sort of what we've will we've come up with in these areas, which are are probably a little bit more prime than I think some of the ones that you're talking about, just given their proximity to the growth areas and everything else, but generally it would probably be a similar approach in terms of balance between preserving commercial and potential yield in terms of new housing units.

But in the time we're given, I think it would have been hard for us to do this in in other areas.

Sure.

No, I I understand that you know it kind of um the reason I'm bringing this up is first of all, thank you to all the residents who are here.

Um we hear you, we hear your concerns.

Um but I don't want the folks uh in the core neighborhood or the Alameda neighborhood to feel like this is being focused on them specifically because this is a four-year review, this is the direction that the city's going that we have a critical need to increase housing capacity.

So that is balanced against um current single family neighborhoods and how they're impacted.

So although I really understand the concern, you know, if if we were to say that we don't want to negatively impact any single-family neighborhood in the city, including mine, um we wouldn't be changing anything.

And we need to change, and I know that's tough and it's hard, and um, but I think you know, this task force of planning staff has uh represented the courage to say we need a change.

Now our recommendation is advisory to the city council, right?

They will ultimately make the decision, but um I think I think we're going in the right direction.

I think it's important what we're doing.

Uh it's not just in San Jose.

If you read the papers, this is happening in large to medium-sized cities all over the country because affordability is a huge issue, and the only way to improve affordability is to increase capacity.

So uh, and I've I've one of the residents mentioned um increasing density doesn't necessarily improve affordability.

I've heard that from other people actually challenge that.

I don't think that's true.

I think the best way to improve affordability is to increase capacity, and the way you increase capacity is by increasing density.

So just want to share that.

Thanks.

There were quite a few comments that mentioned that about affordability and how increasing density doesn't necessarily mean that affordability will be will uh occur, but um clearly there is an issue of supply and demand, and there's not enough supply of housing.

So regardless of you know the economics of it, there's certainly a lack of housing in the city.

Commissioner Casey.

Thank you.

Um I ask planning staff just to pull up the map, the Google map of it, so we get a better sense of the the six parcels, um, Commissioner Bondal that you mentioned there.

Um I mean, when I look at the full Winchester um corridor, uh I mean I agree.

It we shouldn't have we shouldn't have it the full length of it and things like that.

I think in my opinion, looking at it the planning staff, I think it's come up with a reasonable compromise.

The the lots that they're looking at, um so forest, so Valley Fair is if we go up a little bit so we don't cut off Valley Fair.

Um yeah, so Valley Fair is right there.

So it's in the in the middle there, right above it, that one block or two blocks from Ferdwood to Forest.

I mean on one side you have Winchester, the other side you have Valley Fair.

So in terms of walkability, this is extremely walkable for all kinds of businesses at Santana Roe and Valley Fair, and to get to Stevens Creek.

Um I agree the area is horrendous.

I only go weekdays in the middle of the day, so I I acknowledge yes, I do not live there, I do not go at five o'clock, six o'clock.

So I I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

If we need to put housing somewhere, which I think we do, then at least having the walkability, we talk about the city being walkable and things like that, and it's not a very walkable city at all.

Um we're trying with the bike lanes and things like that.

Um, I mean, if we're gonna have it anywhere in the air in the on that corridor, we can we could say it shouldn't be anywhere on Winchester, that's fine as well.

But if we're gonna put it, that seems like a very reasonable and ideal place to put it where it's walkable to every amenity they're possibly going to need, and hopefully they're only driving when they're going to work, and not for all their daily errands and things like that.

But this view at least helped me to get a little bit more comfortable with it.

I hear everybody again, I'm not dismissing it all.

Height, if we could if there's other heights that we could put lower as well.

Back to Commissioner Young.

I mean, Blossom Hill, they put in nine-story buildings, you know, like nothing else around it's more than two stories, so yes, it looks odd, but at the same time, I really love the hills around us.

Um, and I know from the prior meetings there's no more developable developable land here, otherwise we talked about PQP.

Yes, I'm all for church land, schools that we don't you know are underutilized.

But I mean, we've got to put this somewhere, and this seems like a very reasonable for what we have to deal with location to put some of the taller buildings.

So, what I have found is that if you do not build any buildings that are taller than the buildings next to them, yeah, we're not then you end up not being able to build buildings, Commissioner Cantrell.

I just I have a question to start.

Um, so if you if you do neighborhood um mixed use here, would let's say some density bonus out there, how tall could that get?

85 feet, so I I with density bonus, you are um given the opportunity to I guess punch through whatever height limit we have.

But I think to what Manira was talking about earlier, there are market sort of driven factors here, and um I don't you know a hundred feet likely will not pencil and you're going into steel and it's more expensive.

Um so it just depends, right?

So, actually, I'm gonna have to disagree on these on this specific area.

Um, I think you could make a case for luxury high-rise here, um, that really would probably pencil out uh because of the the community there, um, not so much in many other areas, but there I think somebody who with neighborhood mixed use would be inclined to try to go up.

I think you could probably make it work, and it is well, that's my perspective.

Um I'm not a commercial real estate developer, but that's my perspective.

Um I have to, I'm of two minds, and I think you know, I'm split here.

Um I remember when the other development wanted to go in there, uh near there, and the community was upset about the height of the tower there.

Um I said let's let them keep talking because I think it might come down to something reasonable that the community could accept.

That's what I thought.

Um, but I remember these very same faces coming here and saying, you know, there's a compromise here, and we think neighborhood mixed use would work.

And I think at that time we were actually concerned about even that density there, and to me they seemed amenable to change, uh which quite honestly we don't see that often here.

I I felt kind of like this is a betrayal.

Um and I know that you you mean you you obviously don't mean to betray this community in any way at all, and that this is a small piece of the community we're talking about.

But I I think it's okay to compromise sometimes if you're if we're getting more density.

Um, you know, we don't get people coming in here very often saying yes, please build a little bit more, um, and this was an opportunity to move forward with the support of the community.

And I think a developer might go higher anyway, to be quite frank on that lot.

There's more high-end retail there than anywhere else in this area.

Um there's some very deep pockets in that community.

Land values there are not bad.

Um, I think it's gonna happen naturally, unfortunately, anyway.

So why why resist it?

Sorry, thanks.

I think I'll chime in real quick just to give us some numbers because I had some time to calculate, but um for the UR designated sites along Winchester.

I think Meneer already mentioned that the max you would get it was about 290 295 units.

If it was mixed-use neighborhood, you would get about 155, 150 units.

That's the difference.

Commissioner Bondal.

Thank you for doing that calculation.

Yeah, okay.

Um, yeah, I like to I'm I'm sorry, I apologize.

I thought I was under the impression that urban residential cannot have any businesses, and it's purely residential.

So I apologize, just want to clarify on that.

Sorry about that.

Oh okay, so can we switch the topic to the towards the end of your guys' presentation or where we're talking about misuse commercial?

Um, so the it's especially the takeaway.

I think it's towards the end.

It's a takeaway slide.

That thing David presented.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, um, just my quick thoughts on this.

Um I think that that the last bulletin points correct.

I think it should be a site-specific approach necessary based on location and context, and then it uh so it okay, so if uh uh a misuse mixed use commercial is being built, is it mandatory to have business under?

Um I don't think anything's mandatory anymore with state laws.

So mixed use commercial does require 0.5 FAR.

So there would be a requirement for a specific amount of commercial, however, um developers can take advantage of state density bonus law and say we're building X number of affordable units, we get one concession or waiver, and we want to waive out of the commercial because and then they make the argument commercial will or not providing for the commercial will allow us to provide for these affordable units, and then they get to wave out of that.

So even though on paper it says you must build commercial, there are workarounds, and the rendering that David shared of the project on West San Carlos uh was able to take advantage of the state law in that fashion and now it's just building town homes in West San Carlos.

So looking at that mall, um the common calculation is um revenue per square foot.

I think it's some of the highest yielding commercial property we have.

Um I mean it's it's valuable.

Um I couldn't imagine a developer not putting some high-end retail there.

Uh that would be a huge mess.

I I I couldn't imagine.

I could be wrong once again, but given the measure for commercial in that area in that mall.

No, so if if you know, if we were to I think if businesses were to be dismantled from there and a new uh site would come to have I I'm pretty sure that bus new visits would come and new business would thrive.

Uh, there's no doubt on that.

But now I'm I'm kind of switching the gear now to to to this, and I think it should be a side-by-side approach just because let me give you a different example.

When we had our commissioner retreat, uh we went to Blossom Hill.

I think there was a a project there, and uh they built very nice units and we took a tour, but the bottom space is still sitting empty because I I've do you guys know what I'm talking about on the form of roller skating rink, right?

Aloha.

Yeah, aloha.

Yeah, the the roller rank, yeah, spot.

Um and it's just sad to see that could have just been units down there.

So it's not like I'm not saying there has to be business, but you know, it means uh it's a site-by-site approach, I would say.

So I think that's pretty uh reasonable, I think.

And then just quick comments on the VTA.

Um, then I'll let somebody else go.

Um I think the VTA um happens to be one of uh some of the land uses that we could use for in field.

Like, as you mentioned earlier, there's no we can't really build on the hills, we can have too much to develop, and we're sitting on so much prime uh real estate there.

So to the VTA folks that are trying to develop, I think it's just right next to transit, it's worth millions of millions of dollars, but it's just a parking lot that's not being really used.

And I know you guys are working towards that, and I know you guys had a meeting uh with BTA and you guys are making progress, but I I do support that.

Just wanted to quickly say that.

Thank you.

All right, and the core neighborhood is under Senator Cortizi, right?

No, no, a Wahab.

Yeah, not district.

Both of them voted yes on 79.

Uh Wahab did vote yes on SB 79.

All right.

Any other comments from commissioners?

Alright, I think uh thank you.

We have one meeting left.

One task force and then one planning commission.

So we'll be back June 17th.

Um, yes, sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I just want to circle back on this last thing because early on, Commissioner Bandal made a recommendation.

We've talked about it, but are we asking staff to make any change to their recommendation?

I heard a lot of conversation, I didn't hear an outcome.

I'll suggest that they make a change to make this um neighborhood instead of uh urban uh residential.

Um I think it'll get there on its own, quite honestly.

Um they're gonna go a little bit higher than it I think it's a really unique piece of land to the city where it could really bear fruit for a developer who wants to go a little bit higher.

But yeah, so I'm sorry to push on this, but I I think it is important.

Um we've have heard from some of the good citizens of San Jose, and I I do think I feel an obligation uh to suggest that this is all mixed-use neighborhood rather than some of the the higher, and if it gets there organically, at least we have said as a planning commission and as a recommendation to the city council, that the potential lower density in in this area is is something that we want to support for our citizens.

Um that that would be my proposal.

I don't know how everybody else feels about it.

We have a couple hands up, Commissioner Young.

So um Commissioner Bickford, this this brings up a process issue, which I brought up a long time ago, which is it's very difficult for the staff when they have you know two commissioners say this and three commissioners say this.

Um so I mean, personally, I'm not in favor of what Commissioner Bandal said, and I'm in favor of the staff recommendation.

But so I don't know how we do this on this honestly, because it's very difficult for our staff to respond to, you know, yes.

We don't get a vote to it.

We don't get a vote process.

So I think how we've how we sort of position this, and I think what we said in the past is we want to take in each of your comments and we will take them under advisement as staff, and then when we go to the June 24th, which is the planning commission meeting, we will have everything that we've talked about in recommendations to you, and at that point you can make a vote on those items, and your recommendation will be transmitted to the city council.

And then something we can share.

I think that we've we've talked a little bit about with the chair, the way we'll try to structure that June 24th meeting is that we'll very clearly lay out each of those recommendations, and um if there are ones that you want to pull out to have a separate discussion on, you know, and have a separate vote on, we could do it that way, similar to how we do the consent calendar, given kind of the length of items that we'll have and to try to move through that process.

So that's how we've we've sort of positioned it.

So we encourage you to you know keep making your individual comments and we'll you know notate that and consider that as we make the final recommendation to you on the 24th.

Perfect.

Is that to your question?

Yeah, mine too.

Thank you.

It'll be an exciting meeting.

One thing, sorry.

I I just really wanted to say to the staff, thank you.

This was it's great.

I mean, this is a lot of work.

It's great.

Um, and to the community, hey, thanks for coming in and sticking with us because it's important.

Um without your voices, uh, we'd hear nothing.

Thanks.

Commissioner Casey, thank you, Chair.

Uh sorry, just to be very specific.

So miss mixed use commercial.

Uh understand the density height limits.

Because there's been discussion about they'll just blow through the limits or through the height.

So is there a height limit on mixed use commercial, a definitive limit?

Um, I don't know.

So mixed use commercial already has eighty-five.

Yeah, yeah.

So urban residential that we would limit to 85.

Right.

Would be the same thing.

But we get more dense, but they'd be more dense, but that's okay, but the lots of the lot and the height, the height.

So how does it become more dense?

MBC um has a maximum density of 50 dwelling units to the acre, whereas UR is um 95.

You can do smaller units.

Right, but from the outside of the max.

From the outside, it's not gonna look much different.

Yeah.

And then uh M U N, I believe, or Mix Use Neighborhood, which is the other one that's been suggested, I believe, has a 45 foot height limit.

Okay, um, for multifamily, it kind of varies right now depending on the type of unit, but if you're looking at multifamily, I believe it's 45 feet.

Yeah.

If I could just add to you a comment on the MUC designation, part of the reason that we were considering changing it has been that it has not been successful in terms of delivering any real um development.

So it has a minimum commercial FAR, which is which was higher.

It was really meant to be a commercial first designation that allowed some residential.

And by limiting by capping the uh residential density, it didn't effectively create a land use that was really useful, other than someone using it to build lower density with no commercial through density bonus.

So that's why we're sort of trying to move away from it because it doesn't really work.

Okay, so for us, the main difference is it wouldn't like not commercial, it would still be 85 feet.

Outside of the building would look the same, but the units may be smaller and more dense inside.

I just I don't know that anyone can can do it.

But we can't but I'm just setting expectation for for residents.

Um c would not necessarily be a big win over urban residential.

I mean, we just need to be straightforward that the main difference, I'm trying to find what the main difference is for from their perspective.

They're gonna have an eight story building a block from them.

I think it's about the density bonuses that could be created.

Right, but from the outside driving by or the person who's in their backyard barbecuing or the person who has their solar panels, uh that's why I I was still saying urban residential because we're fooling ourselves if we're gonna say uh MUC yay, there's no difference.

No, I think it I think that correct me if I'm incorrect, but you could also go up with a bonus as well.

Okay, that's correct.

Both, both any designation.

Yeah, I think it goes up.

So you may as well leave it if you know I I said I'll leave it point up on it.

I can say we're making it because we're listening to the residents, but if at the end of the day we're saying yay, and we're not giving them anything different.

Well, that's the that's the reality.

But I understand.

I just want to be straightforward.

You're right.

I mean, you're right.

That's the reality.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

If I could just clarify one thing, I don't think um, I don't know, you know, exactly what the neighbors may be asking for, but the two designations that have the most difference here is MUN, which is the next use neighborhood designation, which allows for the 45 feet height and density of is it 30 currently.

Right.

So being proposed for 50 dwelling units per acre, um, and the urban residential, which is the 95 units per acre density and the 85 foot height.

So those are the two that I think would be under consideration for this corridor for the sites that are being recommended for changes.

I think staff is not recommending changing sites to MUC just because or keeping them in MUC just because of the challenges that Jared identified.

Um we feel like it's better to create a clear path on whether it's residential and what kind of residential.

I was just some of the letters I believe we receive referenced MUC.

And so I just wanted to be clear on that.

So I just wanted to clarify that those are the two uh that that have the most distinction.

All right, thank you.

One more, one more.

Um if staff's looking for something recently done where there was concern about height and a community, but still trying to comply with uh housing element while also understanding that there's the state density bonuses.

If you look at the adopted south of Laurel plan in Santa Cruz, that's exactly what that did, and that was adopted last year, south of Laurel, like Laurel Provetti.

Were they they were able to build that port?

It seems like to me it seems like even if things were changed, the cost of building this type of housing is still prohibitive.

Is that your take as well?

My take is we're contemplating a lot of different choices, but nothing will matter.

Because if at the end of the day, if the development communities decide that they want to build in the Sacramento area versus San Jose because of the cost of land, the cost of labor, those are decisions that uh are above and beyond us, and we may make 119 different decisions, and nothing moves the needle, and then all of a sudden the market returns for some reason, interest rates are down, and we get so much building, and then it's you know, these decisions we can't reverse.

So then the concern is, you know, did we get too much of what we wanted?

Right?

But it's a it's that's why cities are built over decades, and it's yada yada.

So but look forward to the next meeting.

Sort of my take too.

Last night I was chatting with some of the folks from Urban Catalyst at uh San Pedro Square, and they were talking about financing.

It was it was fascinating.

But uh I I certainly I agree with Commissioner Young.

I think we want to I would like to try and permit the most amount of housing that we can, um purely out of just this incredible supply problem that we have.

I think you know, with such little housing, and as we've talked about before, your average house here is in the you know, million and a half dollars, million.75, and then I know we're not talking about data centers, but if you're gonna put 38 data centers in the city on top of it, sometimes it kind of feels like San Jose is really racing to become the most unlivable city in the country.

Um so it's gonna be an interesting future.

I think we're gonna see a tipping point at some time where you know things will change, and perhaps the development community will come back.

Perhaps they won't.

It may be difficult to build around ugly buildings.

The other side of that is the people, there will be fewer people in those data centers, but where are those people gonna live?

And that is the other side of this coin that I don't feel like we're supporting very well.

We're building these mega data centers in city limits, and right next to it, there's not affordable housing, or even market rate housing, frankly, for the volume of people that we need.

And whenever they come to us, um we get a lot of pushback on I don't want it in my neighborhood, and that is a challenge that we we face almost every time we have one of these discussions, and does anybody think that we have enough housing?

Oh, yeah, there's tons of people in the community that believe that, and they think the city is disconnected from reality, and I think we have to understand that some people have that perspective, and then you have to reason what's the reasonable amount of growth to have for natural, you know, natural childbirth and or immigration, etc.

But there is a chunk of this city that doesn't want a single unit built anymore.

They feel that the city is drastically changed from when they moved here.

That's the perspective that's held.

There's 19 or 20% less kids here than there were when I was a kid, and why?

Because they can't afford to live here, so they buy houses in I don't know, go east somewhere.

Sparks.

I think it's amazing how many folks can't wait for their parents for their grandparents to die in this city.

I hate to be morbid, but I mean, it's talked about quite a bit in this city.

It's true, it's true.

Commissioner Kell.

Cash out.

I refrain from commenting up until perhaps the last 10 minutes of conversation here.

Uh the first thing I want to say is to everybody in this room this evening, thank you so much for coming out to speak.

It means a lot.

I definitely am learning a lot.

The public comment, the written public comment was massive.

Uh, it was a lot, and you all showed up, and I think this might be three or four times the number of folks who attended last meeting.

So thank you.

And I really wasn't gonna say anything this evening, and then all of a sudden, a few comments I think sparked something.

And I touched on this the last time we sat here, but I represent the younger generation that cannot afford to live here.

I I want all of you here to know that if it weren't for rent control, I would not be living in District One.

I went to Cupertino High School right in the West San Jose Cubertino area.

Um, but if it weren't for rent control and moving at peak COVID before folks had the vaccine, most folks had the vaccine when rent prices were rock bottom with rent control.

I would not be living in D1.

I'd be living in East San Jose, South San Jose, or very likely out of this county or somewhere far in the outskirts of this county to just try to be in the area.

And I want to share that perspective because I think you all feel that push for more housing.

You know, for folks who work in tech and have stock options.

Outside of those two most realistic options, folks my age cannot live here.

Most of my friends live elsewhere throughout the country.

And I'm one of the few few people from my entire high school class, I feel like living in this area still because I was lucky to find a rent control unit in District One.

I say that really plainly because I think the other side of your struggle is me.

And that June 24th will be stacked, and we'll have an opportunity to then make decisions and forward recommendations to city council.

So that's gonna be one heck of a meeting.

But I wanted to acknowledge your comments, your written comments, your spoken comments this evening, and just to share a perspective from somebody who, you know, with a stroke of luck was able to find his way to stay in the area, and if it weren't for that, yeah, I'd be living elsewhere.

Don't know where, but uh just wanted to share that perspective, and that my wife and I have had some very active conversations about the potential of moving out of this area because of afford lack of affordability and we have no shot at buying a home.

Anyone else?

Anything else?

Planning staff, city attorney, you've been quiet tonight.

All right, then let's go ahead and adjourn tonight's meeting at 828.

I will give you all two minutes back.