City of San Jose, CA Planning, 30 Jan 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: JAN 30, 2020 | Envision San José 2040 4-Year Review Task Force

Description

City of San José
Envision San José 2040 4-Year Review Task Force
View agenda at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=51217

A

Welcome everyone to meeting number three we're one meeting closer to the end of our meetings. I hope everybody had a great holiday. We had a pretty interesting meeting last time and we're going to finish up discussion on one of those issues. From our last meeting, we've got three important issues on our agenda this evening. The urban village horizons the signature project policy and changes as it might relate to affordable housing and commercial space, and then we have the residential uses in neighborhood business districts.

A

Before we begin the meeting I know there was a letter and it was a recent letter, January 29th that we received and I think Teresa wanted to comment on that before we started the meeting today.

B

Just very briefly, I wanted to thank the task force members Melanie for starting a really important conversation and for several task force. Members for submitting your really important and thoughtful comments to the task force. I think your letters reflect the urgency that we are living in and the considerable period of change. That is that we are living in also at the state, the regional and the local level.

B

The challenge for us is to translate that urgency and those concerns into policy recommendations right for the council within the context of the scope that they provided so I think it's important to attempt to do that.

B

We will work with staff after this meeting to identify where we can incorporate some of these questions and and David had a really good suggestion as well that, even if with not with not within the scope of the council, approved work plan for us, we can always make recommendations via a letter or some other means at the end of this process, to the council that they address some of these issues urgently. So thank you. I just wanted to comment and just acknowledge the the good work that you all did and appreciate your time.

A

Okay, we're gonna move to item two task force: recommendations on urban village horizons, we're gonna proceed in this order, there'll be a staff presentation by Jared on this issue. We will take public comment on that before there will be task force, discussion and voting.

A

There are two separate issues that are before us on this one. One is: what's the consensus from the task force about the horizons. How do you want to deal with those and then? Secondly, if we eliminate the horizons, what kind of priority setting process do we want to pursue as set forth in attachment a and so keep those two issues in mind? They're two separate issues, but again what we'll do first is we'll have the staff presentation, then public comment and then a discussion by the taskforce, so Jared.

C

So, to pick up where we left off on our discussion of planning horizons, I want to recap staff's recommendations from the November taskforce.

C

Meeting staff did not recommend any wholesale shifts to horizon 2 at this time, given recent shifts of multiple urban villages to horizon one and other metrics, but staff did recommend shifting the five winds, bart and 24th street urban villages to horizon one based on anticipated growth as part of the BART phase, two extension: the San Jose City Council direction to explore allowing key properties in these villages to develop with mixed use and VTA's. A recent transit oriented community study.

C

As part of the discussion in November, the question was asked why the general plan has horizons and might result from eliminating them altogether to quickly recap from last month. Removing horizons from the general plan would not change the path for housing, in that an urban village plan is still needed for housing to move forward. However, there are three key exceptions that do allow housing to move forward in urban villages ahead of a plan, two of which the task force is considering. Policy updates to those three exceptions are sites with an underlying residential general plan.

C

Land use, designation, signature projects and 100%, affordable housing projects, so removing horizons would effectively eliminate the need to analyze, opening new growth horizons in future four-year reviews or carry out those kind of the one-off shifts of urban villages to the current planning horizons. During annual reviews, which has generally been the practice currently.

C

Additionally, the residential pool policy would no longer be applicable and if you'll call the staff and the Task Force have already recommended eliminating the pool policy.

C

Technical glitch there so, okay, so I've note some just to note so if another function of horizons has been to provide general direction on the prioritization of urban village planning efforts to that end, if horizons were eliminated, staff recommends minor amendments to policy IP 2.10 that currently outlines broad priorities for urban village planning to incorporate reference to market demand, as probably prioritized factor which has effectively been the city's current practice, and with that you know. That concludes staffs presentation on on horizons.

C

I'll turn it back to the chairs for public comment and task force discuss what.

A

C

As well, Jared and we're gonna get a question on the slide here, so that the task force can view the proposal.

D

So I would say task force. I would go ahead and look at it, while they're fixing that an attachment in your packet has this policy as it exists with additional language recommended or propose. That's underlined.

B

A

This is attachment a that's attached to the overview memo. It's about, I, think it's two or three pages, so actually Jared or Michael. Would you explain where this would fit in the event that the task force decides to eliminate the plan horizons.

C

Yes, so, okay, so here's here's this slide, we're looking for so again, just to recap so horizons also, you know they help inform where staff is gonna, go out and prepare. Our urban village plans there's currently some kind of there's there's some broad language in the general plan. Currently that directs where we would prioritize our efforts, but then there's other direction, we've gotten as an example.

C

Last for your review, the task force recommended that we concentrate on horizon to light rail villages and then there's also been that we've gotten direction from Council to focus our efforts in areas where there's market demand as well. So our recommendation here is to update policy 2.10 if, in fact, the the task force wants to recommend eliminating horizons to add in the piece about high that, in the case of high market demand that the preparation of urban village plans would be prioritized there, as well as what the current language already spelled out. Okay,.

A

So we can have more questions on that if people have questions on it, but before we do that, I'd like to open it up for public comment on this time and if there are members of the public here tonight who want to comment specifically and we're only dealing with this one issue right now, which is the plan horizons and the recommendations that are in attachment a please step forward.

A

If, if anyone has any comments on that on that issue, there's going to be opportunity later on in the meeting to talk about the other agenda items, affordable, housing, the signature policy project, the MB DS, but just for now we're just looking for comments on the plan horizons and the attachment a recommendations. Is there anyone who would like to address the task force.

A

All right, so, let's, let's move to this I'd like to separate before somebody makes a motion. What I'd like to do first, is: let's just deal it. Does anybody want clarification or questions, and this is not a sneaky way to get a motion made? It's just questions and clarifications and Kevin I see you've got your your your name up and Sean you'll be next. Okay, go ahead, so.

E

I have a question for staff. So in your opinion, which of these two options gets us the most housing soonest.

C

And when you mean options in terms of either leaving the horizons in place,.

E

The original staff recommendation keep their horizons in place and move a couple up or eliminate and use your suggested language as the policy right yeah.

C

There's effectively not much of a difference in terms of moving housing forward when it comes down to it, you still need an urban village plan in place for housing to proceed, except for when you have the three exceptions: being a property with the general plan designation that already allows housing, 100 housing project, signature projects or a hundred percent affordable projects.

C

So the difference again would be. You know this. This would not be something we would need to discuss during the next four year review in terms of moving to the future horizons, and there was not a need. You know for the pool policy as well. Yeah.

D

I can just elaborate I, think yeah, justjust I, think staff recognizes the need for horizons is not really that needed anymore in many ways. I know we're keeping our original recommendation, but I think what we're saying is it's neither here nor there, the the purpose of the horizons. Originally, the thought was that you know when you do an urban village plan, it doesn't mean you would move up a village and horizon, so the horizons would actually be more static with, except for every four years. This group would update them, but effectively what's happened is anytime.

D

You know that there's market demand or interest in building a village. We do a village when we're done we're like well. Let's not wait. Let's get this ball rolling. Let's get this train rolling, so either the staff recommends and we're like, and then the council recommends and approves moving that village into horizon one so effectively. It's kind of it's a little bit like the pool policy, be honest to you. It's not having a lot of sway either way, so there is kind of I think we've heard voices that say well. Why have horizons I?

D

Think a certain stent, we're kind of agreeing with that.

A

Anything further Kevin, okay, Sean and then Leslie so.

F

My question is: is how would staff determine which areas are exhibiting high market demand? Well,.

D

I think we would also want we talked to the development community too. What happens? Is developers start contacting us? We start getting calls and hey this property over. Here we get people submitting prelims, and so you know we, so we one is actively proactively asking, but we also get a lot of people contacting us. So.

F

It's so so my concern without approach as a developer is when we're going to invest all our and into a project. We need to have a certain level of clarity, visibility to what's going to happen in a particular timeframe.

F

So if we're truly interested in in generating housing as a developer, it makes sense to me to do that. Planning in advance of project applications being snow.

A

Actually could I stop you there we're gonna, do we're gonna, have a discussion. I just want to do questions at this time. Questions I, heard expression of opinion, but I just want to make sure we get all the questions answered and then we're going to go around and everybody can start expressing opinions, making motions that kind of thing. So, okay, thanks Sean, Lesley and then Harvey. Do you have yours up? Okay, Leslie, then Harvey questions I.

G

Just had a quick question about new state legislation and whether or not this impacted the the horizons as far as being able to move forward without plans.

D

From what our look at it.

D

G

I think that's a critical question: how the answer to and I guess the the next one was one that I've raised before, which is on the new arena. Numbers that are coming forward because I know HCD will not allow you to count units that you don't that you can't determine could be built in that seven-year period, seven or eight year period, and so it seems that I'd like it like that, could be an impediment to you as well.

G

D

And the reason we don't think that the state law affects this. One is because the land use designation of the later horizon. Villages are commercial, so it's a commercial land use designation with commercial zoning. So that's why and I think yes, arena is coming down the pike.

D

It's we got three years to address that and come up with a new housing element and we'll be looking at a lot of this stuff in the lenses of Rena and that's a whole other conversation, but the amount of housing we may need to plan for could triple so I mean I. Think there'll be a lot of reworking. Rethinking when that comes about.

G

In the last question, I promise: when, when do you expect to get the arena, numbers is the spring yeah, so.

D

The what I've been told.

G

D

This HCD will release the number for the nine county barrier in the spring and I believe I'm on the methodology committee, we're developing the methodology or making recommendations on the methodology from now to April, and once that's done, I believe the board has to approve that and then what they'll do is they'll, throw that number in the methodology and I'm not sure the exact date I'm guessing in the fall. The numbers well we're all hot, for they need the chilled intersections I'm, not totally sure in that. That's my best guess all right.

D

It's already happened for a SoCal and San Diego and Sacramento they've had some pretty damn big numbers. Okay,.

A

Harvey questions yes,.

H

If we eliminate the horizons, what does that do to the policy of grading signature projects.

D

Paul that policy remains so the signature project policy was a policy for villages that we're not in horizon store, don't have a village plan, but the the parameter that, if you don't have a village planning to do a signature project remain so signature projects would remain a policy in the general plan. It would be an opportunity for housing to move forward in villages that don't yet they'll. Let you plan approved by council.

A

Okay, on the other side, I'm, not sure, is if whether it's one or Eric.

B

A

I

I think I had two questions as I was reading. The first sentence in quotes at first I wondered where it says in areas proximate to downtown, did it mean and with access to existing and plan transit facilities, and so I wondered if that meant and or or, and the reason I wondered, is because I know that at the February meeting the discussion regarding story Road as a potential urban village will arise, and so then I wondered.

I

If, if story Road wasn't in village, then would this qualify as prioritizing, because it would be next to the planned light. Rail extension.

E

C

Down to punctuation I would generally describe it is, is, or you know this kind of lays out broad.

I

Looking for again so.

D

Story road is on actually the third most used bus route in the county, bus. Twenty five and light rails looks like it's coming, so the answer is yes. Thank.

A

You, okay, any other questions.

J

So I was looking at last month's stuff. The memo and you described, bite bike shed and walk shed. A walk shed is 0.5 miles, but then you said that staff reviewed urban villages with a light rail station within its boundary or within 0.15 mile that are not in horizon one. So you were looking at moving from Horizon to to horizon one those projects. I'm wondering why not a point five mile like. Why are you looking to only for things that are super close.

C

Was this in reference to I think there was a list of villages that we said we might consider moving wheat.

J

K

1001 right.

C

I think we were looking at the wash head rather than then probably the bike shed on that.

J

So you say that the walk shed is 0.5 miles and a bike shed is three miles, but you used point one five miles as your limit to what which projects would so that's, not a walk, shed, that's much less than a walk shed. I just wondered why you use that number instead of 0.5 miles, because we'd want to include more like half a miles, not that far to walk to get to the light rail station. Okay,.

C

Yeah understood.

C

J

On page 5 of the December's memo, yeah.

L

A

Any other questions all right questions.

M

Framework so that you might address things like the predictability concerns, but still implement the the policies that would we might support here if that makes sense. So you know if we are wanting to prioritize, say urban villages that are proximate to downtown access to the transit. Why couldn't those be put into say horizon one and then those that are lower-level priorities go into a second horizon so that we sort of all know what is coming down. The pike, that's how they are now.

D

And it could be I.

M

Mean I think what staff is saying.

D

We have a recommendation, which is much more limited, that I think what we're saying is that the horizons don't don't really have as much need anymore, except for the purposes of where you plan next and so we're saying that if horizons were to go away, go away, it's still valuable to have some language that sort of guides staff and council about where we should be thinking about planning next, and that's why this policy actually exists and we're recommending modifying it but you're right.

D

If the horizons did stay in the general plan, they could they would effective but they're what they're doing now since she's sort of guiding staff about where we are planning next, so councils done that and past the directness to move up urban villages and some light rail lines and we did and that all that was is a signal: okay staff, when you get money, that's where you're going next Melanie.

B

I think a staff was just being responsive to taskforce questions previously regarding eliminating the horizons shy.

A

B

J

If we eliminate the horizons and we adopt that policy and specifically on the piece that's bolded, can staff talk about like some worst-case scenarios. If we were to tack that on this seems like that's that that's the piece, that's a little bit out of sync with the philosophy behind the horizons. In the first place,.

C

Practically I would not see a lot of change. I mean I, think how things have gone where there has been strong market demand, let's just take West San Jose for an example because we'll see projects coming in and there's typically the community. What interest in starting the planning process or there just becomes a need to kick off a planning process.

C

De Anza Boulevard would be another example where we've seen mostly commercial projects, but several several projects come forward a lot of concern from the community about those projects and then then, there's kind of a need or a desire to go out and proactively, get ahead of that and put a plan in place.

C

So I think I, understand, I, completely, understand the question and yeah the the priority really more looked before was originally focused on our you know, kind of coming up from downtown where you have strong transit, but it just as it as the general plan has been implemented and how it's played out. It's the market demand definitely has come into play for those reasons.

C

A

D

I think we have limited resources to do these plans so I think. If you're gonna have limited resources, it makes sense to do a plan that won't just sit on the shelf, but there's actually marketing just to develop. That plan.

A

J

Staff is recommending an if-then proposition. If we eliminate horizons, then we need to do this policy change, but you are not recommending if we eliminate the horizons not to do the policy change, so the recommendation goes together. Part-And-Parcel correct you are recommending. If we do this, then we also need to do a policy revision. In other words, you couldn't have a motion that says we're going to eliminate it. You would not recommend it.

A

Let me having that second part right Bonnie. Let me answer that one for you. What I'm gonna do I think we're gonna finish up what the questions pretty shortly I'm going to suggest to the task force. The first thing we should need to have a discussion on vote on is whether or not to keep the horizons.

A

Depending on that vote, then we'll have the vote on attachment a okay, any other questions. Okay, so let's move to discussions and motions and as I just suggested, the first issue to talk about and decide is: what is the consensus on the task force with respect to the horizons for the urban villages and Leslie? You want to go first and then Pat sure.

G

I just wanted to thank the planning staffer for flexibility on this, because honestly I think that's what we need right now. We need the ability to respond to where developments gonna go, because we we need to remove any impediments. We have to development one of the things that happens when you do that when you have effective growth control is that it has bad ramifications. It increases housing prices.

G

It also, unfortunately, has resulted in displacement, as housing developers choose to redevelop residential land as opposed to other kinds of land that they might in urban villages, because they're seeking places to build. So it's really important that we have that flexibility and I am. However, I would say, I'm worried that the plans themselves are holding back, that opportunity and- and so I know, it's been out of the scope of this task force. But, however, we can do anything to get.

G

Those moving forward is very critical because we need again to open up as much land as we can to development to make make the need so personally, I support, I'm, not gonna, make emotional that somebody hosted the operating up the horizons, because I really do feel that that the city needs as much flexibility as it can have to to react to. Where we'll see the development first kind of back to Kevin's, comment and I. Think opening them up would do that. Thank.

A

You Leslie Patsy Sato, yes,.

N

Also like to thank staff for the work they've done on this in regards to what's before us now, whether we should eliminate the horizons or not I agree with everything. Leslie just said: I will make a motion to eliminate the horizons. I believe that it sends a signal to the greater community that San Jose is interested. They want to hear what you believe is an opportunity for development to address some of the serious housing crises, issues that we're facing, whether it's affordable, housing or market rate housing, whether it's affordable, housing developers are market rate developers.

N

We need to remove all barriers. We need to remove all policy that really is not conducive to addressing our housing issue in San, Jose and I. Believe, historically, we've known since the day this this general plan has been adopted. The horizons have been an impediment to producing housing, so I'm actually very happy I'm able to make the motion to remove the horizons from the general plan and.

A

Who's making the second two that Vince, okay, Eric, you're next and then Vince next after Eric, just.

F

Two items: at our first meeting, we were given the four-year review progress report prepared by the staff and on page 45 of that report, it's said this is the staff. Talking quote, the planning horizons for urban villages may limit the speed at which residential development may occur.

F

That's the staff conclusion in the four-year progress report on page 45, so it's been acknowledged that it may limit housing production. Secondly- and this is anecdotal as a land-use consultant- I can tell you that the horizons are a disincentive for investors and developers.

F

Looking at our city, most development is done by people that aren't that don't live here that aren't from San Jose they're from other states, other countries and I'm usually the first person they called because they want to evaluate a site and they want to evaluate city policy and when they see that the site is in quote horizon 3. It's sort of a signal to them that oh this is. This is a low priority. This may be a difficult political process to get this site.

F

That's in the third tier priority through the process, and so it really is a disincentive having those kinds of rankings on these urban villages all right, Vince.

C

Thank you for the comments and for staff's work on this yeah I. Think right now anything that's an impediment to the speed of getting housing. Production happening right now, not only increases prices, but it ignores the fact that we are in a shortage in a crisis right now, and so my wholeheartedly suck at this motion.

A

Okay, is there anyone else who wants to comment on the motion all right, all in favor aye did I miss you one sorry.

B

I

Only comment was that I agree with everyone who spoke that we need to remove barriers if there are any concerns. There are other ways to address those concerns, and so yes, I recommend supporting them. Okay,.

A

Well, we took a little bit of a climax out of that, but.

B

A

In favor any opposed harvey shiloh. Anyone else opposed alright I do want to court. The motion, but I do want to comment. I and I think this is true and if it's not true I want staff to correct me, but my understanding is that any project that came to the council's attention- that was not in the first horizon and there was a request to move it into the first horizon. Were there any any projects that the council said no to.

A

To move from one horizon to another.

D

You mean in terms of a development proposal or in terms of the council, is not when staff has recommended moving an urban village from whatever is.

A

What I'm talking about to horizon one yeah.

D

Yes, the council has approved that.

A

All right so at least as the council has acted and I understand Eric what you're saying that it can discourage people from the outset and I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but at least the council over it. Since the adoption of the plan, if there were requests made to advance an urban village, all of those had been approved.

A

A

Okay, so we're gonna go to attachment a the recommendation and the language. It's also on page two.

B

F

Recommended by staff and I'd like to speak to that is.

A

B

A

Any comments, discussion on the motion, Eric yeah, so I.

F

Believe staffs response to Juan's question was that this sequence of commas means or not, and so, if you parse that out, we're talking about the priorities would be things near downtown or things with access to existing and planned transit facilities or adequate infrastructure to support the interests, intensification or approximate to other areas, and then market demand would be another factor. I mean that seems to cover all the priorities, all the priorities of growth in our city. So with that and I think it's worthy of support. Okay,.

A

To staff understand the changes Eric's suggesting okay, all right- we've got a second Aysen.

O

B

You use the my case. Excuse me, thank you.

B

O

Really quickly, the last sentence- growth areas with high market devout demand- should also be prioritized to ensure that devil development follows the community's vision for the future. Is it just okay to go ahead and remove the community? This vision for the future and just simply say, growth areas with high market demand shall also be prioritized so I to ensure that development is feasible, where it makes sense.

D

You're asking to remove the word community from that bold sentence.

D

Digit for the future.

A

Okay, you're in the queue Jim I was just want to make sure you have a question I'm, not sure I've haven't heard an answer yet from staff. So.

D

I, don't know if that's a question: it's staffers had a question for the task force to discuss. Yeah are the maker. The motion.

G

O

So I think the statement is fine, but I. Don't quite think that it follows that areas with high market demand being prioritized follows the community's vision for the future, and so just simply saying that growth areas with higher market demand shall also be prioritized to ensure the development can occur where it's feasible. It makes a lot more sense.

D

If I could just explain some of our thinking on this so I think an example is the Tri Village area, not Sam Ramone, whatever Pleasanton blah blah blah but Winchester Santana row, Stevens, Creek urban villages and so I think that this kind of came from that where there was a lot of development happening and the community felt that it was just going forward and there was not a vision for that area that had a stakeholder input and buy-in to so.

D

The idea is that, if you're having a lot of development coming forward, you want to get ahead of that and work with stakeholders in the community, which is a very broad definition. It's not just residents. It's business owners developers, property owners, nonprofits, it's a huge. You know very broad definition of the community that you can kind of coalesce and come up with some agreement and what the vision should be and how you're gonna get there. So the development that follows implements that vision is consistent with the vision. So that's the rationale for us writing it.

D

The way it is included the kinis vision. Thank.

A

You it's your motion. What do you want to do with this and suggestion? Okay,.

A

So your motion still just to keep it, as is.

A

Is that it just for clarification? Yes,.

F

A

A

J

Access to existing and planned transit facility just does that include buses or only light rail.

A

J

When it kind of gets to what Aysen was saying but part of our holded conversation last week was about community engagement, not necessarily the community's vision, but community engagement around the vision so and I know, Eric doesn't like to wordsmith. But at some point you should have something in there about community engagement as part of the prioritization process. That.

A

We're gonna there's there is a recommendation about community engagement in our next agenda item. So maybe we could follow up with that. Then, let's keep going Shiloh.

J

So going back to my the theme of my question earlier on the Bolden area, I'm wondering if you can of all of our urban of all of our potential urban villages or growth areas, is there one where you could see? There's a potential for high market demand that you as staff would say.

J

No, we actually shouldn't do an urban village here, but we would be caught in this policy saying well this this'll. This says that we ought to.

J

I'm, just trying to anticipate like a worst-case scenario where you know given stuff has finite resources. We need you to be focused on the places where it makes sense to be promoting development. Is there a scenario where there's an urban village? That's that there's a lot of market pressure, but it actually doesn't make sense to go earlier rather than later, I. Don't.

D

Think so, okay.

A

H

So I would say that we need to keep community the word community in there, because the community, for example, we.

B

Didn't change those.

H

No no I'm changed I'm. Just second Iraq said that he didn't want to wordsmith and I think we should continue that you.

A

Agree with Eric, sometimes Jesse twelve years, we have to agree Jesse I.

M

Just wanted to clarify that the motion, when you're saying no wordsmithing does for sure include wordsmithing on the and switching to or throughout the language that.

A

Is clear that is clear: we are clear on that all right, I think so.

I

I am here on this task force because I'm involved in the community, as a community activist and I'm, just mentioning that so that you understand, what's framing my recommendations and so I do support this and, as we prepare to vote on it, I just remind everybody what was cleared up at or for me cleared up at the last meeting and the one prior that what we're doing is making recommendations for the next four years.

I

This will not be set in stone, we're taking an approach and we're refining it, and if we find that it decision looks really good, but it doesn't work out well in four years they may reverse it. So don't feel like you have to make the perfect decision.

I

I think that this is a great decision in me and I support.

A

It all right, thank you on anyone else. Did I skip anybody. Okay, all in favor of the motion. Anyone opposed all right thanks. Everyone we're gonna, move to the next agenda item, which is completing the discussion on signature projects and changes to policy IP 5-12, and along with that, there are recommendations in here about community engagement which bonnie was bringing up as well as affordable housing and we've gotten some letters from task force. Members on that issue, as well so Jared I, think you're presenting on this one too. I am ok.

C

N

E

C

Handful items to cover here so bear with me: I'll try to get through the slides as quickly as possible. So picking back up on our discussion on signature projects and to recap where we left off at December's meeting the task force voted to recommend staffs recommendation of signature project criteria updates with two changes. One was that projects would only need to provide their fair share of commercial space rather than their above fair share. The other was the eligibility of interior sites for signature projects.

C

The task force voted to set the criteria at 1.5 acres and 100 foot minimum frontage rather than the 3 acres and 150-foot frontages. That was a proposal staff. The task force also requested staff. Look at the impact of the interior site selection recommendation change. So we'll talk about that in a second here.

C

Additionally, there was a discussion on community engagement in affordable housing in the context of signature projects and the task force assets affix for additional engagement requirements for signature projects and to consider incentives for required commercial space for signature projects that build on site, affordable housing units.

C

So, just briefly here on the interior parcel size, changes staff did an analysis and found that 23 additional parcels would be eligible for signature projects compared to the original staff recommendation and the motion passed by the task force.

C

Moving right along is mentioned. The task force requested that staff explore additional community engagement requirements for signature projects in terms of the community and community engagement. In the context of the general plan, the general plan currently includes active community engagement goal ace-1, which establishes a goal to develop community awareness and understanding and the land use in public and public policy issues and empower the community to engage in safe, shaping such policies. The goal includes associated policies on providing transparent, convenient and accessible outreach outreach process.

C

Among other details, the full text of this goal and policies are included in your packet tonight. So one of the policies is to maintain and implement the city's public outreach policy for those not familiar with the city's public outreach policy for pending land use and development proposals. It's known as policy 630, and this policy establishes a baseline protocol for dissemination of information and encourages early and frequent communication between city staff applicants in the public.

C

On this topic, the city recently completed an audit of the engagement process under policy 630, which was presented to City Council in April of last year. The audit provided eight recommendations, three of which have been completed or underway, including the role of community, the rollout of community meeting and hearing surveys, creating a neighbourhood language map and implementing plain language guides for public notices through the surveys being employed staff is aggregating feedback to potential updates to policy 630.

C

A comprehensive update of this policy is not currently on that's work plan and would need to be prioritized by the City Council, but staff would anticipate about an 18-month process to fully address all the audit recommendations and complete an update policy. 6:30.

C

So to refocus here on the signature project policy as it relates to community engagement in high-level general plan policies, staff recognizes that specific and prescriptive outreach requirements are not going to be the most effective as it relates to community engagement, since every community is different and a one-size-fits-all approach is not conducive. In this context, staff has confirmed that state law requirements for objective standards do not apply to community engagement and recommends updating the signature project policy criteria around outreach to focus on the outcome of the engagement process.

C

The proposed policy language displayed here on the slide states that the engagement process should be tailored to the community approximate to the signature project and rather than relisting the many policies established already in the community engagement section in Chapter, two of the general plan, the proposed language, references back to goal c e1 and its associated policies.

C

Task force also asked for staff to explore the possibility of including childcare for signature project community meetings. We looked into this and given, where a government agency, not surprisingly a traditional childcare, poses some liability issues for the city. However, there has been examples in the past where the city has provided supervised activities. Yes in quotes where project applicants have hired a recreation leader from our Parks Department to lead supervised activities for children during the meeting. There's there's some challenges with this and that kids must be toilet.

C

Trained parents are required to acquire and assign a waiver, and then we also need the the rec leader to volunteer to work those community meetings. It's not they Nitori for them. Also, talking to staff who've worked on projects that use this service. They found that parents typically kept their children with them anyway, so in this case staffs not recommending, including this as a requirement as part of the signature project policy.

C

An additional request of the task force was of the test was for staff to come back with a proposal that would allow signature projects that include on-site, affordable housing to reduce their commercial space requirement for consistency. Staff recommends that an affordable housing component of a signature project should be tied to the city's inclusionary. Housing ordinance is a starting point based on this staff has put forth three options for your consideration tonight.

C

First I want to just give quick summary of the city's inclusionary housing, ordinance or iho. The iho requires new residential projects with twenty units or more to provide 15% of the units to be affordable. That's nine percent at eighty percent area, median income or ami and six percent at fifty percent.

C

Ami other proposed updates to the iho to encourage on-site, affordable units and facilitate moderate income housing that would change this affordability mix to five percent at a 100 percent, ami five percent at 60%, ami and five percent at 50 percent ami and that will be considered by council later this year, I believe in spring springtime.

C

There are also alternatives to comply with the iho, but it has to equal 20 percent, affordable units on site, and then some of these alternatives include dedication of land acquisition and rehab of existing units and most commonly use paying in in luffy.

C

So before jumping into the details of the three options for commercial reduction incentives, there's a few criteria that are consistent in staffs recommendation across all three options, that is, to qualify for any incentives. Affordable units must be included on site and must exceed the current 15% iho requirement, starting at 20% on-site, affordable units to start qualifying for those incentives.

C

No alternatives to the iho or combination of alternatives would be allowed, meaning a proposed project could not pay the in lieu fee for the 15% iho and then just provide 5% on-site, affordable units and then benefit from the incentive. Again, the units would be required on-site.

C

Additionally, the housing and commercial components would need to be built concurrently, which is consistent with the current requirements of a signature project in terms of the percentage reduction in commercial space staff recommends that with 20% on-site, affordable units a project would receive 15% reduction in commercial space, increasing in increments of 5%, both for the on-site units and incentive up to 50% on-site units and 45% reduction in commercial space is shown on the table on the slide.

C

So with that option number one with this option, Miles's the status quo and that signature projects as they do now, can satisfy the 15% iho requirement by building units on site or use an alternative such as paying an in lieu fee.

C

With this option, if an applicant proposes to exceed the iho requirement and build more than 15% of the units on site, starting at at least 20%, they would receive a commercial requirement incentive consistent with the percentages from the last slide option to all signature projects, and this option would be required to meet the 15% on-site iho requirement. The only exception would be being a land donation equivalent to the 20% on-site obligation for alternatives in the iho projects could then take a Vantage of the commercial requirement incentive by providing over the 15% on-site requirement again.

C

Starting at 20% is previously described.

C

So that again, the big difference there with option 2 is that you're, starting off with a 15% on site, required all for all signature projects moving to option 3 this option is it's kind of like a pendulum similar to option 1 the signature projects they're not required to include on-site, affordable units and could use alternatives in the I Jo. However, for projects not including on-site, affordable housing units, they would be required to provide above fair share of commercial space based on the urban village type.

C

If, if the project met the 15% on-site requirement of the iho, the project would then only need to provide their fair share of commercial space and then, if the project proposed over 15% on-site units consistent with the other two options, it could then take advantage of the commercial requirement reduction.

C

So this busy this table here, it's a summary of all the three options up for discussion tonight and it's included in your packets and on your PowerPoint site printouts.

C

So, just briefly, some additional considerations for this incentive- our are the preservation of key commercial sites that are important to achieving the city's economic development goals. To this end, staff is proposing conducting additional analysis following the conclusion of the task force process to identify large sites at key locations that would be eligible for this incentive or.

L

Which would then.

C

Be ineligible for this incentive, given their location, is a key site for commercial development and and then, which would be considered as part of the package by City Council later this fall.

C

So this is just a summary here of the recommendations related to signature projects that I just went through. We have the three options: around affordable housing and commercial space requirement, incentives and updates to the policy language on community engagement.

C

So then, now moving along to two additional housing items from their proof, scope, scope of work and I'm going to stop there and see if David or did you want to have a discussion kind of on the signature project. These are they're somewhat related, so we've got them in the same. You saw a deck, but.

A

Let me suggest this: we had a very long discussion at our last meeting that votes taking place. There were some requests that count. Staff did follow up on for information, so we have that information in the packet so that we don't need to have that vote again. I do want to give an opportunity, though, if there's anyone based on the information that was in the packet on the questions that were raised at the last meeting on this on the signature project policy changes.

A

If anybody has questions in regard to that information, we're not talking about the affordability, there was some information you provided with respect. How many signature projects would be affected with the criteria change. Is that what you were bringing up right now, right, well, I, just bring.

C

It if, if you wanted to to stop and talk about, discuss the signature projects, but you know I, think these. These two items are tied together in terms of the mixed income housing. So, okay, preferably I, guess we just keep going and we can go through the full presentation. Let's.

A

Complete the presentation what I like to do this is pretty complex, stuff. Okay, what I'd like to do before we open it up for public comment is after the staff presentation is completed. Let's get the questions out because I think that's gonna help us understand what's being recommended here. So if you've got we'll follow up with questions, we'll go to public comment and then we'll come back and we're gonna vote on things, but it's been suggested that we split some of these votes out. For instance, we can discuss the Community.

A

Engagement can have a vote on that. I think we'll do that and then we'll shift to the affordability in the commercial space requirements after that, but feel free after the staff presentation. Let's get the questions out so at least we're all on the same page as to what's being recommended. Okay, great.

C

Thank you David, so, okay, so moving along here to additional housing items from the approved scope scope of work. The first is the consideration of allowing mixed income housing to move forward within an urban village ahead.

P

C

A growth horizon or urban village plan the others to explore changes to commercial space requirement requirements for affordable housing development, so both of these items are reside in general plan policy, IP 512 that allows a hundred percent affordable housing projects to develop in urban villages ahead of an approved plan, subject to certain criteria listed here, one of those being that the project should substantially replace existing commercial square footage.

C

On the first item of allowing mixed income housing ahead of a growth horizon or urban village plan the options, the options presented for the inclusion of affordable housing incentive through the signature projects effectively addressed this scoping item such that staff does not recommend any changes. The requirements for projects using policy IP 512 are much less than that of signature projects, because this policy was intended to facilitate a hundred percent affordable projects.

C

So adding a mixed income component to this policy would effectively disincentivize the use of the signature project policy and thus result in fewer, affordable housing units at any level and less commercial development does.

A

Everybody understand that who's confused there's got to be at least a couple of people. So Jared. Can you give a little bit further explanation on that? Yes,.

C

This scoping item was to look at you know allowing mixed income housing in the context of this policy to proceed in urban villages, ahead of a growth horizon, which the task force is recommended to eliminate horizons or ahead of a head of a plan.

C

However, with with the direction we got from the task force in terms of looking at a incentive for signature projects that include a mixed income component, so where the signature projects are getting an incentive for including affordable housing on-site the it effectively there isn't, we don't see a need to change this policy. We've already done that through the signature project policy, if, if by introducing the the requirements of this policy, were set up to facilitate a hundred percent affordable housing project, so there's not a lot of criteria. You know, there's not the open space requirement.

C

There's not! The commercial requirement is far less than the signature project requirement. So if by by introducing a mixed income component into this policy, essentially there would be no reason for to use a signature project policy. I, don't think you know I, don't see anyone would volunteer for that. So, by by the recommendations put forth in the signature project policy, we feel like this policy should stay as is, and is a good and strong tool to try to facilitate those hundred percent, affordable housing projects and allow those to move forward. Let.

A

Me ask the question in a different way, because I'm still having a hard time and.

A

Let's talk about what staff is recommending to facilitate affordable housing, because that was a direction the council wanted us to look at so relate that back to some of the things that are being recommended here in the options for inclusionary housing, if you could I mean for first signature projects.

C

A

Don't have to talk about plan horizons anymore because that's moods cracking so talk.

D

Yeah so I think one is where the task force record said day: staff look at a an affordable housing incentive program and signature project, so that's an incentive for affordable housing and that's before you tonight we presented three options of staff are considering. We want to get your feedback on that. You guys can vote on that. In addition, there's two parts of this proposed change. I was over there, so I don't think we got into the second part, but there's also a commercial discussion about.

D

That's coming next, okay, so we'll get to that next, but I think what we're really saying is that you know that we're we're not recommending changing this policy for mixed income. For the reasons that Jared said it will disincentivize use the signature project policy. We believe it will result in fewer, affordable housing units at any level, and we have a concern about the results of us. Commercial I should add that we actually really couldn't find a.

D

We did sort of look at different models and we didn't really see a mixed income model that in given the existing financial tools that exist and given how development is currently working. That would actually result in a mixed income projects. So that's not up here, but that's another sort of some backstory with the process we went through, so we could have recommended, for example, 50% market rate 50%, affordable. We talked about that, but that's not a product that this this market is producing. There's not financing tools for that.

D

We don't envision development doing that type of development, so we decided to keep it we're recommending and keeping it the way it is and really giving that sort of jump ahead. Head Start for really a hundred percent affordable at 80 percent of area, median income or lower the low income categories.

A

Q

I'm Kristin Clements with the housing department I just wanted to add that the purpose of this policy is you, give access to markets for land to affordable developers at a rate, that's slightly cheaper because it's not open to everybody yet right, and so therefore, the city and other subsidy providers wouldn't end up bearing the cost of the of the land that was more expensive.

Q

How did that market been open to everyone yet and that that really is a kind of an open door that should be only open to quite affordable transactions and that this open door? If you will we, we should be focusing on getting that to work as well as we can, rather than opening it up to deals that might be kind of only marginally affordable. Once you get a start, we discussed moderate income housing quite a bit.

Q

Once you start getting into higher rent areas, it started getting much more complicated as to what the rules might be for underwriting, because, as the markets go up and down, the rents may or may not be close to what the market would be providing anyway for moderate income families.

Q

So it depends so it got more complicated and we thought that the basic tool we didn't want to cause competition unwittingly by raising the am is necessarily to kind of undercut the basic idea of what this policy was doing, which was trying not to raise the subsidy amounts that we would have to be giving to a hundred percent. Affordable deals. Okay,.

A

I see, questions and I see some confused faces and so forth alive, given the size of our task force, I'd really like to make a suggestion here and what I'd like to do is everybody's got their overview memo and we've I think what I want to do is get us to look at pages 10.

A

That begin with the staff recommendations, there's prior analysis by staff, but on page 10 they are making the recommendations that we're going to discuss tonight.

A

I, don't see necessarily, we need to have a lot of questions about the community engagement policy, but thereafter you'll see there are recommendations regarding the commercial requirement reduction incentive, that's at the bottom of page 10 and then on page 11, the three options that staff has talked about, as well as the language in IP 5-12.

A

That staff is recommending. That's really the core of what we're going to be voting on tonight and I know there's some other recommendations from the community as well. That differ from those we'll get to those discussions, but in this part of all getting on the same page I'd like to suggest that, if you have questions, if you can relate them to the recommendations that are on these pages, I think that will help us move this along. So questions.

B

A

Roberta and then Ray.

J

So it says a hundred percent of all housing has to be affordable to be a signature project. Is that right or is it 100 percent of the 20 percent or whatever? That number is on page 10.

D

Policy 512 that you're looking at has nothing to do so signature projects. This is a policy that allows affordable housing to be able to move forward in urban villages where otherwise they could in the past they could not. This is a policy that the previous four you review taskforce recommended with staff and the council proof. So it's been around for four years, so it allows basically it gives it allows it jump ahead essentially for affordable housing.

D

That's a hundred percent affordable, it's all affordable at the low income categories, very low income, extremely low income and low income.

A

Okay ray and then Smita.

L

I'd actually like to make a request of the chairs. The signature policy project and policy IP 512 have are completely unrelated and I feel like we're. Gonna continue down this path of considerable confusion. If we don't separate the two we're.

A

Just dealing with questions we're not in voting on anything now and I'm, just trying to take care of questions before we open up for public comment and I do agree with you. Okay,.

L

Okay, so I just should, should I hold my questions for 5:12 until later to.

A

You I I think what we're trying to do is all become as educated as we can before we start expressing opinions. Certainly so it's a good time to ask questions if you've got them now. Okay,.

L

Certainly so um to staff with regards to IP 512 I'm, just I'm curious- and this is from my colleague Lesley- regarding the limitation of scope to urban villages. The housing crisis work plan called for an examination of commercial requirements in affordable housing citywide and it seems like this has been a very focused look at just urban villages in the staff return right.

C

Good question, so we do have one other item is we have an item missed part of the housing crisis work plan? That's looking at the 1.5 acre role in the commercial requirements for that particular policy. So that's gonna be other one that covers affordable housing projects that can move forward outside of both areas on those commercial doesn't land, so we'll be moving forward separately with that recommendation. As far as.

L

So that will that be returning to this to this body, or is that no.

C

L

C

Yeah separate a tech council. Yes, thank you. Okay, Smita.

E

Thank you first off. This is actually just clarification. I apologize if it's a dumb question, I'm, not of the planning or development world and I- need a number in my head to help me make this a little more concrete. So can you tell me what the number for the area median income right now just approximate doesn't have to be exact. Just so, I have something.

Q

Were you citing 80%.

B

O

Of ami right now is about 135,000 for Santa Clara County for a family of four individual is about ninety one thousand. Eighty percent ami is about one hundred and four thousand for a family of four and for an individual about 70, something that wasn't that care of ever exactly he's good. What's.

A

Three thousand times four hundred and twenty-one.

Q

To the second power.

A

Thank you: okay, okay, Don.

P

For staff, I think and I apologize for not you know, they'd be with you all right before the holidays, but I was here for the first meeting, Trammell Crowe, we're developers I think we have one other developer here in the room too. Excuse me. Thank you. This to me is fascinating, and productive and I really enjoy the integration of ideas and consent of direction and I'm I'm embracing it in that fashion.

P

However, there is a kind is it's kind of like vibrating, because we're talking about kind of these normative directions for what the city is going to look like, which I understand what I don't get is there's there's a conspicuous absence of just what is feasible. You know the math of these, these ideas, and so I guess for the question for staff is of this array of scenarios that all make sense I give how you're arriving at them. How many of them are feasible? Do you have underwriting math?

P

You have pro forma math or for any of these in today's environment, recognizing it will change over time, but if we tested the any of these for feasibility and if I'm a council member, when you make this presentation, okay, you have 15 scenarios here how many of them are feasible today. What would be your answer so.

D

The answer is no, and yes so because we weren't given a lot of time to develop a proposal we for the signature I'm talking about everyone just so I'm talking about the signature project, affordable, housing incentive. Please remove this policy from the board. Thank you. So people don't get confused, so we didn't have time to test these.

D

We presented we're presenting three options to the task force, depending on what the Task Force recommends and we're staff we also may want to go somewhere to, but I the next step would be to test them financially and do an analysis of them is. We may need to do that, depending on what moves forward and and and based on that analysis, it may need further refinement or work. We don't know so that would be a next step before it would go back to council. So right now we're just saying here's some three options.

D

We can continue to study. Do they all look good? None of them look good, modify one. We like to you know whatever you.

P

Know and just to finish, the question back to the chair, I understand what you just said. It doesn't still doesn't make sense to me from our approach we would be. We would have some sample math right now, so we're not spending our wheels and creating hope for these aspirational directions that have, for the sake of discussion, have no chance of ever working.

P

So my encouragement is somewhere along the way we might be able to have a segment to talk about that because, as I look at this I I'm dubious that much of this works today, and so that's a concern of mine of coming up with this. So much effort so many hours from the community in this task force and basically baking a cake that'll, never never get out of the oven. If you will okay, so.

A

I just want to try to remind people we're just asking some questions, informational questions at this time we I really want to discourage anybody expressing opinions before we get public comment and I understand where you started on that Don. So thank you for that.

A

So, just to let you know, I've got about seven people with questions and so I think Roberto. You've had your hand up, or are you still going know? Who else is there on? The right is Juan, okay, question.

I

So I can see how it got confusing. Could we go back to the other slide that we were talking about, although I much appreciate Don, littles commentary and agree with what he's saying so I think when we're here? Here's what I'm trying to understand I!

I

Think what I'm hearing is a council ask staff to consider changes to this policy staff, considered changes and determined that the best thing to do was to make no changes, and, given that we are recommending eliminating horizons, then, as an example, if story road was designated as an urban village, even before the plan was created, a developer could move forward with affordable housing. Because that's what this allows and is that what we're saying.

C

So we are recommending some changes to this policy would a little bit later in the slide deck, so we're we're just not recommending changes to the affordability level, we're recommending that it stay at a hundred percent affordability level. Eighty percent or less am I that's a recommendation for that component of the policy. We are making recommendations to reduce the commercial, reduce and clarify the commercial space replacement requirement, as well as eliminating a couple of the other criteria that we feel are no longer relevant, but that's coming.

D

I

So let me let me just go back I recommend that we stick to the scope of this slide before we move on cuz. Then it just gets confusing and I wonder. Are we going to be asked to be to vote on each one of these? Because if we're going to ask to vote on this one yeah.

A

We're gonna separate out the votes, so just questions.

I

I recommend, let me just recommend that we tackle them one by one, because then it becomes otherwise it becomes overwhelming. That's.

A

What I just said, okay, thanks did you have a question nope Melanie. Did you have a question? Yes,.

M

Affordable housing incentives was there any consideration to try and square some of the requirements for putting in affordable housing with the new and old state density laws, because some of these requirements don't actually match up with what someone might propose to say get a density bonus. They might have 15% low-income, but then not qualify for any of the incentives. So is there any I guess thought to making they're having more congruence between state incentives and local incentives.

Q

So state density, bonus law, there's now also a density bonus by the way that's different for a hundred percent, affordable projects than for market rate projects, and so the rules are different.

Q

Different financial structures for affordable housing can differ quite a bit and, depending on your sources, there's no necessarily rhyme or reason to the income levels. There's no one pattern to really match up to so no, we did not necessarily try to match any given ami kind of area median income pattern on this correctly.

D

And wrong, so we do see people that are doing a hundred percent, affordable housing development, the doo doo density bonus, so they're not asking for more density.

E

They're asking.

D

For the concessions, maybe concession on setbacks or other things, I'm.

M

Not talking about a hundred five hundred percent, affordable housing, I'm, actually talking about market rate like the signature projects that are using density bonuses and other incentives to incorporate a certain percentage of affordable on-site, and so it seems like this policy, isn't squaring up with some of the other criteria or incentives, and so you've got this. Maybe you might want to reduce your commercial space, so you go this route, but then that means you might actually put less units and you would, if you were using the other incentives that are out there.

Q

A

Jesse then Jim Zito I.

M

Have three questions on the three options which does staff believe will produce the greatest number of affordable housing units.

M

That's the first one: I can list them all if you want them all together. So.

D

You know I, don't think we know that I think that gets back to look doing some financial feasibility. Frankly, so our intention is not to have affordable or requirement so high that we kill the project. So I think you know, there's an option. Is it option one where you know you could just go ahead and do it at your project? There's you could do iho my name you're way out, but if you want to get the incentive you need you can. If you build a fort one site, but we haven't tested well gee.

D

Would someone actually do that or not so I know that in the case of ETA, because you have your own policy parameters, you guys would, but what a market rate developer do that we that's something we'd have to test. If you had a requirement for on-site, affordable I'm, just at the get-go, no matter what and then you can get incentive on top of that we'd have to test that too I mean we've heard concerns that if developers have to do on-site affordable, they won't build now in Santa Clara.

D

They have to do city of Santa Clara. My wife works, they have to do one side, affordable and the developers do it so and then they move on and build the rest of it. But we'd have to test that here in San, Jose.

M

My second question is: can you discuss the background and thought on the commercial disc discount matrix and how you guys came up with those connections on percentage discounts.

Q

I think this is perhaps illustrative I mean until you know, to your point: there's not been a feasibility analysis about this has two concepts behind it. One is a financial feasibility component right, which is, if you do more, affordable housing, you're not is able to do from a feasibility perspective as much commercial space.

Q

The second point is that you know: are you doing community serving kind of ground floor use and therefore you know it's a planning concept as to how much space you've got and what you're allocating it towards, and so you've got both a financial and a Planning concept. There we tried to come up with something that was happy medium. That would not drive anyone that was compatible with the inclusionary requirements and would not drive anybody away from signature and towards other alternatives too heavily in five percent increments.

Q

Instead of one percent increments, there's not too much magic, so I think it's more conceptual than yes.

D

It is conceptual I think we, this.

Q

E

A little bit would be honest, a little bit of an art.

D

Because we have really only had about two weeks to put this together, so it's a concept and I think the next stage would be to actually test it out financially. What is the value of say? Twenty fourth, an affordable versus 15 percent commercial reduction. So this is more of a of a concept that you kind of as you scale one up the other scales Dow and accordingly rough. You know it could be exactly the same or one could be more or less. We had to figure that out and.

M

And then my third question was 100%: affordable housing projects, there's language there that talks about excluding sites that are two acres are larger and sites that are on intersections or that have anticipated market demand within the next 10 to 15 years for commercial. Can you discuss the intent behind that language? Yes,.

D

I can so we had had a powwow at City Hall amongst all the different departments, including Office of Economic, Development and I. Think there is a concern on staff that well there could be sites that are final, echo on regards a commercial, let it reduced. There are those sites out there that are really opportune for opportunity for new commercial or expansion or enhancement of existing commercial, and when you do an urban village plan, you can figure that out.

D

This is before an urban village plan, so staff is just letting you know that we are going to do additional analysis to potentially suggest criteria for councils consideration about yes, but in the case of this project, a parcel that means these criteria. This would not be applicable to you'd still need to provide the commercial at the signature policy level. Things that could be is a parcel on. You know intersection of two major arterials that has trip traffic volumes above acts that um is over a certain size.

D

Things like that, we do haven't really figure that out yet, but that that's something we want to look at, because it's really a concern that we haven't been able to do the thorough analysis, because we have it in the urban village plan and we may be giving up some prime commercial sites. So.

M

There will be some follow up on what a major intersection yeah.

D

And this this, to be frank, this will be happening out for the taskforce process. We won't be able to complete in the next month or two okay.

A

R

I had this down, but let me just get a clarification. So if you had 100 percent commercial site, what is the potential impact of this on a site like that? That's just a plain site: that's 100 percent commercial.

D

So anytime, you have a commercial site when you build housing on it, that that can up or often will preclude the redevelopment of that site for a more intense commercial use, housing I don't want to use that an aligator. You say it all the time, but when you build housing, it's it's it's for a long time multi-generational. So it takes that land off the table for the possibility for read about.

D

So that's I think why that's why we have that sort of fourth thing that we put out there that we really want to dig a staff dig and to understand that so.

R

Let me get a little bit more to the point being appointed to represent evergreen. We have the foothills. We have that commercial land- that's been sitting there for forever and it's always comes up as a something to discuss. How would this policy affect that land.

C

This is specifically for urban villages. The policy would so.

R

C

Apply to that practically.

R

Thought that was the case of one of the clarification. Thank you very much. Jason.

A

E

Thank you. You mentioned that policy 1.5 point when 2 was added in the last update, how many projects were able to go through this since then,.

A

C

C

So we've had one project was recently approved using this, this particular policy and then I believe we have two in the pipeline. I know we have one under review. That's submitted an application. We either have another one I think that's either submitted an application or we process a preliminary review. Application for and I think we fit. You know we had some other preliminary review. Applications come through, so there's been some interest, but yeah we've had one project entitled thus far and just kind.

E

Of a follow-up outside of the ones that you mentioned kind of, if there's any other conversations about having these types of projects other than the commercial requirement, are there, other kind of obstacles are in the way of getting this.

C

Project going: yes, there is so I.

D

Think the biggest one is prop 13 and the property owners, so there was a site on Monterey I mean he's an example. Room developer was looking at a site on Monterey Highway. We said you know I'm, sorry. This is I'm. Sorry, this pub. What I'm describing he's? Actually not this policy, but it was. It was the other policy, so I want to back up, but it.

F

D

To both, so the issue is that what's happening with affordable housing is that when they approach a property owner there, the property, maybe it was bought in 1950s,.

S

D

Been in the family for years, it's under prop 13, their taxes are low. They have income on the property and they're like well. Yeah I'll sell to you for a trillion dollars, so there's not a lot of incentive for them to sell and when they, when they do it's it's it's it's. The price they're asking for is financially infeasible to make an affordable housing developer works over their head.

D

There's a lot I mean we understands a lot of challenges all around and some of the challenges just trying to find a site where they can buy it. That works okay,.

A

D

A

G

Wanted to clarify a comment that was made about the commercial space requirements only being applicable to the 1.5 acre sites. There's nothing in the housing work plan that limits that that, to that it says that the city will explore changes to commercial space requirements for affordable developments and, in our view, that's citywide.

C

Right so the the 1.5 acre rule is just it's a specific work item to update policy in the commercial requirements. Is it's a specific item in the housing crisis work plan and then this item for the four-year review was intended to focus on on IP 512. So we are moving forward with with updates to that policy in terms of the address concerns around the commercial requirements for that particular policy and that'll by the moving forward ahead of the recommendations from as part of the four-year review related to IP 512, okay,.

G

This is not something that's clear at all by the way and I don't understand why there would be different projects with different commercial requirements for affordable housing, because the problems relate to all so.

N

And that's not something that.

G

I read in the housing crisis work plan.

D

So right so staff's goal is that we have the same for both policies. As we talk about this we're thinking is, it would be the same in the other.

D

Well, yes, I don't know if what other policies have that requirement? No.

G

I was just saying that you have a 11.5 acre rule, which is very limited, and you've only had one project in the last four years that is applied through that, and then you have housing and urban villages. So it'd be everything except for those which is a lot.

A

Reminder just questions.

A

Kevin and then I did see ray and Bonnie did you have yours up, okay, so and Shiloh? Okay, the.

E

Commercial incentive, sorry, the incentive, twenty twenty-five thirty, thirty-five, forty- that one so I I believe it was when the item was brought up last time and then it was brought up to in the SP at home letter that another way to think of the incentive would be like a one-for-one. If you add more affordable square footage, you decrease the commercial square footage on a one-to-one basis. Did you guys look at that? Is that? Can you talk about why you suggested this instead of that way, and if you're gonna do the financial feasibility study?

E

Could you study both sure.

C

Yeah good question: yes, we did look at that. We looked at a one-for-one and we were trying to balance kind of you know various goals here on offering this option facilitating affordable units on site with reduction of commercial, but then also still looking at at the overall goals of the signature, project policy and economic development goals, and so we this is what this is where we landed kind of, but we did. We did look at that exact scenario when we were kind of bouncing the different ideas and how this might play out.

C

We looked at a one-for-one, you know and we and then we thought well. You know it probably more simp to go by 5% increments, but we did look at it kind of matching, as you're saying, like 20% 20% reduction, 25% of portable housing, 25% reduction. So that is something we considered and we could look at in future financial analysis.

Q

When you get when you put out 20% affordable, it's 5% more than the inclusionary requires so really you're doing 5% extra and you get a 15% reduction of commercial and so the that's a ratio, and that the fact that affordable is much more expensive than the commercial space which is empty.

Q

That concept was based generally on some assessments that staff has been seeing by consultants for other projects going on right now about how much it costs to do relative different pieces of work for value capture, kind of analysis, so basic concept, not precise, but that's kind of where it was coming from. Okay,.

A

Great question.

L

Just a question to the chair on process will staff be completing their current presentation before public comment? Would the remainder of the items we.

A

Have we have I thought we did it on this issue? We haven't done the neighborhood business district. You.

L

Remaining items staff didn't complete the IP 512 section, I thought.

A

Was there further presentation.

C

You had a couple more thigh, I.

C

Can promise I think I can promise this next problem? Yeah it's not as complicated as the last one. This is so did a criteria with commercial I think is a little bit more straightforward. Okay, so we're you.

A

Know I'm just gonna suggest this. This is all in our packet you're, just going over things that are in our packet, every I've read the packet everyone's supposed to come here, prepared for that we're running late.

A

So if there's questions about it now, it's the time to ask the questions, but I don't want to take up time, especially since we're running late to go over things that are already in our packet. So if there are questions on this and I, don't want to cut off anybody we're taking a lot of time before we even get to the public comment on this any further questions, whether it's these last few slides anything again on this, because the policy is set forth here on page eleven, okay, Bonnie.

J

So you have three options and the question is is if they are all equally feasible and you haven't yet done a financial feasibility study on any of them, then, is it necessary that we choose one option as opposed to any of them? In other words, yeah, do we have to choose an option when you haven't done a feasibility, I think.

D

What we're asking to UART do some of these, or is there ones that we are worth studying? So none of this stuff, let's move on, let's leave it the way it is, or so.

J

So the question, so the question is you don't necessarily have to choose one you could choose one or.

A

J

You could choose three and then you're gonna have to be terrific. Thank you. Yeah good.

A

Question: okay,.

J

So it's not feel free to say no we're gonna discuss that next, but on page, two of the memo under signature project policy, the second bullet talks about site selection for signature project would be revised to a 1.5 acre minimum size and the rest there and I'm wondering if staff can just comment on the pros and cons of reducing that in particular, as it relates to like the future cohesion of an urban village and the of an urban village.

A

Yeah, so you invited.

J

You mind there.

A

All right, I'd like to thank members: okay,.

T

A

Sorry I missed you yeah.

T

I do have a question in terms of if we out go is to generate the most number of affordable housing possible. So on the slide, that has three different options and if we were to look at the different percentages of affordable housing and how it changes the commercial reduction of commercial lack of the feasibility study, it makes it a little difficult. But if you were to look at these percentages here, what would be an optimal percentage for affordable housing that that would would be?

T

That would help us achieve the affordable housing. The best I.

Q

Would just point out that option one does not require inclusionary even be met and option. Three does not require it. If extra commercial is provided and so option, two is the only one that even requires basic inclusionary units are even built, and so, if you're looking to optimize the likelihood that affordable housing is built option two as the one that does that best.

D

Okay, we just had that option to theoretically allow it would create the most affordable housing that we'd have to test that to ensure that such a policy would not discourage the market rate development from going forward. Because if there's no market rate development going forward.

C

D

No affordable going with it. So that's what we need to test. Okay,.

A

We're moving to public comment, we'd invite members of the public to step forward and provide us your comments with regard to the signature project policy, the changes to policy IP, five point 12, as well as the recommendations for affordable housing incentives, the options that have been set forth and the staff memorandum anyone wish to address the task force and it can be generally on the issue of affordable housing hi. Could you state your name? Please.

A

R

Got it sorry Thank You Jared? Can you go to the the kameez ment slide if you would be so kind with the suggested language.

A

Yes, would you introduce yourself, please be.

R

Happy to my name is Alec Shore I'm, the executive director of catalyze SV. We submitted a letter to you all. Forgive me for the late notice last night and wanted to just check in with you on some of the language in this policy.

R

Concern that the general plan goals see each one is exactly that just a goal, and so, if we're going to be creating a signature project policy that refers back to a goal, it's not necessarily creating particular requirements. As I understand the signature project policy. We allow projects to move through the process quicker outside of the urban village process, so that we can get high quality projects that provide a model for how the urban village is going to evolve.

R

If we're going to do that, then we have to have substantive, meaningful, measurable, kamini engagement, steps to help developers get the best ideas from the most diverse group of people in the community into the hands of the city and the developer. So of course, you're gonna tailor every kameen gage meant strategy to the project. That would be basic good practices for anything you're doing, but I think we might want to create some measurables here that might allow staff to have some specific requirements around signature projects.

R

We also had some particular questions. If you keep the language in this current framing with the idea of the weed saying community, where the project is located, we would just recommend cutting out the language where the project is located.

R

So it's as broad and diverse a group of stakeholders as possible and we'd also suggest that you say, collect the feedback of the design, potential benefits and quality of the project, the goal being there that we want folks thinking about the most potential benefits of a project that that's the goal of came-- engagement, get the great ideas from the community into the hands of the city and the developer to build the best signature projects possible. Thank.

A

You thank you next, please.

E

Good evening, members of the task force- David, Lowe, I'm speaking on behalf of destination home and we're here to speak about the commercial space requirement, changes that are being proposed for the hundred percent, affordable developments. Hopefully they had a chance to take a look. The letter that we submitted it's in your packets, along with four of our nonprofit housing developers and I, think it'll help demonstrate why we have some concern about how the current requirements are limiting, affordable housing development.

E

If you look at some of these real world examples, you'll see that because of just limits on space requiring a commercial space in there or reducing the amount of units we're getting by up to 30% per project and, of course, adding more costs on to these nonprofit developers that just don't have a very big margin to deal with. It could threaten the you know: long-term viability of these projects, which we want to hope to provide affordable homes for 45 50 55 years. So we hope that you'll go a step further than what the staffs proposing.

E

Instead, it's a 50% reduction in commercial space, an elimination of these requirements for those 100%, affordable developments. We think that'll be an important step. We can take towards getting the amount of affordable housing we need in our commuting. Thank you. Thank you. Next.

A

H

I'm Robert recent resident of the villages in Evergreen I have two requests for this policy. If you might consider taking those portions of six-thirty which encourage early and frequent communication between the applicant, the city and the public I'm thinking that this early communication before there's even pricing established on the land, the terms that if the development community understands the community's aspirations, we might be able to get something more also. If the tax force would like to nudge the council along and have the update to 6:30 be done this year.

H

I think that's important, because if it's not done this year with the due date being in 2021, it's going to be in 2023, maybe 2024 the reason I'm asking this is, and the information provided by staff. Previously it talked about how community participation can help a project be more accepted by the community and I'm using the community in the broadest sense of that word. There was also talk of perhaps having fewer hearings may be, having the status of projects being held with the Planning Commission and no longer going to the council.

H

This dovetails with, what's going on at the state level, for objective standards, what we're doing with the citywide design standards in terms of making things more predictable, so that, if you are going to assist them, that's going to have more things vested with the planning decision, Planning Commission, the decision-making process and not the council you're going to have a lot of folks surprised.

H

Thank you. Thank.

A

You next please.

E

Good evening my name is Jason Yulin cought I'm, a resident of district 6 and I'd like to express my support for a recent memo by planning Commissioner Melanie Griswold, which had some very interesting ideas, including a form-based code, elimination of minimum parking requirements which I see is tied very closely to our climate goals and ending the prohibition on the conversion of industrial land. I think that last one has some very valuable, anti displacement effects we need.

E

We need a lot more homes, but the best place place to put them is where we don't have existing homes, so I hope some or all of these ideas can be adopted. Thank you. Thank.

A

H

Robert Iger II, all right so there's a couple of things I'd like to see included in the plans is one is discussion about displacement because we're gonna be building something in some location. You are more than likely going to be displacing people, and so I'd like to see something included. That would address that. The other thing is the one that you had on there that had the chart with all the different menu items on there of how you can get out of providing affordable housing in your project.

H

One of those things is supplying land, but you didn't say where that land has to be located. I could give you some land in San Bernardino, because it doesn't really say where that land is so I think you should be a little more clear about if you're gonna be doing in luffy's. We know that that's an American dollars, but if you're giving land, where is that land, so I think that needs to be tightened up a little. Thank you. Thank.

A

You there are other people who wish to make comment. Please line up. Thank you. Hi.

G

My question is, in this climate or the situation with housing.

E

Why is in Luffy still being discussed and if you're going to.

G

Include that please be prepared to explain that to us residents why all.

A

G

A

Much anyone else, okay, we're going to move to discussion by the taskforce raised, pointed this out that there's a number of different things that are up for discussion and I think it makes sense, as as you've suggested, to separate some of those things out. So one of the issues and we've had some public comment. Just now on that is the community engagement policy.

A

You'll see it in the in the overview memo it's on page three and the.

A

Right, so it's also at I think the language that was up on the screen is on the bottom of page four.

A

So are we all on the same page, okay, okay ch4, as well as page 10,.

B

A

Right so, let's take up this issue. First, to someone wish to make a motion with respect to the staff recommendation on community engagement.

A

Okay I see some some hands, so let's start with wand, then Bonnie and then councilmember foley.

A

Bonnie: okay, discussion on that motion. Anyone Jim.

R

I say guiding may be a minimum number of engagement dates if you will or something along those lines. What usually ends up happening. A lot is the community says you have to engage us and they say yeah. We had out one meeting and that's enough of that. You know. So. We want to make sure that that there's, a some level of minimum baseline is that possible. I realize it says a tailored community engagement strategy, but that doesn't really yeah.

A

R

Much guideline there well.

A

You could put that in there there's no question you can and you're certainly welcome to make a recommendation on that. My role here is not to make motions or just amend them, but I would say this just in response to that Jim and I guess. I can say this as a former council member without having to worry about things, I, say necessarily now Margie and Pat, you could jump into and Linda. We have a lot of former council members here.

A

Obviously each of these districts are going to have a high degree of involvement of the district council member who represents that they are. They are responsible for the community and whether they do their job well or not.

A

People are always apt to criticize that they're doing too much or projects if you're on the development side it's going to slow and so just expressing my own opinion, I'd like to think this language about tailored community engagement, allows a council, member and the city and the staff to look at projects individually and to make assessments about how much involvement, especially the early involvement that was being recommended and that we as task force members to start putting in mandatory requirements, might be in some cases too little and in some cases too much.

A

And if somebody disagrees from the community about whether council member did their job there's going to be consequences for that. So I'm speaking to the I'm. Sorry, it took this long because I'm doing the exact opposite I've been asking everybody else not to do.

B

A

Just saying less is more in letting the council and that in the staff work out, something is better, so Shiloh Jessie.

J

I as a planning Commissioner would like to see and I believe that this language allows flexibility which I like, and that is when a developer comes before us and they're like well the city. You know we did this tailored thing and the city told us to do XY and z, and we did it, and you know what we went above and beyond, and we did all this other stuff too and in fact, there's 10 people here in support of the project.

J

That's that's kind of what I'm looking for and I just wanted to state that for all the developers who are eagerly listening in to this this group of folks, because that is my expectation, okay, Thank.

A

M

A

Sorry, um when.

H

I read through through this online engagement I wanted to make sure that at this point in time, we're not considering that online engagement would preclude having a community meeting. Okay, so I wanted to make sure that that was not that that you're not moving to a an electronic world, we're in my neighborhood being a transitional neighborhood. We have the have the electronic haves and the have-nots and they like coming to meetings yeah.

D

It's not I think if there was a digital people and digital community that wanted only digital online outreach that would be tailor-made to them, but it doesn't we're not saying that it's not precluding one or the other, all that stuff's to be determined later well,.

H

Who asked that decision? I.

D

Think we would be working with the council office and our intention is not moving towards. Is that's. That's that's another vehicle, but if we don't see this replacement I.

H

Understand it's an adjunct, but yeah I want to make sure that it is the primary Sam.

A

Did you have a comment yeah.

T

Quick comment here: I do agree with Jim in terms of community engagement. It is really important that, even though we know the word Taylor does send a message that we would customize it according to needs, but that's not everybody interpretation, maybe I, think we should consider somewhere or having language where there's a minimum number of community engagement events where we can ensure that it takes place. So that is not one. It's not!

T

It's not three up to interpretation at certain time by certain people and secondly, that one out of every three members of our San Jose community are first-generation Americans I think it would be very important for us to also pay attention to engaging them in a way that really is inclusive, because that will ensure the long-term sustainability of what we try to do, not only in goodwill that we generate, but also building a community in the land in the process. Okay,.

A

Thank you, Teresa.

B

On policy 6-30 that the council can choose to prioritize that policy in its budget setting process which they are undergoing right now, and I think it's very important for us all, individually and organizationally to support the council's prioritization of community outreach and ensure that there are staff resources dedicated to effective. Multilingual multicultural community outreach, consistent processes.

A

Okay, we have a motion on on the floor all in favor. Anyone opposed okay. Thank you. We're going to now go to the affordability issue and the linkage as well the commercial incentives that these policies are set forth in part on pages 10 through 11, with the different percentages as well as the three options that staff has recommended.

A

I want to separate that out for the moment from IP policy, 5.12, councilmember, foley I think you had some comments on that I.

N

Do the council is committed to building more affordable housing and to encourage that that development in any way that we can? But this is really a complicated issue, given that we do not have the financial feasibility study I would move that we move this conversation. We defer this conversation to the City Council to decide and have them look at the feasibility. I would also include in that motion that staff work with the development community to work on those feasibility numbers.

N

And again, the reason for that that the council is very dedicated and committed to affordable housing, but clearly without the numbers here and we're not going to have the numbers. While we are in session as a task force that this really should go to City Council for the council to discuss and implement- and that's that's the current body that that should go forward and we could more go forward more quickly. That way. Thank you.

L

I'm not too disappointed that this is going to be tabled, I mean I. Think we've been discussing the commercial.

E

Requirements are, actually, you know, disincentivizing housing. So it's pretty well known fact that in fact, even in some of the recommendations that that have been proposed.

C

There's been an attempt by staff to look at incentives.

E

For affordable housing, but to defer it is just going to continue the same old thing I'm, seeing in the next item, there's items about replacement and a percent replacement of commercial. This is an opportunity. I have a project. I've mentioned this in blossom Valley. It's a light on a light rail station under the signature project, 234 housing units on roughly.

D

Three acres would be required to do 18,000 square feet of commercial, a blossom.

E

Hill and highway 85 I, don't think you have to be an economist to note that that that's a lot of commercial so again.

T

Pushing this off the council I think is, is wrong. I will not be supporting the motion. Can.

A

I, ask you a question Michael that might assist in the discussion here as I. Take your comments. You do want to see reduction in commercial space to be used as an incentive for affordable housing. Is that something you support, correct and I? Think we've received letters from other people as well in that regard, and so councilmember Foley.

A

With regard to your motion with that, are you amenable to the idea that the if this were to go back to the council, that it be with the recommendation that the council develop a policy that incorporates commercial reductions as incentives for housing development.

N

Just never mind: I can't say that because I'm a violate a Brown Act. So yes.

B

I'll just say that I think.

A

The issue here- and maybe others are good to speak to this I heard Don little comment on this I heard other people bonnie and others that there's some questions about the formula that staff came up with and frankly, it sounded like it was a struggle somewhat that how are you? Gonna relate a reduction in commercial to more affordability and I.

A

Think there was a sense here that you know we don't want to just have a weak recommendation going to the council based on one meeting without any financial analysis or feasibility, I think as was being discussed, but on the, on the other hand, I. Don't think we want to leave this discussion without a clear message to the council that this is something we do want to see. So I see the motion trying to strike a balance, absolutely.

N

I'm sorry I should have included that or be more clear in my motion that we should direct staff to include the reduction or elimination of the commercial linkage or the commercial requirement. So.

A

It might be beneficial for our discussion here to hear from people whether you you think it would be of benefit to not adopt specific percentages now, but or let a further financial feasibility occur before those are fixed. Kevin I know you've written a letter on this with others.

E

As well, who are part of it, I mean I, I. Think I think the task force should have really go on record with a really strong message that we want council to look at reductions in commercial space that give a that get us the most affordable housing units, while still having feasible projects that can move forward so and then I I. Don't really want the task force to get stuck on the specific formulas, because I think you'll, just it'll just take too long.

E

But but I don't want to miss the opportunity for us to say that that we need to reduce. We want to provide the reduction of commercial space as an incentive. Okay provide more formally.

A

Thank you, Kevin Leslie, I,.

G

Agree with with the motion with a couple of additions, one is: we did submit a memo to the record that suggests another alternative that we would like the staff to look at is well. We actually have looked at at it and done our own feasibility, and so we do know that it is fusible, but so we would like to put that in the mix. Frankly, I've done a lot of development and when I look at that up there I it it's scary.

G

I am Not sure at all how it works, and so I think that whatever we come up with needs to be simple. So, in addition to what what Kevin just said and and David what you said as the chair, I would I would really emphasize the need to bring in the development community as part of this feasibility analysis and look at some real projects and see how this bit this works.

G

And then the last thing that I would suggest and I would hope that that we may be able to make this part of of the motion would be a timeline of sorts. I. Don't want to be looking at this a year from now two years from now really would like to have it come back quickly, so.

A

Rather than you know make amendments of the motion, let's hear comments from everybody on other. If other people like Leslie, have some suggestions to enhance the motion, let's hear those and then maybe council member Foley, you can kind of keep track of that because we don't have.

N

A city clerk how.

A

Much you getting paid see if you can keep track of that, and then maybe you could summarize this. Let's keep going on this side at the table. Events I.

C

Have a question for staff: oh: when is this issue coming to council I? Think that's a good point. The.

D

Plan is, we would be going to council in December, and so the plan would be that between now and going to Planning Commission, we would be doing this financial analysis develop a recommendation based on the task force. You know recommendation and we would be presented at the council for its consideration.

C

So the recommendation would come as part of the full package of recommendations for the four-year review. It would stick with this process, but we would use that you know we would go off and do the analysis that's being asked of us and then bring that board with all the other recommendations as part of the four-year review involved.

E

D

So we're not we're proposing that this piece of work would be kept as part of this package of work going to councils with the shortened.

N

D

It is it okay, so well, my.

N

Motion is to to be clear, to expedite it and to remove it from a decision by this body. Are we are voting if we vote today, we are voting to refer this to Council, to review and make the decision detached from the recommendations from the general plan task force revision. So my thinking is that it would come to us way before December 2020, I'm.

D

B

D

Not yeah I mean I. Think you can bifurcate I will have to look at it. Whether yeah.

E

So thank you, chair and co-chair Rosalyn Huey Director of Planning building and code enforcement. So council remember fully. The staff concern is that um we don't have the capacity actually to bring the item to pull it out, separate it from this task force process and to get it to Council any earlier. We have a number of items on the citywide planning work plan and we just don't have the resources to accelerate it again. You know when we consider the scope for the task force.

E

Our plan is to complete the task force meetings, get all of the recommendations by April in the spring and summer months. We have to do the environmental analysis work and then we package everything and present Planning, Commission and council in the fall. So that's the process for the four-year review and to pull this out I. Just honestly, I, don't think we have the resources to do that.

A

Okay: let's continue with some comments on the policy, which is ultimately what we're here for we're. Gonna have to deal with how quickly it can be implemented, whatever it may be, but Bonnie's.

J

Motion, but so there's two aspects here: one is that I think there should be a strong task force recommendation that we as a task force, are committed to more affordable housing and whatever sort of incentives ation, we can have any of these options, as you've said, are feasible, so let's explore them. So that's one thing: I think that we can do as a task force to symbolize that we care about the issue.

J

The second is the issue itself, how it will proceed and in that sense, I agree if we can expedite it as much as possible, as councilmember Foley has said, but to separate it from our ability to do feasibility analysis, because right here tonight we don't have a formula. So once again we should say our support. We should allow you to do the feasibility, along with developers, as many have said, and we should try to expedite it as soon as possible. As the council member has said, thank you is.

A

That Melanie or Steve Melanie, okay,.

M

So I've got a question about the feasibility and when we are talking about feasibility, are we talking about feasibility from the development developer side of whether projects are financially feasible? Based on these recommendations or whether, if we implement these recommendations, whether it's financially feasible to the city based on tax revenue from decreased commercial requirements? No.

D

No so I think what we're hearing the timers talk about is that the outcome you'd like to see is in said it was affordable housing. So we need to understand, would it incentivize, affordable housing? So what so? We need to understand that, but at the same time as I be frank, I mean I think we do. We do also want to see some amount of commercial, so you could just get rid of all the commercial and it was obviously made before about housing more.

D

But so it's a balancing act because we're trying to achieve multiple goals, but we've heard from the task forces they were. The goal is to really incentivize, affordable housing. So understanding like how those ratios work to make sure our projects feasible and it would incentivize, affordable housing. So.

M

D

Not looking at it from tax revenue looking.

M

At it from then of how do we move this forward and staff resources having staff look at the financial feasibility, it seems to be not as effective as putting out these options to develop the development community and, if they're not financially feasible, it's not going to happen, and so, if it's you know, if it's not enough of an incentive you're not going to see the development community taking advantage of it. If it is an adequate incentive, then you're going to see some affordable housing units being built. So yeah.

A

Melanie I did understand the motion to include specifically working with the development community to evaluate feasibility, so I think that's part of the motion. Isn't that correct? Okay, council member Davis.

E

You said Rosalind I, think.

G

Taking this to December to the council is actually.

E

Too late, because that means that this issue then wouldn't be settled enough to be in the ER. So wouldn't it make sense, timeline wise to have this come to the council before April, so that it can be included in the full package of all the of all the general plan updates. It.

D

Shouldn't fit, we don't have to sway, this gonna affect the environmental and, if need be, we can include a number of options, but we don't anticipate. This will affect the environmental analysis.

E

And the other thing I would add is that staff is anticipating that we would need to get a consultant on board to help us with this feasibility analysis. So it's just not staff time, but getting a consultant on board to assist us and we'll need time to do that. I, just I, just don't think it's possible for us to turn it around and present it to council in this ring or summer.

A

Smita and then Sam.

E

Thank you, I, actually, just a clarification. We had correspondence talking about eliminating the commercial requirement for 100%, affordable housing. Is that the same thing, or is this mixed? Like signature projects, are they different from a hundred percent affordable? Are we talking about the same thing, two different things, Thanks.

F

So David are we making us a--? Is there gonna be another vote on reducing the commercial requirements for a hundred percent? Affordable?

F

That's gonna be a different.

A

Issue a different issue so.

F

Right now, we're only talking about this slide. That's up on them is that.

A

Correct correct, okay,.

F

So I consider myself to be fairly well versed in development issues uh in San, Jose and I got to tell you I feel like a deer-in-the-headlight, so I was thinking about how I would even begin to model this in an Excel spreadsheet. I don't want to table the issue. I feel like we're punting our responsibility as a task force when we do that, but at the same time, I wouldn't even know how to vote on this, because I don't understand what the fiscal ramifications are for projects well,.

A

I think that was the idea behind the motion was because I don't think people do understand those things and but I think there is an agreement that there should be incentives for affordable housing and that one important way to consider those incentives is the reduction of the commercial development requirement.

A

So that's I think where we want to go and I think it was for that reason, Shawn that people didn't necessarily feel comfortable wanting to go and adopt a specific percentage, because not knowing, if that's going to make a difference, as has been suggested so I think I. Think that's I think we might be on the same page on that Sam yeah.

T

I think that our decision of this task force one of the most important decisions that we could give input into. Is this very decision it's about affordable housing and we understand the logic of the higher the number of for the housing that we wanna achieve. Then we have the more the reduction of the commercial side. Of that. We understand that balance is very important for us, I think as a body that we don't negate or to delay that that input process for our body here I would. My challenge would be.

T

Is that ultimately, ultimately, the City Council will be the body. That's gonna make a final decision, but I I would I would preach allenge our staff to help us in terms of coming up with the feasibility study, for at least this this body has an opportunity to give input before it gets to the council. It may be later in the process. Could it be three months? Could it be six months? Are we looking at April?

T

Are we looking at July and, if that's doable, I would prefer that this feasible study ability, study be done and be drawn through this? This task force at least once I, think that would be a very important community voice. That I think we bring to the table before it gets to the final decision by the City Council, because they will have a chance to make it better.

B

O

So, first, uh first of all, I want to say that I think this is the right framework to trying to attack this issue. I think thinking about ways to incentivize, affordable housing, especially on-site, can help achieve multiple goals, including through the reduction of commercial space. I think I want to offer some suggestions. I think it's part of the way to think about potentially thinking through the feasibility issues. I think the first thing would be to look at whether or not you can crosscut the impact by scale.

O

I think the reduction of commercial space is going to be a much different question for a smaller scale project versus a much larger scale project like a high-rise, and the second thing would be to piggyback piggyback off of what Leslie said would be to try to aim for simplicity as much as possible for a trade-off between the incentivized, affordable housing and the reduction in commercial space. And then the last thing would be to make sure that they are still that baseline of what the existing iho percentage is.

O

So that, no matter what the incentive is, it is always above and beyond what the current iho percentage requirement is for on-site inclusionary, housing, ok, good.

A

Comments who else Eric? Are you next in line? Ok,.

F

After reading this, for the 50th time, I now realized I'm confused, so I have some questions. First,.

A

Of all question period was over yeah.

F

First of all, was it the staffs intent that we would? We would pick one of these options as the policy or that all three options are available to a development. Well,.

D

I think where we're going is not.

F

For analysis, I'm talking about, would one of these ultimately be the policy? Yes, I. Think.

D

What were we're saying? Is there we're recommending? There should be one policy? The policy could include options but yeah, ok, so.

F

Understanding that then it seems like it would be nice for the task force to narrow down the scenarios that we're analyzing, because, as I read this like scenario or option, 3 is totally going backwards. We all had a discussion that requiring more than your fair share of commercial in a development is a disincentive. So why would we be studying an option that we know we've all heard disincentive and we all voted last meeting not to include in signature projects.

F

So it seems like we should get rid of option three and then option two I don't understand. So, can you explain mechanically how option two works.

F

C

So with option two, it is, it would be a change to the currency, neutral project policy and what has been you know recommended by the task force in that all signature projects would have to add a minimum meet the 15% on-site iho requirement.

C

The only alternative accepted would be that dedication of land at 20% and then the you know, commercial production incentives are the same as all the other options where so the signature project would be required to include that 15% on site. Then, if, if they wanted to go above and beyond starting at the 20% you it would qualify for the reduction at that point, and so.

F

Under this option, the 15%.

F

Inclusionary requirement is a mandate correct. It is not an incentive program, so you, you are imposing a new mandate on market rate housing to provide the 15% inclusionary correct.

D

F

D

Corrects without exception- yes, so we'd be at this- is proposing to add an additional criteria to be a signature project that to be a signature project, one of the criteria is providing 50% iho on-site or with the or you could prove dedicate land yeah. So, but you could not pay out write a check in the in lieu understood.

F

So if we want signature projects of all types to move forward in the city, option, 2 and option 3 our disincentives going backwards and we'll will reduce development in the city option. 1 is the only option that actually provides an incentive, it's a direct incentive and, as a at least its proposed by staff, it's a scale incentive option. So I would encourage the the the task force to narrow the methodology down to the one. That's truly an incentive and let's study the variables of percentages in that incentive program.

A

All right you're keeping track of that council member for me, okay,.

A

Kent's member arenas.

K

So I'm, actually thinking about what the council wanted us to do as a general task force, and that is part of what we're asked to do. What we're deciding today and to send it back to Council to me doesn't make sense. If council wanted to do that and wanted to have this decision at the Dyess and they would have.

K

But we wanted the input of this task force so that we can have a decision that is, is collaborative and comprehensive and vetted by many folks that represent the different fields that are in this room and so I'm going to make a substitute motion to continue to have a decision here at the general task force, meeting and I think Eric, you kind of helped dwindle down what we can see as the only option that that our staff can actually review. I. Don't know that this decision would be made any quicker at council, because staffs.

K

What you have in terms of projects will remain the same, whether we say that we want it done or the general task force wants it done. The projects that you have are the same and so I think this gives an opportunity if we keep it at this level, it gives staff an opportunity to actually really evaluate this. The only option that we have here and it bring backs a feasibility study connected with these numbers that could then obviously be taken to Council and everybody else.

K

Who would like to contribute to that decision in our oppose or support it could then do so at that point, but I think we need to formulate a recommendation here. We obviously want to make sure that we have more affordable housing and that we have a decreased commercial space, so I I think that's overall, that's that's a consensus here. I, don't I didn't hear anybody say otherwise, so I like to make that substitute motion so that we can continue.

A

To so what I had suggested, I'm gonna exercise, a little prerogative here you can yell at me later- is we're a different body than the council. We can't function exactly like motions, we might do at a council meeting or you might do at a council meeting. We have to do with this more recognizing.

A

We have 40-plus people here and try to do things as much as we can by consensus and what I had suggested before was let's hear comments on the motion and and certainly your comments- maybe they can be incorporated in there, because I think Eric was getting us to a place we're going to get to everybody down here, but what we're going to do is I want to get everyone's comments on the motion. First, give a member fully an opportunity to reframe her motion. Perhaps that might or.

K

A

Take into consideration I.

K

Mean I think as you go down this aisle you're, probably formulating my substitute motion. I.

G

Just don't see.

K

I'm not supporting the motion as it stands now.

E

K

Think that the general task force should keep its authority and contribute to what we're gonna recommend to the council. So I.

B

Just want to clarify for everyone what the motion is. It is to state in our strongest possible terms that we would like to see affordable housing feasibility enhanced in any way possible to reduce and eliminate the commercial requirement, that is to refer again to staff. Well, the sake not reduce, but focus on option, one as being the only feasible option. That was not in your original motion, so you would have to amend your motion. The part that would be referred is only the specific formulas that are identified there.

B

That staff stated that they have not had a time had time to discuss feasibility. That's the only piece that we were going to refer back to Council, I, think also, as part of your motion really I, encouraging an expedited timeline for action to council. I realize there's still question about what staff can do and how quickly, but with that statement that we would like it to be as quick as possible to identify the barriers so so.

K

Thank you for restating that which doesn't really change where I'm my position, because actually reaffirms so if we send it back to Council to figure out this this formula here, counsel, what counsel gonna do is gonna, send it back to planning and then planning is gonna have to do that. Work and so I think we're just going to add another step here where we can use this process to just get it done.

I

A

Course please: yes, yeah we're going to I heard lon! Yes, we're gonna! Do that we're gonna get to everybody!

A

N

I'd like to suggest a procedural alternative, the level of service policy used to be you know the housing crisis of the past and in order to deal with the two issues, the policy direction and the interpretation of that policy. The City Council adopted a very specific council policy that laid out how the real world could achieve conformance with the general plan policy.

N

The numbers, in other words, were determined through a working process that involves staff and the City Council, and when the council adopted that policy it was binding in order to conform to the general plan you had to conform, you had to follow the procedural direction in the policy, so the numbers, for example here could be incorporated in accounts of policy that could legitimately be on a different timeline than the general plan amendment process.

N

The general plan sets the standard, the goal, the objective and the council is able to, and the nice thing about this is you can modify it when the economy changes when lots of things change, because it's it's a different. It has. Is this binding as general plan policy, but it serves a different purpose and is subject to the council's complete control so.

A

Your suggestion would be whatever percentages. If there worked out in the future, they should be outside the general plan. Okay, thank you. Linda did you have yours up or no okay, I do see one. Yes, all.

I

Right first, let me say that I support, council, member or Ennis's substitute motion I understand it's not a substitute motion. What I was going to say is I recommended that a new motion be created.

I

Should the original motion not succeed and the reason is I could be mistaken, but I think one I agree with everybody here, and that includes staff, because when I read the document that we were provided, I'll read quickly, it says staff seeks direction from the task force for a preferred alternative or suggestions for other alternatives that should be further studied or considered. All along staff was saying not pick one they're saying: should we perform additional analysis, feasibility study whatever and so I think we're all in agreement.

I

The only part I think where there is a disagreement is: should this go to Council or should task force, make a recommendation and here's what I read in the paper we were given. Given the timeline of the task force meetings, this financial analysis would need to be done following the conclusion of the task force process and could result in staff modifying the task force recommendation to City Council.

I

So staff has already planned that if we decide for them to do further study that they will do so and that this will go to council, and so it will go to Council, just as a council member Foley has requested, but it will go to Council after this Task Force recommends further analysis, as staff requested and so I recommend that we at some point support council member adeana TSA's motion when it is made. Thank.

A

You one okay, I thought: I'd saw Pat and Roberta Pat. Did you have ears up or no Roberta? Okay, so.

J

Two things really stood out: one is about scale, so a 20 unit developments going to have different issues and different finances and economies of scale than a thousand unit development. The other thing that stood out is Leslie, said she's already done a feasibility study, it's simple and I think it works. So my recommendation is we ask anyone here, developers do feasibility studies all day long, they probably do them in their sleep.

J

Why don't we ask the developers and consultants here to bring back their options with a feasibility study at our next meeting or the meeting after that, and we can actually look at the numbers and see what pencils out and achieves the goal. Is anyone here willing to do this.

E

P

Primary focus is on office and we do residential but I. Think and I. Don't want to slide this off to the other developers in the room, but I've got to believe we could find three to local residential apartment developers. That would be willing to come in pro bono and share their there.

P

High level math with us, but I'm, not just talking about the differential between trade off between commercial and more residential I'm. Just talking about overall is any of it. Feasible. That'd.

E

Be great, that's.

J

What I'd like to see so that we get houses built, affordable and market rate? Sir.

A

Anybody on the right side, I, missed here; okay, anybody, okay, let's go to okay.

O

Just quick secondary comment: I think we want to open it up right as far as the framework is concerned, but just want to make sure that we have a couple of things as baselines again, one more time that it has to be above and beyond what the existing iho inclusionary requirement is and then I think. The second one is I haven't heard a lot of folks talk about fully full elimination of commercial requirements for signature projects and I just want to make sure that that isn't on the table.

E

Thank you, I'll. Keep this quick, Jared I have a question for your clarification. When you went through the slides, I thought you said option, one was basically the status quo and I'm wondering if we, if we're saying that's the only viable option, if we're just sticking with the status quo,.

C

Is that with option one when I said status quo? What I meant is that signature projects now didn't do not have to are not required to provide on-site affordable units? They can meet the current iho requirement by either including those units on-site or any of the alternatives. Typically, that would be paying the fee. The other two options are differ in that they they differ from what is currently required.

C

Now senior projects option two as I was just mentioning, would actually require all signature projects to meet the on-site iho requirements and then option three, the you would have various different options if you included the 15% on-site or if you went above, if you included the 15% on-site, you would have to meet the fair share of commercial, but then, if you included more than the 15%, then you would qualify for the reduction and commercial. So it's kind of like a pendulum on that option. Yeah.

D

I mean option, one is: is, is basically the same as it is now, except it's adding on an incentive that isn't there for if you provide affordable, that you can reduce commercial.

B

A

We are going Oh Christine thank.

Q

You I just wanted to say that the modeling, in order for it to be useful, I, think probably should be done kind of in different sub markets and thinking about whether affordable housing subsidies could be applied for the affordable housing units and so I kind of I'm, not in favor of back-of-the-envelope, high-level, math kind of big-picture thinking that doesn't kind of meet the way that we regularly analyze things because different sub markets and different project sizes will come out with different feasibility, looks and it may or may not.

Q

People may or may not know to think about tax credits with bonds and whether they should use that or a density bonus. Execution I mean affordable. Housing is its own little niche of real estate finance, and you don't want to know it if you don't have to, but you shouldn't wing it necessarily so I would not suggest that we wing this feasibility analysis. I suggest that we do that.

Q

We ask affordable housing developers to consult with us what this I want, this scope yeah, but its market rate people that may get a it's right where the to meet, because its market rate executions that end up doing forty percent, affordable housing and seeing if that works, which means that it's a tax, credit project. Potentially it's. You know what I mean yeah.

M

Q

Right where the to me, this is not for beginners or winging it in my mind, that's my professional opinion.

A

Okay, thank you very much. Don did you have any additional comments? Was yours up your tag up no.

P

P

Needs to be done thoughtfully and I'm not trying to be sand in the gears flying the ointment here. I've just there's got to be a relatively straightforward business case: analysis that satisfies sort of the integrity of the analysis and the complexity of it. That just gives us guidance before we recommend this thinking to the community that, yes, that works or no their significant gaps. Here's how we close them I just don't want to give birth to an idea that will never ever happen. Okay,.

A

Thank You Carl.

T

So I've got a couple of observations and a concern, so my observations I not sure if I agree with which council members motion I, think councilmember Foley's intent was to move forward some basic concepts that I hear a consensus on and that's having an incentive that addresses the commercial requirements, consulting those that would be able to do the analysis that Don earlier talked about, because that's what's the missing piece, we can't figure this out if we don't have input from the folks that will do this or not so, and we're limited by a timeframe that I'm not sure if the full analysis can be completed before our job is done.

T

So that's why I'm hearing from staff that's got afternoon so I don't know how we move forward with the concept that I think we originally started with, which I think we have consensus. Well.

A

I think your comments are really helpful, Carl and I. So.

T

My one concern is this and I agree with Eric in looking at the three options. I think there is only one that is an incentive that we need to focus on. My concern is: is that the only option and I don't think we can answer that question until we've engaged the developer, not just the affordable housing developer or the market rate developer as well, because there's again that nexus that we need to figure out.

A

Thank You Carl Margie did you have yours up or no okay, Jesse.

M

Second, arena says: motion lets out before the task force. I know it's.

A

Gonna be more of a second and a kind of figurative sense. Sure: okay, not.

M

A real it's not a real we're.

A

Doing things here by consensus, and so what I want to do and want to give if you want to make a motion you'll have the opportunity to do it. But I do want to give council member or Foley a chance to take into account the comments that people have made and then, let's, let's move forward from there, but in keeping with that go ahead. So.

M

I do think option number one should be our focus in addition to studying the feasibility of the proposed staff matrix I think we also need to specifically study the one-for-one discount as I as outlined by Silicon Valley at home. Okay,.

A

M

Two other items that I think need to be addressed. The five percent increment needs to be reviewed. That is a tremendous hurdle that I think is actually not an incentive to providing more affordable housing. So that needs to be reviewed and then further, there's limitation on this, as staff has proposed that says that it can't be in proximity to intersections that are I, think commercially oriented or Street, frontages and and I think we need to weigh as a taskforce, a recommendation that says no. This should apply to all signature projects throughout the urban village plans.

A

Okay, anyone else on the left side other than people out other than people who haven't already I'd like to get comments from people who haven't spoken yet so anybody on the left side of it has not spoken yet.

A

Okay, Melanie so.

M

I wanted to propose a basically a friendly amendment to this, which I think echo. Some of the comments that we've received through the letters which is I cannot help but think this is just a drop in the bucket and that all of this time and effort is being spent talking about signature projects and that there's been I, think eight of them in the city and we're thinking that this is really going to impact the production of affordable housing when in reality, it's just such a small small number of projects.

M

And so my friendly amendment would be for us to recommend, as a general plan task force, that these incentives be provided on a wholesale manner to all developments.

E

A

N

A

The difficulty remember what we're dealing with here is we're dealing I, let's not deny that affordable housing is a major issue in the city and you're absolutely correct about the number of urban village plans that have gone forward. But what we're talking about with the specific motion right now is: there are commercial development obligations currently in the general plan for urban villages, and what emanated from this was a referral from the council to re-examine that as a means for providing an incentive for housing. So we need to act on.

A

It was part of the council direction and if you apply that citywide there's there's not necessarily other areas of the city that involve a trade off or have minimum requirements of commercial development. So it's it's a bit outside our referral. I'm gonna have to be the gatekeeper on that. We have to stick to the things that council sent us and again that's not to in any way disagree with you about the broader issue of affordable housing.

A

But the council specifically asked us to look at the policies, as it applies to urban villages and incentives for that for commercial reduction of commercial development. So we have to deal with that.

M

For the proof plans there's minimum commercial requirement.

A

Right right so.

M

But- and we have a number of approved urban village plan, so if we were to make a recommendation to allow the reduction of commercial that would apply to all of the urban villages that are already approved right.

A

But I don't know if, if you want to take up the issue of retroactivity and changing plans wholesale without community involvement, I think that might be a bit problematic where those projects went through a community review process and they they they had. They have a certain mix. That's been approved at this point in time and taking your same comments to heart, it's only six of them. It's not going to have a big impact on that.

A

The referral from the council is whether or not this task force is supportive of changing the minimum requirement for commercial development as an incentive for housing and that's what we need to act on at this task force. Yes, for signature projects as well, David.

G

Respectfully, it doesn't say that it says: explore changes to commercial space requirements for affordable housing developments.

E

Period, it does not say specifically for signature projects. This.

G

This was I think this one was brought up by Jesse, not from the council. I think this was something that came up if I'm not wrong that it's not council direction, it was. It was something that came out of this task force process and the staff said: they'd come back with it.

D

G

I do still doubt.

A

G

Just really quickly I'm, so many thoughts and so many good ideas. It's kind of hard to think about what to say. I did want to express with Jesse's comment on the 5%.

G

It doesn't make sense because, as we pointed out in our letter, if you did 24% affordable housing, would you then have a 15% reduction in commercial? Those percentages just don't make a lot of sense, and so I would, you know, agree with with Eric and others that have said that option. One is there's the one feasible out of the three: that's that's on the board, but I do think.

G

Looking at other options, including the one that we've laid out, which is the the square footage proposal, is much more clear and easy to to implement and and is based on the amount of space, not an artificial percentage.

B

I think people are trying to figure out the differences in these sections of the memo. We're talking about different policies simultaneously.

E

Q

I

E

Say it in the memo so.

B

So council member Davis mentioned that the slide says signature project, but the memo does not what portion of the memo counselor.

E

So the table so table two on page seven, it says summary summary of affordable.

Q

Housing incentive options, but I just saw that it does say the table below, provides a summary of all three options for affordable housing incentives.

N

For signature projects described above the issue that I'm, having, though, is that I don't understand why we're only talking about.

E

Signature products to Melanie's point, because that was not the direction from Council. It wasn't to limit the incentives only to signature projects.

C

Right, I believe the the scoping item is specific to IP 512, the other policy, and it comes from the housing crisis work plan, we'll double check the memo that council approved, but it this was so.

D

Yeah I have another.

C

And this item here came out of Blatt the last task force meeting in terms of direction from the task force for us to look at yeah.

D

So the scope that we were given by counsel is redistribution to plan growth and urban village. Boundary modifications consider mixed income in policy 512, which we've already talked about, consider growth horizons. The residential pool policy would Gio. We all got rid of modify policy, IP 5.5, to provide more effects. Ability in the urban village planning says: we've done that already MOT.

D

The other one is modified signature project policy to establish appropriate, clearer and more too predictable minimum residential densities for signature projects and establish more clarity on the amount of commercial that we required for signature projects based on the typology urban urban villages in the general plan, for example, local transit, urban villages versus neighborhood villages, and that's the scope.

A

Okay: let's try this we're moving forward, we're going to move forward. We've heard comments from I. Think everybody at this point and council member Foley I'm gonna, ask you to give your best opportunity at this point to.

B

A

We've gone around, we've gone around once we've gone around and some people have made multiple comments. So what we're gonna do at this point is I'm gonna, give councilmember foley an opportunity to modify her motion and they'll, see if there's a second and then we'll have discussion again on the modified motion. Okay,.

N

So I'm trying again, okay, okay, trying trying to get a hundred percent or or close to it, so you've all articulated the perspective very well and I think you're all in agreement that we want to reduce or consider we we want to send the message to City Council, which is me councilman, Davis and council, member or anus, and a few others that we should remove the commercial incentive in order to stimulate development of affordable housing, which all greed that's what we're trying to accomplish today.

N

Yes, the commercial requirement so I'm going to try to restate the motion as best that I possibly can, because that is the bottom line intent of this motion, and that is that we refer this to Council to develop the financial feasibility a along with the developer community, which will include market rate and affordable housing developers and SV at home.

N

Lastly, that means you get to be at the table that it consider a reduction or elimination of the commercial requirement that we that they consider option one since option two and three have been eliminated and they consider which of those items are financially feasible with an expedited timeline. I would also like to include not just signature projects in that, but urban villages in that motion.

A

N

And the other thing I'd like to add is that it's really important that this that the developer community be involved in this because it has to be financially. It has to make financial sense, as was articulated a couple of times, but we want to build.

N

Affordable housing requiring the commercial development piece doesn't make sense sometimes, but we don't know today and we're not going to know for a long time until the consultant is hired and until the developer community meets with staff and comes up with a number whether 20 percent, affordable housing will result and a fifth. If we build 20 percent, affordable housing, if 15 percent reduction in commercial will make sense or whether 25 and 20, we don't know those numbers. That's why we're debating this and that's why this needs to go further to council?

N

It's not going to come. We will not have time for it to come back to us and make this decision. Okay,.

A

I'm gonna call Andre in just a moment, but just Melanie I wanted to go back to you. The motion as I understand it is compasses all urban villages, not just signature projects. Does that address some of what you were talking about? It's.

M

A good start: okay,.

A

All right, thank you, ray.

L

I, just I just want to be completely clear, because the motion has moved a little bit right, I, just I, don't and I, don't think we're gonna get there tonight. We've talked a lot about affordable housing. The next item, I p51, to speaking specifically to a hundred percent, affordable housing development. There's a critically important item to get to and I just want to make sure that doesn't get even met by this motion. Right.

A

We're not forgetting that okay.

A

G

I

I appreciate all of the collaboration for me. It's just a little bit confusing because I think what we're saying is: do we incorporate all the feedback as you've done wonderfully and then do we ask council to consider it in an expedited manner rather than a process? That's already laid out, and we don't know the answer right.

I

The council could say no the full council could say no, and so it could be delayed and the alternative is the same thing we're doing because we're not we're not kicking it to council we're saying, council, we want you to make a decision, but here's all our recommendations and the alternative is we say we as a task force, make these recommendations conduct this the study, and so it's the same path and whatever we recommend we'll go to council, so I would just recommend friendly when I consider a friendly amendment to change it so that it is a task force recommendation that will result at Council anyway, in a guaranteed process.

I

Here's my friendly amendment I, suggest that we incorporate council, member or innocence feedback, which is to make all of our recommendation instead of saying: hey, counsel, we're not deciding this, but here's all our recommendations to instead, say hey counsel as we're charged to do here is our recommendation, which includes everything everybody else said and we're, including it in this guaranteed process that you will consider that you will make the decision on anyway. And so it's it's the same plan. It's the only difference is we're making a recommendation instead of putting it in limbo,.

B

See anyone feeling that that's inconsistent with what the motion is the.

I

Motion is currently not to make recommendation, but to it.

B

Is to make the recommendation is to send.

I

It to Council instead.

B

B

A

Let's do this there's confusion here, so we're gonna. Do this a little bit more deliberately and I'm going to ask council member Foley to restate the motion.

O

J

Think there's not consensus about what's voted on who's.

A

Talking right now, it's Roberta okay. We have to do this a little bit more deliberately as I understand the motion. Councilmember Foley we're recommending reduction of commercial requirements as an incentive for affordable housing. Is that true, okay, number, two.

A

Number two I heard from Eric and I want to make sure this is and by the way that includes both urban signature projects, as well as urban villages. To look at that.

F

Option one: yes, yes,.

A

I was going to include that so we're gonna use the methodology, that's an option one. We are not adopting the percentages that are set forth in this. The staff memo those particular percentages. That will be something that will be subject to a feasibility analysis and the feasibility analysis will include the groups you previously identified.

N

A

N

A

To do it as fast as they can okay, one understanding that, are you one understanding that do you have anything else? No.

I

What's I think that if we're making a recommendation, it's going to be included in the stuff that council will look at in December and and so I think we are now all on the same page, because I think the council, members motions have been combined. Okay,.

A

I

A

Eric was there anything further you wanted to add. To that? Are you good.

F

A

Only thing I didn't hear.

F

Was including sv at home and others recommendations for this, the square footage scale versus the percentage scale. Yes,.

A

Okay, though, that's included the recommendations, the ideas will be part of the study. Carl. You had good comments. You were trying to summarize this. Is there anything else that you would want to see? Added to the motion. Are you satisfied with it? No.

T

I think that captures my concerns in.

A

Aysen you had talked about simplicity, scale and baseline requirements. Is there anything you wanted to add to the motion just.

O

Heard a couple of times: I, don't think we're talking about elimination unless um I just want to make sure that that's what everyone heard right.

N

O

I heard reduction, not elimination. Is that what everyone understands, or is everyone understanding, elimination as well? Could you be a little.

A

O

A

O

Yeah, so, basically, right now, I think we're talking about having a trade-off between affordable housing and commercial as a reduction right, not an elimination of the commercial requirement on sites.

N

O

Just want to make sure that that is what everyone understands, as opposed to just a trade-off between affordable housing and commercial, with some kind of limitation on the reduction of commercial, so that there is always a baseline of commercial in each one of the projects that are under this incentive. Okay,.

A

So, as I understand the motion, it's to study, reduction or elimination- are you preferring to have the motion only be stunning reduction, not elimination.

S

Clarification are there still removing, because I hear removing I believe that we've been discussing about reducing the amount of commercial and I think that's what we will I will prefer reducing, eliminating commercial, especially in areas like I would say what is happening to us and Alan Brock. A lot of new developments are coming in and if we reduce that or actually eliminate that, will practically change or resound to residential instead of being a commercial corridor. So I request the be very careful with that.

S

Not eliminating reducing I believe is okay, but eliminating will very be very detrimental to the small business, especially along the urban villages. Okay,.

T

A

Of clarification.

N

Councilmember Foley's motion with the comments that have been made in the additions and I also would make a friendly suggestion. We call for a vote because otherwise we're going to be leaving here tonight with X, actually nothing happening.

N

So I I call for a vote. Okay, I just.

T

Want to clarify Gatien that yeah councilmember arenas input has been incorporated into the motion. Is that correct just want to make sure I think.

A

You need to ask her if she feels that way.

N

K

Then you're not sending it back to council before it goes to councils in December, okay, perfect!

K

A

There there is a recommendation coming from the task force on this I hope. We've spent at least the two hours at least doing that I'd see clear, clear direction: we've narrowed the options down to one option and I: don't need to restate everything again, so the questions Bend Eric. What are you? What are you doing there.

E

A

E

Know if that was like.

B

E

B

A

The motions understood all in favor all opposed okay. Would you keep your hands up please just for a moment so Jared? Could you or staff make a note of this? Please.

J

N

Include the reduction or or elimination.

O

The current motion includes elimination, so.

Q

The motion was to study the feasibility of reduction or elimination, so it's reduction all the way possible to elimination, depending on feasibility.

A

Okay, what stop people to get all that? Okay! Thank you. You know. So, as ray mentioned, we can't skip the other issue. It's equally important, if not more important. We have the policy. That's set forth on page 11 of the staff recommendation, IP 5.12 100%, affordable projects.

A

Somebody wants to make a motion on that ray.

L

They're within and I'm speaking to commercial requirements, citywide, but I realized we're constrained to the urban villages. In this discussion there is no single greater impediment in this general plan to the development of 100%, affordable housing than the substantially replaced requirement of commercial. It's currently in the GP.

L

Nonprofit developers and affordable housing developers have no financial resources to cover commercial space, especially in areas with high commercial vacancy I appreciate staffs recommendation to reduce that requirement to 50 percent. However, I don't think that goes far enough.

L

I think it's interesting that staff brought up the Blossom Hill senior housing project and destination home, and the coalition of supportive housing developers referenced it in May in their memo that 50 percent requirement still necessitated 16 thousand feet of commercial square footage in development and six million dollars that the developer has no source to pay for the area where that development is occurring is a high vacancy area and it costs the development over 40 units of deeply affordable housing that could have otherwise been created for seniors, I.

L

Think in the case of a hundred that affordable housing development, given the gravity and the severity of our affordable housing crisis and the homelessness in our community, we have to consider the elimination of any commercial requirement for a hundred percent. Affordable housing development in this plan and I mean I. Make that motion to approve staffs recommendation with the with the amendment of termination.

A

Striking number two is that it just for clarification, strike number two in that policy.

L

Change the change number two to the elimination so does not adapt leave and shall replace none of the existing commercial square footage well,.

A

Couldn't you accomplish the.

L

Same thing by just deleting okay.

A

So the motion is to approve the motions to approve the policy with items one and three: that's your second Kevin or Michael. Okay, all right discussion on the motion. Anyone care to comment on that I think we had it if it's just agreeing with Ray, let's, let's yeah, do that: yeah thanks Shiloh! Are you agreeing with that Wesley?

A

G

Yes, I agree with Ray, except for one thing is that I go back to what I, what the council policy direction was in the housing crisis work plan, which was that this was to be looked at citywide and not just in the urban villages.

G

If all we're looking at today is in the urban villages, I still think we have to bring back get in at a later meeting the conversation for commercial beyond that, and so so I agree totally building commercial having commercial requirements in affordable housing has been a more recent phenomenon and and what we found is that we have a lot of commercial space. That's vacant and in fact, Silicon Valley at home tried to move into some vacant space in an affordable housing development.

G

We were told that the TI for us to move in was $400,000 Shilo down the way tried to do the same in the same building and in in two years time the TI had increased to $700,000, affordable housing developers cannot pay that price. That's why it ends up being vacant. So the idea that the reduction be 50%.

G

It doesn't resolve the the overall problem, which is that that 50% then would sit there and still be a drain and still be a problem for affordable housing development. So.

A

You're agreeing with Rea you're supposed to do that. No.

G

No I do accept. I think that this is too narrow. I do.

A

See that and the planning director pointed out to me, while you were making that comment, that the council direction consistent with what council member Davis had had said earlier was we do have a direction to look at commercial space requirements for affordable developments, not just in urban villages. So yes, so we will have to bring that back for some further discussion, all right with that understanding. All in favor of the motion all opposed okay member floors, yes, I.

S

Do understand that we are in a housing crisis. I just want to give an example here on on Allen block between 22nd, Street and Jackson. There are about 13 proposed developments. Most of them are affordable.

S

These developments will be displacing almost a hundred small businesses, local family-owned businesses, all of these residents of our city as well. So when they displace these businesses, they displace families as well.

S

When we don't require commercial to this affordable, even though there are they are affordable, we're not giving an opportunity for those businesses to either come back or have a place to move. When these buildings are completed, I am I, know it's possible. I know it's hard, but it's also possible. There are two developments happening in Ellenberger, another that are approved. One of them will provide not enough commercial as we asked for, but they will provide a little bit of commercial. Probably everything is like 30 percent of the the bottom floor again.

S

I believe that eliminating commercial on all these developments will be very detrimental specifically in some areas. They might be areas where it will not affect and I I do and I want to be clear of that. I do want to support housing everywhere we can, but there there areas were small businesses or local family-owned businesses will suffer, especially because of these requirement or elimination. I.

A

Think what we can do is take your concerns into account in the in the discussion we're not getting to tonight, which is residential uses in neighborhood business districts. We certainly can address that when we come back with that discussion in the future, we're not going to be able to get to it tonight.

A

You know I've been looking at that clock and I kept thinking boy. This meetings going slow, Oh.

A

R

Your comments, I'm glad you brought it up, but I'm also better bring up the walkability aspect, because when you take away the commercial, then you might have the issue of taking out basic services that are normally available for the residents in that area, and you end up with them having to go much further out, which means they need transportation, etc.

R

So I very much see what you're saying we have to balance the ability to provide the services that are necessary for that for those people, especially the fact that they are in such a situation of financial situation. So they need that local service support. Okay,.

A

Thanks everybody for the participation tonight and working.

M

A

To develop a consensus, our next meeting, it's going to be good.

O

I, just have one quick comment, really think: yeah I'm, sorry, I'm, sorry to keep everybody going, I. Think a couple of things came out from the conversation around the last two items, which is I, think what we want, the streetscape to look like, and what kind of businesses and commercial space and the kind of ground floor experience we want to have, especially in the most active areas of our city, including around alum, rock or japantown or downtown, or in Willow Glen we've seen commercial corridors work really well.

O

We've seen commercial corridors work not really well and I know. There's been some some study around that for the downtown for the downtown retail corridors, but I don't think we have a fully integrated retail strategy for the entire city. I 100% support the elimination of this requirement for 100%, affordable projects, but I think especially for elected officials in the city. We really need to start thinking about how do we actually help incentivize small businesses, cultural institutions or active uses for the commercial real estate that we do have in the city that's already existing and how?

O

How do we help incentivize having more right because I think we're not just trying to oust people we're trying to make sure that they're living in complete communities? Thank you. Our.

A

Next meeting is Thursday February 27th. They you everyone.