City of San Jose, CA Planning, 18 Dec 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: DEC 18, 2019 | 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=47775

A

Hi everyone, thanks for being here, you'll notice that we have some refreshments and snacks Thank You staff for providing that.

A

Ok, we we've been. We have a lot to to discuss tonight and a few things to act on early on, but I was gonna ask staff they can start by giving an overview of the agenda.

B

So first up is: we have follow-up to the urban village, a presentation to all the comments in question. More of clarification, Jennifer P Jose, with supervising planner for open village team we'll go over that next, we'll be going over the actual voting public comment and then voting on the recommendation or banila jiz. Following that we have a presentation by optical design, dam damper, Olek going over that and then follow that by Plex housing, a developer perspective, an.

C

Actual building in San Jose on that and after that.

B

We'll have a discussion on missing middle housing and Plex housing and they will go onto next topic of residential uses in neighborhood business districts, followed by a task, force, discussion and public comment. Thank you. I would hand it over to Jennifer to do the follow up.

C

Great thank you. So we set this up with kind of a questions and answers. Many of these were contained in the memo, so you can follow along. So the first piece is about horizon, so there were a lot of questions around horizons, so why do we have them and how do they work? Do we need them, and can we eliminate and/or, accelerate horizons for more flexibility and to encourage more housing development, so the purpose of horizons- and we have a sheet appendix it's- basically two-phase housing, and so we focused in horizon 1.

C

Most of the all of the villages were near transit and other established infrastructure, and then 2 and 3 were villages that were away from those areas that didn't have the current transit or other infrastructure investments. We felt were needed to be able to have good housing development. It also was a tool for planning to understand where they should plan next and so, generally speaking, we radiate it out of downtown along along our main rail lines and away from downtown then getting to our light rail and then to the suburbs.

C

So this doesn't show up very well in color here, unfortunately, but we have different paths under horizons. The same chart is on page four of your packet, and so we have current horizon and in future horizon, so our current horizon is horizon one, so that is our left hand, side in future horizons, two and three on the right and then broken down by type of project. So we have three different types of projects we see before us that may or may not be affected by horizon.

C

This first is market rate, residential or mixed-use residential projects, both market rate. So they can proceed if you have an approved urban village plan and you're in horizon one. You can also proceed if you're in with an approved urban village plan in horizon two or three. So it's the same. If you don't have an approved urban village plan in your market rate, you cannot proceed regardless of horizon.

C

This is from Mercury rate, moving on to signature projects, so signature projects and we'll talk a little bit more about this- is our policy of exceptions, and so in the event that there's an exceptional project and it meets the criteria set forth by the council. They can move forward in urban villages regardless of horizon. If there's no approved urban village plan- and our third option is a hundred percent deed restricted, affordable housing, they can move forward, no matter what just yeses across the board.

C

We have policies that allow them to move forward and approved urban villages and not approved or villages regardless of horizon.

C

So if horizons were eliminated, what would happen so appendix 3? Basically, the path of housing doesn't change, so the previous chart is the same. You still need an urban village plan to build mercury housing unless you're going to meet one of the three exceptions. Signature projects- these are not intended to be commonplace.

C

We like to call it exception, because it is an exception sites that have a general plan designation that is residential, so something that's urban, residential transit, residential housing can move forward or something that is a hundred percent affordable, and we have policies around that. If you didn't have horizons, you wouldn't have to open a new growth horizon once you finish the current authorizing. So that's a bonus. Also, the residential pool policy would not be applicable and I think you talked about last time.

C

The pool policy, so the pool policy, refresher, 5,000 units of both either all signature projects or horizon 2 or 3 market rate projects can move forward ahead of the Garth rising opening. It basically places a metering on the amount of residential that can move forward before something is opened or before the horizons are opened or before an urban village plan is adopted, and so it's a way for us to not have residential approved before we get our comprehensive planning efforts in place or open up our horizons and.

D

If you recall, staff is recommending eliminating the residential pool policy. Yes,.

C

So solutions moving forward and we have different ideas about how we with different state laws that may or may not have been covered last time we are actually moving forward with creating mixed-use and multi-family zoning districts. We don't actually have these in place right now in our code, and these will actually help streamline. How is in permitting also as part of this, we are gonna, have objective requirements for housing, so it's easier for housing projects to move forward.

C

It's not as nebulous also our urban village plans will be shortened and the timelines for completion and consistency between them will be increased because we're gonna be relying upon our upcoming soon to be adopted. Citywide design guidelines, which I think are coming forward in the summer June, whether or not that summer is debatable and then I guess it's spring its.

D

Spring till the 23rd great.

C

Spring and our Complete Streets design standards and guidelines, which are already adopted by our partners in d-o-t department, transportation, and so what we're relying upon moving forward. Those of you who are familiar with our urban village plans, they're very large documents and there's a lot of repetition between them.

C

As far as what is good design, what do we want our streetscapes to look like, and so we feel that we can rely upon some of these outside pieces of work, because good design is good design across the board regardless and actually have our urban village plans focus on the area specific things that the communities want. So, for example, certain communities may like Mediterranean or Spanish style architecture. It's very important for the heritage of the area. We can have those sorts of specific standards that are not city wide.

C

We don't want to have those in our citywide design guidelines, but they may be applicable to a specific village place.

C

Signature projects, few questions about that. So why do signature project policy changes, have prescriptive requirements and then why do projects have to provide more than their fair share of commercial?

C

So, as stated previously, signature projects were intended when adopted, with our original general plan to be exceptional projects. Amazing, unique projects that serve as catalysts for the entire village and, generally speaking, not across the board, but sometimes with signature projects have come in it's it's a indicator to staff that this is a place we might want to plan next, because the market is there they provide above and beyond jobs in housing. This is something that the council wanted to see and something that staff upholds.

C

They also have more community engagement than our standard projects, because these are areas where there aren't adopted plans. If you remember the flow chart or the table previously, and so the community hasn't had their opportunity to do their comprehensive planning efforts, so they want to be involved in what this catalyst project will look like. They have to have high quality design, public open space of some sort and they have to be in a prominent location. So all that being said, these standards are very subjective, and so we, why are we updating our signature project policy?

C

Because we have heard time and again, people want clear requirements and expectations both for the development community and for the public. How can I measure this? How do I know someone's complying? Also, there are state law changes that have come through either in effect now or going to be in effect in 2020, starting January for housing projects that meet the definition of housing. You have to have measurable, objective standards that you can hold housing to nothing else, and so the policy is not objective. We have to make it objective to be able to enforce it.

C

We cannot exercise personal judgment either as planning staff or as decision-makers to approve or deny a housing project if we say well, I, just don't like it. That is not a reason under state law to disprove that housing project. So that's why we're doing this more than fair share of commercial? The council wanted exceptional projects to move forward. We have to head of the adoption of the urban village plan and we have to general plan policies, implementation policies, 2.9 and 210 that talk about this and wanting to have this above and beyond commercial requirement.

C

For more jobs to come into the area to be a catalyst, more jobs, more people, more housing, more people, so once again so.

D

I think one thing to keep in mind is that urban villages were really planning to be growth, areas for not just housing, but employment, commercial job space as well. So that's really sort of the parameter was if you're, building really a higher density above sort of and beyond the residential and the commercial, the employment that space. That was really is the overall vision and goal of the urban village plan. So if you're kind of providing the both of those things, that was really one of the criteria that the council decided should was was really significant.

D

To pin me as a signature project.

C

So I'm not gonna get into depth on this table. This was discussed at the last meeting, but this is the proposal for the signature project policy moving forward. It's a little more complicated because it has to be measurable and so we're breaking it down by village type. We have four village types: neighborhood villages, they're, typically located around suburbs, local transit villages as it sounds they are on our transit lines, think light rail or bus, rapid transit, commercial corridor and center villages.

C

These are large commercial corridors like South Bascom and our regional transit villages think various apart and so I'm not to get into all the details, but this outlines locational requirements, making it very clear. Yes or no. Does this meet the locational requirement? We currently have a locational requirement, but it's extremely subjective. This is prominent. What did that mean? So we want to be more specific above fair share for commercial. We have come up with these percentages and this is what we think is fair on exploring the idea of having additional commercial requirements.

C

If a project site is very large, the larger you are the more you can accommodate residential densities, putting out there if you're in a neighborhood. Maybe it's smaller densities is what can be accommodated, given their suburban context versus local transit or commercial corridor, maybe around the 55 and then regional, if you're thinking, high-capacity transit, higher densities and then open space requirements.

C

Like I said that was neat, it just said: you need to provide something, that's publicly accessible, but in what shape, what form what size was unclear and then how many public meetings is sufficient, so we want to provide some sort of parameter.

C

But just in summary, we want to make it objective, like a checklist, so.

C

We have had many signature projects come through and by many I think it's eight we have come through and whether they've just been filed or approved and the criteria have been applied inconsistently and so as a way moving forward to reset. This is what we're doing is what the previous table showed. We have three approved signature projects that would be approved under the. How am I gonna say this, so three of them would meet the criteria that we've outlined.

C

Three of them would only need to provide an additional 1,800 square feet of commercial to meet those commercial criterias and the commercial seems to be the sticking point for many projects want being able to provide the commercial. It's not usually the open space or the residential density. They want to build the housing, it's the specifically the jobs numbers and so looking at the ones that have been approved, they're all pretty close to these requirements, and so we don't feel that they're too out of line with what we've seen and I think that's. It.

A

C

A

C

B

We're just showing the summary of recommendations.

C

Of what a staff recommendation from the past.

B

Last time, if you want to start the public comment and yes.

A

Any comments on this item I know we had public comment at the end of last meeting, but are there any public comments on this item? Yes, please come up and state your name.

E

My name so my name is Alec shore with catalyze SV time limit of two minutes. I trust time limit.

A

Of two minutes: yes,.

E

Great so I just wanted to address staff and the task force. I think you may have seen a letter in your packet from catalyze SV. We are involved as an organization and improving the kamini engagement process to get more housing and better development built, and so we had our committee, our commune gage mantilla. Our members take a look at the signature project policy, especially related to commune gedman, and offered some ideas for city staff and for all of you on improving that commune gage mentality. It does make sense to have a specific objective requirement.

E

Jennifer talked about two meetings in particular. I. Think our point would be that it is not about the quantity of meetings but the quality of the meetings. And how can you create a community engagement process that truly hears the community's ideas and incorporates those ideas into how the developer builds that project? And in our letter, we offered some initial ideas for how this policy could be actually changed from the very proposal you see before you today, and so we would ask you to take a look at that.

E

We would also ask you to take a look at the framing of the policy. It talks a lot about the policy focused on listening to the quote area residents and listening to their perspective on character and identity, and for those of us who are invested in building more housing in our community. We know that those are frequently terms that are used to refer only to the viewpoints of those who already live in our community, not those that we want to bring into our community.

E

So we would encourage staff to look at a framing, that's slightly different that talks about how can we can create a commune gauge maseeh? That is a win for our developers, our existing residents, our broader community and our city, and so we would ask the general plan task force to consider recommendations to the city staff around this signature project policy specifically related to community engagement, and we stand ready to work with anyone, including all of you, on ideas for that policy. Thank you. Thank.

A

F

On the general plan, because our neighborhood, the garden Alameda, has been injured by the general plan, and we felt that we had not been notified that there was a general plan change that thus westside of Stockton when we bought our property was a conforming rezoning to be residential, then about I, guess, five or six years later it changed to commercial and that the whole plan in 2008 or 10 whenever it was to bring commercial 'ti to our community into our historic neighborhood, was never we never got alerted. We never got the big card.

F

That said not in government but say how would you feel having a five-story hotel next to your residential home? That never came that should have come and we are actually taking it up with the with the grand jury because of the injury to our community and the I really appreciated what you were saying in a lot of your documentation. You're about village village is very important term and we've even created a neighborhood association called the garden alameda village association, because by putting commercial into our neighborhoods, has really injured our neighborhood injured.

F

Are you know, destabilized our communities when you do that and bring bars and hotels into neighborhoods with the operon word being transients? We don't need transients in our community.

F

Yet that is what our city is bringing to make money and that has got to stop in a climate emergency we've got to start looking at building resilient communities where neighbors know each other and neighbors work together, and those are the jobs of the future that we need to bring to San Jose are fossil fuel free jobs, not jobs based on fossil fuel like a hotel and the airport connection. So, basically, really notifying us of the general plan. Changes to our community is what we're asking, because we never got notified of the general plan. Changes.

G

H

Space requirement just two thousand square foot. Is it for a small.

G

Project, that's almost.

I

Nothing, that's less than a city lot. Is that it's that right, I mean I'm going through my calculations. You, you have what five acres and 300 unit 330 units per acre. That's 150 units 300 people. You should have about an acre of land. That seems awfully small. So can you is that in addition to it, or is that just that number.

G

C

Happy to respond so this is an addition or different from the PIO PDO parks requirements.

J

Okay, so this is top of that thing.

H

Right so they'll still.

C

Have their parks fees and they will still be providing private open space like balconies or patios for the residential unit, they will still be providing common open space like pools and rec rooms. These are publicly accessible open spaces. In addition to that, on the property good.

G

A

Any further comments: okay, let's open it up for the task force. If you have any questions on anything, I think what we're gonna do is separate the recommendations. Thank you staff for putting these back up into five separate votes, we'll start with the boundaries discussion. We had quite a bit of conversation about that and just to clarify we are removing the Reed and Graham site from the race light rail urban village boundary. As you saw in your packet, there is a reason for deferring that particular component of that site.

A

But are there any convert any discussion? Any burning questions I see one placard up, but boy Harvey I, believe that's you and then Jesse.

H

A

And Jim: yes, please.

H

So I didn't quite understand. I tried to read through this and unfortunately had some computer.

K

H

With my internet, Thank You ATT anyway, the question I have is: was any staff make any changes to the recommendation in the we will be voting on.

H

No okay, so I would oppose that. I think that we really do need to keep the reading grade in sight within the boundaries of the urban village, because I think in in the future. We need to find another more suitable site for that, since it is highly toxic, has created many many health issues, including potentially having given me emphysema.

H

Never having smoked can some downwind from it I think that putting all the thousands of units of housing that we're putting in that area a what 80 acre park that we've created there for soccer fields, kids running around breathing in all those fumes, we did.

A

Have quite a big conversation about this last time, and we know it's a really important and and large conversation, which is why we want to defer this particular.

H

We're going to defer this I'm sorry I didn't hear I didn't hear it just.

A

This particular I agree.

H

A

H

Agree with that.

A

D

To be clear, staff is not proposing you to defer it. It's a co-chairs. Yes,.

A

I'm sorry, this data is well, you recommended removing it from I.

D

Mean I think we're comfortable with the vote going the way the vote goes. Okay,.

A

Yeah so we'll take this, this recommendation from staff to remove it, but my recommendation was to defer this conversation because it really is going to be quite a lengthy conversation in and of itself councilmember. Did you want to make a comment about this yeah.

L

I would agree with you Theresa that we should defer this item from the vote. Thank you. Any.

A

Other questions regarding this item. Yes,.

I

Adopts top recommendation with the removal of removing Rena Graham great.

A

Do we have a second I heard one here? First: okay, listen! Why don't we go ahead and take a vote? Okay, discussion on the motion, any other discussion on the motion, any other comments. I still see placards up: Jim Zito! Yes,.

E

B

Goal is overall in the very first general plan task force when we created 2040 we're really really concerned about jobs, housing and balance in the second one. We kind of backed away from that a little bit and I'm wondering now today in in in this round, are we still very concerned about jobs, housing and balance, or is it not as critical from the staffs perspective.

D

Yeah, so from the staffs perspective, we still have the goals of the general plan that were modified.

D

The last four year go around and we are still concerned about the jobs and housing imbalance in the city for a number of reasons having to do with greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles, traveled, quality of life, issues of people being stuck in traffic health issues with diabetes at the scene, all kinds of diseases, because you're sitting in your car on traffic and there's also the fiscal element which really played out was a big part of the general plan discussion eight years ago, because that was a general plan developed in the recession, the Great Recession.

D

But there are these other things that I think are really really as important as well. So that is an issue we still have the goal: to achieve: a ratio of 1.1 jobs to employed San Jose employed residents, going from the bedroom of Silicon Valley to being slightly more of a job center, not as much as our surrounding cities, but more of a job Center than we are today. We're.

A

Gonna finalize any comments on this side and I don't see any so, let's go to this side. Eric we'll start with you and work forward. Councilmember.

M

Thank you. I just want to speak on item number, one which is eliminating the Evergreen Village and so I wanted to ask staff just to go over and the reason I'm asking. This is because I've had a lot of concerned residents where we have at Evergreen Village Square and it's an urban village type of a setting, and we have this a couple of Lots that are just empty and there's just a big dirt.

M

You know mound of dirt, and so I want to make sure that by eliminating this up in Green Village, which I already know and I'm assured I just want to make sure that the staff has a public publicly asserts this, that we will still have some capacity to develop those empty lots over at Evergreen village square.

D

Yes, so there is capacity there is capacity in ADP, but we'll hold that conversation for next. That's a large issue, but there is capacity. So if someone wants to develop on the sites that remain in the evergreen urban village, that I know, there's I believe there's a site that actually has a zoning on it. They can go forward. I know there's an interest to to build to develop on a site, that's not designated for housing, but they could apply for a general plan amendment on that side.

D

It's really for a very limited number of housing, so eliminating that village doesn't preclude housing moving forward in those cases that where there aren't already entitlements, they can move forward now it actually actually could potentially facilitate it more so because the the idea is that we'd have to do a village plan, for maybe one small project to go for it or they'd have to do a a signature project and that village, really in our mind, is pretty much built out, as is the whole I evergreen specific plan area. Thank.

M

A

Okay, we'll head over to this side, Eric I do.

I

Have a question on the staffs presentation, clarification, but not related this subject, so.

A

I

But before that I wanted to ask a question of my esteemed colleague from district 6. Mr. Milligan I've been watching too many impeachment hearings, your distinguished friend from Willow Glen, your motion because I think there's I'm confused. Your motion, I believe, is to not agree with the staff recommendation to remove Reid and Graham from the urban village. That correct my motion is to accept eliminating the Evergreen village and the East Capitol foxtail Drive, but not take out Reid around from the race tree, light rail, every village so to keep Reid and Graham within the that's.

N

J

I

Treat urban village great good on that clarification, my question: clarifying staffs presentation was Jennifer. You you have a sentence here about council, wanted only exceptional projects to move ahead of urban village plan adoption, and you cite IP 2.9 and 2.10 I'm. Reading the general plan, I don't see in 2.9 or 2.10.

B

I

About exceptional projects, or anything so can we cite the language you're referring to before we get to the signature project discussion. Thank you.

A

I'm sorry we're still trying to figure out the the the motion on the floor. Thank you. So much yes was there coming over here. Yes, one first.

O

So I'd like to request that the task force add a couple of urban village designations and so I didn't know. If this is the point at which I would do. That is this the point at which I would do that I think.

A

You should bring bring up the comment: okay,.

O

Yes, so, given that one urban village and I'm looking at my notes, urban village designation, the foxtail apartments area is being removed for a good reason, totally agree with that. That light rail will be extended to East Ridge Mall down Capitol Expressway across story Road. That's any San Jose that adding urban village designations in East, San Jose would increase housing and employee, but employment, thereby increasing opportunity in an area that is sometimes overlooked.

O

Even one of the letter writers for this meeting referenced three areas: south north and west San Jose, and made no reference to East, San, Jose, and so it's possible. They didn't consider that and that in a span of just one day since yesterday, the task force has received- and it's all in your packet over 50 requests from residents requesting that the task force designate two areas in East, San Jose as urban villages. The first area is that story wrote in Capitol Expressway. The second is that story, road and white road.

O

Again, those are both in San Jose, then I request that the task force designate those two areas in East, San Jose as urban villages, or take the steps necessary to in the designation process. I understand that that would be very complicated, probably, but that is something I am requesting as part of redistribution of plant growth in urban village. Boundary modifications thank.

A

You I will refer that to staff, given this as a new conversation, if you have some quick comments, yeah.

D

No I think I think we thought that was going to come up in the nvd favorite businesses discussion, but yeah I mean we're amenable to adding that if that's the task force wish and there's a lot of input from the community to add the story Road as a neighborhood business district. Our suggestion would be that there is a boundary of that growth area already, which is an employment growth area and includes my understanding both of the two areas you're talking about at Capitol and white, and just make it that larger boundary.

D

If you to that I, absolutely.

O

Am in that should streamline the designation if the task force chooses to provide additional opportunity to San Jose.

B

A

The motion er Shawn- are you comfortable with amending I'm.

I

Just wondering, if that's more of a conversation for the neighborhood business districts or not for the urban village boundaries, okay,.

A

Let's defer it for a moment and take it up at.

O

Your item, if we might yeah and it seems best as a separate motion anyway, okay.

A

So let's continue discussion on the first item.

B

Back to the reading Graham's site, but.

P

I'm confused about the conflicting reports about what they want to do with their own business staff is saying that they wanted their the businesses thriving in their words and then I'm hearing reports that they are looking to change I. What is the current status? I mean cuz, I think a lot of the decision decision-making should be on what the land owner.

B

Intends to do with.

P

Their property.

A

Sure sure so, Office of Economic.

D

Development reached out to the the owner of the business and the property owner in the general manager and what they said is that a number of years ago, I'm not sure how long ago, but at some point in the past, they actually did look at relocating because of the housing that was going on in the park. And they could. They were not successfully able to find a site in the South Bay to relocate ooh so that they decided and said to reinvest stay where they are and they're committed to staying in there. Their current something.

M

Could change but.

D

That's their position at this morning.

A

Councilmember Foley.

P

Thank you so I'm, a little confused, I appreciate the three items that were voting on, but I'm wondering when we will be having the conversation about whether urban villages are necessary and whether they are an impediment to development are.

Q

We going to have her have that conversation at some point.

P

J

We're bound here by the council memos that were approved by the council on this and that wasn't the whole issue of urban villages itself was not part of the council discussion. We were asked to look at the boundaries of the urban villages.

J

There was one memo that was authored by the mayor and signed I believe by like four other council members, but just the issue of urban villages at all was not part of the scope and in our first packet and it's online, there is the summary that staff prepared of all the recommendations that were approved by the council on that so I, don't know Michael. If you have anything about that, but I didn't see that on the list. No, it's.

D

Not I mean the urban village strategy is one of twelve major strategies of the general plan. It's in the council's direction by not including it in terms of.

A

D

Direction is to tweak it as we're doing talking about tonight, but not eliminate it. It's really I think the count yeah, so it's really seen as a way to accommodate future both jobs and housing, growth in San Jose, on transit, okay, so.

J

What's up, we do have a motion on the floor. Miss Milligan as I understand the motion. It would be remove the Evergreen village from urban village, with the clarification from staff removed capital foxtail, make no change to the race street boundary for Reid and Graham. Is that a correct statement? That's.

F

J

And it's been seconded all in favor any opposed.

J

Okay and I recall your comments at the last meeting and that's miss Chesney all right. There's the separate issue that Juan Estrada has brought up in regard to two new urban villages, or it may be folded into the NBD discussion that we're gonna have in the future. We have to still conform to the Brown Act that wasn't part of the areas that we had discussed at the last meeting. It's not part of the staff recommendations, that's not to suggest we shouldn't pursue what you're talking about and I think.

J

Maybe the appropriate next step would be simply to refer that to staff, and we can bring that your proposal. Mr. Estrada, back at a future meeting. Are you agreeable to that I.

O

Think I am I just want a better understanding of the Brown Act implementations given that is it because it is not one of the three staff recommendations as part of one or not detailed at number. Four, no, which one is the neighborhood business district. Well, oh, the one that.

A

J

Haven't covered.

O

Is because it's not specifically named in there, you.

J

Know we could have a further legal discussion. I think we might be fortunate and not have any attorneys here tonight.

J

But I think it would just be a matter of normal practice to give staff the opportunity to respond to a new proposal that we hadn't discussed at the last meeting. It wasn't really subjective of public comment. I recognize there were the letters that you've been shin that that have come in, but as a normal course of practice we would refer to staff, so they can write a report and can bring it back so.

D

It would come back to the next meeting. We would write, we would respond. Your proposal come back to the next meeting and a be voted on the next meeting.

A

O

Then is there do I need to make any type of motion, or it's just a given them.

A

O

A

Why don't we move on to the next policy item, which is actually, let's, let's jump to three for a moment? Let's get some. You know momentum going here. Do we have any questions or comments or a motion? We would welcome a motion on item three: the residence we'll pull policy Jim. Second I'm, sorry, Pat,.

A

H

A

H

A

Quite sure, what.

H

Removing the residential pool units policy do it.

A

Adds flexibility as I understand the council? The staff just commented on this. It really just frees up the conversation. It's not metering of housing production in the way that it was originally no.

H

We're not adding any new housing units to that number or no we're not we're actually not adding.

D

Housing units to that number, we actually don't see the policy as needed, and so we just think isn't it's not needed, and in the worst case it could actually provide a barrier. Let's, let's we were proposing to eliminate it.

D

I think the idea was that it's really for urban Ville kerbin villages that have an approved plan that are in horizon three or two, not one of current growth horizons, but actually, in effect, what happens when we prove an urban village plan, we're generally doing it because there's a market for a development in that area, not always but usually, and then there's a lot of interest like well.

D

We just got this plan done, let's, let's move forward and and and move it in horizon one, so we actually really haven't had a case where we need to use the pool and that circumstance we do use the pole for the signature project. But this is getting very technical, but and some we don't see the need for this policy. It doesn't do much of anything. Yes,.

F

I

A question for staff. So if there was a substitute motion on the floor to eliminate the urban village horizons and if you eliminated the residential pool policy- and he didn't have an adopted urban village plan, couldn't he run into a problem.

D

I

Me explain further, so you have six what 62 everybody villages you got: 12 adopt an urban village plans. So let's say that the task force floated to eliminate the horizons. You still have unapproved urban villages, correct, correct.

D

I

If you eliminated the pool policy and you had unapproved plans, how would projects proceed the same way.

C

I

C

Affordable or an adopted urban village plan, it.

B

Doesn't affect.

C

B

A

Any other question Eric I, see your placard up. Is that for comment? No.

L

Answer because there were three exceptions and one is a site with a residential General, Plan designation without the pool does that get eliminated as an option. No.

C

L

They can just go forward and it doesn't matter if there's a pool or not correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay,.

A

Actually, I think it was much clearer and easier to kind of digest. All in favor of the motion on the floor to approve staffs recommendation any opposed great two down.

A

Let's go to, let's go to item 5 4 & 5, which is item 4 up here. The implementation general plan policy I'd see any questions about policy for staff, yeah.

J

Okay, so this language was from our packet from the last meeting and basically we're going to keep the proposal from the staff is to keep the same general language about the urban village planning process, but eliminate the three factors that were under there before that were emphasizing concerns about conversion of employment lands, I.

J

Think based on the presentation from staff at the last meeting, as well as comments from Task Force members, there seems to be a general consensus that we want to encourage residential development as much as we can in urban villages and that these policies, that speak of and not being a process for conversion of employment lands are not consistent with the direction that and the needs that are currently in the city. So the proposal would be to eliminate, what's really not essentially any kind of restriction, but just policy statements about conversion of employment land.

J

So is there a motion and in favor of the staff recommendation so moved.

C

J

Discussion on that, Bonnie is your hand up yeah, okay,.

B

Well, I move this. The point is that we've always liked to have a public statement about conversion of employment lands and not right. So, if you're going to remove this, which I'm amenable to, is there going to be some other mechanism to make a public assertion.

P

That we care deeply about not converting employment lands to non employment, uses yeah.

D

I mean they're. The the general plan has a number of policies in regards to to that reserving employment land, particularly industrial and employment land in general. I, should note that this language that you see here that's crossed off. This was not in the original policy that the task force approved or the council approved in 2011. This was added by the council. I think in 2016, so or proposing was taking it back to the original language, but we have a lot of policies regarding preserving and enhancing commercial and other employment lands. So.

J

You know it's it's a point to remember some of how this all started and some of this predated some of the new count.

J

Newark councilmembers, that back in envision 2040, we were looking at strategies for new housing and we were looking at strategies of implementing that within the existing boundaries of the city, to avoids for all loss of open space and the obvious areas that we were looking at were lots of older retail developments in the city or underutilized commercial properties which were perhaps not best suited for retail development in the future, but provided opportunities for housing within the existing city, boundaries and near transit.

J

And so that's why this language, when it got added on in the years after it, was somewhat inconsistent with what we as a task. At least the original envision. 2040 taskforce had been doing, which was exactly this looking at land that wasn't present Lee planned for a higher density housing, but looking at converting in it and so Bonnie to your question.

J

The policies of avoiding conversion are still there, because the urban villages that were identified by staff were not just a race to identify any and all industrial land in the city, but specific areas that met those criteria that we talked about of underutilized retail, non-residential properties that were close to transit and suitable for housing. So I think this is actually consistent, as Michael was saying with the original direction. Maybe you weren't saying that directly Michael but consistent with the original direction of the envision 2040 task force, Harvey and.

H

Just want to consistent with what you're saying I want to make sure that we're. There are no unintended consequences of the because, as we created the urban villages, we were taking off in commercial land and putting housing into the same footprint and mixing it up so that we would decrease VMT and two sorts of things. That would be helpful for the environment.

H

Elfin sitters that are I want to make sure that don't lose, that within each of the urban villages that we don't somehow all of a sudden build all housing where we wanted to have a mixed-use.

D

Yeah I mean the plans are very clear that we have to plan for get the both the jobs and the housing capacity. It's about accommodating both and coming up with a fine-grain plan of how you're gonna do that. We actually ran into the problems with these policies when we were doing West San Carlos. As an example, we felt there are properties and what San Carlos that either should go all residential or we didn't care about the use. It was about the form, and in that form you could do whatever you wanted.

D

You could do mixed-use, you do commercial, you could do residential, but given this policy we had to sort of start applying commercial obligations to all the properties, as opposed to saying these are the areas that are more should be more commercial focused. These areas could go all residential. These areas should be mixed-use or could be mixed to you. So that's that's where we started running into problems when we were actually doing the urban village plans, with the changes that were made in about 2016. Thank.

A

D

A

Okay, we have a motion on the floor in a second can we take a vote please all in favor aye any opposed any abstentions. Okay,.

A

And that was item 5 on the staffs recommendations, adopt an objective standard requirements for signature projects. Any quick questions clarifications, yes, Lesley I, just.

B

Had a really quick question, since it says that basically, the task force is not getting involved in in some of the specifics. When is this coming forward to council? Did you mention that.

B

It's a coming forward to council at the end of next year, so probably in the fall or winter timeframe,.

A

Councilmember Ennis.

M

Thank you, I really appreciate having more objective standard requirements under the signature project and I really appreciate it. Alex short, you came in and you you summarize a bit of what you've wrote in your letter in terms of really having some concrete ways to measure engagement and I. I really appreciate that I wonder if we can.

M

We can include some of that evaluation for staff to bring back I, don't know that we can adopt it as is right now, but if, if staff could evaluate some of that and bring it back and include that as part of the motion.

D

Yeah I mean we can definitely evaluate that I. Think in having read Alec's language. A lot of that is kind of more fine-grain that you would put in the general plan. It's almost more of a policy of a practice of what you how you would do it so that we could explore, like that, the spirit of it of how it could be captured. Thank.

A

You, okay Jesse, oh.

D

Yeah, the other thing I should say: is that um Jennifer you want to do you want to do the ownership ever sure.

C

So we had an odd an undeveloped noticing. Many of you may be aware of that, and so we have a council policy on outreach and I believe that we believe that this would be the most appropriate place to have this sort of fine green instruction to both planning staff and anyone else who's doing development in the city to have this sort of fine-grained information in 6-30 and that's something that is on our work plan as policy to get underway and look at that and see what we can do to improve it.

C

I, don't know where, on the work plan, it is that's up to Michael to say, but eventually on the work plan. Thank.

A

R

On top of taking a look at the outreach I'd like the group to consider including equity analysis and mitigation for displacement and measures as a part of the as part of the policy.

A

Where would equity and displacement staff if you can respond to that where that makes the most sense to have that conversation? I know the council is having that conversation quite a bit I.

D

A

Gonna think about that a little bit you.

D

Know to what to create yeah well, have.

A

To think about that, Thank You Vince, the.

B

One of the concerns I have I, you support objective standards, but reading the slides it says the state law says that personal judgment cannot be used to approve or deny a housing project.

B

I understand the deny side and I think that was the objective of the state law is staffs position that you could also not approve a project based on personal judgment and here's what I mean if a project misses an objective standard by say it's half a foot off and how much frontage it should have of you know commercial space, like you can't say well, overall, pretty good. So my judgment is this is a good project.

C

B

The requirements are strict and the state law is clear on that.

A

Okay, we have a few more Jason. Is that you, or is that Harvey? Yes,.

B

Thank you I'm, recalling the discussion that we had in the last meeting about whether some of the requirements are too descriptive and.

N

B

It would impede development. I am a bit curious as to how that discussion last time went in one direction and then the feedback that staff got to.

N

B

N

These recommendations were in.

B

Another way, but also if there was- and maybe this is more of a policy or a practice type level. But if there's a way to enhance it, engage in portion where it.

N

Actually lends.

B

N

Creating these requirements.

B

Per that area, if it's a signature project for that area, then kind of a universal application throughout and I think that a number of things having a nebula and it's.

N

Kind of thinking about how these signature projects are signature for the.

B

Community, that's there than just an objective requirement of what signature projects. Yes, that may be different from whichever part of the city that you're in.

C

What you're asking so it sounds like it's almost you're doing a mini urban village plan planning effort to understand the community's perspective and needs and desires to crap a signature project policy, that's specific to a specific area. It.

N

Didn't I don't think it has to go into that.

B

Level but I think the intentionality of tree of that process is important, especially if you're labeling as a signature project, whether whatever that form looks like it.

A

Should be reflective of the communities yeah.

B

I mean- and it's supposed to be great Shelley's get that buy-in from being. You know, that's incorporated, but also the first point, I'm curious as to the discussion staff had that led to the recommendations the first time around and in many ways it was different than the discussion that was here whether because I recall last time.

N

We thought it was too prescriptive.

C

It has to be prescriptive per state law, yeah.

D

I, don't know if there was I'm, not sure there was a lot of consensus about being too restrictive, I think there was voices that thought it was. He was great too.

A

Okay, we have several more comments and we still have another item here, so we're gonna go quickly. Is that your spawn II that's up or Harvey's somebody? Yes, please so.

H

The question I have is: what are the.

A

H

Would be included in these objective standard requirements? What is including, is that recall, when we first set up some of these signature projects, we added things like world-class architecture, etc. Those that are are those things to be eliminated, and it will only be things that are measurable and what things would be measurable.

J

Hey I think what I can indicate Harvey is that the standards that the staff is seeking to implement would be specific, they'd be specific and they're in the staff report on page 6 and 7, does everybody have that report and maybe you could put the the standards back up there again.

J

These are the standards, they're minimums, they're minimum standards and, as I've understood it from the staff they're their standards that are fairly easily achievable, so we're not doing anything, that's subjective any more like world-class standards. These are the standards that are here, they're, all quantifiable.

J

So, okay, okay,.

A

We're gonna Bonnie: do you.

B

So you can have things that are measurable and objective, but you can have things that are relatively inflexible and there's a big difference between having something that's measurable and objective and having something that is so stringent that it makes it difficult for developers to do and that's what they were talking about. Last time is that this, so my question is I get that it needs to be measurable, but is it too far in the direction of putting a lot of constraints on developers where and we won't have the signature projects that we want?

B

So that's my my question. I.

A

Think we'll hear that from comments, perhaps we're gonna jump over to this side. I, don't see any plug! Those of you who have already made comments, if you could put yours down that, would I'd appreciate it. Eric.

I

First of all, I want to just draw people's attention to the memo that I submitted. It's in your packet explaining why the signature project, job density and the horizons are problematic and our detering housing development in our. So please take a look: I wanted to get staffs answer on the IP 2.9 2.10 language. If I could do that before I continue. My comments sure.

C

So the connection we're trying to make is the council wanted housing? You move forward in phases, and so the signature project is the only exception in which they could move forward unless you were spent affordable or had the general client designation of residential as the point we're trying to make, because those policies discuss phasing so.

I

Is there a policy in the general plan with that stated where the words exceptional and awesome and well know.

D

C

It's a catalyst to.

D

A signature project, so the word signature is implies and a sort of an exception, an exemplary project. The word exemplary is not in there, but that's I think quickly, wrong David! You were there that that's the word signature implies that something special so.

I

In fact, there is no use of the word exceptional in the general plan. This was created by staff in the presentation, and this is the problem. Is it's revisionist history when the task force met? Originally, we had 51 meetings, I, attended, 49 of the 51 and this construct of horizons and urban village plans being required to do housing. Those of us in the development industry said that's going to prevent housing from getting built and we suggested what. If someone comes forward with a really good project, you know it's mixed-use.

I

It's well designed it makes sense, a good project. Nobody said the best project in history, exceptional project, a good project and over the last eight years, staff has fabricated. This notion that the job requirement has to be above and beyond the average density plan for the that urban village. That's just been a fabrication of staff, and so my recommendation on the job density is it. It should be a good project that meets the job, dense, I, planned for the urban village. That's it Eric.

A

Is there a question or well.

I

My first question was where's the language that says exceptional extraordinary awesome best in the world. It's not in the general plan and Eric.

J

So I think what we want to do is we're not going to be spending 51 meetings here and we don't. We don't want to necessarily go into the whole history of urban villages either. We just don't have time for that.

J

You were one of the supporters, if not one of the authors of the idea of this idea of trying to have some flexibility in the plan to allow better-than-average, I won't use the word exceptional, but I think you were the person who used the word signature projects like that to make sure that projects that are good, that are a better move forward and that we don't do anything in the general plan that deters that kind of work, and so we we we came up with some language.

J

It was broad it wasn't specific, like these standards are, and so the issue, though we have to deal with now, is simply this: we're going to move to standards, we're required to that's my understanding.

J

The issue then becomes what are going to be the standards and so I'd like to keep our discussion going in that way, I'm not suggesting that anything you're saying is wrong, but we have to deal with the issues that the council's asked us to do in that state law mandates us to have to deal with now, so we're gonna go to standards yeah. So.

I

I'm not arguing against standards. So let me put a motion on the floor. All right, so I am I recommend that we include all of the staffs standards. With these changes. One change will be to job density, that the standard should be that the project meet the average plan. Job density for that urban village, that is a that is an explicit standard, not plus ten percent, not plus fifty percent, but meet the average plan. Job density for that urban village and the other change would be on the site.

I

Selection require because we're hearing from staff that, if you're off by even half a foot you're not in compliance so because of that the three acres and the hundred and fifty foot of frontage is just too big. There are very few three acre sites, even in the whole city, so I would recommend that we go down to an acre and a half which is consistent with the affordable housing criteria, an acre and a half, and that the frontage could be a hundred feet.

B

J

A

Your comment did who seconded your motion? Michael? Yes, we do Michelle, so we have a second, let's have discussion, yes, clarifying question. Roberta.

B

A

Will get to you what rule finished on this side and they will come back around.

Q

C

Believe eight total we.

Q

Once submitted two.

C

Q

Ago so Roberta you just begin to the microwave recording you so seven were submitted and seven were approved. We.

C

Have six approved? We have two outstanding.

Q

Okay, six approved out.

N

B

Q

Out of eight have been okay, correct and then the so I'm looking at page 8 of the memo and there's seven listed and four of the seven do not meet the commercial requirements and have these been approved or will they not be approved until they meet them? They've.

C

Been approved, okay, at the fair share, fair.

Q

C

Which is not the average density that Eric is referencing.

A

Q

So there's a middle column that says provided by project and for were below 9% 0%, 0.1 percent, three percent. That.

C

Means that that's the percentage above the fair share, which is the average density but.

Q

It's requiring 10 to 15%, no, that's in the oh you're saying with the proposed. Actually, the proposed requires 10% on each of these four of the seven or below I'm supporting his motion because it looks like to get these approved they're coming in lower and if you want to keep getting housing built, whether you like it or not,.

Q

Actually so so only three met the requirements right and.

C

The point we're making in the third bullet point is that the other three that didn't are only 1800 square feet behind the requirements that would be imposed even.

D

Last I think some of them are like a hundred feet below.

Q

D

That possible, because it says points I.

Q

Don't think so, I'm looking at the numbers- that's not true! That is not true point one percent to 10 percent 3 percent to 10 percent. Why.

D

See what you're saying what.

Q

D

Looking at maybe maybe.

Q

I'm not reading this right I, just if you want buildings bill, make it work. So the buildings get built great.

A

Let's take some more comments: we'll go Shiloh I, don't know if that's Pat or Kevin.

H

A

Well, just come on down this way.

M

On the community outreach piece, it says equal to or more community meetings. So if a the project comes before the Planning, Commission use an example I'm familiar with and they've done to community meetings do. Do we on the Planning Commission have leeway to say gee. We wish you had done more or is that kind of that's the prescriptive? If you've done two.

Q

M

Though we wish, you might have done some more.

C

Right, all they need to do is to.

A

Can we move on okay, Kevin I.

B

Was gonna I was gonna, make similar comments that Eric made around just go changing that standard to meeting the average jobs density because it seems to be a barrier to we would have more than eight signature projects if the job density, so I'm gonna support that great.

A

Thank you, Aysen.

H

So really quickly, just a couple of me twos to councilmember arenas. I. Do think that the question really isn't about the number of community meetings that you have it's about the quality and whose voices are actually being included in the decision-making around these kinds of signature projects. So, hopefully there'll be some report back about the kinds of community meetings and and community feedback we're getting on these projects.

H

The second is around Jessi's comment about having an equity and anti displacement analysis to be done on signature projects when they do come forward.

H

The second thing, I would add, is I, know we're looking at a lot of objective standards, but I think some of the non objective standards that we had talked about about world class and design, and that kind of thing some of it was somewhat valuable, is any of that is any of that still going to be considered when projects are coming forward, just on a obviously not a yes or no question, but more the thing that staff is gonna, be considering.

H

The second question is: are you thinking about any other project components that that could potentially make a signature project, a signature project, something like affordability or job standards? And then lastly, I'm just want to ask a question about those those job density standards that both Kevin and and Eric just mentioned? Is that something that would have any impact on having that kind of complete community that you get that we are trying to get with signature project.

A

Jason, your first comment was about qualitative standards. Your second one was about job standards. I couldn't hear your third one, the.

H

Last one was just trying to figure out exactly what the impact of the change or the job density would be.

A

With questions, and then staff has time to respond to those that'd be great one.

O

So have a question and then I have a comment. The question is whatever requirements we approve today. When would they be revisited in the future.

A

For your review, a brief.

O

Answer is fine.

C

Every four years we do a comprehensive review of the general plan and the policy could be reanalyzed and changed. Okay,.

O

So so we tested whatever the process was or the criteria were for four years and now we're just gonna test. Another set of criteria and I am.

A

In failure because I'll go to Council, of course, yeah.

O

Yeah so I'm in favor, of what Eric proposed. My reasoning is we hear about the plight of families of insufficient housing of gentrification of high rents, high mortgages, and one of the factors is obviously the supply of housing, the more housing, the less gentrification or the more similar opportunities that exist, the lower that rents and mortgages will go up or maybe even drop, and so I think that if there are barriers to development that have inhibited that that we need to remove some of them and so I definitely support this yeah.

A

I think that's definitely been the the direction of this whole for your review and these conversations. So thank you so much Melanie.

R

Thank you, so I've got a question about the open space requirements and the difference between the amount that's being required for the neighborhood villages versus the regional transit urban village, and my question is really whether the amount being asked of the neighborhood villages is too little and whether the amount being asked to the regional transit urban villages may be too much just kind of from looking at what we're asking of the signature projects within those sites.

R

It seems to me that the residential density, as well as the commercial density, is lower for neighborhood village, which would suggest that there would actually be more space available on those sites to provide open space versus the regional transit urban village, but I'm not sure if I'm, not thinking of it correctly. But maybe staff could speak to that sure.

C

So, generally speaking, the neighborhood villages are in more suburban portions of the city and they're, actually smaller villages, some of them, ranging between 14 acres, 30 acres, they're, not very large, in comparison to some of our larger villages which are 100, 100, acres, 150, acres, 200 acres and so that's kind of where just the scale of what could actually happen for projects is where we're trying to be sensitive to that, both with the density and so for neighborhood villages.

C

The density is lower because of its context and the general plan actually has policies and encouragement for this to be the case when you're near established, single-family neighborhoods, and then we actually in most many of our urban village plans, have 2,000 square feet, set as the base minimum for our open space or publicly accessible open space. And so that's where we took that from not wanting to reinvent the wheel as far as Regional Transit, so thinking very sabar, larger projects, larger villages and so just to provide context.

C

You've seen the Bascom station, the Tech Center project come through. They had almost an acre of publicly accessible open space and they were a commercial corridor village. That's nowhere near the 5,000 like 5,000 is just a small portion of what that acre was that they provided on-site and they didn't have an issue providing that so we're actually under shooting the the space or the require that could be provided.

C

We just don't want to preclude anything because parcel sizes, depending on, if you a great, if you're able to acquire more properties, it's just it's open to the market and if you can purchase so we want have flexibility.

R

Make sense I guess I understand like within the neighborhood context, but.

H

R

Got a more suburban scale or more urban scale, but we're talking about development standards that are being applied to a particular parcel and obviously what a particular as reasonable for a particular parcel seems to be tied to how big that parcel is and I understand that we don't have a size constraint on the corner Lots. But we do have a size constraint on the interior.

R

Lots is being proposed and it seems like we might consider something more as a percentage of the overall square footage of the lot, as opposed to something arbitrary, because if it's a five acre corridor parcel- and they only have to provide two thousand square feet of open space- that's nothing even in a suburban context.

R

So maybe that might be something that staff might consider. Sir. Thank.

A

You okay, so we have three more comments: Eddie Michael and then Linda has a quick comment and then David has a process. Suggestion.

D

And then we need to respond to a sense questions. I have.

K

A question for now, which is: how do you calculate the average job density for the santur project process?.

K

D

I mean we, we basically look at the number of jobs and it's actually the general plan as a formula. It's based on 300 square feet of commercial space per job, and so you have a whole, an overall square footage of commercial space that needs to be planned for an accommodating a village, and then you basically break that up. So it's by you know each each parcel gets their share of that.

D

So, if their parcel, it consists of five percent of the overall acreage of land in the village, that's suitable for commercial space, then they get five percent of that square. Footage number. Okay,.

K

I just want make a comment that for existing parcels of land that are already jobs rich or have we're doing far above and beyond their fair share in terms of existing commercial users, now I'm not advocating for a conversion of employment users to non employment uses well, I think is that for those sites where it's already jobs are rich, there shouldn't be an additional commercial requirement on top of the santur project process.

K

For those companies like Apple and others who are announcing major investments of housing onto their plots of land, we should recognize those sites that are already going above beyond the jobs production requirement and allow this process of land to balance out the housing on those particular sites. That's the comment that I would like to make so.

D

If I can just clarify so you're saying is, if apple bill I'd say, have four hundred two hundred thousand square foot office building on an urban village, let's say South Bascom, then you would deduct that from sort of the overall goals being built already and in the signature project. Count fair share would be calculated in a lower number. There.

K

Should be some kind of a quite a process for those sites? Okay, already existing commercial uses.

A

S

Speaking to the motion and regarding eliminating the additional requirement for the commercial we have several projects, one of which will be on a transit station having additional commercial requirements. First of all is very difficult in this retail environment number one number two: that kind of commercial requirement requires parking, especially even in a lot of our suburban areas. Number three a real example: there's a need in this particular community that I'm building in one that I grew up and it doesn't have a lot I.

S

Just have a community center doesn't have community spaces to gather in this particular instance that commercial would not be met if I built an additional community room, even though it was on the ground floor, even though it looked like a commercial facility, it wouldn't be counted as commercial use, so I I really hope that this this task force. This is the single biggest hurdle to this signature project I'm. One of the only developers on this and I can speak to that with a lot of credibility. Thank you.

A

Linda had a comment and.

P

So I'd like to know what your thoughts were with regard to, what Eric is suggesting and I yield the remainder of my time.

D

Yeah I mean so just a reminder that one of it one of the criteria in gentlelady.

A

From Campbell is one.

D

Of the criteria, the signature project does talk about, it says providing above and beyond. So we're think what the task force is having conversation about, what there shouldn't be there shouldn't be above and beyond requirement. Staff is advocating that that is one of the criteria there a millage plan it should be above and beyond, and so for us or to trying to define what what is above and beyond, and so what we did.

D

As we said the above and beyond in a neighborhood village would be 5% or 10% in the larger village, whatever so we're trying to define what that, above and beyond, is.

A

And I think some of the other comments you've heard is about involving the community in defining what those are. It could be a community room per for Michael's comment. We.

D

Do count community rooms if there, if there are public accessible spaces, that I mean if they, if they function as a space, that is a commercial operated space, that's open to the public, okay,.

A

D

Internal, the type of use can.

A

I, have a son ask his very quick.

D

F

H

Respond I know I just want to ask you a really quick, clarifying question about whether or not community rooms or even just like rooms that only residents can use but are still Street facing and have some kind of Street. That activation would be able to account for that commercial space.

C

I think you're, not because the goal is to have job producing uses correct. That's what we're trying to satisfy under our general plan. So.

D

That's the difference between active uses, those who could be called active uses versus commercial uses. The idea here is actually again is to try to build grow, the jobs and the housing in a mixed use environment where people can get up meet a lot of their daily needs in close proximity. So back to some of your questions, I think Aysen, so we're there. Other criteria considered I was not part of the task force process at this point in time years ago. So I can't speak to that.

D

Maybe David remembers but or maybe Eric remembers, but at the last four year of you, what was discussed is about including requirements for affordable housing as part of a signature project. The task force decided not to move forward with that recommendation, but it was put on the table. Staff at this time is not proposing additional criteria, requirements.

C

But can be looked into. We rely upon the requirements of our partners in the housing department, with their inclusion, airy ordinance, and so that's where the developer can satisfy it. We don't say: don't, provide affordable, housing on-site and definitely would encourage it.

C

But it's not a requirement and you asked about using subjective standards to kind of help analyze the project, so state law says you can't use them to make your determination if they comply or don't comply with the policy and ultimately, when you're making your findings on a project about whether or not you will approve or not it's based on objective criteria. So not your feelings, not if you think it's the right, color red it has values assigned to it and doesn't meet those values.

C

Yes, you may not like it, but we have to follow that that.

D

Being said, we will work with the applicant to create the best project. I think it's possible, so we have designed a use, and so it's more of a conversation. And if you don't do what I say, we're gonna recommend.

A

Denial Michael right Nick, it's voluntary earlier questions that he had or did you respond complete.

D

Community goals so I mean I, can't speak, that's a hard one to sort of wrap, so I mean I, think we're kind of discussing at the edges here, but I think you know it depends on the site. So I can't say that does the commercial requirement at a fair at at your fair share, not above fair, share, meet the sort of complete community goals that it may or may not? It's really. It's really hard to say yeah it just it just depends. I mean it could be fine meeting the fair share.

D

It may be that in some cases it's it's really it's it's not one way or the other okay.

A

We're gonna go to council member davus I, see several other questions here from noted David afterwards for a process comment and.

L

Discussion, I and Eric I appreciate your motion. Roberta I'm, very sensitive to the points that you made about which signature projects would not meet the criteria and there, even in the even and just the gross acres it would kick out, are even what we're talking about. They would kick out a couple of signature projects, but I'm also very sensitive to the fact that we do have a jobs deficit in this city and I wanted to know I'd like to hear from from Eric from Michael and and others what they think about.

L

Maybe amending the motion to the requirement for the jobs meet the above meet the average jobs density for that urban village or keep the number the commercial square footage. That's on that site, whichever is greater because some bigger site so I'm sensitive to the dick Center, which is in my district, where they're exceeding their fair share of commercial, but it's also a really large commercial site and so they're they're keeping they're, basically keeping the percent or the square footage of commercial.

L

That's there already and maybe adding to it but a little bit, but look what others think of that as a possible amendment.

J

Well, we're gonna hold off on that because- and we will come to that- that idea I don't want to put an end to that. But we, if you look at our agenda a moment, we had a time a certain item that were already a half an hour behind, based on a consultant who's here, just gonna make a presentation: Theresa was going through the recommendations and in order of the ones we thought would go the quickest and this one's requiring more time.

J

We want to give more time to it, not less so in in the interest of doing that. What we'd like to do at this time is we're gonna, go forward with I think it's items four and five on our agenda.

J

When that's done, we're going to return to this discussion and I'm going to suggest a point of order to on that that before we consider amendments to the motion or a vote on the emotion we might as well just take up the issue of the horizons as well, because the signature project issue is interrelated with that, I could make more comments on that I'm not going to do that, because we're already behind time but I, guess there's just one thing: I do want to remind people here, I'm sensing, a confusion that when we talk about these criteria, I'm not saying everyone's of this view, but in some of the comments I'm starting to pick up that people are believing that this is an impediment to all urban villages.

J

They're these. These are the minimum requirements for signature projects. There aren't minimum requirements for urban villages, and what we're really talking about here is, if you look at pages, 4 and 5 of the staff report, the key difference for earth signature projects is those projects can move ahead without an urban village plan, and so that was the idea. Bat way back when we were talking about this is that maybe somebody comes along with a project, that's just so compelling and so good on its face.

J

There wasn't a need to engage the public and go through the urban village process. So we need to keep that in mind here that, if you're going to reduce the standards to so low that a project only has to be a hundred feet wide, you know what the width of that is. That's the width of two residential properties, a property can be that small and can go forward without a plan or without community involvement. We need to keep that in mind too. So, let's, let's keep that in mind.

J

We're gonna go forward with these other items. Now we'll take up the discussion of this after our informational presentation, so.

A

Cute lunch so that we can move from item four and five. You know concurrently or subsequently can you please go ahead and define flex housing before we start and then we'll have Dan start and Adam Bosh.

B

So missing middle housing, where Dan would talk about a variety of ranges of housing, types and densities? Well, flex, housing is more narrow to our scope of work. The city sounds open, which is two to four units, so duplex triplex and four plexes. Thank.

A

You very much Dan well just.

D

Really quickly, I think we, the term of art, is missing middle housing, but we're not using that term in San Jose, because missing middle housing in San Jose has been used to talk about affordability really and as dan will talk about. This is about affordability, but more than that, so it's to alleviate confusion. Thank.

A

You dan welcome, thank you for being here please well.

G

Thank you co-chairs and thank you to the rest of the task force so I this concept of missing middle housing about seven years ago to address two issues that continue to grow. The first one is the growing gap between the types of housing that many households across the country want and what's being delivered for various reasons in terms of obstacles. The second one gets to part of the conversation you've been having here as well.

G

It's it's the growing affordability gap and just the challenge of households, for both rentals and for for sale, housing to achieve housing, stability, and so it's a pleasure to be here tonight to talk about missing middle housing and I. Think one of the reasons that this concept has caught on so broadly now around the world is that it's given communities a way to talk about and communicate about housing choices without using scary terms, like density and how many neighborhoods do you feel are gonna, be sort of celebrating.

G

If you come into their neighborhood and say hey, we want to increase the density in your neighborhood right density, multifamily up zoning. All these terms that come with a lot of baggage and missing middle housing gives communities developers cities a way to frame this. This conversation in a way that's approachable, understandable and you can build support, for this is a photo of a courtyard housing project in Santa Barbara California 20 years ago. One of our very first projects was with Santa Barbara County 4.

G

It was a master plan for Isla Vista and if you know, Isla Vista, it's sort of the the multi-family student housing up against the university in the middle doesn't quite know what it wants to be and then single-family housing to the to the north of that and the second we walked in the door. As a consultant, the Senna's advisory group said we have a message. We don't want more than 17 dwelling units per acre period and it took us really off guard because we hadn't even started a conversation yet and what was it about 17?

G

That was magic and 17.1 was too much or why wasn't it 15.5 or some other number?

G

So we did a just a very logical thing and we took them on a walking tour through pre-1940s neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Santa Barbara, and you could do the exact same thing in your neighborhoods here in San Jose, especially the ones sort of built pre-1940s, and we saw right all these neighborhoods are laboratories for these missing middle types, cottage courts, duplexes for plexes- and we came to this this courtyard apartment building and everybody was super excited about this and I said well.

G

If we can create a plan and we can write a set of new form based standards to get this in Isla Vista, would you support it and they're like absolutely? And so me and my team went out and we counted the meters we counted.

G

The doorbells did some quick calculations and we said well by the way this building generates a density of about 45 dwelling units per acre, and so what that did is it immediately shifted the conversation away from a very random number and a concept of density and more toward form and scale and housing choices and housing types, and so that's really primarily what this concept is about, and cities across the country are using it in different ways, and so I like to start a little bit by talking about sort of why this is an important conversation.

G

I'm gonna do all of these slides fairly quickly, so that we have time for Q&A at the end. But right there's some tremendous shifts in household demographics that caught everybody in cities and developers, off-guard post recession, one-third of all households are single person. Households. Do you think that one-third of the housing that's being built there is available on the market either for rent or for sale is designed specifically for a single person household, absolutely not by 2025.

G

Up to eighty five percent of households will not have children once again big impact on the type of housing that we need to be delivering by 2030. One in five Americans will be over the age of 65. This is why AARP is really interested in this conversation.

G

We'll talk a little bit about that later and then 60% of the nation's population, growth will be Latino population and so right once again we're much more diverse, and so we need to be thinking about how all of these shifts impact the types of housing that were enabling and the barriers that were moving to deliver those housing choices.

G

There's also, this growing demand for walkable living, the two biggest market segments, the baby boomers ages, 55 to 64 and the Millennials two-thirds of Millennials want walkable urban living and one-third of the baby boomers want walkable urban living and I'm, not an economist, but I can tell you that a really simple economic equation of high demand and low supply equals really high housing prices, and that's why the entire Bay Area and cities all across the country. These walkable neighborhoods are sort of growing in prices.

G

Both in rental and for sale right, this is pretty shocking, that right now, 31% of all American households are cost burdened and I would imagine, probably even higher here in the South Bay. That means that they're spending more than a third of their income on housing, so we just this is right. This this keeps growing and growing growing and we've been trying to figure out. Some solutions and I'd say is a missing middle is just one of the many tools that cities can be looking at.

G

The last issue that I like to just reinforce is that our zoning has been very ineffective in delivering these housing choices. It's also given density. A very bad name. I was talking with this with your staff this afternoon, the dingbat apartments that got built in the 1950s and 60s into the 80s.

G

This isn't even the worst of the examples, but right that got neighborhoods and for very good reasons up in arms about not wanting density, not wanting multifamily, because this is what they envision when you use those terms- and this is what the zoning delivered when the in sort of those the series of those three or four decades, there's also a tremendous disconnect that we find in our work between walkable contexts.

G

So this is a Medford Oregon and the the dotted ellipses are where walkable urban context exists in their city in the red is where they allow multi-unit housing, and so the most logical place to allow it is the exact opposite of where their zoning is actually enabling it. So there's often that big disconnect in the maps and then right, you probably all saw this article in The, New, York Times- that a lot of cities, including San Jose, has a very high percentage of their residentially zoned land. That's zoned!

G

Only for single-family homes, 94% of your residential zone land is zoned for only single-family right. That's that's pretty! That's a that's a big number, something you all need to be thinking about as you move forward in your conversation. So what is missing middle I'm sure you've probably seen this diagram can I just get a showing of hands of how many people have actually seen the missing little diagram. So this is we created this about six years ago, we're glad to see it being used.

G

Threat left inside of the diagram in white, our single-family housing types, which we all know, zoning did a great job. There's industries that know how to deliver this in high quantities on the right-hand side are those four five, six seven plus storey condos or apartment buildings- that over the course of the last 15 years, write our zoning has Planning has figured it out. Developers have figured out.

G

Almost any market in the country is delivering that it's all of these types in the middle, the courtyard apartment, the cottage court that duplex the four Plex townhouses, even a lot of instances that write or make up a great percentage of a lot of the highly desirable neighborhoods built in the pre 1940s. But we've basically put so many barriers in place that we have. We built very very little of these over the course of the last sixty and seventy years- and this is a really really important point to make- is that missing.

G

Middle housing is middle in two different ways. First and foremost, it's a middle scale right. These are housing types that we call house kale that are in, but they're in they're, basically the same size as a house. They just happen to have multiple units in it and then the second way that their middle is.

G

They have been proven to deliver affordability to middle-income households by design without any sort of subsidy, so it usually starts at about 60% meeting income and up in anything below that any household with incomes below that would typically need subsidy, but they're, very effective at delivering that level of affordability for middle-income households. A couple of things to remember about how scale is it's not just height right? Zoning codes?

G

I've done a really good job of regulating height, but very few of them actually regulate a maximum width of a building and the maximum depth of the building, and we actually always recommend to our cities, city clients to actually recommend regulate all those characteristics to effectively deliver house scale. So, once again you, if you were to walk by or drive by or ride your bike by this building, you would probably never guess it wasn't a single-family house, it's actually a triplex right.

G

That looks and feels and behaves like a single-family house and that's that's the real core concept behind missing middle. It's super basic, but we've forgotten how to deliver it. We put so many barriers in place to deliver it, so this is really if you're gonna take one thing away from this conversation. Missing middle is primarily about how scale buildings with multiple units that sort of are this. A colleague of mine, I'm, Brent Toder in from Vancouver, calls it gentle density. So it's another way to talk about it.

G

We created this barbell image where you have subsidized housing on one side, important part of the affordability conversation you have increase in supply as another important part of the affordability conversation and missing middle.

G

If it's right in the middle, where, if the barriers are removed- and you give folks like Adam here- the small developers, the ability to deliver it, it can deliver that attain ability or affordability to those middle-income households, so really really powerful tool to think about less than 10% of all housing units built between 1990 and 2013, we're missing middle scale, which means 19 units and under and under two and a half stories. So, as you can see, the line is smaller and smaller percentage.

G

As we can talk about those reasons, it's just I just wanted to mention that the concept has that were very excited to sees become very much a movement it's being applied in New South Wales Australia Toronto's created their own version of the diagram. It's just really exciting to see how it is spreading and being used to frame the conversations right, San, Luis, Obispo, California, great great mix of missing little types, Santa Barbara I mentioned it earlier, the great little cottage cord in the middle courtyard housing types for plexes, your very own, missing middle housing.

G

Here some great for plexes on the right-hand side, they're duplexes triplexes I've got a catalogue of about 20 years of even San, Jose missing middle photographs that it's always fun to go back and look through Sacramento right. All of these neighborhoods built prior the 1940s have these types and part of the reason you don't notice. Them is their health scale and they state they blend into the neighborhoods. So a quick overview.

G

The types- and this is really important because once again, it's about this mental shift and really the strategic shift about thinking about density and thinking, more specifically about form scale and building types and I like to just continue to reinforce that. At one point in time you used to be able to open a Sears & Roebuck catalog. This was from 1903 and purchase a four-plex from Sears & Roebuck for twenty to twenty three hundred dollars and I.

G

Think we ultimately need to get to that point where these miss mill types can be delivered in a container or in a couple of pieces and deliver to communities. But I just wanted to mention that that we used to know how to deliver these in mass quantities and sort of in a production way. So the duplex, the side-by-side duplex, generates a density I, don't once again, I, don't like starting the conversation about density, but just to give you a reference point about 20 units per acre and one and two-story versions.

G

People are always surprised to hear that these great little bungalow courts, often with very small units, four hundred five hundred six hundred square feet. Detached houses can generate densities over the mid 30 units per acre, 33 35 units per acre and a lot of the great historic examples.

G

Four-Plex is my favorite type, looks like a house two units on the ground floor to mean it's on the upper floor once again generate sort of the mid 30 units per acre on a typical lot size of about 50 Mitel I often give cities a little test is to test, take any of your zoning districts, medium density, residential districts and see if a four-plex is allowed on a 50 foot wide lot, which is sort of the trigger point. They should be allowed on any 50 foot wide lot in a medium density.

G

Zoning district, but most cities require bigger lot sizes than that they can generate a pretty broad range of densities based on the amount of parking that is required to provided. So you can imagine that the 49 dwelling units per acre that a four-plex can generate with no parking on site and then the 21 dwelling units per acre that just one per one space per unit. So it's a big difference in the yield and ultimately the cost either to rent or to purchase one of those units or something to consider the townhouse.

G

It's I'm about to take this off the missing middle list because there are townhouses being built, but it is still a really good type. I still highly encourage it. There's still a lot of cities that actually don't have effective zoning for delivering housing types, and what I say is that townhouses are not all the same right. You can have block long townhouses like in a Brooklyn.

G

You can have two townhouses to two units, side-by-side that feel like a house three or four, so I just encourage careful consideration when enabling this also right, there's kind of this a little bit of a plague of the what's. What Denver has called the slot home?

G

It's townhouses that are delivered perpendicular to the street that go deep into the law and don't really create a really good urban form or high quality public spaces. So I just tell cities to be really careful about what you enable you can you can allow these and just make sure that they are addressing the street effectively, but just need to be very thoughtful about it. Small multiplex is this. This example on the left is a really great example.

G

Right off of 1st Street here in San, Jose I think that's five units, but I could be wrong and then a newly built example on the right hand, side in Austin Texas a little six Plex unit that delivers about the low 40 units per acre. So two stories right, 40 units per acre.

G

It's a nice title, the type that I showed you earlier and then I just like to use this to wake people up a little bit, maybe give a little bit of a quiz of of how high of a density does somebody guests how dense they think this great little two-story apartment build courtyard building is on a hundred by hundred foot lot. Anybody want to throw out a density calculation, I heard 60 anybody else.

G

75, 40, okay. So this we did a walking missing middle walking tour in Sacramento about a year and a half ago, everybody on the tour loved this and we calculated the density, and this is 90 units per and I can guarantee you if your general plan says 90 units per acre. It's not thinking about a cute little two-story, cadet cottage court, and so we encourage cities to create separate land use districts that are like missing middle high-density or small footprint high-density. To try to encourage these types of these.

G

It achieves those densities with smaller units and no on snow off street parking. But we ran it to a woman who was taking her groceries into the her apartment, and she said she really living in this place.

G

I just wanted to focus on one important characteristic, because it's always the one of the most heated and challenging conversations in a city, its parking and for some reason, cities have just done a much better job, delivering spaces for cars than delivering housing for people and that needs to change and cities need a prioritize, is parking more important or is housing more important and right never an easy conversation, but it one that needs to happen.

G

We found that in most markets, if you're, requiring more than one off street parking space per unit and in more high-value markets that might even be lower than that you're not going to get developers can't make missing little housing pencil out. So just just encouraging a I'd like to use this Banksy image to get cities to be thinking creatively about parking and to have that conversation and make sure they tackle that as part of their housing conversation and missing middle conversation.

G

So the concept I'm going to go through these very quickly is being applied very broadly at a state, skate, statewide scale, a citywide scale, neighborhood scale, a small area plan scale and so I. Just wanted to give some really good examples of how this is being wired right. This has been a banner year for both state and citywide policy to enable missing middle across the country.

G

Earlier this year, Minneapolis took a very progressive action and adopted a comprehensive plan that eliminated single-family zoning citywide to enable three units on every lot at a minimum and their directive here was they have one of the biggest discrepancies in ownership between white households and non-white, households and they're, trying to use they're using missing middle to try to help sort of fill that gap between ownership and equity in housing very sort of.

G

Very recently, the state of Oregon passed HB 2001, which basically enables two units on any lot in the entire state in cities of less than 10,000 people and cities over 25,000 people. It allows up to four units on any lot, so they've basically eliminated single-family zoning in the entire state of Oregon, as of I, think it's January or February of this year, so they are taking action that in being very progressive and getting ahead of their housing. Conversation missing middle is being used very effectively to communicate about how these housing needs. This is a streets.

G

Sorry, a yard sign that I took a photograph of in what the state of Washington that says. I am missing middle. That's about sort of a a resident sort of making a statement that there is a need for them for the type of housing, the single housing for them to be able to stay in these neighborhoods to sort of relieve that pressure of being pushed out and the gentrification and okay.

G

If AARP is talking about this, it's it's, it's a pretty mainstream need and we were hired by AARP about a year and a half ago to educate there, 38 million members about the need for walkable living, but also this need for more diverse housing choices and missing middle. So it's we've done. Webinars, we've done walking tours. So it's great that an organization like AARP is is advocating for this I'm, not gonna mention I just want. If you look, you can look at the fist up online, the city of Brisbane Australia.

G

Did this really great online scenarios game that enabled residents to go online and decide what they wanted? The future growth of brisbane to be and missing middle was the middle, the left-hand side. There. You can't it's a little bit fuzzy, but was the middle option, and it would show you different outcomes based on whether you pick single-family home percentage, missing middle percentage or mid rise percentage of open space travel time. Quality of life just encourage you to go. Take a look at that online. It is also informing small area plans, and this.

G

This is just one example that we're working on.

G

It's we're doing a specific plan for downtown Davis California, that's heavily influenced by missing middle, where the areas that you see in the sort of lighter red around the downtown core that were built historically as single-family homes or the zoning is being changed to enable this scale of missing middle housing, very specifically to allow for the evolution of those edges, an accommodation of housing choices within their downtown within walking distance of the Amtrak station and the end the University as well, and just wanted to mention that right.

G

There's all different ways you can take missing middle: they wanted to focus also on the sustainability aspects of missing middle. So we did a series of sustainability overlays for Davis and that that was a fun process. The city of Mountain, View California, we just were hired by them to assess there are three zoning district there.

G

Basically what's happening is that's where a lot of their existing, affordable, housing, a stock is it's being torn down and replaced by luxury, townhouses, fewer units, higher value and so they're wanting to get ahead of that or sort of try to get their arms around that and think about.

G

If missing middle can play a role in delivering more attainable, more affordable housing choices instead of the luxury townhouses that are being built, a state of poor sorry, the city of Portland's been very progressive in adjusting their zoning to enable missing middle housing and just encourage you to take a look at they're, actually increasing allowed FA R for residential uses. If you add more units, you get more FA, so it's trying to discourage the McMansion, encourage the missing middle housing type, so really really refined strategy.

G

It's also being used in regional and general plans, say clog is using the missing middle housing in their housing policy, toolkit Sandia County's, using it as part of their affordable housing strategy.

G

The city of Nashville I mean it feels like a bit of a stretch, but there have been the most progressive, I think, starting about 15 years ago. They had a very progressive Planning Director and they started enabling missing middle housing 15 years ago and have really delivered a lot of really high quality missing middle housing across the the city of Nashville, as the the market gets hotter and hotter.

G

Their city of I just wanted to mention Cincinnati Ohio, because it's a fairly similar application, where we worked with the city on a comprehensive plan that defined 42 walkable urban neighborhoods. That became priorities for the city, much like her urban villages and we wrote a form-based code, a series of form based zoning districts, that what you see here is this is the of a the the small footprint neighborhood and what this table shows is we specifically allow a range of missing middle housing types within the development standards within that zoning district.

G

So we just get really direct about saying in this neighborhood. It's this zoning district, here's the palette of missing middle types that are enabled in that zone, and so that's that. Well, that's what we often encourage I'm just gonna skip through this for a sake of time, but I just wanted it. I'm gonna spend a few minutes on zoning just because it's it's kind of one of my passions and I think it's really the first barrier that cities need to remove to get developers.

G

Thinking about this, to get industries thinking at banks to think about this. But most zoning codes cannot tell the difference between the building on the right and the building on the left. Right, it's the same height, it's the same density, it's the same setbacks, but I think we can all say that they're not sort of the same in terms of what they sort of add to the community or reinforcing the public realm and I.

G

Think one of the important aspects of the missing middle is just getting specific with the objective standards that can be delivered to ensure that you get the building on the left and not the building on the right. I think that's an important message to community members that you're not going to get the dingbat apartments. You are definitely we can walk through this the objective standards and show how you're gonna get that building on the left, not the building on the right and I.

G

Think a lot of my recent presentations, especially with the American Planning Association, have been like the top ten zoning hacks for missing middle housing and sort of a lot ever been doing a lot of really strategic, targeted zoning adjustments, whether it be dialing up the density, dialing down the parking dialing down required open space. You've got to be careful about that I'm. Just just putting that up there.

G

It's can become a really big barrier for these types, so you just need to be thoughtful about it, mapping more broadly, to enable missing middle and just being careful about, what's being enabled, and so there's just a really good resource that we worked on. This isn't just being talked about in planning circles. Realtors are talking we're actually being hired by Realtors.

G

The Realtors National Association of Realtors NAHB hired us to do this assessment of 35 cities, different zoning techniques for enabling missing middle that was released earlier this year, which encouraged you to take a quick peek at that, and then a couple of concluding thoughts here is just I focused this presentation on public sector cities, local jurisdictions, States, the other half of our work is with developers.

G

We do both the master planning and the design of missing middle with developers, and so I'll tell you that when the barriers are removed, the developers respond, and it's usually the small local developers like Adam here we're the first out of the gate that understand the market. They kind of know what the markets looking for.

G

They understand the neighborhoods and I just I think it's just been great to see the multifamily developers have responded, we've seen multiple missing little multi-family projects and we've seen great missing middle sort of developers who were single-family detached that are evolving into the missing middle housing types, which is just great to see and I I'm gonna pound the drum here right. If you use the density term, you get zapped, everybody gets a zapper, so let's stop using the term density.

G

Let's get away from these terms that and and effectively frame this conversation, because it's buildings like this one or even worse, that neighbors community members think about when you start using those terms. So let's make this approachable and start thinking more specifically about form and scale and building type and these myths of great missing middle types. I just encourage you. If you are interested in more information, we launched an online resource at missing middle housing, calm three three four years ago to get the information out there and spring of next year.

G

My book from Island Press on missing middle housing will be available. So I should encourage you if, if you're interested, to take a look at that, but I like to close with a little bit of a call to action- and this is a great sort of extract or quote from a publication by the Urban Land Institute called what's next and it's it's time to rethink and evolve and reinvent and renew, and- and why like?

G

This is because whether you're a community member, whether you're a planner, an architect, a developer, a decision maker city manager, planning director a real estate agent, I, really do feel that everybody plays a role in enabling their cities to evolve, adapt and change and meet this shifting demand for walkable living as well as this real need for more attainable and affordable housing and so I. Just it's. It's just like I that the market is ready and I just sort of challenge cities to respond and respond quickly to these. These needs for missing middle housing.

G

A

Example, just move right on into Adam Maybury and his presentation about.

G

While they're there getting that up, one of the things I like to is for cities to personalize the conversation about missing middle because most of us either lived in missing middle at some point in their lives, have a brother or sister or a mother grandmother. My when I was growing up. I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. My great-grandmother lived in a great little Victorian, side-by-side duplex, that was a block and a half from the main street and everything she needed.

G

Number one was in that little 500 square foot unit, but also within a 10-minute walk of her her unit. So I, just I like put that personalization of the conversation.

N

Hello I just want to thank whoever invited Daniel to.

J

N

Did a lot of the heavy lifting on the missing middle side? As you know, nations advocate and this type of housing I'm I'm glad to have had the opportunity you you had the architect talking about planning.

N

Now you have the architect talking about development here, so I'm Adam, Mayberry, I, born and raised in San Jose, like I, said I'm an architect after going to Cal Poly I actually had the opportunity to study under some of the premier architect, developers in San Diego, a lot of which who transform portions of the city that are either became popular in the 90s to early 2000s and are currently redeveloping making. You know the most hip neighborhoods in San.

N

Diego, now are all architect developers either colleagues of mine that I went to school with and/or studied under so after learning from them, I decided to come back to my hometown. Do try to create this type of housing, so I'm grateful to be here to be able to speak to this.

N

You know it's interesting. This is the example of a duplex unit, I'm gonna kind of go through as a as an architect developer, who's created this type of housing, I I, don't know where other missing middle housing has been built in the city over the last ten years. I'm sure there's small examples, but with such a large city we should definitely have a lot more of these and and make it a lot easier. More of a on a by right kind of situation.

N

So I'm kind of gonna give you a little information here and leave a lot more time for questions, so the property, our Murphy's Law of Silicon Valley tech issues didn't allow me to zoom in on these images, so it's gonna be a little hard to read, but so the property is a 50 foot by 125 foot, lot, six thousand two hundred and twenty-five square foot lot from from what I remember.

N

It's located just north east I, guess of the Alameda off newell. If you go to Bill's on the island, millions take a right into that neighborhood. This property is there. You could barely see it's like right here and the green again. It's hard to like see these images like this. But what was a single-family home? What was left was a shack of a garage.

N

This is again an r2 zone lot, which is by right in the zoning, a duplex lot, zoned residential neighborhood under the general plan, so a pretty pretty easy process from of city standpoint, from a planning intelligence on on paper. I guess sorry! This didn't come out as great as it's not as legible here today, but I just want to go over like kind of the keys to success, developing small projects.

N

You know the speed is a key like I, said, quick to design, quick to build and quick to, sell and or rent mitigating your risk and investment, because you know everyone talks about from a development standpoint and developers make a lot of profit. I, don't know, make Michael DIF an AV still there, but they're also risk a ton of money and other people's money and it's kind of a equation. People don't think about the amount of actual dollars put into these projects.

N

I, don't know what signature projects cost, but they're upwards in 100 millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. This project wasn't as expensive, but again speed is key. Being the architect, it's easy to design a project like this. There's no client meetings, scheduling issues, feedback, changes in design new meetings as the architect of the developer. We could make these decision points instantly, as were you know, pen to paper or more likely, Mouse to computer screen again the entitlement process. Speed is key.

N

Most projects require a preliminary review, also the site development permit in this case and then permitting construction documentation same there's, design issues there from a drawing standpoint of creating the permitting documents going through an appealing building department and other departments.

N

Public Works and I'm gonna mention off site improvements because that's kind of a key issue with this project and then there's the building process, relying on not just yourselves but a team of people every project, even one that adds one unit to the overall amount of units in San Jose, like Mar project, did there's a lot of people involved in herding of cats.

N

Inspections are key and getting subcontractors to show up is all key and then selling the project and or renting out. You know. Timing is also key here and all of the things lined up before you actually sell dictates the timing, so I'm just kind of throwing this out there as a kind of education point about some of these projects. So the project I set out to create was what I like to call an urban farmhouse style as a designer. This modern farmhouse is sort of a incrementally.

N

More aesthetic style, there's a you know the Sears catalog style of homes as in architect and I, like a lot of little more of a funky modern aesthetic from my colleagues in San, Diego I tried to blend it to and in my my design study for this project.

N

What what came out of the design was? Actually this project and I'll just explain a little bit on what I call lean development, which is a.

N

Result of sort of the missing middle housing type, but how you? How you build these type of projects and what it is you build less, therefore, there's less cost and you could actually create a product that could pencil and have less risk if sold, for a less amount of money.

N

So all areas that you're being built are sellable like a garage, isn't necessarily syllable it's again a place for a car. You do have to build a garage. It has four walls, a roof and a floor, or a foundation and and volume like as an architect I like light and air in space, and if you create 2-story Heights, it makes a dynamic space but you're not actually using a lot of square footage for those things.

N

So it's hard to see these projects or this project, if you can't zoom in on it, but we had a very small living space, a little office and he go up. It's a two-bedroom two-and-a-half-bath on on-site.

N

We had the center of the home or the two homes is actually a townhouse duplex, this kitchen living bathroom. So you really don't have shared walls between the two units that are public or private like bedrooms, and we had these carports out here. That would store the cars under cover as required. However, if you don't need the cars, then it becomes a nice open space for the tenants again. This is our design. This is not what God built.

N

This is what God built and we can't really get into this in in the other document. This is the PDF I can open up and go to the plans, but through the planning process the the carports works supported. We need to have a garage, so we had to change from these car parts and exterior and build in a tandem garage in the middle and it kind of completely changed the aspect in the economics around our project. So again we built the garage out.

N

We had to build these very nice architectural II porches, but given the nature of how the lot is laid out, the portraits probably won't get used enough and they'll. You know they're just added cost again and we kind of took away a little bit of the architecture from my creation standpoint and put it a little bit more traditional elements that fit more into the neighborhood context.

N

But without a couple bold statements from architecture you you can't understand if neighborhoods would support bold architecture or not, and we get more into the kind of tan Jose nature of very minimal.

N

Architectural expression again a couple of my notes: you just Shane, we were saying we modified some of the design and it did actually add a lot of cost to our project.

N

So I wanted to talk about a little bit delays in the permitting process. There was a couple of things that made it hard: the development yeah okay, so just just from a process standpoint in this missing middle and what you're doing Plex housing the development portion of this project I actually did as a side hustle to my main job as an architect where I was involved in basically doing 90% of the work on entitling 182 unit project.

N

This duplex took the same at a time it actually had more feedback from playing department and neighbors than eighty hundred eighty two unit project. If there's any indication on speed to market the other aspect of these type of projects, I wanted to talk about as we kind of Punk, coach or punch through these.

N

These images here of the construction process, and what was a result, was that the financing mechanism and the in the labor pool to build these most anyone that could build any kind of wood frame home could build this, and almost anyone that could qualify for a home loan could actually build these type of units as well.

N

It's not just the large hedge funds or equity funds that are building these large developments. Signature projects, any mom-and-pop, could could pool some retirement and and build housing for either themselves and their families or as an investment, and it just like what we've done with ad use. Those are also very small investment development projects. These missing metal, Plex housing can be mom-and-pop developers creating these housing for our communities. So.

N

Thank you very much.

A

First speakers I think I think it was pretty self-explanatory. I thought they were great examples from you know: San Jose and places elsewhere and I think there's a lot of opportunity for us to expand an City of.

M

A

Use all the words we're banned from using, but thanks a lot dan. Those are those are really great and and good reminders for us on how we need to talk about.

J

Okay and as I understand it later in our process, we're going to have a further discussion and vote on implementing these kinds of concepts in some areas adjoining urban villages that are single-family development areas, isn't that correct staff all right. So this was information in preparation for that future discussion.

J

We're gonna have on one of those council referrals to us, so we're gonna return now to the action items on urban villages and I have a question for staff before we would proceed whether there's a motion on the floor and council member Davis also has an inquiry on an amendment to that motion. But I do have a question related to what the impact might be of some of the changes here and as I understand in the staff packet on pages four and five there's the table here. It's the memo. That's data, today's December 11th.

J

When you look at it it's a good summary of you know what the what the significance of signature projects is, which is as you'll see those projects can move ahead without a plan without an urban village plan and the idea was they're above average there I. Don't want to get into semantics about excellent signature, extraordinary awesome, wonderful, we're going to move away from that and have some criteria, but the idea back then was there should be some process some way to move projects forward if on their face, they're they're really outstanding.

J

So now we're talking about criteria and Eric has referenced some changes to it and the question I want to ask staff. Is we have 60 something urban villages correct correct if we reduce the minimum standard of the size of a parcel to one and a half acres, and only a hundred feet of frontage? How many urban villages are at least an acre 1/2 in size and have at least that much amount of frontage I mean.

D

They they all have they all have. They all are all bigger than 1/2 acres. That I'll have more frontage than that. Of course, I mean it by multiple properties, but in they all are larger than that. Ok,.

J

And so, if those projects they all meet that minimum size and they met the other criteria, all of those urban villages could go ahead without an urban village plan. The.

D

Signature projects could correct right.

J

Yeah and they'd have to meet the other criteria that were on the table, can I understand that, but so I'm thinking you know that raises broader questions that you know I think deserve some, maybe further input. It raises broader questions about what level of public participation do we want to have fervid villages. This is the main method of growth, we're seeing for the city in residential we'll get to Jarek.

J

This is the main mess means of growth in the city and if every project meets those bare minimum requirements of an acre and a half 100 feet of footage plus the other criteria. I understand that, then a significant number of urban villages could go forward without the urban village plan. Some people might view that's a positive. The process is too slow. It's an impediment to development.

J

Other people might feel that doesn't provide enough opportunity for public input, so I'm a little bit concerned about proceeding on just quickly changing the criteria without having some more in-depth information from staff on that to what extent, and so what I'd like to suggest is that we get that information before changing the criteria that low there's.

I

J

Know you're urgent about it and and we'll go through this, but we're a 40 member person task force here and maybe I'm the only person who feels that way, and that's fine but I, do think that something that might have consequences of that nature, which the development community could favor and could be very positive for housing development might be counterproductive to public input.

J

I just want to know if we change the criteria to this extent, how many projects, how many of the 60 something urban villages might possibly be able to go forward without this planning and.

J

Okay, Eric, you seem quite eager because.

I

The the process is not being correctly described. What you keep saying is that that, if a criteria is met that the urban village goes forward, that's not the case. An individual project gets to go forward, a single project that does not that does not open up a whole village to development.

J

And it would be part of a.

I

Single project right.

J

A piece a piece of that urban village could move forward without a plan, a single.

I

J

Yeah within the required.

I

Community meetings, just like any development in the city, so this city has you know: community outreach galore on every development, so there's no risk of that. So getting back to council member Davis questions, she asked the potential a friendly amendment. If I understood the question it was, could we should we require that the existing commercial space on a site be replaced and, in addition, add the required amount of jobs? Is that correct? No.

L

So it would be an or so if the average jobs density for the urban village is lower than what's existing on that site, then you would choose the criteria instead that they have to what's on that site.

I

L

I

Think I'm saying.

L

I

Sense I understand what you're saying at least I think I said it differently: okay, but the the general plan already requires that if there is existing commercial space on the site, that the project must replace that commercial space and, in addition, add the planned average job density for the urban village. Okay,.

L

So the existing commercial square footage is the floor. That's.

I

The floor, okay and in addition, you have to add, on the additional average jobs. So if I have a site that has a 20,000 square foot, commercial building and the urban village requires, let's just make up a number 10,000 additional feet for the site. Then I have to do a project that has 30,000 square feet for that site and that's codified in the general plan and that's how the staff has implemented correct.

D

So my suggestion is we come back next time. We will bring I think of her a lot of you. This is all like it's you don't want us in the room.

D

Understand it really well and I think would be really helpful, is if we come back and give you some real examples of a signature project that he's under construction or we've approved recently, and you can actually look at and really understand what, as soon as your project looks like, and what some of the rules that we have, how they are applied and what that looks like. So that would be my recommendation.

D

J

M

So a couple things I think one is I would like to go back to applying what member Rance mentioned, as well as a sin around community outreach and I know that Jennifer you address this and I'm, not sure I, completely understood what the process is, but if we do decide to if this motion fails and we do decide to come back and discuss this further, I would love to hear more about how we could beef up the community outreach piece of the signature project stuff and then I also wanted to say that so in the last presentation, Theresa Hewitt said: does anyone have any questions and I went like this and then so?

M

I just want to state for the record the question that I would have or the issue that I would like to flag with the folks that we're here is is the equity piece and whether, when we bring this back and discuss it further, we can be looking at these concepts through an equity lens, and you know for example, what does it mean for existing residents who are on a property in terms of displacement?

M

What does it mean in terms of you know, potentially advantaging folks who own property to make more money on their property, potentially at the expense of people who live there? You know just those playing out some of the chess pieces in terms of what the real-world.

K

M

Are of this concept of gentle density, which I like on the face of it but I'm just about if we're not thinking through what the real world real-world implications are on. Poor people in particular,.

A

I think Quan or UNIX.

O

So I appreciate that staff noted the need for more due diligence and I can totally understand that and I want to point out that earlier when I use the word test, we're testing for the next four years. I would encourage us not to be afraid to test something new that might achieve more, better results, right, more housing because in the end, I don't think that we want urban villages where no new development is occurring. All right.

O

That's not gonna help, and so I say that I suggest that when staff go back and get information so that we can have more due diligence, the potential alternatives be proposed that my incorporate all of the feedback- Erick's I'm, sorry I, don't know how to say.

O

That we in court that we attempt to incorporate that, if possible, or that staff attempt to incorporate if possible, because maybe there is something that is worthy of testing that might meet a lot of the needs, including those of developers, so that housing happens.

J

Who's next on the Margie thank.

Q

You so I do want to emphasize for would not pass for urban villages would not pass with existing criteria. Signature. Thank you. Sorry and then I did some math, because I'm a math person and I have a house on North fifth Street about two blocks from here.

Q

So taking the frontage of 45 square feet the frontage and then taking the square footage of that lot in order for them to proceed with a signature project with Erics proposal of one and a half acres and a hundred feet of frontage, he'd have to buy 11 lots and he'd have to buy three is front frontage lots, so I I, don't know. I just think it's good to look at kind of what that means in the areas where these probably will happen.

Q

So I wanted people to have an image of that three Lots right downtown and about four deep right: three wide 4d. So that's.

A

K

Just want to go back to some comments that council member Davis made I think we have a really big opportunity to streamline housing development on sites of existing commercial uses and essentially build housing near jobs I for those sites where there are existing commercial uses and you're adding housing. On top of that, it shouldn't be an impediment to that particular conversion. They should be considered signature projects.

K

Such signature projects should not be required to meet the average jobs density calculation, so long as the existing commercial uses are preserved and I really want to make that comment really emphasizing, because that's an opportunity, as I mentioned before, to build housing near jobs.

A

K

So for for sites with existing commercial uses and if you want to especially for those that have zero existing as commercial uses, but they don't have any residential units right now, if one were to allow more flexibility in the central project process and to amend that and to recognize that there should be credit for those sites that are building more housing near jobs. There should be some acknowledgement of that balancing out factor in the surger project process.

K

I would suggest that if the site preserves existing commercial uses, then it shouldn't be required to meet the additional average jobs density calculation, as proposed by the staff recommendation. No.

J

This is an area that might help with clarification from the staff, though, because you're using the term urban villages and you're also using the terms signature projects in in your comments and they're, both different and Eric's pointed that out as well. The questions of staff has urban villages, a plan that can move forward there isn't any minimum requirement for commercial development. Is that correct? No.

C

That's not correct so, depending on the land use designation in an approved urban village, there.

A

C

Be minimum FA RS of commercial that are required, but.

K

C

As part of the comprehensive planning effort, that's done with the community deciding where they want to see mixed-use projects and where they want to see a minimum commercial on that site before a residential can be built. So.

D

Correct so there's no criteria in the general plan. It establishes what projects have to do in it in an urban village, it isn't in the general plan. What what is in the general plan is to prepare a plan with the community. The outlines a plan of how you're going to achieve the housing and job detectives in an urban village plan all right, but that's a separate process that comes when you initiate an urban village plans.

Q

What's that they are floor area.

C

J

Okay, so let's start on the right side, here, tents, my council, member.

M

Thank you so I wanted to include in and I don't know if we I already did I just kind of preliminary said.

M

Please include this in your motion, so I wanted to check in with Eric I wanted to ensure that there's a path forward for the public, outreach and I know that there's already some work being done and I forgot, Jennifer wouldn't just say it was policy 6-30 right. So it's already on the list. I think I think this is. This is a greater conversation than just for signature projects but of course, in inclusive of so I wanted to see.

M

If we could have staff come back and give us some some outreach, maybe some options to look at either. We could defer this piece on the outreach depending on, however, but he feels like I've heard, a couple of comments and I think there. There is an appetite to talk about this a little bit more so I'm, hoping Eric that we can have a friendly amendment to defer the outreach piece and have staff come back and give us some options. I, don't.

A

Think you had outreach as partners. Your motion as part of your motion right.

M

No I'm asking him to add that as a friendly amendment well.

I

The motion includes adopting all of staff recommended criteria with the amendments to the site, selection requirement and the job density. So we can either defer the public meeting requirement and come back to that or we can leave it in and direct staff to come back with with specificity on the style of community engagement. That appears to be the issue. It's not necessarily the number of meetings, but how its conducted right.

J

I

M

To quality, yeah I'm happy to.

I

Incorporate that into the motion, so that the direction of staff is to come back with specifics on what style of engagement.

A

And is there a site was the seconder Michael? Would you thank.

K

A

Fine: okay, let's, let's get through these final round of comments, it's 8:30! So let's Jesse.

R

On this light here, we're showing that the policy incentivizes density, specifically density above 55 units per acre and I- think that's great. We should be doing that because that's fiscally positive on that was noted in Eric's letter.

R

Secondly, we're incentivizing sites that generate additional open space. One of the things that's missing from this, though, is we're not incentivizing.

R

Signature projects that are including affordable housing in percentage is greater than the local inclusionary housing and I'd like to see an amendment where, if a signature review project is proposing on-site, affordable housing in excess of the local iho policy or a San Jose as iho policy that that there would be consideration for additional reduction in the and the number of jobs required on site.

A

P

Scuse me, thank you. Actually, moving forward with this Eric will be surprised to hear I was ready to agree with them, but something kind of has been clarified, partly from David, mentioning that this is not the urban village we're talking about it's one project in an urban village and it wants to jump the queue skip. All of this messy neighborhood input, stuff and move head, and it seems in exchange for that.

P

The community in the city thought they should get a reward for allowing the project to bypass all that procedural stuff, not a bad idea, and it's a trade-off.

P

But if there is no particularly great benefit to the community, the project shouldn't be allowed to go forward the city of San Jose. From the time this general plan hit, the streets has had a jobs, housing problem. It's had a jobs, housing problem for years and at least when I went before the council for confirmation. The councilmembers hammered on me really hard jobs are important. We have to keep that in mind in order to stay afloat.

P

Basically, so I still think that's important, and now that I've been listening to some of the other input and remembering what staff said when they identified each of these and sent that was to be offered. They said you know this is less than what we're getting. This is just barely what we're getting these all appear to be pretty feasible, in other words, they weren't excessively large.

P

It's not like they're asking for a great big fancy, expensive huge improvement package. In order for these signature projects to go forward, they were reasonable and now we're starting to pick at the edges. I like the idea of more affordable housing, not less, affordable housing because we're trying to squeeze housing in every place.

P

We can right now and yes, that would be a suitable incentive, but I am worried that we end up getting fewer jobs in exchange for allowing allowing a project to jump the queue in effect, and so I talked myself out of agreeing with you.

I

We're gonna zoom.

A

P

Over these public meetings, the proposal from staff requires two public meetings that isn't changing. That's the requirement and in most areas I have a signature project, that's being proposed in district 9 right now, Jennifer's been very involved in it. We've had more than two community meetings and we will continue to have community meetings because that's what we do in San Jose, as Eric said, we engage our community as much as possible, so this doesn't say no community meetings. This says that we're going to have two community meetings I.

P

It also states in based on the motion and the friendly amendment that the jobs that are currently available on-site stay there or greater as they go up, not decrease. So the promotion on the floor and the amendments on the floor, I'm going to support and I suggest we all vote for it. Okay,.

A

B

Just really quickly I know we're going to spend a lot more time on housing coming up, but but I do think. We need to talk a little bit more about that jobs, housing issue and we have a severe housing problem. We have not built anywhere near what is expected in the general plan or what's in the mayor's plan, we've got to figure out what we've, what kind of barriers we've put in the way to Housing Development.

B

The fact only twelve of these urban villages have plans means that what 50 some-odd don't, and so that's why this issue of signature projects is so important, because, right now we have essentially growth controlled out a significant number of parcels that could be available for both housing and job growth, and we have to recognize that in some of the urban villages, jobs just don't make sense so and I think the fact that we've only seen eight signature projects that have have been proposed in how many years, ten years, how many years is it that that tells us there's a problem with the signature projects, and so you know I appreciate staff.

B

Looking at coming up with these objective standards, but we need to make sure what what standards we put in place actually make these signature projects possible and I would differ with a few speakers who have who have stated that that, with that, that's a problem- and we shouldn't want to see these project here and there go for it. We need to see those project going forward.

B

We have people who are priced out who we want to be able to stay here, who we need do two for our workers for those jobs that we're creating and so I just I I think we have to make sure whatever it is. We approve that it's workable. Thank you.

B

So I support the motion that we're.

G

Speaking to but I wanted to address the job housing issue, definitely.

B

Housing is our biggest problem right now, in affordability, because of lack of supply, but from the job housing. This policy, the land use policy, is talking about capacity, I'm, not convinced that this capacity policy is actually hurting our ability to improve that ratio. I think there's other factors involved having this go through and our existing policy as it relates to jobs, housing I, think allows for the capacity already. So if we make it a higher ratio for jobs, I'm not sure that solving the problem, Thank.

A

I

I think when you look at San Jose's building permit production over the last thirty years, we've averaged about 3,000 building permits a year, and we can do better. The general plan identified priority development areas in this city for downtown and urban villages, and yet we want to keep measures in place that restrict housing production in areas that we've identified, where we should grow.

I

When you look at the state's recent law, changes with objective and subjective standards, I think it's really important that when you set a bar for a signature project that that bar is achievable and when you look at parcel sizes within the city and you look at urban forms of development, I mean I can tell you as a developer, who builds 20-story towers in downtown San Jose that one and a half acre site or a three acre site is enormous.

I

I can fit a lot of units on a one and a half to three acre site and so I think you need to be, and so I'm going to support Eric and Michaels motions, but I'd be surprised to learn. If there are very, very few one and a half acre sites within urban villages in the city that we can actually develop on and implement, this policy.

A

Thank you so much Harvey and then I think it's David.

J

H

Couple of comments, one to.

H

Reduce the amount of land that is required in the frontages for the signature projects. What are we do these projects of these urban villages that will be planned in the future? We stick something in the middle of it, the edge of it or whatever. What kinds of constraints are we producing for the future men of that urban village I'd, like some, some numbers, Michael I'd, like some numbers, as is we, if we don't pass it tonight? If we delay the the vote to see what kinds of changes this would engender.

T

H

Second thing is remember: we keep talking about housing and I understand. We have a huge issue with housing in the county, but we still are and when I started this process in two thousand seven or eight, whenever it was, we had point eight two jobs for employee president I'll have to employ president. We are building housing for Cupertino, Mountain, View, Santa, Clara and beyond, and we're not built and except with the exception of the Google project and Adobe and a few other places within the city. We really aren't providing what many more housing thank.

A

You I mean more jobs: okay, I think we have I mean we're getting a Eric I, don't think we need to have further response and clarification. I.

K

Think we're getting pretty good clarity.

A

And unanimity I want to get us to a vote soon and get some public comment so Michael you.

B

So I just had a parliamentary question, probably mention procedure questions. We have a motion in a second and we had two potential friendly amendments, one of which was accepted, the other which I was maybe not because David had asked to defer it. So I would like to know before we finish. Can you just reiterate what exactly we're voting or I believe.

A

We're at is the jobs density, recommend approval all the staffs recommendations, except for the job density and changing that to a fair share meeting the average plan density for an urban village right.

A

This is the signature project and then there was good recommendations around coming back and having a conversation about what is the quality of community engagement, not the number of meetings, but really more understanding of what that really means who were engaging in how there was also the recommendation of changing the site selection to one and a half acres with a frontage of a hundred feet. 100 feet: I, don't know what before, unless I'm totally missing it. I have.

Q

A Deb's was keep the commercial space on site. Yes, whichever is greater.

I

A

Already in the so, that's not a part of this.

A

S

Number five: here we go.

A

S

Wanna I want to also is one that this O'malley brought up about if a project exceeds the local ordinance for affordable housing, that it would reduce the job requirement and my direct staff as part of that to come back with incentives for that. So I'd ask for that friendly amendment to also be included again is an example: I have a transit station and we're going to exceed the local ordinance. Yet we're still having to provide additional so I'd like to ask for a family amendment for that to be included. I.

A

Think we still need clarity and what you're saying I'm seeing a lot of I'll.

S

Defer tonight's on that.

A

Way: you'll defer, I'm, sorry, I'm.

S

Deferring to mrs. O'malley's amendment, okay,.

A

Jason Jesse, can you clarify your I.

R

Was making the comment that we are incentivizing, both density and additional open space, but we have a housing crisis today, and so, if we don't start incentivizing, affordable housing on-site to be built in excess of our inclusionary housing ordinance.

R

We're not focused on the right thing, and so my friendly amendment is that we would incentivize signature review projects if they have affordable housing in excess of the inclusionary housing ordinance that they would have a reduction in the number of jobs that they have to supply on-site I. Don't have a specific method on what that reduction is I, think we need some help from staff one, but I think it should be incentivized on-site.

I

Okay can I respond to that.

A

Ten minutes for the meeting: yes, you can respond.

I

Since we're trying to come up with prescriptive criteria- and we don't have a specific proposal on how do you calculate how much change in jobs for affordable housing I think that we should refer this item to staff along with the community engagement quality and have those two items come back for separate consideration at a future meeting? Once we have a specific that makes sense proposal, Michael do that'll be in the motor agreed.

A

Okay, so then the substance of substance of the motion would be your first two comments around job density and site selection. For now, with a referral to staff for community engagement and the any incentives one could.

P

Could I ask for a point of clarification.

A

Accurately summarize, what you said: Eric yeah.

I

So we're going to we're going to approve all of staff's recommendations with the two changes. One is that the site selection would be 1.5 acres and a minimum of 100 feet frontage and the job requirement is to meet yes, the average job requirement for that urban.

A

I

Which, by the way, is the number created by staff to achieve 1.1 jobs per employed resident? That's.

A

I

Notion I want to convince commissioner yasin II to agree with me the notion that we are reducing the jobs goal or the job requirement of our general plan is not accurate. We are going to meet the average planned for which means achieving the 1.1 jobs. Permit.

A

Residents is a great clarification. Thank you so much. You still have a clarifying question and.

P

We need convinced on that point. My question had to do with the councilmembers response that to the two public meetings, I understood that for a signature project you only have to do two public meetings and I know we're going to work on the quality and all of that and on a for an urban village plan to be approved. There are many many more than two public meetings.

L

L

P

Three, but in addition, the work, what we hear in testimony from the communities when the urban villages come to the Commission for approval, is people get up and talk about how they attended meeting after meeting after meeting in the development of the village plan itself, because it was a very public intensive process.

J

P

That process is what we're skipping and.

A

We can talk about that to the next. What we're referring that piece of this motion? We have three more comments and then we're gonna take a vote. Okay, Pat.

P

We're not producing the housing and anything we can do to.

L

Incentivize housing affordable, as well as market rate.

Q

Is what we need to be doing as a task force.

B

Thank you, Jason.

H

I'm gonna be cognizant of time, so I'm just not gonna. Ask staffing. Just gonna ask Erik for a friendly amendment. First have to come back with a sense of what the impact of changing the site selection standards would look like and how many sites would become eligible for our signature projects in the future. If that is a recommendation that the panel sends over to the full council.

I

What's the question I don't know, yeah well, I think we need to vote on this criteria, but if, if for information purposes, we would like to know what number of sites this would create? I'm, fine with that great.

A

I

I'm not I do not want to defer the item or the vote perfect.

A

Okay, Juan Juan Melanie.

R

So my comment was also I. Guess: I'm, not delaying the vote. I think that perfect is sometimes an enemy of good and and you.

A

Put the mic closer Miller community.

R

Outreach and the displacement concerns these are obviously valid concerns, but we do have broader policies that can adjust that can address some of these issues like, for example, the council policy 630 and similarly on the displacement. This is a broader conversation that I think we need to decide what we want to do as a city. Putting displacement or equity criteria on the signature projects just creates additional rules and things that may be a barrier to development, but we need to have that conversation I'm, not sure.

R

The time is now to put an additional requirement on the signature policy.

J

Okay, I'm going to support the the motion with the additions that have been added, I, think the suggestions about revisiting public engagement is a good way of seeking a balance here of allowing good projects to move forward while having sufficient public involvement. I'm also persuaded by councilmember Foley's comments to that. Each of the council members are very concerned about projects in their districts and will ensure you know a good level of public participation.

J

We do know that the urban village plans take a while they take about 18 months and that's the reason that we supported in the original plan. The signature project idea. I was one of the supporters of that and I think it's important to strike a balance here. So I think the discussions been good and we'll get some more information back on the other issues. So all in favor of the motion any opposed good job, Eric.

A

And we have several items that have been referred to: staff for discussion next time, including Wan, your comments about new urban villages and, of course, I'm, not gonna, reiterate all of them. We obviously did not get to item seven on the agenda and we will take that up at the next meeting as well. I do want to invite anyone who came in late and wants to make public comment to. Please do so now. We had public comment also at the beginning of the meeting, but I would welcome anyone else.

A

Who would like to make additional comment to come up to the mic now.

G

I'm interested in.

A

Thank you. This.

G

Thing turned off.

A

G

Does this yourself, please Larry Ames hi there? How does this missing middle fit in this policy here.

H

It doesn't fit with the urban.

G

Villages, because you want to have higher density there and you don't want.

B

To destroy the existing neighborhoods, especially the historic districts, you don't want to lose the character of the city, so vertices.

G

I mean I could see it, maybe as a transition between the urban villages and the existing areas. But I did that.

I

Was not spelled out so no thank.

A

You did mention that it is informational item four, really that a topic that will come up in the next meeting in January I see.

A

Can we finish this, do you mind and then we'll come back to that we can always stay late if we want yes, sir sorry,.

K

Hello, my name is Tom I'm, the resident of district 8 Tom formal, a short statement, a little under two minutes. We understand the purpose of the san jose's and vision 2040 plan to provide a planning compass for San Jose to maintain a high quality of life for both resident and business. We also hope this task force takes to heart the impact your revisions will have on us in the years to come.

K

Urban villages are the contemporary design in which cities like San Jose must adopt in order to deal with limited living, space, extended communities, pedestrian safety and quality of life. Our concern is that a project that includes a large underground parking garage is currently in the city's planning pipeline, and it is slated for a well established residential ar-15 zone neighborhood in Evergreen.

K

You would be hard-pressed to google and find another example of such a large-scale construction project that would entail, just in the first three and a half years of construction, the excavating and removal of over 600,000 tons of Earth. A project of this magnitude is currently making its way through the planning department. The project would be built on a 1.9 acre, cornered lot adjacent to a problematic, problematic four-way, stop on Ruby and Norwood avenues.

K

The compound on the surface would have the following: a 2300 square foot, kitchen 2,700 square feet of living quarters, 4,300 square foot, temple, 5,000 square foot, community room and a 43,000 square foot of underground parking for 90 cars. The idea of building such a large project with an underground complex in a well-established residential neighborhood seems ludicrous.

K

This is a non-conforming structure that is only suitable being built in an urban village area close to public transportation.

K

Revising the 2040 plan to allow a project of this proportion and magnitude to be built, as is without making fundamental changes to its scope and scale, was set a precedent in which the city may find they had opened a Pandora's box of unintended consequences. You.

A

Thank you very much.

F

So Woodmansee from district 6 I think that this whole discussion of jobs as a priority harkens back to Donald Trump in terms of oh he's, increased our jobs but they've all been fossil fuel based jobs, and this whole thing of saying that we need more jobs. When we know we have a housing crisis is really you know, despicable, and we need to be focusing on quality of life and also in regards to not gross domestic product but gross domestic happiness and how we need to focus on just basic living, qualities of housing and basic needs.

F

As we go into a climate emergency, and we can't be thinking about economics and politics and religion, we must think about biology, physics and engineering, and we need to engineer our home, our neighborhoods, to be resilient and I thought that the middle village, the middle housing, was just a beautiful concepts of density and reducing our amount of resources we're using because we've already in 1950, we went over Earth's capacity. We've already, you know, Redoute.

F

You know we're using more of Earth's capacity since 1950 and we have to reduce our our impact on the earth and that middle village of creating that type of beautiful housing was very inspirational and I really encourage us to build that way, and also we need more public input in terms of our the way our development is going because we did not get that in our neighborhood. Our City Councilmember never even came to our development of our hotel, that's being planned in our one one.

F

We had one meeting and then we had like 15 minutes a public comment. They cut it off very quickly, so that was really bad. The way public comment went and the way public, and we had 65 people coming to to resist the hotel in our neighborhood and we need housing and we also need fossil fuel free jobs and the way our housing develop is with regenerative, organic agriculture and building food security and food sustainability.

A

Yes, thank you we're tracking time. Thank you.

E

Alex again with catalyze SV wanted to take a moment and just talk about policy 6-30, which came up a little bit tonight. First, thank you to councilmember, arraign us and the other members of the task force who talked about Kamiya engagement and the the need for quality. Commissioner Griswold brought up policy 6-30. She and many of this in this room know that city council, our city staff, including planning, have a lot of priorities and a lot of things they're working on in a given basis.

E

When the city auditor's report about this policy 6-30 came to the city council earlier this year, city staff said because of all the other competing priorities we have, it will take us 30 months to fully implement the city auditor's recommendation, so whereas it's outstanding that that will happen, hopefully sooner than that, we also want to address these issues through the signature policy process because they're on somewhat different tracks, and so we think it's really valuable for you all to be having that discussion as well and definitely catalyze.

E

This V has weighed in on the city auditor's report and some additional ideas on how to do great comedian, gage Minh, because I think. Ultimately, what we all want in this room is the ideas of community members to show up in the projects that are built to make public support, grow for housing and better development, and that's all that we're trying to do at our organization, and that's all that we appreciate you all taking a look at and thank you to staff leading into the January 30th task force meeting for looking into this.

E

We stand ready to keep talking with you all about it. Thank.

M

T

Robert Reese from evergreen I believe that in the staff report, the description of the Elex Ellis act may have been incorrectly stated. It says that 50% of the units would be under rent control. I think it has been changed to 50% of the units or seven times the existing units. Whichever is smaller.

T

You may make a note of that on the issue with the horizons. I think that when the council made the 17,000 units available when they reviewed the annual general plan review and they looked at the housing crisis plan, they did it in a significant way. Those 17,000 units were selected based upon the criteria that they had rail access and were on the bus, rapid transit line. So I think, as you look at the horizons, you may want to and collapsing them and having more units become available quicker.

T

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, but if you were to have more units in addition to the 17,000 units become available, you would want to establish it based on some criteria that looks at transportation, because there's a multi-faceted nature of goals that we have in the plan, and it's important that we look at everything when we look at it. For example, I'm wondering if there was another 10,000 units added to what the council did with the 17,000 units and the 8,000 units on North San Jose.

T

What would the criteria be for those 10,000 units because it's important to think it through, because we're doing many things with this plan at the same time? Thank you. Thank you.

H

Fred boo, so with AARP California here in San, Jose and I, just want to acknowledged of work that staff has done on on on all these issues really, and also thank staff for echnology in the work that we have done in regards to a neighborhood business districts and specifically North 13th, Street I know that we will be talking about that at the next meeting, but given that damper Olek will not be present at the last at the next meeting, I just want, as as until we get to that that next meeting, please keep what he said in mind that it's not simply about building housing in in in, in a silo or in a vacuum.

H

It's about building neighborhoods, and that was one of the focuses that we had our livable community Charette was how do we build great neighborhoods for people of all ages, and so part of that is about missing middle housing. We don't call it missing middle housing because, as Dan said, it gets a little confusing. It's real small scale, residential development. How do we integrate that into existing neighborhood business districts and also in this next month?

H

While we wait for this next meeting to come about, go out and check out these neighborhood business districts, I mean really look at them, they're very different, each one of them and actually what you'll see in some of them is that housing is already there and it exists.

H

So this notion that we are going to just build a bunch of housing and put it into these neighborhood business districts is not entirely true, because it's already there and so think about what that means for the folks who already live there and what creating better neighborhoods and greater neighborhoods means for the folks who are already there and in the surrounding areas, but looking forward to next month. Thanks thank.

A

You I really want to thank all the Task Force members, I thought, there's a really productive meeting really good conversation. These are not easy topics, especially for people who, for whom this is their first general plan task force engagement. So thank you all for being very engaged, very attentive, very respectful of one another, and all these issues are interrelated, so I know they are complex. In that way, we will defer if, unless I hear otherwise the question of had horizons to the next meeting.

A

The next meeting has a lot of meaty topics on it and I'd there and that list that agenda is growing, so we will be working with staff over the next month to really craft. What that looks like and ensure we have enough conversation and enough information to make good decisions. The good thing is David's, leading the next conversation of the next meeting, because we're alternating so that's helpful. Michael did you want to say something? Yes,.

D

For the next meeting, we recommend you bring pajamas.

B

However, we have a lot of substance to go through and the fact that we couldn't get through it, because we had a very long presentation while it was interesting, might not be that useful. So I don't know how everyone else feels, but I would rather spend our time having discussion rather than having presentations. I.

A

Think what I think one you know I think we need to be mindful of the time, but we just also have to remember that not everyone in on this committee is really steeped in these issues on a daily basis, so I think a balance is really valuable, but thank you, okay. Any other final comments. If not happy holidays, everyone.

A