►
From YouTube: NOV 16, 2022 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting, November 16, 2022.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda: https://sanjose.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=51&event_id=4586
A
A
Foreign
speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
double
the
time
after
public
testimony.
The
applicant
and
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers.
Respond
to
the
commissioner.
Questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
Planning
Commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
Planning
Commission
May
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public
testimony
ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
A
If
you
challenge
these
land
use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raise
at
the
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
prior
to
the
public
hearing
the
planning
commission's
actions
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
General
plan
amendments
code.
Amendments
is
advisory
to
the
city
council
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400.
The
municipal
code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
to
the
city
council
on
rezoning
some
pre-zonings.
A
The
planning
commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
the
city
council,
in
accordance
with
Section
20.100.220,
the
municipal
code,
so
calling
the
meeting
to
order.
I
would
like
to
remind
everyone
that
the
both
the
planning
commissioner
members,
the
public.
We
follow
our
code
of
conducted
meetings.
This
includes
commenting
on
the
specific
agenda
item
only
and
addressing
the
full
body.
Public
speakers
will
not
engage
in
a
conversation
with
the
Commissioners
or
staff.
A
All
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
staff
and
public
are
expected
to
refrain
from
abusive
language,
repeated
failure
to
comply
at
the
state
code
with
the
code
of
conduct,
we'll
just
will,
which
will
disturb,
disrupt
or
impede
the
orderly
conduct
of
this
meeting.
May
result
in
removal
from
the
meeting
this
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission
will
now
come
to
order
and
we
start
off
immediately
with
public
comment,
and
this
is
for
topics
that
are
not
on
this
agenda.
That
are
something
completely
different
I.
Imagine
we
have
at
least
one
speaker.
Is
there
anyone
else,
staff.
D
Yes,
also
from
the
Horseshoe
again,
redlining
has
never
been
amended.
This
city,
we
use
rhetoric
that
it
sounds
like
high-minded
and
I'm
like
wow.
This
is
man
that
sounds
great
fantastic,
we're
we're
helping
the
homeless
people
we're
we're,
helping
these
people
so
yeah,
okay,
let's
get
it
done,
and
then
the
but
the
reality
the
reality
is
different
and
then
what
happens
at
that
time
when
the
reality
surfaces
from
this
garbage
rhetoric
that
comes
out
of
these
meetings?
Okay,
because
it's
it's
it's
it's
it's
meaningless.
It
has
no
substance
to
it.
It's
just
words.
D
The
problem
continues
to
get
worse.
Market
rate,
housing
continues
to
accelerate
and
they're
sitting
there
wondering
oh
well
gee.
How
did
this
happen
and
there's
so
many
moving
parts?
So
many
different
committees
and
the
rhetoric
becomes
so
convolent
that
nobody
can
point
in
any
One
Direction.
Can't
you
guys
see
that
the
system
is
designed
for
that
specific
stated
purpose
that
way:
nobody
Bears
the
weight
of
the
con
of
the
moral
and
ethical
obligation.
D
The
law
got
us
here
in
the
first
place,
so
I
don't
want
to
hear
the
law
quoted
as
if
that
sacrosanct.
Oh,
my
God,
it's
against
the
law
or
it's
within
the
law,
so
we
can
do
it,
but
yet
it's
probably
most
morally
and
ethical,
reprehensible
behavior
that
you
could
engage
in,
but
it's
legal
so
because
it's
legal,
you're,
moral
and
ethical
conscience
is
it
picked.
What
is
happening
is
we're
becoming
dehumanized
and
we're
dehumanizing
others
through
policy.
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
People
are
just
being
evicted
without
getting
the
proper
rental
assistance
that
they
need
and
also
the
office
isn't
even
open,
like
it
was
only
open
during
the
pandemic,
and
that
was
both
true
of
the
eviction
Health
Center
at
City
Hall
and
the
one
at
the
Franklin
McKinley
School
District,
and
that's
completely
unacceptable.
People
aren't
not
being
able
to
even
get
appointments
to
do
the
initial
intake.
E
So
even
if
there
was
like
money
available,
they're
not
being
able
to
be
properly
seen
in
a
time
and
so
I
had
a
three-day
notice
and
they're
saying
oh
well.
In
one
day,
two
months,
I'm
like
one
to
two
months,
I'm
gonna
be
evicted,
and
so
it
is
really
important
that
you
give
people
right
to
council.
But
it's
also
important
that
we
have
a
a
housing
department.
E
So
that's
around
on
the
charts
at
around
82
000,
like
that's
a
lot
of
money-
and
you
know,
but
and
supposedly
a
lot
of
people
are
supposed
to
qualify
for
this
resource,
but
it's
it's
not
happening
that
way
at
all
and
it's
completely
unacceptable
and
something
needs
to
be
done
immediately
to
change
this,
because
it's
just
not
right.
It's
going
to
cost
us
more
money
trying
to
help
people
once
they're
in
eviction
Court
and
that's
a
whole
nother
problem
too.
A
A
A
A
Garcia,
yes,
commissioner,
and
LS
wise.
Yes,
commissioner
young,
yes,
commissioner
Rosario,
yes,
myself,
yes,
so
back
now
and
I
think
we
have
to
display
that.
Is
that
correct
there
we
go.
Thank
you
so
on
to
the
consent
calendar
now.
Are
there
any
hands
raised
to
speak
on
the
consent,
calendar
staff.
I
A
J
L
K
K
So
the
site
is
current,
currently
developed
as
a
service
parking
lot.
As
shown
on
the
map
to
the
right.
The
site
is
also
within
the
San
Jose,
the
downtown
commercial,
historic
district.
It
is
within
100
feet
of
nine
designated
City
landmarks,
so
the
red
stars
on
the
on
the
slide
shows
indicate
the
location
of
the
city.
Landmarks
and
Bank
of
Italy
is
located
to
the
northwest
of
the
project
site
and
then
I
want
to
mention
that
bank
of
Italy's
is
identified
as
one
of
the
city's
Civic
icons
in
the
2019
downtown
design,
standards
and
guidelines.
K
K
The
project
design
encourages
pedestrian
connection
and
activities
by
providing
active
commercial
retail
space
along
South,
Second,
Street,
Dr
Ali
and
the
proposed
Plaza.
Another
key
concept
of
the
project
design
is
to
locate
the
office
space
on
the
on
top
of
the
residential
areas
in
a
less
conventional
way.
The
purpose
of
the
inverse
program
is
to
bring
a
more
appropriate
scale
and
details
to
the
ground
to
reduce
the
massive
impact
to
The
Pedestrian
Podium
levels
in
the
to
the
adjacent
buildings.
K
K
However,
the
project
design
substantially
complies
with
the
2019
downtown
design,
guidelines
and
standards,
with
three
exception
requests,
as
discussed
in
staff
report,
staff
recommends
granting
the
exceptions,
given
that
the
required
findings
for
the
exceptions
can
be
made,
and
so
the
city
of
San
Jose
is
the
lead
Agency
for
the
project
prepared
a
supplemental
environmental
impact
report
so
now
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
the
environmental
project
manager,
Cara
Hawkins.
To
briefly
talk
about
the
environmental
review
of
the
project.
M
Good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Cara
Hawkins
and,
as
Angela
just
mentioned,
I
am
the
environmental
project
manager
for
the
Fountain
Alley
mixed
use
project
the
city
of
San
Jose
prepared
a
supplemental
environmental
impact
report
to
the
downtown
strategy.
2040
final
environmental
impact
report
for
the
Fountain
Alley
mixed
use
project.
M
M
Specifically,
an
impact
was
found
to
likely
occur
because
of
the
Project's
lack
of
conformance
with
the
2003
historic
district
design
guidelines
and
then
the
2019
guidelines
and
standards
due
to
the
height
massing
facades
and
setbacks
of
the
proposed
project.
There
are
no
suggested,
feasible,
feasible
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
this
impact
to
the
historic
district
outside
of
redesigning
the
project.
M
The
three
Alternatives
that
we
analyzed
were
a
no
project
alternative
which
would
keep
the
site
as
it
currently
is,
with
no
new
development
proposed
and
then
the
second
was
a
reduced
height,
which
would
be
four
stories
tall
and
two
buildings.
This
would
only
contain
office
and
Retail
no
residential
and
would
be
at
a
reduced
height
and
massing
to
majorly
comply
with
those
design
guidelines
that
I
previously
mentioned
this
project
does
not,
and
then
the
third
alternative
that
we
looked
at
was
another
reduced
height.
M
However,
this
one
would
be
two
separate
buildings,
one
at
17
stories
tall
and
one
at
20
stories
tall.
This
would
contain
all
of
the
office,
retail
and
residential
uses
and
would
possibly
meet
some
of
those
design
guidelines,
but
not
all
the
reduced
height
for
stories.
Alternative
was
identified
as
the
environmentally
Superior
option,
because
it
would
be
substantially
compliant
with
those
design
guidelines
and
may
even
lessen
or
eliminate
the
impact
to
that
historic
district.
M
Okay,
so,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
city
received
four
written
comment.
Letters
during
public
circulation
comments
were
submitted
by
one
agency,
which
was
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
water
district,
and
they
submitted
two
separate
email
letters
and
then
from
two
organizations
which
were
Adams,
Broadwell,
Joseph
and
Cardozo,
and
the
preservation
Action
Council
of
San
Jose
public
comments
mostly
focused
on
recommendations
for
additional
water
conservation
measures,
concern
over
the
Project's
impact
of
the
historic
district
and
details
surrounding
that
and
then
concern
over
air
quality.
Greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
hazardous
materials.
M
M
Specifically,
they
feel
that
the
mitigation
measures
for
this
section
constitute
deferred
mitigation
under
sequa
because
of
the
requirement
for
a
phase
2
investigation
prior
to
receiving
grading
permits.
Instead
of
right
now,
staff
I'd
like
to
provide
the
following
information
as
a
response
and
to
clarify
why
this
is
in
the
report.
M
First,
it's
not
uncommon
for
a
phase
two
to
be
completed
after
approval,
especially
when
a
site
such
as
this
contains
an
existing
use
or
is
inaccessible.
The
approach
for
assessing
and
dealing
with
site
conditions
is
typical
for
a
developed
site
and
was
confirmed
by
staff
in
the
Environmental
Services
Department.
M
Additionally
the
phase
2
results
once
done
will
be
used
to
confirm
whether
any
precautions
are
needed
for
work
or
exposure
and
whether
any
restrictions
must
be
placed
on
where
the
soil
can
be
disposed.
This
is
handled
by
the
oversight
agency
as
a
return
routine
matter
and
not
something
that
the
city
has
to
resolve
and
disclose
an
scrir
beforehand.
M
So
it's
not
the
case
that
a
phase
two
prepared
now
would
provide
a
fully
defined
Baseline
picture
of
the
site
conditions
and
there
would
still
be
need
for
contingency
measures
included
in
that
SMP,
which
would
be
required,
if
determined
by
the
oversight,
agencies
and
then.
Finally,
the
phase
two
results
are
not
relevant
to
the
Project's
design,
since
the
soil
is
being
removed
and
not
intended
to
remain
on
site
or
be
capped
or
mixed.
The
design
of
the
project
already
entails
removing
the
soil.
So
the
effects
of
that
work
are
already
disclosed.
M
The
comments
received
do
not
identify
substantive
inadequacies
in
the
seir
OR
new,
previously
unidentified
significant
impacts
that
require
circulation
staff
and
Technical
experts
will
be
available
for
any
additional
questions.
On
these
comments
or
on
the
eir
in
general,
I
will
now
hand
the
presentation
back
over
to
Angela.
K
Thanks
Carol,
so,
as
mentioned
earlier
analyze
in
the
staff
report,
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
downtown
General
can
then
use
designation,
the
major
general
attend
major
strategies,
a
major
language
policies,
the
applicable
city
council
policies
and
the
project
conforms
with
the
zoning
code
development
standards.
That
also
is
also
the
project,
also
substantially
complies
with
the
2019
downtown
design,
guidelines
and
standards.
K
A
Q
Right,
thank
you.
First,
thanks
to
the
commission
for
the
opportunity
to
bring
this
project
forward
so
very
exciting
project.
For
us,
as
Angela
mentioned
it's
right
next
to
the
bank
of
Italy,
like
the
you
know
that
that
is
a
building
we
also
own.
We've
brought
in
a
really
exciting
design
team
in
the
arc.
Ingles
group
who
are
designing
this
energy
Hub
project,
as
well
as
the
bank
of
Italy,
which
for
context
is,
is
right
across
the
street
from
the
future
BART
station.
O
O
O
O
And
then
in
King
in
Toronto,
again
we
have
our
King
Street
project
in
collaboration
with
BRK
Ingles
group.
It
is
a
mixed-use
building
with
commercial
in
the
podium
and
then
residential
above
we
have
four
retained:
Heritage
facades
and
one
Heritage
building
retained
in
situ
and
in
the
center
we
have
a
central
Courtyard,
that's
open
to
the
public
foreign.
O
And
lastly,
this
is
another
project
that
we
have
in
collaboration
with
bark
angles
group.
This
is
in
Vancouver,
it's
called
Vancouver
house.
This
is
a
view
from
underneath
the
bridge
system
that
goes
through
the
site.
It's
a
mixed-use
building
with
a
commercial
office,
rental,
residential
and
Condominiums,
and
this
is
the
public
art
piece
that
we
installed
underneath
the
bridge,
that's
very
notable
in
the
city
of
Vancouver
and
then.
Lastly,
this
is
just
a
couple.
O
R
A
R
Yeah
so
another
couple
Liberation
we
also
have
with
West
Bank,
is
of
course,
the
sort
of
renovation
and
repurposing
of
of
Bank
of
Italy
itself,
with
this
sort
of
garden,
Tower
and
necessity
to
upgrade
it
and
give
it
an
extra
egress
there.
And
then
we
are
also
really
thinking
a
lot
about
the
public
realm
around
the
project.
Yeah.
That's.
R
R
A
A
U
V
A
U
M
Yes,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Yes,
just
to
reiterate
or
I
guess
explain
when
we
do
deal
with
sites
that
may
have
passed
uses
that
could
have
contaminants
in
the
groundwater
soil.
Something
of
that
nature
that
may
be
disturbed.
The
first
step
is
to
do
a
phase,
one
Esa,
which
was
done
for
this
project,
which
gives
you
know
a
brief
overview
of
the
past
uses
of
the
site
and
what
could
remain
from
then
on
a
phase
two
may
be
required
if
the
Environmental
Services
Department
within
the
city
feels
that
it
is
warranted.
M
In
this
case,
they
do
want
additional
testing
done,
which
is
that
phase
two
that
you
recommend.
However,
those
are
pretty
all-encompassing
that
it
could
require
sampling
the
the
groundwater
on
site,
soils
up
to
certain
depths
things
of
that
nature.
So
in
some
cases,
if
there's
already
an
existing
building
on
site
or
a
use,
that's
being
actively
used
right
now,
it's
not
just
you
know
a
empty
hole
sitting
there.
M
We
require
that
to
be
done
instead
before
that
grading
stage
that
way,
we're
still
making
sure
they
still
have
to
come
in
and
show
proof
of
that
they
have
to
work
with
the
county
and
our
Environmental
Services
Department
to
make
sure
that
that
is
taken
care
of
and
sampled
it's
just
that
sometimes
depending
on
existing
site
conditions.
We
may
require
that
after
approval,
but
before
they're
allowed
to
actually,
you
know
expose
any
particular
contaminants
to
workers
or
the
air
or
whatever
it
may
be.
M
So
that
was
the
situation
for
this
site
that
Us
in
consultation
with
the
ESD
Department
determined
that
it
was
acceptable
to
do
a
phase
two
at
a
later
time,
and
there
are
still
checks
and
balances.
It's
a
requirement
by
you
know
the
state
and
the
county
that
they
do
this,
so
it
just
is
not
always
done
before
the
project
gets
approval.
M
F
Thank
you.
So,
commissioner,
Rosario
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
for
projects
like
this
as
part
of
the
eir,
they
do
phase
one
and
provide
additional
mitigation,
which
requires
performance
standards
that,
if
you
find
this,
if
you
do
the
phase
two
and
you
find
business,
what
you
need
to
do,
if
you
find
out
that's
what
so,
it
provides
parameters
within
which
the
project
can
move
forward
prior
to
building
permits.
So
this
is
exactly
what
happened
so
phase
two
is
not
really
necessary.
U
A
A
W
Thank
you
good
evening.
Everyone
I
have
a
two-part
question
for
the
applicant
one.
Unfortunately,
we
weren't
able
to
see
all
your
slides
but
I
wonder
if,
in
the
slide
deck
I'm
really
curious
about
how
the
bank
of
Italy,
which
is
a
very
you,
know,
well-known
building.
How
does
it
compare
to
the
building
that's
being
proposed
in
terms
of
if
you
have
a
side-by-side
comparison
like
some
sort
of
rendition
that
we
can
see
how,
like
the
height
comparison,
like
just
something
for
me
to
Anchor
the
building?
Q
Q
And
I
think
one
point
on
this:
that
really
intrigued
us
from
a
bank
of
Italy
standpoint.
Is
you
know
when
you
look
at
the
scale
of
Bank
of
Italy
in
relation
to
the
district?
The
bank
of
Italy,
when
it
was
built,
was
quite
an
extreme
and
large
compared
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and
and
our
real
view
on
this
was
let's
not
try
to
replicate.
O
O
W
S
Q
Q
So
you
have
office
on
the
top,
the
residential
on
the
bottom,
and
what
it
does
is
creates
a
public
realm
at
the
ground
floor,
as
opposed
to
one
big
rectangle
that
eats
up
the
entire
site.
It
creates
a
a
larger
retail
area
for
the
people
to
go
and
and
what
we
envision
is
more
paseos,
which
we
love,
pedestrian,
throwaways
and
and
coffee
shops
and
cafes
for
people
to
come
to.
Q
So
you
know
with
the
new
bark
coming
and
and
the
stop
nearby
the
idea
is:
can
we
create
a
place
to
go
when
you
get
off
that
BART
station
and
then
on?
Your
question
on
the
height
of
you
know
where
we
are
versus
four
stories
with
the
BART
so
close
and
and
really
our
mission
and
what's
really
needed
in
downtown,
is
density,
and
you
know
I
think
when
you
have
a
BART
Station
built
a
half
a
block
away.
We'd
all
be
kicking
ourselves.
If
we
didn't
actually
add
density
nearby.
O
O
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Barrosio.
Let's
go
to
public
comment
and
then
allow
the
applicant
to
do
their
five
minutes,
which
will
cover
some
of
the
stuff
that
I
think
the
Commissioners
are
curious
about
and
haven't
seen
all
the
renderings
and
I'll
come
to
you
first,
commissioner
and
LS
wise,
but
let's
go
to
public
comments
and
I.
Believe
that's.
Is
it
just
Paul
Soto
or
does
anyone
else
raise
their
hand.
D
Thank
you,
Commissioners
Paul,
Shelter
From,
a
horseshoe
Gary
billable
and
JFR
Yago,
who
are
the
two
primaries
developers,
billionaires
billionaires
both
of
them
that
are
in
charge
of
this
project
spent.
Let
me
give
you
a
fact
that
you
need
to
continue
with
350
million
dollars.
Gary
dillable
spent
in
a
90-day
period
buying
up
downtown
property,
basically
the
city's
his
there's
people
on
this
commission
that
work
for
him.
D
They
work
for
Gary
dillable.
When
you
follow
this,
when
you
follow
the
trail
of
the
money
and
the
corruption,
it
leads
right
to
him.
Okay
and
he's
playing
chess
with
the
city
that
bore
me
and
chess
with
the
city
that
still
hasn't
contended
with
the
with
the
corruption
that
created
the
wealth
in
it.
Come
on
people
I
mean
seriously
I
mean
do
I
I'll
I'll,
be
here
for
the
rest
of
my
life.
I
probably
got
men
25
30
years
left
in
me.
D
You
know,
Gary
Gilbo
doesn't
try
to
put
a
bullet
in
me,
but
this
is
what
I'm
talking
about.
Is
the
corruption
that's
going
on
man?
This
city
is
being
corrupted
in
this
Planning
Commission,
okay
and
you're.
Doing
his
bidding
you're
you're,
making
sure
that
Gary
dilippo
places
all
of
his
chess
pieces
around
San
Jose
and
act.
Well,
it's
legal!
It's
legal!
We
can
do
this
because
it's
legal
and
I
have
an
absolute
right
to
it
because
it
falls
within
the
law.
So
who
cares
if
it
just
gentrifies
all
these
people?
Out
of
here?
D
What
kind
of
people
are
going
to
be
downtown?
Those
aren't
for
the
citizens
of
San
Jose
you're,
building
an
infrastructure
for
people
that
aren't
even
citizens
of
this
city
yet
and
you're
using
resources
within
this
city
right
now,
within
this
Planning
Commission,
in
order
to
plan
for
a
Citizens
that
aren't
even
here
yet
come
on,
this
is
disgusting.
D
A
S
H
H
Y
Yes,
good
evening,
Commissioners
Mike
sodigrin
preservation,
Action
Council.
Let
me
just
start
with
a
little
segment
of
the
city's
report.
The
proposed
project
would
impact
the
overall
Integrity
of
the
San
Jose
downtown
commercial,
historic
district,
as
it
does
not
comply
with
the
2003
historic
design,
guidelines
in
building
Heights,
Corner
Element,
massing
facades,
rear
facades
and
setbacks
and
stepbacks.
Y
It
also
is
out
of
step
with
2019
guidelines
and
standards
and
and
the
commission
is
being
asked
to
make
a
one-off
decision
on
this
project
without
the
context
of
other
developments
that
are
in
entitlement
entitled
or
in
the
works.
We
are
in
discussion
with
the
developer.
These
are
good
people
about
what
we
can
do
to
3D
capture
and
model
the
space.
Y
You
know
to
answer
the
question
of
one
of
the
commissioners
of
how
do
you
look
at
this
in
the
context
of
different
elevations
of
different
perspectives
at
different
times
of
day
and
things
that
we
just
don't
use
right
now,
even
historic
districts
pack
backs
the
provision
of
living
in
workspace
near
public
transit,
so
infield
development
to
us
is
good.
It
protects
Coyote
Valley
to
the
South
and
the
hills
to
the
east.
Y
Our
main
concern
is
the
protection
of
the
Integrity
of
the
National
Historic
District,
and
that
many
many
contributing
structures
and
landmark
buildings
within
that
District
in
this
case
design
and
massing,
is
incompatible
and
out
of
scale
of
virtually
everything
around
it.
We
are
concerned
that
that
this
project
is
being
considered
without
considering
other
projects
like
the
suzuko
project
at
the
corner
of
4th
and
Santa
Clara,
which
is
a
gutting
of
a
Historic
Landmark
and
the
loss
of
the
Lawrence
hotel,
which
was
lost
to
fire.
Y
Can
the
San
Jose
downtown
commercial
District
maintain
sufficient
Integrity
to
convey
its
historic
significance
if
all
the
projects
currently
under
consideration
and
other
others
in
the
works
are
entitled
or
also
concerned
about
the
viability
of
businesses
on
First
Street
that
utilize
their
back
entries
to
the
parking
lot?
Thank
you.
Z
Z
I
am
a
former
tenant
of
the
bank
of
Italy
building
I
had
an
art
studio
there
for
about
a
year
and
I
left
for
other
economic
reasons,
but
about
a
year
after
I
left
I
heard
that
most
of
the
other
well
anyway,
the
other
artists
who
are
renting
space
and
building
all
got
evicted,
and
that
is
definitely
gentrification
and
the
building
had
just
been
sitting
around
vacant
and
people
could
have
been
maintaining
their
whatever
photography.
Video
businesses
in
this
very
economical,
downtown
space,
when
I
moved
in
in
2015
I,
was
paying
300
for.
Z
They
can't
use
that
space
anymore
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
large
mass
of
the
proposed
building,
and
the
only
thing
that
makes
it
visually
appealing
is
the
vegetation
but
having
Vines
growing
on
balconies
as
a
code.
Violation,
downtown
I
know
that,
because
I
live
downtown,
my
balcony
gets
inspected
and
if
I
had
plans
going
like
that,
I'd
have
to
get
rid
of
them,
so
I
don't
think
the
developer
is
being
very
straightforward.
Thank
you.
Thank.
V
AA
A
R
Things
that
you
do
need
to
egress
out
are
really
limited
and
the
rest
is
really
retail.
Storefront
and
entrances
into
the
building.
We've
been
looking
at
the
context
with
these
sort
of
quite
special
sort
of
both
vertical
and
horizontal
rhythms,
the
knee
wall,
the
inset,
doorways
and
and
and
so
taking
those
elements
and
translated
it
into
the
design
where
the
the
glazing
will
sort
of
gently
curve
in
to
announce
the
inferences
into
the
retail
sort
of
pilasters
that
are
dividing
either.
R
The
retail
spaces
or
announcing
them
when
we
have,
and
we
have
them
the
transoms
and
the
and
the
facade
above
for
for
signage.
So
this
is
the
view
of
how
it
would
be
walking
down.
Second
Street,
the
paving
we
want
to
maintain
as
a
sort
of
characteristic
with
brick,
paving
of
the
paseos
next
to
the
Granite
Paving
of
the
streets,
and
that
turns
into
the
fountain
Alleyway.
R
Q
AB
R
Yeah
then,
the
next
one,
with
San
Fernando,
where
you
see
the
the
historical
buildings
in
the
foreground
and
the
top
of
the
building
with
the
office
floors
of
Texas
all
around
you
have
the
characteristics
to
use
the
shield
from
from
the
Sun
that
we
also
plan
to
have
PVS
on
top,
so
generate
a
lot
of
energy
and
then
finally,
there's
a
it.
The
building
ends
with
a
pack
on
the
on
the
roof.
A
AC
Q
I
think
we've
got
to
go
through
a
an
ordinance,
and
this
is
something
I
wish.
We
could
get
here
and
say
Here's
exactly
what
we're
going
to
do.
Unfortunately,
a
lot
of
this
comes
down
to
the
Capital
Partner
investors
who
invest
in
this,
and
it's
it's
a
sliding
scale,
there's
a
bunch
of
different
ways
to
comply
with
the
ordinance,
and
we
just
won't
have
that
until
we
get
ready
to
start
construction.
AC
Q
I
wouldn't
say:
that's
necessarily
the
case.
You
know
we
have
many
projects
under
construction
where
we
have
convinced
our
Capital
Partners
to
actually
build
it
on
site.
It
would
certainly
be
our
preference,
but
we
just
can't
make
that
determination
at
this
point
and
but
our
preference
and
and
our
objective
would
be
to
build
it.
Q
On
this
one
we
haven't
determined
it.
Yet
we
do.
We
will
we
do
public
art
in
every
project.
We
have
whether
it's
required
or
not.
Those
tend
to
come
as
we
advance
the
design
further
right.
Now,
it's
just
not
far
enough
along
but
I
believe
Jaclyn,
we
own
about
70
pieces
of
public
art
within
our
projects
and
and
I
can
tell
you.
We
incorporate
it
into
every
project,
whether
it's
required
or
not.
O
AC
O
AC
In
fact,
the
the
ground
floor
seems
to
mix
really
well.
However,
the
the
the
mass
scene
in
the
height
seems
to
be
incompatible
with
the
historic
district.
I,
really
wish
that
there
was
more
integration
of
of
really
complying
with
this.
You
know
historic
district
I,
guess
those
those
are.
You
know
my
biggest
concerns
and
comments.
Q
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
hear
what
you're
saying
and
I
guess
our
our
point
on
that
when
we
look
at
you
know
these
great
historic
buildings
is
not
try
to
replicate
it
not
try
to
match
it.
You
know,
as
we
we
showed
a
few
of
the
projects
we've
done
in
the
past
is
really
show
that
juxtaposition
of
this
is
modern.
This
is
historic
and
not
try
to
recreate
what
was
built
a
hundred
years
ago
and
almost
pretend
you've
you've
matched
it.
Q
We
don't
feel
it's
really
true
to
the
design
and
true
to
you,
know
something
like
Bank
of
Italy
that
we're
obviously
really
passionate
about.
So
at
your
point
of
it,
there
is
no
real
way
to
lower.
You
know
a
large
office
floor
plate
without
eating
up
all
of
the
ground
floor.
So
if
we
had
put
the
office
at
the
bottom
portion
of
the
project,
we
wouldn't
get
all
these
cafes
and
all
this
open
space
to
the
public.
We
would
kind
of
end
up
eating
up
a
lot
of
the
site
and
you'd
get.
O
AC
AC
A
Q
AD
A
few
questions
and
actually
I
think
I'm
going
to
need
some
help
from
the
city
staff.
On
this
too,
you
know
we
get
these
plans
and
I.
Think
a
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
expose
the
community
to
what's
planned
and
its
impacts.
So
one
of
those
very
important
impacts
is
how
does
it
formulate
for
affordable
housing
and
and
again
I'm
understanding?
AD
S
AD
I
know
you
know
you
can
pay
into
a
fund
I
get
it
I
would
much
prefer
to
see
you
integrate
housing
in
a
development
like
this.
That
would
help
me
make
much
better
decisions,
so
City
staff,
who,
how
do
we
get
the
court,
the
cart
and
the
horse
in
the
right
order
here,
so
that
we
can
make
these
decisions
appropriately.
I
I'll
take
a
stop
at
it,
commissioner
I'll
chair.
Ultimately,
it's
going
to
have
to
take
the
city
council
to
make
the
policy
at
what
stage
does
the
iho
have
to
be
enforced,
and
this
is
a
sensitivity
of
that
and
whether
or
not
those
conditions
or
those
expectations
are
going
to
be
built
into
the
entitlement.
I
Unfortunately,
the
way
that
the
ordinance
are
written
now
it
allows
them
to
do
it
at
the
building
stage,
when
they're
closer
to
figure
out
the
finances
of
construction,
and
that
might
have
been
intentional
understanding
how
the
market
goes
so
I
think
it's
going
to
be
up
to
them
and
probably
a
lot
of
research
and
Outreach
about.
Can
you
really
asset
at
this
stage
to
make
that
decision,
because
if
they
do
it
and
the
finance
doesn't
work
out
later,
what
happens
to
that
entitlement?
I.
AD
AD
AD
A
A
AD
G
Yeah,
just
my
previous
discussion,
I
just
want
to
say
you
know,
even
though
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
is
enforced
at
a
much
later
stage
in
the
process
than
this
I
think
it's
still
totally
prudent
for
us
to
ask
questions
about
how
developers
plan
to
comply
with
it
and
I
also
just
want
to
clarify
something
earlier.
That
was
said,
the
thing
Andrew.
G
You
said
that
you
know
there's
this
partnership
with
a
non-profit
that
you're
working
on
for
another
project
in
that
potentially
the
any
Luffy's
paid
by
this
project
could
help
fund
that,
but
if
just
to
clarify
with
staff,
my
understanding
is
that
in
Luffy's
paid
under
the
iho
is
it
going
to
the
city's
pot
of
money?
Is
the
city's
discretion?
How
they're
spent
right
like
it's
not
like
a
developer
like
has
an
earmark
there?
It's
like.
Q
Yeah
yeah,
and
so
that
would
be
a
hope
we
can
use
any
funds
of
that.
You
know
what
we
aim
to
do
with
it
is,
is
address
and
need
in
downtown,
and
our
vision
for
the
project
is
to
make
sure
the
affordable
housing
is
being
built
in
the
community
and
really
the
vision
for
it
is
to
integrate
Supportive,
Housing,
affordable
and
market
rate
together,
rather
than
kind
of
the
these
different
Standalone
projects.
So
it's
not
like
we
would
be
able
to
earmark
these
fees
go
to
that
project
or
anything
like
that.
G
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
I
wanted
to
ask
staff
to
so
you
know
it
was
covered
in
the
presentation
and
in
the
report
that
the
project
does
not
fully
comply
with
2003
historic
district
design
guidelines
and
the
2019
downtown
design,
guidelines
and
standards,
and
excuse
me,
I,
I,
guess
I'm
just
curious
as
a
question
for
staff.
How
do
you
you
know
when
it
comes
to
that
compliance
with
policies
like
that?
How
much
does
that
weigh
in
your
decision,
whether
to
recommend
approval
of
a
project
or
not
I?
G
K
All
right
so
the
San
Jose
historic
history,
design
guidelines
is
more
instructive
and
suggestive
I
mean
compared
with
the
2019.
Don't
have
design
guidelines
and
standards
yeah.
Also
for
the
for
the
consistency
with
the
2019
total
design
guidelines.
The
project
actually
substantially
comply
with
that
design
guideline.
K
This
is
how
we
evaluate
the
project.
Also
I
want
to
point
out
that
regarding
the
mass
income
compatibility,
so
as
the
applicant
mentioned
that
the
the
proposed
ground
floor
would
be
very
strongly
pedestrian
oriented,
it
is
compatible
with
the
storefront
appearance
of
the
South
Second
Street
and
Fountain.
K
Also,
the
material
relates
to
the
to
the
historic
district.
Although
the
eir
concludes
that
the
project
has
a
significant
impact
to
the
I
mean
impact
the
Integrity
of
the
history,
the
project
is
actually
overall
compatible
with
the
the
downtown
character,
as
defined
by
a
growing
number
of
high
intensity
developments.
K
I
Commissioner,
I'll
take
a
stab
at
that
as
well.
There's
a
a
lot
if
you
guys
have
read
our
staff
reports,
they're
quite
long,
there's
a
lot
of
policies
like
General
plan
zoning
codes,
public
comments,
All
in
consideration
of
that
then
within
their
General
plan,
their
competing
interests
among
each
other
has
started
preservation,
while
growing
density
in
our
downtown
environment,
commodity,
environment,
spaces,
so
staff
designer
staff
reports
and
wants
to
acknowledge
all
those
different
policies
and
when
there
are
conflicts
we
weigh
them
holistically
in
consideration
of
that.
I
So
in
this
specific
case,
the
amount
of
pedestrian
activity,
the
density,
the
The
Pedestrian
and
other
Transit
options
and
consistency
with
those
policies,
in
this
case
over
a
kind
of
weight
out
weight.
Some
of
the
historic
concerns
as
the
applicant
has
shown
they
are
taking
historic
as
a
component
of
it
in
certain
aspects
of
the
project.
So
as
a
result
of
that
staff
ultimately
recommended
approved
for
the
project,
while
acknowledging
that
there
may
be
some
inconsistencies.
AE
AF
AE
A
city
Landmark
historic
district,
this
particular
project,
is
located
in
a
national
register
District,
which
does
not
require
the
issuance
of
historic
preservation
permit.
So
it's
there's
probably
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
because
there's
not
a
specific
historic
preservation,
ordinance
requirements
and
findings
that
are
required,
as
they
were
for
the
other
projects
that
you
reviewed
last
month
and
you're
more
looking
at
the
sequa
impact
analysis,
which
is
the
primary
component
of
this
project,.
G
G
Determinations
and
I
want
to
say
this
is
a
really
interesting
project
in
terms
of
how
it
combines
retail
office
and
residential
all
together,
and
we
see
projects
that
do
all
three,
but
they
don't
do
it
in
a
way.
That's
so
tightly
integrated
and
that's
really
fascinating
to
me
and
I
just
want
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
staff
recommendation
very.
A
AG
Q
AD
S
AH
You
chair,
yeah,
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
I
think
that
this
is
a
really
interesting
Innovative
project
in
the
way
that
the
the
residential
is
in
the
Middle
with
office
above
and
Retail
below.
That's,
really
interesting
and
and
very
intriguing,
I
think
that
I
had
a
question
reading
through
the
report
about
why
the
curvilinear
design
was
proposed,
and
then
what
I
read
was
that
it
was
designed
that
way
to
highlight
the
view
of
the
bank
of
Italy
building,
which
I
think
is
really
terrific.
AH
You
know
I
when
I
go
on
vacation,
I
like
to
go
to
big
cities
and
when
I
walk
through
a
lot
of
big
cities.
They
have
a
combination
of
historic
buildings
and
new
buildings,
literally
right
next
to
each
other
kind
of
throughout
the
city
and
I.
Think
that's
what
great
cities
do
and
I
just
think.
It's
important
that
the
buildings
complement
each
other,
which
I
think
this
building
does
complement
the
bank
of
Italy
building
and,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
if
there's
any
location
in
downtown
that
needs
a
tall
building
with
density.
AH
A
You,
commissioner,
Young
anyone
else,
I'll,
throw
in
my
comments
that
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
again
we've
as
I've
stated
in
previous
meetings,
we've
always
as
a
desire
as
a
city
and
a
community
wanted
a
dense,
vibrant
downtown
and
without
density
you're,
not
going
to
get
that
as
mentioned.
This
is
the
next
to
the
significant
infrastructure,
such
as
a
BART
station
for
the
future,
as
we
saw
photos
from
Vancouver
and
Toronto
to
really
world-class
cities.
A
I
know,
because,
commissioner
lardon,
why
said
we
shouldn't
really
be
too
much
into
the
architecture,
but
I
got
to
tell
you
when
I
see
a
project
that
meets
density
and
also
provides
unique,
compelling
architecture
I
want
what
I
see
in
those
other
cities,
I've
traveled
to
50
countries,
I've
been
to
a
variety
of
cities
around
the
world.
There
is
just
some
incredible
architecture
out
here
and
to
think
that
we
would
put
potentially
a
four-story
rectangular
building
that's
across
the
street
on
second,
here
would
be
a
travesty.
You
know
this.
A
This
is
really
something
exceptional
and
unique,
and
the
whole
idea
of
the
paseos
and
walking
through
in
the
circular
design
is
I
mean
for
me.
It's
it's
I,
improve
it.
I
think
this
would
be
a
drastic
improvement
to
that
area.
You
know
we
not
all
of
our
citizens
come
downtown
and
it's
going
to
take
time
for
more
development
to
come
and
to
bring
them
downtown
and
I.
A
Think
the
notification
that
projects
like
this
are
coming
are
going
to
be
good
because
it
also
attracts
other
investors
into
the
community,
and
you
know
that's
the
only
way
we
build
things.
It's
either
a
pension
fund
or
a
bank
or
some
type
of
sovereign
fund
that
loans
money
to
these.
To
these
folks
that
take
big
risk.
A
They
could
go
bankrupt,
but
hopefully
they
get
the
loan
and
they
build
it
and
they
lease
it
and
sell
it
or
whatever
the
the
proportion
is
so
I
think
that's
just
sort
of
the
cycle
how
it
works
in
the
United
States
and
the
applicant
is
not
requesting
any
waiver
from
the
affordable
housing
requirements.
It's
just
a
matter
of
issue
it
building
permit,
which
is
beyond
the
Planning
Commission
and
even
beyond
our
our
I'll
call
them.
A
AD
AD
You
know
you
want
to
build
affordable
housing,
but
you
can't
tell
me
what
that
is
and
I
understand
the
financing,
and
that
makes
it
complicated,
but
I
think
we
all
have
a
right
to
know.
What's
going
to
happen
before
it
happens,
and
before
we
get
permission
or
or
to
continue,
I
think
that
these
types
of
apartment
complexes
raise
rents.
AD
AD
AD
A
A
You,
commissioner,
Cantrell
and
I'll
also
associate
having
watched
the
mayoral
campaigns
that
both
candidates
felt
that
increasing
housing
stock
housing
inventory
would
be
good,
especially
when
they
comply
with
the
inclusionary
ordinances
and
one
comment
on
the
bedroom
count.
I
think
we
also
need
to
realize
as
a
society
specifically
in
the
United
States,
specifically
in
California
Bay
Area.
The
fact
is,
people
that
get
together,
married
or
unmarried
are
having
less
children
and
there's
something
about
the
marketplace.
A
That's
responding
to
that
by
providing
a
certain
component
of
whether
it's
a
one
bedroom,
a
two
bedroom
Etc,
so
I,
just
not
all
of
us,
have
kids
or
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
so
I
just
think
that's
a
factor
that
we
also
have
to
look
at
on
our
the
demographics
of
the
country
and
the
state.
So
with
that
said,
if
there's
no
other
comments,
we'll
go
on
to
the
role
commissioner,
lardinois.
AC
A
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AJ
AJ
AJ
Supervising
planner,
with
the
climate,
smart
team
and
city-wide
planning
I'm,
also
going
to
be
co-presenting
with
me,
is
Wilson
Tam,
a
transportation
planning
manager
and
Department
of
Transportation.
So
what
we
are
discussing
tonight
is
on
updated
to
the
zoning
code
regarding
the
city's
parking
and
transportation
demand,
managements
requirements
and
basically,
how
updating
this
can
help
fight
climate
change,
strengthen
our
economy
and
lead
to
a
more
Equitable
City.
AJ
All
right
and
apologies
to
this
for
you
Commissioners,
who
were
here
in
our
presentation
back
in
June.
There
may
be
a
little
bit
of
a
rehash
for
you
for
some
of
this
information,
but
I
do
know
that
there's
a
number
of
new
Commissioners
since
that
time,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
kind
of
hit
all
the
highlights
again.
AJ
So
just
kind
of
an
overview
of
why
we're
doing
this.
The
city
has
numerous
policies
supporting
this
cleaning.
Our
general
plan,
Envision
San
Jose
2040.,
climate,
smart,
San
Jose,
which
is
our
greenhouse
gas
reduction
plan,
and
this
this
plan
was
or
this
ordinance
update,
was
funded
through
the
American
cities,
climate
challenge,
which
was
basically
25
cities
throughout
the
United
States,
who.
G
AJ
AJ
There's
the
fact
that
we
haven't
substantially
updated
our
parking
policies
since
the
mid
60s,
and
some
of
this
work
also
stems
out
of
the
housing
crisis,
work
plan
and
even
some
there's
some
pandemic
recovery
issues
that
come
out
of
this.
But
this
obviously
is
one
effort
out
of
many
efforts.
I
need
to
achieve
the
goals
of
these
different
policies
and
documents,
so
just
take
to
give
you
some
context
of
how
long
we've
been
working
on
this.
AJ
We
actually
initially
kicked
this
program
off
in
January
of
2020,
with
a
study
session
before
the
Planning
Commission,
it
was
a
Urban
Land
Institute
panel,
who
discussed
kind
of
parking
and
transportation
demand
management
and
how
how
to
modernize
that
I.
Honestly,
that
was
a
different
time
that
was
before
this
crazy
pandemic
hit.
So
it
seems
like
a
long
time
ago,
but
it
was
a
roughly
three
years
ago
at
this
point
since
then,
we've
gone
through
a
few
other
actions.
AJ
We
did
the
deardon
station
area
plan,
the
Marietta
Urban
Village
plan
city
council
study
session
August
of
2021
and
I
mentioned.
We
had
a
policy
Direction
check-in
with
Planning
Commission
and
city
council
back
in
June
of
this
year,
but
what
we're
presenting
now
is
the
final
proposed
ordinance
to
update
parking
and
TDM.
AJ
And
then,
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
background,
as
you
guys
are
all
well
aware,
any
new
development
in
San
Jose
under
our
current
ordinance
requires
a
specified
minimum
amount
of
off-street
parking
to
be
constructed
along
with
it,
and
these
parking
guidelines
are
designed
with
the
idea
of
they'll
always
be
enough
parking
spaces
to
meet
or
exceed
the
demand.
So
in
general,
in
most
cases
there
are
usually
empty
parking
spaces
on
site.
AJ
Basically,
these
minimums
do
assume
that
cars
are
the
only
way
for
you
to
get
from
point
A
to
point
B
and,
as
a
result,
San
Jose
has
really
been
a
City
built
for
cars
rather
than
people,
and
this
is
just
an
example
in
North
San
Jose.
So
why
is
this
a
problem
and
there's
a
number
of
different
reasons,
we'll
we'll
go
through
some
of
the
other?
AJ
Some
of
the
various
reasons
here,
one
as
we
talked
about
this
is
an
effort
regarding
climate
change
and
giving
people
more
choice
for
how
they
do
their
transportation
and
obviously
also
Vehicles
impact
on
congestion
and
traffic
studies
show
that
an
excess
amount
of
free
parking
encourages
people
to
drive
to
sites
when
they
think.
Oh,
this
is
the
easiest
way
to
get
there,
and
this
occurs
even
when
someone
might
be
open
to
walking
taking
transit.
H
AJ
AJ
Preferences
for
how
people
do
work
and
conduct
business
are,
has
consistently
been
changing
even
before
the
pandemic
started.
More
people
are
using
ride
hailing
rather
than
driving
themselves.
More
people
are
shopping
online
people,
even
you
know,
as
we're
geezing
out
of
the
pandemic,
there's
still
a
significant
portion
of
people
that
are
working
from
home
and
there's
sort
of
a
general
trend
of
prioritizing
experiences
and
events,
rather
than
you
know,
material
items
or
material
Goods.
AJ
AJ
This
kind
of
emergency
order
is
concluding
at
the
end
of
this
year
and
basically,
our
our
current
parking
minimum
requirements
would
actually
prevent
this
from
continuing
the
future.
However,
the
removal
of
minimum
parking
requirements
would
allow
restaurants
and
other
uses
to
permanently
convert
underutilized
parking
into
more
active
spaces.
AJ
Obviously
many
parking
lots
aren't
the
most
appealing
of
places
and
they
also
push
destinations
further
apart.
As
you
know,
pedestrians
have
to
walk
across
fast
parking
lots
to
get
to
buildings.
You
know
which,
which
again
decreases
the
likelihood
that
they'll
they'll
walk
bike
or
take
transit
and
parking
by
itself
takes
up
a
lot
of
space.
AJ
You
know
calculating
for
both
the
parking
space
itself
and
then
the
amount
of
space
needed
for
kind
of
circulation.
You
know
for
specific
uses.
The
amount
of
parking
required
is
almost
eight
times
the
actual
use
itself
so,
for
instance,
for
restaurant
dining
area
for
every
one
square,
foot,
a
restaurant,
dining
area.
AK
AJ
AJ
And
lastly,
the
parking
also
has
an
impact
on
housing,
affordability,
because
parking
itself
is
expensive
to
build
and
maintain
roughly
34
000
to
75
000
of
space,
whether
you're
talking
about
a
structured
parking
lot
or
even
an
underground
parking
lot.
So,
for
example,
a
50
space
parking
garage,
that's
roughly
1.7
million.
It's
just
spent
spent
on
the
parking
and
not
not
spent
at
all
on
on
the
housing
or
other
use.
AJ
So,
even
though
everybody
will
advertise,
oh,
we
have
free
parking.
Parking
is
not
actually
free.
The
cost
shows
up
everywhere
in
our
lives.
Higher
higher
rent
or
roughly
17
percent
of
an
apartment.
Rent
goes
to
the
parking
space.
You
know
if
the
the
specific
user
may
not
even
have
a
car,
which
you
know
roughly
115
people
in
in
San
Jose
does
not
have
a
car.
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
This
bill
prohibited
public
agencies
from
imposing
minimum
parking
requirements
within
a
half
mile
of
a
major
Transit
stop
and
per
the
existing
state
definitions.
That
means
an
existing
rail
or
bus
or
epic
transit
station
or
the
intersection
of
two
major
bus
routes
with
a
frequency
of
15
minutes
or
more
at
peak
hours.
AK
AJ
AL
You
Matt
good
evening
chairs
Planet
Commissioners.
My
name
is
Wilson
Tam
I
am
the
transportation
planning
manager
at
Dot
and
I'm
happy
to
talk
about
the
second
half
of
the
story,
as
Ed
mentioned,
so
removing
the
required
to
mandatory
parking
minimum
requirement
is
not
going
to
be
enough
by
itself
to
achieve
the
city's
ambitious
climate
goals.
In
order
to
you
know,
improve
the
way
that
Transportation
improve
the
way
that
people
travel
around
the
city.
AL
So
just
by
removing
the
minimum
parking
requirement
is
good
in
terms
of
not
over
building
parking,
but
at
the
same
time
is
very
important
to
improve
the
transportation
environment
surrounding
the
development,
to
make
sure
that,
as
the
future
tenants
come
to
occupy
the
buildings,
that
driving
may
not
be
the
only
way
to
get
around.
So
that's
why
the
city
staff
presented
to
Council
in
June
to
present
this
second
half
of
the
story,
which
is
to
establish
an
updated
Transportation
demand
management
ordinance.
AL
So
please
allow
me
to
take
a
second
to
talk
about
how
Transportation
demand
management
works
today.
So
we
as
a
city,
does
we
do
have
a
an
existing
TDM
requirement
and
this
requirement
has
been
bundled
under
the
parking
minimum
requirement,
meaning
that
when
a
development
today
proposed
to
reduce
the
parking
because
they
don't
want
to
overbuild
parking,
the
city
actually
would
impose
additional
TDM
requirement
for
them,
and
this
TDM
requirement
today
is
pretty
vague.
AL
For
the
development,
this
ordinance
would
create
a
clearer
approach
to
standardize
a
TDM
plan
so
that
a
developer
may
not
need
to
hire
a
consultant
to
figure
out
what
TDM
measures
will
be
appropriate.
Instead,
the
city
will
standardize
the
process
by
providing
a
menu
of
options
and
a
preset
TDN
point
target
to
meet
the
requirement.
So,
instead
of
having
a
lengthy
report
talking
about
TDI
measures,
the
development
would
use
the
menu
that
the
city
provided
and
select
the
measures
that
they
think
would
be
appropriate
for
the
project
with
a
very
facilitating
process.
AL
So
there
are
30
options
in
the
menu
and
when
we
presented
this
to
cancel
in
June,
we
have
not
been
able
to
finalize
what
this
menu
of
options
would
be
about.
So
over
the
last
few
few
months
we
have
been
as
Ed
said
earlier,
we
have
been
reaching
out
to
many
communities
in
the
city
to
figure
out
which
measures
do
people
think
that
would
be
appropriate
for
the
environment
for
their
surrounding,
so
that
they
can
even
they
can
be
benefiting
from
some
of
these
measures.
AL
So
there
are
30
options
in
a
manual
that
the
city
staff
will
be
proposing
to
cancel
so,
and
they
are
categorized
into
four
categories
here
and
one
of
which
is
land
use.
As
previously
discussed
in
the
last
item.
There
are
discussion
about
supporting
more
affordable
housing,
so
affordable
housing
is
actually
one
of
the
items
in
the
manual
to
encourage
developments
to
go
above
and
beyond
the
requirement,
as
conditioned
as
part
of
the
iho
or
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
AL
So
this
is
a
snapshot
of
what
this
process
could
be
like,
so
it
will
start
off
by
City
staff,
providing
a
menu
of
options
to
the
new
development
and
and
secondly,
the
development
would
look
at
the
options
and
choose
how
they
would
like
to
accumulate
their
requirement.
And
there
is
a
TDN
point
target
of
25
points
that
the
development
needs
to
meet
and
each
of
the
measures
has
a
point
value
and
they're
roughly
about
Four
Points,
each
more
or
less,
depending
on
the
relative
effectiveness
of
the
measures.
AL
And
then,
after
submitting
the
TDM
plan
to
the
city,
the
city
will
review
it
and
once
the
city
conditions
the
TDM
plan
to
the
development,
the
development
will
be
required
to
provide
the
TDM
measures
to
the
future.
Tenants
per
the
TDM
plan
that
has
been
approved.
The
city
will
also
establish
an
ongoing
monitoring
program
to
ensure
that
these
TDM
measures
will
be
provided
to
the
to
the
tenants.
AL
So
please
allow
me
to
use
a
few
examples
to
show
how
these
so-called,
like
TDM
point
target
works.
So,
let's
say
a
development
is
subject
to
25
point
target,
as
I
mentioned.
They
can
do
so
by
choosing
to
right-size
their
parking,
and
that
means
they
would
have
more
space
to
build
other
things
and
they
would
receive
20
points
per
the
manual
options
just
by
resizing
parking.
So
that
means
it
will
leave
them
roughly
Five
Points
to
meet
the
remaining
part
of
the
TDM
requirement.
AL
AL
So
hopefully,
these
examples
give
us
some
general
idea
about
how
this
TDM
program
would
look
like,
as
opposed
to
hiring
a
consultant
spending
thousands
of
dollars
creating
a
lengthy
document
that
explains
how
each
of
the
managers
would
be
appropriate.
You
know
the
city
staff
has
taken
a
very
holistic
approach
and
creating
these
kind
of
preset
requirement,
so
that,
like
a
development,
would
have
more
certainty
as
to
how
to
meet
the
requirement
and
also
being
able
to
provide
a
meaningful
TDM
plan
that
will
benefit
the
future
tenants.
AL
AL
As
we
are
debundling
TDM
requirements
from
the
parking
minimum,
a
development
would
not
be
able
to
add
additional
cost
per
the
TDM
requirement,
so
there
are
cases
where
a
development
May
pay
slightly
more
for
TDM
measures,
but
there
are
also
some
cases
where
a
developer
would
not
be
able
to
would
not
need
to
pay
a
lot
more
for
the
TDM
measures
or
because
PDM
requirement
will
not
be
bundled
as
part
of
the
parking
minimum.
So
by
reducing
parking
they
may
not
be
able
to.
AL
The
time
it
takes
it
would
take
a
developer
to
prepare
a
TDM
plan
would
be
much
less
than
before,
and
also
the
amount
of
time
they
will.
It
will
take
City
staff
to
review
a
Consolidated
TDM
plan
will
be
less
than
before
again
because
of
the
way
that
is
structured,
that
is,
everything
is
kind
of
preset,
is
based
on
a
menu
and
a
preset
Target.
So
everything
is
very
flexible,
streamlined
and
and
more
certain
than
today.
AJ
Sure,
thanks
Wilson,
so
just
to
kind
of
summarize
what
the
ordinance
being
proposed
is
there's
kind
of
three
pieces
to
it.
There's
the
parking
piece
of
it,
which
the
main
part
is
to
eliminate
the
minimum
parking
requirements
city-wide,
but
there's
also
some
some
changes
to
parking
design
standards,
changes
to
parking
definitions
and,
obviously,
with
the
removal
of
parking
minimums,
there's
also
the
removal
of
the
exceptions
to
parking
minimums.
AJ
The
TDM
section
has
been
significantly
revised,
it's
now
kind
of
its
own
Standalone
section
and
how
it
opposes
TDM
requirements
city-wide
for
for
for
new
developments.
You
know
that
would
expand
beyond
the
threshold
required
by
VMT
the
VMT
policy,
which
is
actually
the
next
item
on
the
docket
tonight
and
also
will
develop
a
program
for
ongoing
monitoring
compliance.
But
thirdly,
there's
a
lot
of
other
kind
of
associated
changes
as
parking
requirements
are
very
baked
into
the
code
right
now,
like
as
I
touched
on
earlier.
AJ
This
change
would
provide
allowance,
for
you
know
what
we're
calling
parking
to
patio
or
continuation
of
the
Alfresco
program
where
at
specific
sites
they
could
permanently
convert
their
underutilized
parking
areas
into
outdoor
dining
or
other
out.
Active
outdoor
spaces
and
with
the
kind
of
removal
of
parking
minimums,
it
would
also
expand
additional
outdoor
uses
that
could
occur
in
parking
lots
such
as
food
trucks
or
other
outdoor
Vending
foreign,
so
just
kind
of.
In
summary,
you
know
the
city
in
the
past
decade
has
made
strong
commitments
to
combat
climate
change.
AJ
A
G
G
J
Wilson
mentioned
briefly
that
the
the
points
values
are
related
to
the
effectiveness
and
reducing
trips
Based
on
data
from
throughout
California,
and
so
that
is
already
set,
but
we
will
be
able
to
continue
to
refine
it
Based
on
data.
You
know
that
continues
to
evolve,
both
in
San
Jose
and
throughout
the
state
right.
AJ
AD
AL
AL
You
will
get
one
point
of
TDM
value
and
so
and
you
can
get
as
many
as
four
points
so
five
percent
times
four
equals
twenty
percent.
So,
theoretically
speaking,
a
development
may
be
encouraged
to
say:
okay,
I
am
willing
to
build,
affordable
housing
to
benefit
35
or
35
of
the
units
will
be
affordable
housing
and
they
will
get
four
points
to
meet.
The
25
Point
requirement.
I
know
that
affordable
housing
is
only
one
of
the
30
options
that
a
development
can
choose.
AL
So
we
cannot
know
for
sure
how
effective
this
measure
would
be
in
in
order
to
encourage
more
affordable
housing.
But
we
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
we
need
more
housing
and
housing.
Affordable
housing
is
actually
a
very
effective
way
of
reducing
automobile
traffic
and
especially
in
a
transit-rich
area
such
as
downtown.
So
we
want
to
acknowledge
that
and
incorporate
that
into
our
minute
of
options
just
to
present
as
an
incentive
for
the
development
I.
AD
AH
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
Mr,
Schreiner
I
have
a
question
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
Outreach.
It
sounds
like
you.
Folks
did
I
know
that
our
at
our
when
you
presented
this
earlier
this
year,
one
of
our
commissioners
raised
concerns
about
how
this
would
impact
working
people
that
perhaps
don't
have
an
option
to
ride
a
bike
or
take
transit.
AH
They
need
a
car,
you
know
to
get
to
work
and
they
need
to
place.
You
know
to
park
that
car
when
they
get
to
work
right
and
then
the
other
thing
I
think
that
was
mentioned
was.
How
is
this
going
to
impact
I?
Think
you
called
it
over
parked
areas
and
to
me
I'm
picturing,
you
know
higher
higher
density,
maybe
two
or
three
story
apartment
buildings
right
in
a
in
a
large
Confluence
on
a
street
where
there's
just
a
lot
of
you
know
a
lot
of
vehicles
parked
there.
AH
AJ
Sure
I
would
actually
say
probably
a
lot
of
the
neighborhoods
where
there
are
there's
a
lot
of
on-street
parking
issues.
Aren't
even
necessarily
you
know
what
you
think
of
as
higher
density.
Neighborhoods
with
you
know,
free
four-story
apartment
complexes,
but
a
lot
of
them
are
just
you
know,
single-family
neighborhoods,
that
you
know
were
designed
and
built
as
single-family
houses,
but
the
issue
is
now
there's
four
and
five
people
living
in
them
or,
and
that
shouldn't
say
four
or
five
people,
four
or
five
families
living
in
them.
AJ
You
know
and
out
of
those
four
or
five
families
there's
you
know
seven
or
eight
cars
which
does
lead
to
you
know
an
overabundance
of
cars
and
a
lack
of
Supply
between
being
able
to
park
in
the
driveway
and
park
on
on
Street
I.
Don't
know
that
this,
like
we,
don't
necessarily
have
a
solution
to
that
through
this
ordinance.
AJ
I,
don't
think
this
is
going
to
impact
that
situation
negatively
or
positively,
really
the
the
long-term
answer
which
isn't
really
the
answer
people
are
looking
for.
But
the
truth
is
is
that
the
issue
is
lack
of
housing
and
by
you
know,
removing
this
cost
barrier
of
of
the
minimum
Parker
requirements,
we're
hoping
that
we'll
you
know,
incentivize
the
construction
of
more
housing
in
the
future.
You
know,
obviously,
that's
kind
of
something
that's
going
to
happen
over
a
longer
duration.
AM
Well,
I
want
to
say
I
think
in
response
to
Commissioners
question,
so
you
did
do
some
a
lot
of
deep
Outreach
with
some
some
neighborhoods
and
communities
falling
Planning,
Commission,
curriculum
Miranda
was
not
there,
but
with
Luna
right
and
he
met
with
some
of
these
neighborhoods
that
are
working
class
and
as
a
result
of
feedback.
You
guys
did
change
the
ordinance
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
AM
That
one
of
the
things
that's
proposed
is
that
these
older
apartment
buildings
that
you
see
like
in
Cadillac
or
in
Santee
or
around
San
Jose
State,
they
can't
reduce
their
parking
below
what
the
parking
requirement
was
in
1965.
So
the
idea
is
those
develop.
Those
developed
that
property
owners
couldn't
take
advantage
and
remove
parking
and
do
other
things
with
it
to
expand
the
building
or
put
an
ad
or
in
or
well
maybe
they
could
understand
the
law,
but
do
other
things
they
have
to
keep
the
parking
it's
there.
AJ
Yes,
okay,
so
that
that's
yeah,
that
is
one
thing
that
we
did
do
is
I.
Think
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
kind
of
the
multi-family
that,
where
you
do
see,
the
parking
issues
tend
to
be
the
multi-family
that
was
constructed
in
like
the
50s
and
early
60s
prior
to
our
modern
Park
requirements,
or
maybe
there
was
just
one
space
per
unit,
so
yeah
as
Michael
said,
We
There
is
requirements
that
basically,
for
you
know,
apartment
complex
or
multi-family
constructed
prior
to
1965.
AC
AC
AJ
Well,
I
mean
there
are
no
no
parking
requirements,
so
I
guess
I'm,
I,
I,
think
with
it
with
the
change
of
use,
you
know,
would
be
up
to
whoever
the
new
property
owner
was
to
decide.
You
know
whether
they
wanted
to
somehow
expand
their
existing
parking
or
or
modify
the
building
some
other
way
to
better.
You
know
suit
their
needs
But.
Ultimately,
it's
like
the
city's
kind
of
you
know
getting
out
of
the
business
of
determining
how
much
parking
they
need.
Does
that
kind
of
answer
your
question
or.
AC
Well,
you
know
I
mean
I,
think
I
think
it
should
be
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
When
you
know
there
is
a
change
of
use
or
some
something
written
into
like
Adida
trust
or
something
where
they
know
something
or
they're
aware,
there's
a
certain
process
that
needs
to
be
evaluated.
I
guess
I
mean
I,
understand
that
there
is
a
lot
of
vacant
parking
lots
throughout
the
city
of
San,
Jose
and
I.
Think
when
these
projects
come
up,
I
think
when
it's
feasible
to
actually
do
these
parking
shared
parking
agreements.
AC
I
think
it's
critical
like
when
there's
like
a
a
public
school
or
a
vacant
commercial
large
parking
lot
in
the
evening
next
to
some
housing
I
think
that's
that's
definitely
necessary.
So,
instead
of
just
saying,
oh
no
we're
not
going
to
have
anything
I
mean
the
reality
is
I
mean
San.
Jose
still
depends
on
cars.
You
know
and
I
think
this
is
really
Progressive
and
I.
Think
it's
fantastic,
but
we
just
have
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
community
I'm
a
mom.
AC
You
know
I
go
grocery
shopping
and
I
have
kids,
I
got
to
take
to
school
and
so
I
think
about
families
and
I.
Think
about
parents.
You
know
with
kids
that
you
know
I
mean
they
need
to
be
near
wherever
the
store
or
whatever
you
know.
It
just
needs
to
be
real,
convenient
and,
and
then
even
elderly
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
folks
that
are
older.
That
might
not
have
an
ADA.
You
know
a
little
handicap
placard
but
have
a
cane
or
have
some
mobility
issues.
AC
So
just
things
like
that,
you
know
to
think
about.
You
know
our
community
in
San
Jose
residents
that
are
in
that
situation
and
I.
Think
well,
you
know.
Now
we
have
a
lot
of
these
ride
share
stuff
right
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
the
Uber
and
ubereats,
and
all
this
stuff
and
people
picking
up
and
dropping
off
to
really
accommodate
a
parking
space
and
requirement.
If,
if
that's
you
know
to
really
accommodate
that
to
happen,
you
know
almost
kind
of
like
a
circular.
AC
Driveway
I
mean
there's
been
so
many
pedestrian
fatalities
in
San,
Jose
and
and
if
you
want
to
encourage
people
to
walk,
it
has
to
be
safe.
You
know
it
like,
as
a
parent,
you
know,
I
want
I,
want
my
child
to
feel
be
safe
if
they're
gonna
walk
or,
if
they're,
going
to
ride
their
bike,
and
so
that's
really
really
important
to
me.
AC
So
that's
why
sometimes
okay
yeah
we
do
want
to
park
close.
We
want
to
park
safe,
I'll.
Also,
think
about
you,
know
pedestrian
safety
and
also
safety
for
a
woman
to
walk
at
different
hours
right.
So
lighting
is
really
important
to
me,
of
course,
keeping
you
know.
You
know,
of
course,
if
you've
got
more
people
walking,
you
got
more
trash
right
and
sometimes
people
want
to
throw
things
in
the
trash.
But
there's
not
a
trash
can
so
something
as
simple
as
just
adding
or
requiring
the
developer
to
add
more
trash
cans
along.
AC
You
know
the
pedestrian
sidewalk
or
whatever
lighting
Landscaping.
So
it's
actually
beautifying
something
so
so
those
things
are
important,
but
it's
critical
I
think
those
parking
agreements,
because
we
really
as
much
as
I
want
to
say.
Okay,
no,
you
know
completely,
you
know
no
parking,
you
know,
I
know
it's
a
a
right
size
parking,
so
you're
not
eliminating
the
parking,
but
I
just
want
you
to
be
cognizant
of
the
reality
of
the
families
that
that
live
in
San
Jose
and
you
know
from
from
the
smallest.
AC
You
know
a
mother
that's
expecting
to
a
mother
with
a
small
child
or
several
young
children
to
an
elderly
person.
So
I
just
you
know,
I
just
want,
and
you
know
I'm
I'm
sure
you
know
all
of
us
have
family
that
either
have
had
young
children
or
elderly
parents
or
whatnot.
So
so
I
just
want
you
to
be
sensitive
to
that
when
you're
creating
this,
you
know
point
system,
you
know
really
encourage
this
and
have
these
conversations
and
I'd
really
like
to
have
that
in
written
agreement
in
good
faith.
AC
AM
AM
It
was
built
on
Capitol
Expressway,
where
the
developer
built
a
commercial
building
as
part
of
our
housing
project
and
there's
reasons
why
they
they
they
didn't
provide.
They
reduced
the
pardon
level
to
what
was
below
required
by
code
and
it
was
light
rail
and
we
thought
that
was
very
exciting
for
marriage
right
and,
and
they
did
that,
of
course,
because
they're
minimized
space
because
they
want
to
build
housing
because
that's
the
money
maker
but
I'm
putting
that
aside
right.
AM
So
they
built
the
building
and
what
they
found
is
nobody
would
lease
the
building.
They
can't
find
anybody
to
rent
it,
and
then
they
went
back
and
said
we
don't
want
to
build
the
other
building
because
there's
not
enough
land
to
get
the
parking
in.
We
can't
rent
these
buildings
and
then
it
gets
no
another
dialogue
which
I
won't
get
into
now.
AM
But
the
point
is:
is
that
when
the
market
needs
parking-
and
you
don't
provide
it,
you
can't
rent
your
tenant
space
to
a
retailer
or
a
medical
office
you're
going
to
have
a
hard
time
renting
your
apartment,
so
I
just
want
to
separate
those
two
things
and
Developers
for
new
development
can't
get
financing
for
Wall,
Street
or
from
you
know,
Capital
markets.
If
they
don't
do
parking,
you
know,
developers
are
not
Pioneers,
they
are
followers.
AM
They
follow
the
market
and
they
and
we
have
had
developers
that
have
proposed
no
parking
near
duradon
in
downtown,
and
those
projects
have
not
been
able
to
get
financing
because
people
that
Finance
our
risk
adverse
and
so
they
don't.
They
don't
create
markets.
They
follow
markets.
So
I
just
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
that,
because,
if
we're
successful
with
this
approach,
there
will
still
be
lots
and
lots
of
parking
out
there
and
over
time
as
there's
more
transportation
options
that
parking
we
anticipate,
will
start
to
go
down.
AM
AC
AN
Related
I'll
just
keep
it
really
short,
because
I
know
we're
running
real
long
here.
Just
this
is
part
of
a
much
larger
swath
of
Transportation
Planning
and
policies
that
are
going
forward
right
now.
Actually,
we
just
passed
a
city-wide
Transportation
plan.
We
had
a
downtown
plan,
Transportation
plan
adopted
last
night
at
Council,
the
issues
you're
bringing
up
about
safety
and
and
ensuring
that
there
actually
is
access
like
curb
management,
you're
talking
about
a
lot
of
curb
management
issues
and
what
you
were
bringing
up.
A
AJ
A
AN
A
Let's
say:
I'm
a
restaurant
and
at
the
time
the
city
said
you
need
to
have
so
many
parking
spaces
per
square
foot
or
tables
and
to
get
approval.
I
had
to
go
pay
a
private
party
to
with
an
agreement
to
pay
for
parking
spaces
for
my
staff
or
customers
for
those
that
are
in
existence
today.
Should
this
policy
be
come
into
effect?
AJ
Right
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
I
think
like
going
forward
if,
if
that
kind
of
situation,
re-ups
itself,
it's
at
that
point,
it
is
you
know,
on
the
you
know
the
business
owners
to
say
well,
do
my
customers
still
need
that
parking
and
if
they
do,
you
know
they
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
the
other
landowner?
It's
you
know
it's
between
the
two
private
entities
like
the
city's
not
getting
involved
in
it.
AJ
They
feel
that
when
they
don't,
if
they
don't
need
that
anymore-
and
you
know
the
you
know,
whatever
development
permit
is
no
longer
in
effect,
they
can
yeah,
they
can
I,
guess
go
away
with
it,
but
I
mean
if
there's
an
existing
special
like
a
special
used
permit
for
off-site
parking.
You
know
that
that
use
permit
is
recorded
with
the
property,
so
it's
in
effect,
you
know,
regardless
of
what
happens
with
this
ordinance
they
would
have
to
if
they
did
want
to
open
it
up
and
go
through
a
new
development
review
process.
A
So
now,
if
I
want
to
change
from
a
chiropractic
office
or
law
office
and
a
neighborhood
business,
district
and
I
want
to
now
have
a
restaurant
there
in
the
past,
you'd
have
to
go,
find
the
parking
but
you're
telling
me
now
going
forward.
There
would
be
no
requirement
on
that
different
use
in
the
neighborhood
business
or
to
have
any
required
parking.
Is
that
correct.
AJ
A
H
H
AN
A
AN
A
AJ
S
AJ
Ongoing
monitoring,
if
the
TDM
is
actually
like
a
sequel
mitigation
out
of
bit
coming
out
of
the
VMT
policy,
then
we
do
have
like
a
mitigation
monitoring
in
the.
In
that
case,
you
know
there
would
there
is
kind
of
ongoing
monitoring,
but
but
establishing
this
program
would
consolidate
these
two
things
under
one
program
and
also
kind
of
help,
help
fund
that
work
as
well.
Okay,.
AJ
The
actual
like,
like
the
monitoring
aspect
of
it,
obviously
doesn't
go
into
effect
until
you
know,
until
the
the
building
is
occupied,
the
the
TDM
itself
would
be
established
at
the
development
permit
stage,
with
some
ability
to
modify
certain
programmatic
elements
later
on
down
the
line
through
administrative
permit
process.
That's
that's
one
of
the
you
know.
That's
one
of
the
changes.
AJ
That's
that's
proposed
in
the
the
ordinance
to
give
some
flexibility,
as
we
heard
from
developers
some
concern
over
committing
to
a
specific
programmatic
element
before
they
actually
know
who
their
tenants
going
to
be.
So
we
did
try
to
bacon
the
ability
for
to
allow
for
for
some
flexibility
for
the
developers
to
adjust
TDM's.
You
know
when
they
actually
have
their
kind
of
their
tenant.
AJ
A
AJ
And
I
think
like
there's
a
few
there's
a
few
different
iterations
of
TDM.
That
I
mean
some.
Some
TDM
would
be
locked
in
at
the
development
review
stage.
So
your
your
parking
Supply,
that's
pretty
much
locked
in
if
there's
any
TDM,
that's
a
result
of
Sigma
mitigation,
that's
kind
of
locked
in
at
the
development
permit
stage
and
there's
probably
some
cases
where
a
developer
might
agree
to
a
specific
TDM.
Just
because
of
you
know
significant
Community
interest
in
that
specific
TDM
and
that
could
be
baked
in
at
the
development
permit
stage.
AJ
A
AE
J
That's
a
great
question:
we
could
certainly
put
the
map
back
up,
but
one
that
we
looked
into
with
the
support
of
Uli
back.
You
know
during
some
of
the
formative
work
here
was
Seattle
and
while
Seattle
is
not,
you
know
entirely.
Suburban
Seattle
has
a
very
varied
landscape
right
across
it,
and
so
we
really
looked
at
their
the
record
right.
How
much
parking
were
people
continuing
to
build?
How
much
less
were
they
building?
How
much
more
affordability?
J
AJ
Yeah
and
I
would
just
kind
of
that
go
on
Jess's
discussion
in
Seattle,
obviously
in
Middle
leagues.
One
of
the
issues
is
that
this
is
you
know
it's
somewhat
new
push.
Probably
you
know
the
oldest
cities.
Maybe
did
this
little
over
a
decade
ago.
So
there's
not.
You
know
a
huge
amount
of
development.
That's
occurred
since
this
time
frame,
but
I
mean
what
was
found
in
Seattle.
Was
you
know?
Housing
continue
to
be
developed,
parking
continued
to
be
built
with
that
housing,
but
it
just
was.
AJ
A
AN
A
A
One
comment
I
would
like
to
make
at
the
when
we
heard
this
item
prior
I
mentioned
reaching
out
to
Neighborhood
associations
would
be
good
and
I
can
only
go
with
the
neighborhood
association
I'm
a
board
member
of,
but
no
one
reached
out
to
us
to
share
about
this.
This
policy
so
just
putting
it
out
there
I
think
that
you
know
neighborhood
associations
would
probably
be
a
decent
place
to
vet
some
of
these
ideas,
or
at
least
share
them,
and
then
on
Urban
Villages.
A
So
pick
your
pick,
your
Urban
Village,
let's
say
Bascom
Avenue
so
are
you?
Are
we
saying,
then
that
there
will
be
I,
don't
know
what
percentage
I'd
find
this
I
I
was
going
to
say
what
percentage
of
decrease
in
parking,
or
is
it
literally
zero
parking
for
a
new
development
that
comes
forward
in
an
Urban
Village?
A
A
AM
AM
A
Yeah,
no
sweat
and
I'm
just
trying
to
share
some
scenarios.
I
appreciated
if
it
was
Ed
or
Wilson's
scenario
of
building
out
the
a
surface
parking
lot
asphalt,
parking
lot
into
other
uses,
and
then
you
know
the
the
trade-offs
of
TDM
and
then
Wilson
or
anyone
else.
The
TR
I
think
is
it
called
the
transit
wallet
as
part
of
the
TDM
options.
AL
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
Mobility
wallets
is
the
name.
That's
it
yeah.
It
is
actually
a
wallet.
It's
a
virtual
wallet
that
includes
a
a
wide
variety
of
options.
Like
Bike
Share
subsidy
pass
a
a
transit
pass.
It
depends
on
the
you
know.
It
is
actually
more
effective
than
just
one
single
type
of
subsidy
because
different
tenants
may
have
different
needs.
So
this
Mobility
wallet
provides
a
good
options
for
people
to
choose.
AL
H
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
really
interesting.
My
apologies
and
all
the
questions.
I
just
know
this
was
a
significant
topic.
Last
time
we
came
and
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
ask
some
of
these
questions.
Oh
and
if
on
Wilson
on
a
TDM,
if
I
want
to
say
please
build
a
bike
share
on
my
property,
the
bike
sure
I
would
be
building
would
be
of
the
of
the
kind
that's
being
used
in
San
Jose.
It
wouldn't
be
a
one-off.
It
would
be
part
of
the
network
of
the
city's
official
provider.
AL
AL
So
so
it
gives
a
lot
of
options
and
again
the
the
point
is
that,
after
hearing
from
the
neighborhood
associations
that
we
reached
out
to-
or
some
people
Association
that
we
reach
out
to
you,
know,
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
or
or
support
for
some
of
these
measures
be
made
available
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood
as
well.
So
that
is
not
just
the
future
tenants
who
could
benefit
from
these
measures.
AL
So
so
so,
therefore,
we
provide
some
kind
of
additional
incentives
that,
if,
if
a
developer
would
like
to
build
the
Bike
Share
station,
for
example,
in
not
only
on
site,
but
also
in
the
surrounding
areas
such
as
at
the
corner
of
a
street
that
may
be
an
existing
Community
member
can
also
benefit
from
they
would
actually
be.
They
may
get
additional
TDN
points
as.
A
AH
AH
You
know,
as
Michael
mentioned
the
Market's
going
to
drive
part
of
that,
but
I
think
getting
the
city
out
of
the
business
of
requiring
the
minimum
amount
of
parking
is,
is
a
good
thing
and
I,
like
the
other
changes
a
lot
I
like
the
simplification
of
the
TDM
process.
The
manual
I
know
that
part
of
it
was
adopting
a
county-wide
standard
on
how
TDM
study
I
think
that's
terrific,
the
more
we
can
do
regionally
is
a
really
good
thing.
So
I'm
going
to
make
an
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
staff
recommendation.
Commissioner.
A
G
AO
S
N
N
As
you
may
know,
ab2097
removes
parking
minimum
Statewide
but
does
not
require
any
TDM.
If
this
ordinance
is
not
passed,
it
will
reduce
the
city's
leverage
to
get
anything
out
of
the
development
Beyond
parking
in
order
to
address
our
housing
crisis,
it's
critical
to
go
beyond
AV
2097
and
increase
the
number
of
viable
Transportation
options.
Hence
why
it's
so
important
for
the
city
to
create
the
TDM
strategies
on
the
TDM
side,
we
think
it's
wonderful
that
Equity
measures
like
Transit
passes
for
the
nearby
low-income
communities
count
for
two
times.
N
The
points
due
to
the
annual
reporting
and
metrics
there's
also
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
expand
and
improve
upon
the
TDM
system
in
the
future.
San
Jose
has
ambitious
climate
and
housing
goals
that
cannot
be
met
without
addressing
parking
minimums.
This
is
an
incredible
ordinance
and
if
San
Jose
really
wants
to
meet
its
climate,
smart
goals
I
urge
you
to
approve
this
ordinance.
Thank
you.
AP
Good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Ali
saberman
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
housing
Action
Coalition
and
as
a
San
Jose
resident
to
speak
and
strong
support
of
the
parking
and
TDM
ordinance
across
our
state.
More
than
97
percent
of
cities
and
Counties
have
been
unable
to
produce
enough,
affordable
housing.
We
are
going
to
take
our
dates,
housing
crisis
seriously.
We
need
to
use
every
tool
in
the
tool
belt
to
build
more
housing.
We
are
raising
money
to
fund
more
affordable
housing,
but
cities
and
developers
are
running
into
challenges
with
these
Antiquated
parking
requirements.
AP
This
means
we
are
getting
less
housing
and
even
less
affordable
housing.
This
policy
will
not
reduce
existing
parking
in
existing
neighborhoods,
but
allow
for
more
affordable
housing
to
be
built
over
time.
A
2020
study
found
that
inaffordable
housing,
one
parking
space
per
unit
increases
cost
by
12.5
percent
and
two
spaces
increase
costs
up
to
25
1
in
10
households
that
rent
their
units
do
not
own
cars.
That's
over
12
000
households
in
San
Jose
that
pay
for
parking
that
they
do
not
use
just
want
to.
AP
AA
T
Great
good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Erica
Pinto
SJ
planning
policy
manager
with
spur
I'm
joining
many
others
in
speaking
in
support
of
the
parking
and
TDM
ordinance
reform
before
you
today.
We
truly
appreciate
the
work
done
by
City
staff
to
engage
the
community,
evaluate
options
and
propose
strong
actions
to
address
the
impacts
of
mandatory
parking
in
San
Jose,
as
we've
heard
in
the
presentation
and
discussion
today.
T
These
changes
have
the
potential
to
address
long-standing
policy
issues
related
to
parking
minimum
requirements
that
curtail
the
city's
goals
to
make
housing
more
affordable,
build
density
and
support
public
transit
and
Advance
the
city
as
an
environmental
leader.
The
city
needs
to
adapt
to
meet
the
existing
land,
use
challenges
and
pursue
bold
actions
in
order
to
shape
the
city
around
people
instead
of
cars.
T
The
fact
is
that
parking
mandates
Force
Builders
to
construct
costly
garages
before
putting
up
Apartments
the
ordinance
reforms,
the
ordinance
reforms,
the
city's
approach
software
for
many
of
these
long-standing
issues
and
provides
greater
options
for
developers
and
businesses.
It
also
takes
a
step
further
in
establishing
an
administrative
permitting
process
for
the
conversion
of
parking
spaces
into
other
outdoor
uses.
T
Essentially
codifying
the
city's
Alfresco
outdoor
dining
private
parking
lot
initiative,
this
program
was
a
Lifeline
to
businesses
during
the
covid-19
pandemic
and
has
proven
to
be
overwhelmingly
popular.
The
changes
in
this
ordinance
provide
a
path
for
businesses
to
determine
if
they
would
like
to
remove
parking
spaces
in
favor
of
expanding
their
footprint
and
in
doing
so,
also
activate
outdoor
space
and
set
the
stage
for
live
leader
streets.
AO
AO
This
ordinance
is
aligned
with
save
the
base
goals
of
Equitable
climate
resilience
and
we
believe
it
will
help
San
Jose
meet
its
ambitious
climate
goals.
From
an
environmental
perspective,
this
parking
ordinance
will
help
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
single
occupancy
vehicle
trips.
Data
shows
that
Transportation
accounts
for
nearly
50
percent
of
San
Jose's
greenhouse
gas
emissions
with
75
percent
of
trips
taken
by
private
vehicles
because
of
its
emissions
reduction
benefits,
the
removal
of
parking
minimums
is
aligned
with
climate,
smart,
San
Jose
and
its
goal
of
carbon
neutrality
by
2030..
AO
Removing
parking
minimums
will
also
help
protect
the
Bay
from
polluted
runoff
parking.
Lots
tend
to
be
large,
paved
areas
that
increase
polluted
storm
water,
runoff
negatively,
impacting
water
quality
in
San,
Jose's,
Creeks,
rivers
and,
ultimately,
the
bay.
These
large
Lots
also
reduce
the
livability
of
cities,
decrease
walkability
and
take
up
space
that
could
better
serve
the
community.
AO
AA
Good
evening
my
name
is
Shiloh
Ballard
and
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
Silicon
Valley
Bicycle,
Coalition
and
I
also
have
something
in
common
with
you
all,
and
that
is
that
I
used
to
be
on
the
Planning
Commission.
So
thank
you
all
for
serving
the
city
in
this
capacity
and
for
your
dedication
to
public
service.
AA
I
also
wanted
to
say
you
all
have
done
a
great
job,
providing
feedback
and
staff
has
gone
out
into
the
community
and
based
on
the
staff
at
D.O.T
and
planning
who
have
been
leading.
This
I
am
very,
very
confident
that
this
is
thorough,
thoughtful,
intentional,
there's
just
there's
great
stuff
in
dot
with
Jessica
and
Ramses,
and
Michael
Brio
and
planning
and
I'm,
probably
forgetting
a
few
other
folks.
AA
But
I
I
wanted
to
just
highlight
one
particular
piece,
and
that
is
the
monitoring
piece
when
we
were
originally
talking
about
this
years
and
years
ago,
you
know,
I
was
like:
oh,
we
have
developers
can
come
forward
with
a
TDM
plan,
but
you
know:
are
they
gonna?
Is
there
any
enforcement
of
it?
Not
really?
So
it's
really
nice
to
see
the
city
moving
in
that
direction.
AA
It's
not
perfect,
but
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
the
importance
of
that
particular
piece
of
things
that
the
city
be
reflecting
evaluating,
monitoring
and
iterating
and
adjusting
as
we
go
forward,
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say
in
my
10
seconds
left.
Is
that
hurry
up
and
do
this?
It
has
taken
way
too
long
thanks
so
much
for
your
time.
AQ
Hey
good
evening,
Commissioners
and
staff,
this
is
Alex
Shore,
co-founder
and
executive
director
of
catalyze
SV
joining
a
coalition
of
community
Advocates
and
organizations
extremely
supportive
of
this
policy.
Our
members,
as
you
know,
score
development
projects
every
month
and
when
we
do,
we
frequently
hear
from
developers
about
how
much
parking
they
have
to
build
because
it's
required,
and
we
know
how
much
that
takes
away
from
the
Housing
and
Community
benefits
that
we
have
a
much
greater
need
for
in
San
Jose
that
some
of
you
have
been
talking
about
tonight
in
this
meeting.
AQ
By
approving
this
policy
tonight,
you
are
merely
codifying
the
direction
that
you,
the
playing
commission
and
the
city
council,
have
already
overwhelmingly
taken
to
create
a
better
policy
that
will
balance
the
different
ways
of
getting
around
I.
Think
Michael
Brio
made
a
very,
very
important
point,
which
is
people
will
continue
to
drive
in
this
city,
and
this
policy
doesn't
change
that
fact.
AQ
What
it
does
offer
is
more
flexibility
to
get
more
of
what
we
need
built
and
take
more
flexibility
and
more
encouragement
for
folks
to
get
around
in
different
ways.
That's
the
benefit
of
the
TDM
half
of
this
policy
is
to
just
as
we
encouraged
for
decades
and
decades
cars.
Now
we
can
encourage
public
transit
and
walking
and
biking
and
Rideshare
and
car
share
and
scooters
and
all
the
Technologies
to
come.
So
very
much
appreciate
the
great
questions
you
all
asked
tonight.
Let's
keep
moving
this
policy
forward,
so
we
can
move
our
city
forward.
Z
Z
Z
I
didn't
I,
forget
the
numbers,
but
it
would
cost
a
lot
more
to
build
twice
as
much
parking
to
have
one
space
per
unit
and
we're
doing
pretty
well
at
0.5
I.
Think
management
is
using
a
few
more
spaces
than
they
ought
to,
but
a
lot
of
people
aren't
building,
don't
have
cars,
they
don't
need
cars,
we're
a
few
blocks
from
groceries
and
just
two
blocks
from
a
major
VTA,
stop
in
front
of
City
Hall,
so
we're
living
on
the
future
here.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
V
Good
evening
planning
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Marley
Smith,
director
of
Transportation
policy
at
Silicon,
Valley
leadership
group
I'd,
like
to
share
our
support
for
staff's
recommendations
for
the
parking
and
TDM
ordinance
update.
The
Silicon
Valley
leadership
group
is
proud
to
have
co-sponsored
ab2097
for
several
reasons,
including
the
reduced
cost
of
building
housing
when
a
parking
lot
is
not
required
to
be
factored
into.
The
cost
of
a
housing
unit
and
Par
and
Parcels
proposed
for
development
can
dedicate
more
of
that
land
on-site
to
housing
instead
of
parking
lots.
V
Additionally,
these
parking
minimums
have
had
unintended
consequences
on
tree
canopy
and
water
runoff.
When
we
build
out
parking,
it
should
be
just
because
it's
necessary
not
mandated
this
policy
is
not
implementing
a
maximum
allowable
parking
limit,
but
rather
allows
Property
Owners
to
determine
the
right
size
for
their
needs.
Additionally,
this
allows
businesses
to
have
more
flexibility
with
buildings
they
can
use
without
being
constrained
by
parking
minimums,
removing
a
strain
on
small
businesses.
V
The
improvements
to
TDM
programs
are
critical
and
ensure
that
we
have
measurable
data
to
ensure
that
we
are
meeting
our
2040
climate
goals
of
BMC
reduction,
as
well
as
a
predictable
system
for
property
owners
to
work
with.
We
urge
your
support
on
this
item
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Consideration.
AR
Good
evening
Commissioners,
this
is
Lalo
Mendez
from
catalyze
SV
I'm
here
today
to
show
support
from
item
five
b.
Just
as
my
colleague,
Alex
schroer
alluded,
we're
an
organization
that
is
made
up
of
community
members
from
San
Jose
and
throughout
the
Silicon
Valley,
and
for
those
Commissioners
who
might
be
new.
We
evaluate
and
provide
feedback
on
residential
and
mixtures
projects
every
month
and
two
key
elements
that
our
members
really
focus
on
are
density,
provide
as
many
homes
as
possible
as
as
you're
allowed,
especially
affordable
homes
and
also
Transportation.
AR
This
means
challenging
developers
to
get
creative
about
the
Technologies
and
services
which
will
directly
benefit
residents
and
incentivize
them
to
get
away
from
single
vehicle
trips,
which
contribute
so
much
to
gas
emissions
and
and
daily
traffic.
So
this
policy
will
ensure
that
new
developments
provide
a
robust
set
of
Alternatives
which
include
Transit,
passes
outside
trade
improvements,
designated
ride,
share
areas
and
other
ways
for
developers
to
have
the
freedom
to
get
creative
and
enhance
their
trans,
their
transportation
plans.
AR
These
results
in
buildings,
which
are
better
connected
and
more
conductive
to
pedestrian
uses
and
just
as
important
the
TDM
monitoring
mechanism
is
needed.
It
is
strongly
needed
just
to
ensure
that
there
is
compliance
with
the
program
we
heard
today
from
staff
that
some
of
these
policies
have
not
been
updated
since
the
1960s,
so
it
is
time
to
go
with
the
times
and
update
this
on
outdated
policies.
I
strongly
urge
you
to
support
the
TDM
staff
recommendation
today.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AS
A
number
of
points
for
providing
Transit
passes
for
nearby
low-income
communities,
and
this
is
important
because
we
know
communities
need
public
transportation,
to
access
critical
services
and
the
resources
to
improve
their
quality
of
life,
and
we're
also
excited
that
the
ordinance
is
including
shared
use,
parking
and
unbundled
parking.
Currently
we're
working
with
a
Tech
Tool
called
Parkade
and
they've
shown
that
you
know
which
the
tool
basically
makes
unbundling
and
share
parking
easier.
AS
But
they've
shown
that
you
can
really
dramatically
reduce
parking
demand
as
much
as
20
percent,
and
not
only
does
this
mean
reduce
spillover,
but
it
can
allow
for
maximizing
space
for
additional
homes.
That's
much
needed
during
our
housing
crisis,
so
I
Echo,
the
sentiment
of
so
many
of
the
people
who
spoke
before
me
and
please
approve
of
this
ordinance
to
support
a
more
vibrant
and
affordable
city.
Thank
you.
AT
Good
evening
I'm,
Gene,
fresden
and
I'm
commenting
today
on
two
things:
one.
Yes,
there
are
developers
who
have
fallen
into
the
difficulty
with
being
asked
to
have
more
parking.
I
watched,
one
fight
with
a
council
member
and
an
entitlement
hearing
who
wanted
him
to
use
shared
parking
and
the
developer
highlighted
that
he
had
a
project
on
Saratoga
Avenue.
He
couldn't
rent
because
he
was
forced
to
have
shared
parking,
so
he
stood
up
for
his
case
and
he
built
parking
that
he
needed
for
his
project.
AT
But
I
also
want
to
highlight
that
I
hope
there
will
be
design
features
encouraged
to
allow
for
older
people
like
myself
in
the
old
days,
I
bicycled
everywhere
and
took
buses
and
trains.
But
about
three
months
ago
I
discovered
I
can't
do
the
leap
from
the
sidewalk
onto
the
lowest
bus
step,
even
when
the
bus
kneels
for
me.
So
I
am
now
restricted
to
only
using
cars
and
rides,
and
what
I've
discovered
is
that
we
have
no
parking
enforcement
and,
if
I'm
dropped
off
I'm,
sometimes
not
very
close
to
where
I
need
to
go.
AT
I
can
still
walk
pretty
well
and
pretty
far,
but
I
can
see
the
Horizon
where
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to,
and
one
of
my
colleagues
in
another
neighborhood
points
out.
There's
a
senior
complex
where
there's
no
drop-off
Zone
within
the
building
and
the
sidewalk
is
always
covered
in
parking,
and
so
these
elderly
folks
so
walking
long
distances
when
they're
dropped
by
their
Lyft
or
Uber.
And
some
of
them
are
not
traveling
out
of
their
homes.
AT
D
D
However,
there
was
a
nobody
would
address
what
commissioner
wise
had
stated
and
that's
why
it's
important
that
we
have
women
on
these
councils.
She
thought
about
exactly
what
it
is
that
we
expect
of
women
to
bring
to
these
conversations
she
thought
about
the
community.
She
thought
about
the
elders.
She
thought
about
the
children.
D
We've
been
very,
very
practical
ways
if
you
noted
people
like
Alex
short
and
all
the
rest
of
the
people,
they
all
sounded
the
same
all
the
same,
and
also
I'd
like
to
check
anyone
that
presumes
to
speak
for
the
poor
when
they
have
never
grown
up
in
a
red
line.
District
keep
your
comments
to
yourself.
We
don't
need
you
to
speak
for
us.
We
can
speak
for
ourselves,
and
so
what
I
want
to
point
out
is
a
concrete
example
of
the
corruption.
D
Okay,
because
you
guys
don't
care
what
you're
doing
is
you're
squeezing
can't
you
see
can't
you
see
how
nobody
is
addressing
what,
commissioner,
why
is
it
stating
we're
Chicanos,
we're
Mexicans,
we're
driving
construction,
we're
just
trying
to
survive,
man
we're
just
trying
to
survive,
and
these
policies
the
way
that
you're
creating
it
is
going
to
squeeze
us
and
it's
going
to
kill
us.
You
can
kill
somebody
through
a
policy.
D
AG
AG
This
is
really
important
work.
It's
been
significant
effort
and
a
tremendous
success.
I
think
at
this
point
for
City
staff,
we're
very
pleased
that
Equity
has
been
prioritized.
We
just
want
to
acknowledge
it's
that
this
is
an
approach
which
allows
and
incentivize
for
further
progress.
It's
forward-looking.
It's
not
immediately
constraining
it's
it's
Visionary!
We
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done.
A
A
G
G
AN
H
G
And
so
the
reason
I'm
bringing
that
up
is
because,
even
though
you
know
this
proposed
policy
would
be
Citywide,
it
seems
to
me
that,
to
the
extent
that
it
applies
to
infill
development,
it
would
be
very
similar
boundaries
to
what
the
state
law
would
be
mandating
and
I
think
in
areas
outside
of
that
I'm
just
guessing
here
and
staff.
You
tell
me
if
you
have
the
same
opinion
that,
like
outside
those
areas,
probably
the
main
relevance
of
this
policy
would
be
to
like
changing
uses
like
the
restaurant
example
and
the
staff
presentation.
G
Okay
yeah.
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that
and
then
I've
got
some
just
kind
of
random
points.
I
want
to
touch
on
so
it's
you
know
when
I
was
looking
at
exhibit
B.
Thank
you
for
pointing
me
that
direction
for
from
the
staff
report
and
how
TDM
works,
and
so
I'm
somewhat
familiar
with
the
existing
TDM
structure
and
how
it's
like
broken
down
of
like
there's
certain
things
for
residential
versus
commercial
uses
and
I
see,
is
that
kind
of
analogous
here
where
it's
like
home
end
uses
commute
end
uses
visit
end
uses.
G
AJ
AJ
I
I,
so
to
some
extent,
we
did
consider
that
we
actually
do
call
out.
Specifically,
we
kind
of
we
have
hotels
as
their
own
there's
a
specific
threshold
from
hotels,
that's
different
for
other
uses.
For
instance,
we
set
the
minimum
threshold
for
like
a
hotel
to
trigger
this
program.
At
150
rooms,
however,
like
as
as
to
the
kind
of
the
menu
I
mean
I'll,
agree
with
you
that
a
lot
of
those
TDM
you
know,
programmatic
things
may
not
work
so
well
for
for
hotels.
G
Gotcha,
so
basically
they
have
to
like,
as
part
of
the
accountability
that
you're
talking
about,
they
have
to
actually
demonstrate
that,
like
it
makes
sense
for
their
use.
Correct.
Okay,
that's
great
yeah,
because
not
speaking
of
the
weeds
too
much
but
I
know
there
was
a
hotel
project
fairly
recently,
where
I
felt
that
the
developer
picked
TDM
measures
that
really
only
made
sense
for
the
hotel's
employees,
who
were
a
minority
of
the
users
of
a
hotel,
or
rather
users
of
the
property
rather
okay.
G
I'm
curious
how
that
works
when
parking
is
bundled
with
an
affordable
apartment,
because
the
rent
of
an
affordable
apartment
is
dictated
by
Ami,
so
is,
does
that
just
become
a
cost
that
the
operator
of
the
apartment
building
is
just
eating
or
how
does
that
yeah?
In
your
analysis?
How
does
that
work
in
that
situation?.
AM
J
G
J
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
felt
differently
right
in
the
case
of
it
I
once
upon
a
time,
I
worked
for
an
affordable
housing
developer,
it's
quite
a
while
ago,
at
this
point,
but
the
amount
of
different
sources
you
have
to
stack
and
the
amount
of
each
of
those
sources.
That's
what
you
feel
the
impact
in
for
the
affordable
projects
and
on
the
market
rate
side.
J
G
Right
and
I
I
mean
not
I'm,
not
trying
to
say
that,
like
passing
the
cost
to
you
know
one
you
know
to
the
tenant
versus
to
the
you
know,
source
of
funding
or
that
one
is
necessarily
more
morally
acceptable
than
the
other,
but
I
just
I.
It
seems
like
yeah,
there's
a
really
different
impact
there.
That's
not
so
simple,
okay,
thank
you!
Okay,
I
think,
I.
Think
that's
one
of
my
questions.
I
just
yeah
I
want
to
say
that
I
am
going
to
be
voting.
Yes
on
the
motion,
I
I.
U
G
It's
really
disappointing
to
me
like
how
few
places
in
San
Jose
are
truly
walkable.
You
know
I
live
here
in
West,
San
Jose.
This
is
where
I
grew
up.
It's
one
of
the
big
reasons.
I
came
back
here
later
in
life,
and
it's
really
disappointing
that,
like
there's
not
really
anywhere
on
the
west
side
right
now,
that
I
would
consider
a
walkable
Community.
You
really
have
to
go.
G
You
know
most
for
the
most
part,
that's
downtown
and
a
few
other
scattered
areas,
and
the
parking
aspect
of
it
is
a
huge
element
because
not
only
just
induced
demand
but
like,
as
was
talked
about
in
the
presentation
when
all
that
space
for
parking
pushes
things
further
apart,
and
so
it
makes
it
a
lot
harder
for
walking
to
be
a
form
of
transportation
that
is
viable
to
get
around
and
I'm
really
excited
to
see
over
time.
How
this
kind
of
policy
change
could
impact.
What
getting
around
in
San
Jose
looks
like
I.
G
Don't
think
it's
going
to
be
a
change
that
happens
in
a
huge
way
very
soon,
because
we
already
have
this
built
environment
that
was
built
a
certain
way
and
has
a
lot
of
parking,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
long
time
before
infill
development
slowly
changes
that
I
think
it's
probably
going
to
be
very
late
in
my
life
before
it's
a
dramatic
change
for
the
city,
but
I'm
excited
for
that
future
and
the
possibilities
that
it
brings
so
I'll
end
it
there
and
the
rest
of
the
commission
discuss
but
I'll
be
voting.
Yes,.
A
W
J
A
U
A
A
A
A
A
A
Are
now
on
item
5c,
GPT,
22-006,
amend
city
council,
Transportation
analysis
policy,
5-1
to
streamline
environmental
review
under
the
vehicle
miles,
traveled
VMT
staff
has
a
presentation
and
before
staff
starts
I'd
like
to
ask
the
question
under
the
previous
item
under
TDM,
it
came
twice
to
the
Planning,
Commission
and
I'm
curious
would
VMT.
Would
this
return
to
Planning
Commission.
AN
All
right
good
evening,
chair
and
Commissioners
Ramos,
medu
division,
manager
of
planning
policy
and
sustainability.
Let
me
share
the
presentation
here
all
right:
there
we
go
just
making
sure
everybody's
seeing
the
right
window
here
all
right.
Yes,
so
we
are
talking
about
the
update
to
council
policy.
5-1
I'm
excited
to
bring
this
to
you
right
after
we
did
The,
Retreat
and
and
kind
of
give
you
guys
a
basic
primer
on
what
this
policy
is
and
let's
see,
if
I
can
get
this
done
there
we
go
so
policy
quickly.
AN
AN
AN
It
brought
us
to
really
think
about
Transportation
impacts
at
a
regional
level,
which
also
means
mitigations
can
be
done
at
that
level
and
thinks
about
Transportation
impacts
within
the
environmental,
public
health
and
access
Realms.
Instead
of
just
travel
times
and
is
really
intended
to
promote
and
feel
development,
particularly
near
Transit,
it's
a
bit
late
to
speak
all
right
here
we
go
all
right,
so
we're
gonna.
Do
this
quick,
so
VMT
policy
update.
AN
This
policy
would
always
allow
a
path
forward
for
it,
using
the
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
process
that
we
already
had
in
the
policy
for
other
land
uses,
then
we
also
made
sure
for
affordable
housing
to
streamline
sequa
for
a
lot
more
of
the
affordable
housing.
I'll
show
you
the
maps
for
that
in
a
second,
and
then
we
updated
some
of
the
screening
criteria
as
well.
For
those,
then
we
updated
our
Baseline
VMT
Maps
show
you
that
in
a
second
and
then
we're
also
moving
over
to
the
county-wide
VMT
calculator.
AN
So.
Currently
we
streamline
this
list
here
of
projects
through
sqa,
for
this
now
to
be
really
clear
here.
This
is
streamlining
for
transportation
analysis
only
within
SQL
right.
So
if
projects
meet
the
conditions
in
this
list,
that
means
that
they
are
presumed
to
have
a
less
than
significant
impact
by
by
creating
the
findings
of
their
small
infill
project.
That
means
25
units
in
a
multi-file
family
project
or
15
for
a
single
family,
so
on
and
so
forth.
AN
AN
It
used
to
be
that
trans,
supportive
projects
and
plant
growth
areas
had
to
or
be
an
already
low
VMT
areas
and
have
high
quality
Transit
to
be
to
to
what
we
call
get
screened
out,
get
the
streamlining
of
SQL.
Well,
we
figure
that
one,
a
lot
of
the
areas
that
are
in
planned
growth
areas
are
supposed
to
be
lowering
their
VMT
over
time
and
since
they're
already
near
high
quality
Transit.
AN
This
is
where
the
piece
where
we
really
are
taking
a
big
stride
towards
hoping
helping,
affordable
housing
and
this
policy
right
so
before
it
was
restricted,
affordable
housing
that
was
Transit
supportive.
That
was
in
planned
growth
areas
with
high
quality
Transit
so
and
this
pla
in
this
case
we're
crossing
out
the
end
of
planned
growth
areas
and
saying
anywhere
in
the
city
that
is
within
that
high
quality
transit
map.
AN
Right
and
again,
you
saw
that
that
Matt
earlier
of
ab2097
with
the
circles
around
half
the
half
miles
around
Transit,
it's
pretty
similar
kind
of
map
here
that
we're
looking
at
and
so
yeah.
So
you
go
from
roughly
I,
can't
remember
the
numbers
exactly
but
I
think
it's
roughly
about
17
or
18
of
the
city
that
that
allows
for
residential
development
to
around
60.
AN
AN
AN
Lastly,
we
are
moving
to
the
county-wide
VMT
evaluation
tool.
When
we
created
our
policy,
we
spent
a
good
amount
of
time
developing
the
calculator
that
is
now
on
our
website
that
is
used
to
both
show
developers
what
their
VMT
calculations
are
right
up
front
and
as
well
as
the
different
mitigations
there
it
can
use
to
go
forward
within
the
process.
AN
Vta
worked
with
us
used
our
work
as
a
basis
for
it
yeah
we
moved
the
they
built,
this
pool
off
of
our
tool,
and
it
now
covers
the
whole
County,
which
is
really
great,
because
now
the
whole
Academy
be
looking
at
this.
This
Regional
measure
from
the
same
perspective
and
we're
going
through
with
them
doing
quality
checks
right
now
on
data
that
that
making
sure
that
our
data
within.
T
AN
AM
AM
AM
They're
called
admittable,
there's
no
way,
there's
anything
that
you
can
do
to
reduce
the
driving
to
a
less
than
significant
level
or
put
in
a
late
person's
term,
get
people
out
of
their
cars
and
drive
less,
and
so,
in
that
case,
in
projects
in
those
areas,
you
would
need
to
do
an
eir,
and
so
typically
what
you
know
what
council
do
in
the
environmental
process
is,
that
is
that
they
will
make
findings
of
they'll.
Do
an
override
they'll,
make
findings
of
of
of
or
the
state
sorry
I'm.
Getting
really
tired.
AM
They'll
do
a
statement
of
overwriting
considerations
and
they'll
certify
the
ear
and
there
are-
and
this
policy
allows
that,
as
as
currently
and
as
as
currently
proposed,
it
actually
allows
that
in
almost
all
situations,
the
one
situation
where
it
does,
it's
not
proposed
to
do
that.
It
isn't
currently-
and
it's
not
proposed
to
be
changed
to
do
so-
is
in
the
case
where
you
have
market
rate
housing
and
these
kind
of
outlying
red
immediable
VMT
areas.
That
is
not
in
a
growth
area.
AM
It
is,
you
know,
not
by
transit,
it's
not
supported
by
the
general
plan,
and
so
therefore
you
need
to
do
a
general
plan
Amendment.
So
if
there
were
small
projects,
for
example,
15
single-family
homes
or
less
25,
multi-family
homes
or
less
you'd
be
exam,
so
it'd
be
projects
above
that,
and
so
what
they're
saying
is
this
policy
would
not
support
the
council
making.
You
know
I
think
the
council
could
choose
to
go
that
route,
but
it
does
not
support
to
do
that.
AM
AM
AM
We
went
to
tne
back
in
in
May
and
then
we
returned
to
them
in
August.
In
may,
we
got
Direction
through
a
memo
that
was
written
by
councilman
Perales.
That
was
put
that
was
approved
by
the
tne
council
committee
to
direct
staff
to
consider
a
statement
of
overriding
conditions
for
market
rate
housing
projects
that
are
outside
of
growth,
areas
that
have
in
mitigable
VMT
they're
in
those
red
areas
and
would
need
a
general
plan
change
and
so-
and
there
was
a
certain
there
was
Christ.
AM
AM
So
staff
went
ahead
and
did
look
at
develop,
did
propose
a
a
criteria
for
the
Teeny
Community
consider
and
when
I
presenting
to
you
tonight
is
what
the
tne
committee
is
recommending
to
to
you
guys
and
the
council.
Now
it's
not
staff
recommendation,
it's
the
T
and
E
committee's
recommendation.
So
it's
all
it's
an
alternative
recommendation
for
you
guys
to
consider
for
the
commission
to
consider.
So
we
did
so
a
cup
based
on
the
direction
of
of
the
Memo
from
that
was
moved
by
the
tne
committee.
AM
AM
We
did
consider
well
what
about
if
you
have
a
residential
piece
of
land
and
you
want
to
do
higher
density.
What
we
found
is
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
vacant
land
in
this
part
of
the
city
to
do
higher
density,
so
it
wasn't
necessarily
needed
to
apply
a
policy
or
criteria
to
those
properties.
In
addition,
there
are,
there
are
areas
that
are
open,
Hillside
or
lower
Hillside
residential
rural
residential
neighborhoods,
those
lower
kind
of
more
rural
neighborhoods,
and
we
did
not
feel
that
it
it.
From
a
VMT
point
of
view.
AM
AM
So,
in
addition
to
where
it
would
be
where
it
could
be
applied,
there
was
other
criteria
that
we
developed
based
on
direction
from
tne.
One
of
the
directions
was
that
a
project
should
make
a
significant
contribution
to
addressing
the
city's
housing
crisis.
So
t
e
is
recommending
that
that
a
criteria
would
state
that
the
project
must
make
make
significant
contributions
towards
meeting
the
city's
housing
element
or
Arena
goals
for
low
and
moderate
income
units,
so
a
little
more
specificity
there.
AM
AM
AM
And
then,
in
terms
of
the
process,
this
is
also
feeding
off
some
of
the
direction
we
got
from
a
tnea
committee.
The
the
proposed
alternative
recommendation
says
that
for
public
engagement
we
would
consider
the
project
of
significant
Community
interest
under
the
public
account
the
council's
public
Outreach
policy.
AM
It's
really
hard
to
establish
specific
criteria
in
this
case
for
the
type
of
public
Outreach,
because
I
think
that
will
really
come
from
the
direction
of
the
mayor
and
the
council
or
the
specific
specific
Council
Office
in
which
the
project
resides,
and
it's
kind
of
depends
on
the
project
itself.
But
that
being
said,
we
do
state.
The
criteria
does
stated
that
the
Outreach
should
be
done
throughout
the
entitlement
process,
not
not
just
near
the
end
when
the
sort
of
project
is
largely
baked,
and
you
just
present
it
to
community
of
what
you're
proposing.
AM
AM
AM
So
this
this
is
what
I
presented
to
you
is
the
alternative
criteria
that
was
developed
by
staff
at
the
direction
of
the
transportation
and
environment
committee,
and
it's
being
carried
forward
to
you
tonight
and
to
council
staff
is
not
recommending
this
by
the
way.
But
it
is
here
for
your
consideration,
we're
not
recommending
on
this,
because
putting
a
significant
amount
of
market
rate
development
is
going
to
generate
a
lot
of
driving
a
lot
of
EMT.
There's
really
nothing.
You
can
do
about
it
and
it's
it's.
AM
AM
It's
a
golf
course.
It's
been
closed,
I
believe
since
2002.
It's
very
large
I
can't
remember
how
many
acres,
but
golf
horses
are
big
right
and
so
we're
really
concerned
that
City
policy
in
this
case
is
being
driven
by
the
interest
of
one
property.
And
it's
not
you
know
it's
not
a
good
practice
to
do
that.
AM
So
we
also
just
want
to
note
that
it
doesn't
preclude
consideration
development
happening
on
that
council
could
have
other
considerations
and
direct
staff
to
consider
development
on
this
property
and
and
if
counsel,
if
Council
does
want
to
consider
development
on
the
Pleasant,
Hill,
Golf,
Course
or
other
golf
courses
for
that
matter
or
other
private
Recreation
sites,
we
would
recommend
leading
us
a
a
initiating
a
city-wide
planning
or
visioning
process.
It
would
not
have
to
be
a
specific
plan.
AM
That's
way
way
too
intense,
but
more
of
a
visioning
prop
process
to
identify
to
work
with
the
community
and
stakeholders,
other
stakeholders
to
identify
sort
of
guiding
principles
for
future
development
of
a
site
like
the
Presidential,
Golf
Course,
and
that
I
think
is
concludes
staff's
presentation.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
more
slides.
Is
there
empties?
Oh.
AD
AM
A
AD
AM
Well,
you
have
to
separate
the
two
things
so
one
is.
The
council
has
been
very
interested
in
and
the
t
e
committee
gave
us
Direction
on
how
to
update
this
policy.
The
alternative
criteria
is
separate.
We've
been
looking
to
do
this.
Basically,
when
the
policy
was
first
approved
back
in
February
2018,
we
even
acknowledged
this
that
we
would
need
to
do
this
and
we've
gotten
Direction
over
time
to
council.
Yes,
they
want
us
to
do
that
to
see
how
we
can
facilitate
housing.
AM
AN
And
I'll
just
add
just
a
little
bit
like
in
the
original
staff
proposal.
We
said
we
need
to
allow
this.
This
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
process
to
General
plan
aligned,
land
uses
and
that's
what
got
pushed
on
to
lead
to
this
larger
conversation
about
hey,
wait.
What
about
General
plan
changes
right
and
how
do
we
deal
with
General
plan
changes
within
that
within
that
scope,
right
and
so,
what's
being
was
proposed
by
tne,
was
an
approach
to
dealing
with
General
plan
amendments
within
this
larger
process.
P
AM
AM
It's
in
one
of
those
red
and
mitigable
areas
and
we're
gonna
go
take
that
to
Council
in
the
spring
and
say
Council
this
this
well,
okay,
let's
just
assume
for
a
moment
that
the
policy
doesn't
change
right
or
it
goes
with
staff
recommendation
and
there
isn't
this
override
opportunity,
that's
added
what
we.
What
we
would
do
is
we'd
say
that
Paul,
the
5-1
does
not
support
an
override
on
this
case
and
it's
read.
The
the
Mt
and
the
general
plan
isn't.
AM
P
P
It's
yeah,
it's
actually
a
developer.
Well,
so
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
why
we
would
based
on
our
reading
numbers
and
all
the
housing
that
we
need
to
have.
Why
would
we
create
a
scenario
where
the
council
or
the
elected
officials
just
can't
make
that
determination
on
their
own,
and
we
would
put
a
policy
in
place
that
would
somehow
prevent
these
housing
units
from
coming
online?
P
A
J
J
It
discouraged
overrides,
except
under
very
specific
additional
considerations,
and
so
the
history
of
this
type
of
policy
is
that
is
to
make
sure
that
neither
the
staff
or
the
elected
nor
the
community
makes
these
decisions
without
a
lot
of
thought
and
a
lot
of
ways
to
address
it.
So
that's
the
spirit
in
which
this
is
coming
forward
that
there
was
not
an
ability
to
override
without
some
considerable
work.
J
A
AH
No,
it's
okay,
so
I
was
alerted
to
this
alternative
recommendation.
There
was
we
received
a
letter
from
the
district
six
leadership
group
expressing
concern
about
this
alternative
recommendation
and
basically
saying
that
they
felt
it
was
written
and
and
would
apply
mainly
to
that
one
piece
of
property:
the
former
Pleasant
Hill
Golf
Course,
and
so
we
have
an
alternative
recommendation
and
then
a
staff
recommendation
that
they
don't
support
or
the
staff
does
not
support.
AH
G
X
AH
Okay,
so
if,
if
the
obviously
we're
gonna
have
a
lot
more
discussion
with
the
Commissioners,
but
if
the
consensus
of
this
commission
is
that
we
like
the
proposed
policy,
but
we
do
not
want
to
have
that
alternative
recommendation
included
is,
is
there,
can
you
suggest?
Can
we
make
a
motion
to
do
that.
A
Or
the
motion
could
just
encapsulate
the
whole
deal
right,
so
I
guess:
well,
their
options
are
available,
commissioner,
young
and
I
guess
we'll
get
to
that
at
some
point.
Okay,
great!
Thank
you
any
other
following
questions
there,
commissioner
nope
okay,
we'll
come
back
when
the
next
round,
because
I'm
sure
there'll
be
rounds.
Commissioner,
ornelis
wise.
AC
Thank
you,
you
know
I'm
all
for
streamlining
stuff,
especially
when
it
comes
to
permitting
because
it's
so
complex,
but
when
it
comes
down
to
some
of
the
sequest
stuff,
especially
related
to
Traffic,
you
know,
and
in
the
red
area.
Of
course,
I
have
some
some
concerns.
You
know,
because
those
are
really
highly
urbanized
areas
that
have
so
much
traffic
impacts
and
then
there's
the
pedestrian
fatalities.
AC
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
that
I
remember
one
time
there
was
a
project
and
I
think
it
might
have
been
like
all
affordable
and
it
was
on
the
east
side
and
I
think
it
was
right
across
the
street
from
James
lick,
High
School
and
you
know,
I
had
some
really
I
had
some
concerns
about.
You
know
what
off-site
improvements
are
being
made:
the
traffic
study
and
there
there
seemed
to
be
like
none.
AC
You
know,
and
so
I
had
some
concerns
that
when
I
see
certain
things
on
the
west
side,
you
know
there's
all
this.
You
know
improvements
done
and
then
on
the
east
side
there
wasn't
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
it
was
because
there
was
this
overriding
consideration
that
because
it
might
have
been
an
affordable
Builder,
he
he
didn't
have
to
do
this
stuff
when
that's
the
areas
that
need
it
most.
So
you
know
I
also,
you
know,
like
commissioner,
young
I
was
like
what
is
this
right?
AC
You
know
and
who's
regulating
this
stuff
right
and
you're
like
what's
going
on
here
and
so
that's
kind
of
a
concern,
and
then,
of
course,
you
know
when
we
I
also
read
that
letter
from
that.
You
know
somebody
who
sent
us
a
letter
and
of
course
you
know,
preservation
of
Open
Space
is
really
important
to
me
as
it
is
to
many
of
the
Commissioners.
And
of
course
we
don't
want
to
convert.
You
know
any
public
golf
course.
Even
if
it's
closed
or
not
into
something,
you
know
maybe
housing.
AC
You
know,
because
open
space
you
know,
has
a
lot
to
do
with
the
quality
of
life
of
a
community
right
and
we
don't
want
to
lose
those
open
spaces.
So
I
guess
I
I
also
probably
had
some
concerns
about
what
this
agenda
item
was
all
about.
Really,
what
does
it
mean
what's
in
place
now,
and
maybe
our
decision
would,
what
does
it
really
imply.
AN
AM
That
was
called
The,
Evergreen
area
development
policy.
The
council
gave
us
direction
to
retire
that
last
fall
and
what
replaced
it
well,
it
was
already
in
effect,
but
what
effectively
replace
it
is
this
DMT
policy
we're
talking
about
tonight
and
it
provided
that
that
policy
has
does
not
support
development
of
some
of
large
development
in
the
Evergreen
area?
Much
like
the
previous
ADP.
So.
AM
Before
you
is,
the
tne
would
like
that
would
like
this
policy
change
to
provide
a
path
forward
for
development
of
sites
like
Pleasant
Hill,
Golf
Course
in
these
immediable
VMT
areas,
many
of
which
are
in
Evergreen
but
they're.
Not
just
an
evergreen
and
staff
is
not
recommending
that
there
is
always.
V
AM
Council
can
always
do
what
it
does
and
we
could
move
forward
with
something
and
sort
of
have
a
public
process
to
talk
about
it,
but
and
but
but
the
developer
would
like
would
like
the
policy
to
be
changed.
The
T
and
E
thinks
it
should
be
changed
as
well
to
provide
an
effort
for
these
type
of
situations
in
the
future
and.
AN
Right
now,
I
apologize
but
I
hope
that
helps
and
and
I
can
address
the
other
part
of
your
question
so
Michael's
talking
about
that
one
piece,
which
is
that
override
scenario
right,
that's
not
a
streamlining
thing,
that's
a
if
a
project
can't
mitigate
its
VMT.
What
process
does
it
go
through
through
right
and
not
only
that
right,
so
we're
we're
allowing
that?
But
what
happens
if
someone
needs
a
general
plan
amendment
to
change
the
land
use
away
from
what
the
general
plan
is?
AN
That's
what
Michael's
talking
about,
but
you
were
also
talking
about
hey
wait.
Are
we
just
letting
projects
go
through
with
nothing
Transportation,
wise
analysis,
wise?
If
we
do
this
and
that's
not
the
case,
the
transportation
analysis
policy
is
larger
than
the
VMT
policy.
We
have
what's
called
a
local
Transportation
analysis
that
all
projects
need
to
go
through
and
that
looks
at
their
immediate
environs
right
and
says:
hey,
are
you
on
these
intersections?
Are
you
going
to
start
producing
a
lot
more
pedestrians
are
going
to
go
across
these
intersections
all
right.
AN
We
need
to
talk
about
crosswalks.
We
need
to
talk
about
widening
sidewalks.
We
need
to
talk
about
where
your,
where
your
driveways
are
to
make
sure
you're,
not
just
shooting
cars
through.
You
know
a
busy
school
zones
or
something
like
that
right.
So
we're
not
taking
away
that
Local
transportation
analysis
when
we
streamline
SQL
right.
AN
That's
that's!
Those
are
those
are
two.
You
know
parallel
processes,
they
feed
into
each
other
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
and
and
that,
but
we're
still
doing
Transportation
analysis
at
the
local
level
for
all
projects.
Irrespective
of
what
we're
doing
here,
we're
merely
talking
about
the
SQL
process,
which
is
to
us
kind
of
half
of
the
transportation
analysis
overall
stack
now.
AM
I
want
to
highlight
something.
Rams
have
said:
this
is
for
projects
that
are
not
supported
by
the
general
plan.
They
need
a
general
plan
Amendment
if
you
have
a
piece
of
land
in
a
in
mitigable
area
of
San
Jose,
that
red
area
allows
housing
and
it
allows
more
than
15
single-family
homes.
For
example,
the
proposed
changes
before
you
deny
that
staff
are
recommending
would
allow
you
to
go
forward.
So
this
really
is
only
those
cases
where
you
have
a
piece
of
land.
That's
not,
for
example,
planned
for
housing
that
you
want
to
build
housing.
AU
AU
But
it
just
seems
like
there's
interest
behind
this
that
are
wrapped
into
this
proposal
that
don't
this
shouldn't
be,
and
it
really
puts
into
place
a
mechanism
to
have
the
statement
of
overriding
consideration,
basically
make
us
Obsolete
and
and
make
the
general
plan
Obsolete
and
that's
contrary
to
what
and
who
we
are.
So
it
just
doesn't
it's
incongruent
with
with
what
I'm,
with
what
we're
doing,
I
just
I,
just
don't
I,
don't
understand
why
it's
in
there
and
at
the
risk
of
repeating
the
the
answer
to
that.
Why
is
it
in
there.
A
S
J
I
I
do
think
you
know
just
to
kind
of,
say,
I
actually
think,
commissioner
Casey
said
it
pretty
well
right
there
there
are,
there
are
always
trade-offs,
and
so
I'll
just
be.
You
know,
I'm
part
of
the
staff
and
part
of
the
staff
recommendation,
which
does
not
include
this
alternative
and
at
the
same
time
you
ask
the
kind
of
question.
Why
does
this
exist?
J
They've
also
made
the
point
that
you
know
there
is
a
housing
crisis
and
they've
also
made
the
point
that
it's
really
the
city
council
who's
elected
to
represent
the
people
and
they
should
have
the
decision-making
power
so
that
I'm,
just
you
know,
trying
to
lay
out
that
kind
of
the
arguments
on
both
sides.
I
think
Michael
and
team
stated
very
well
the
arguments
from
the
staff
side
of
why
we
wouldn't
recommend
it,
and
commissioner
Casey
stated
pretty
well
the
arguments
on
the
other
side.
For
my
what
why
you
might
consider
it.
AU
AN
Bit
larger
yeah
can
I
can
I
try
to
just
disentangle
something
because
you're
right
now,
there's
there's
two
parts
here:
there's
this
screening
out
criteria
right,
which
is
those
Matt.
The
green
Maps
I
was
showing
you
and
that's
saying.
Certain
projects
should
not
have
to
do
a
certain
level
of
SQL
analysis
and
then
there's
this
override
policy,
which
is
a
different
part
of
this
policy.
These
are
not
the
same
things.
These
are
very
different
things
right.
AU
AN
They're
different
elements
of
the
same
policy
right,
because
what
we
have
to
do
is
analyze
every
project
per
love
for
state
law
through
this
VMT
lens
right,
and
so,
when
we're
talking
about
what
we
call
the
screened
out
projects,
these
are
projects
that
are,
we
can
presume,
already
have
benefits
in
the
transportation
and
other
realms
for
the
city,
this
to
some
degree,
I
would
just
say
at
the
staff
level.
This
is
uncontroversial.
Now
we're
having
gotten
there
with
you
guys.
AN
Yet
in
terms
of
understanding,
we
have
to
keep
talking
about
it,
but
then
this
is
so
that's
one
element
right.
The
other
element
is
again
this.
How
do
we
deal
with
VMT
for
projects
that
don't
currently
align
with
the
general
plan
right
and
and
how
do
we
process
a
particularly
large
sites
that
have
very
high
VMT
impacts?
AN
AN
Now
we
would
argue,
that's
not
even
the
case,
because
the
larger
Community
process
is
what's
stopping
those
sites,
and
that
is
what
staff
is
arguing.
Staff
is
arguing
that
to
go
forward
with
a
very
large
site.
The
VMT
policy
is
a
secondary
consideration.
The
primary
consideration
is
the
larger
planning
process
that
needs
to
go
through
with
the
public
before
a
site
like
that
can
be
developed.
AU
A
AN
AN
A
AN
At
the
moment,
yes,
I
mean
we're.
We
are
working
on
a
whole
bunch
of
Big
Data
applications
that
may
make
it
much
more
observed
data
versus
what
it
is
now
which
is
yeah.
It's
it's
just
like
everything
in
transportation
at
that
level.
These
are
estimates.
These
are
computer
models
that
take
in
a
lot
of
calibration
data
from
The
Real
World.
So
it's
not
just
us.
You
know
going
off
and
and
fancy
world
like
these.
A
AN
F
These
educated
guesses
and
reasonable
assumptions
based
on
empirical
evidence
like
service,
so
the
office
of
planning
and
research
dominance
office
of
planning,
a
research
put
together
periodically
what
is
called
a
technical
advisories
given
broad
guidelines.
Each
City
uses
that
and
then
conducts
its
own
study
to
come
to
educated
guesses
as
to
what
the
VMT
should
be.
The
vehicle
miles
travels.
So
that's
what
it
is.
It
varies,
but
they
follow
the
same
guidelines
from
the
office
of
planning
and
research.
A
And
then
I
think
things
were
probably
pretty
constant
in
measurement
of
VMT
and
then
we
had
a
pandemic
which
sort
of
changed
things
and
I
guess
you
know
we
were
we're
clearly
not
back
to
normal,
but
certainly
it's
we
don't
know
when
The
New
Normal
is
going
to
be.
Are
we
new
normal
today
or
is
it
new
normal
in
2026?
AN
AN
To
it
right,
we
have
to
we
kind
of
have
to
assume
at
some
point
all
right.
You
know,
and
so
we're
kind
of
we're
actually
just
going
through
a
whole
bunch
of
Contracting
and
RFP
processes
to
get
new
data
sources
to
basically
kind
of
go
through
the
next
process
there,
and
also
we
also
said
we
would
update
our
models
at
least
every
four
years,
so
we
got
to
kind
of
get
to
it
anyways,
so
we
are
assuming
basically
The
New
Normal
is
maybe
now
here,
but
we'll
see
right
yeah.
AN
A
So
yeah
and
then
staff
on
when
you're
doing
a
GP,
Amendment
and
you're
forced
to
jointly
file
a
project,
then
you're
doing
public
meetings
and
Community
processes
vetting
whatever
you
plan
on
doing
I
mean
there's
not
like
passing.
This
policy
allows
you
to
have
ministerial
or
to
avoid
any
public
process
right.
That's
correct,
yeah
I
think
there's
that
I
see
these
emails.
It's
like
we're,
removing
all
public
process
and
I,
don't
think.
That's
the
case.
I
think
we're.
A
We
still
have
public
health
meetings
and
processes
and
Etc
and
obviously
based
on
the
size.
It
dictates
how
many
meetings
as
I
think
you
stated
Michael
and
then
who
Michael
you
presented.
You
gave
examples
of
a
25-acre
parcel,
a
50-acre
parcel
and
a
Hundred
Acre
parcel.
What
are
those
are
there?
Are
they
is
there
a
specific
25-acre
parcel
or
50
or
100?
You.
A
AM
AM
AN
AM
AN
I
am
so
sweet
there
we
go
I'm
back
now.
Sorry,
my
zoom
literally
quit
and
reached
established,
so
I
was
trying
to
share
the
map
again,
but
I'm
not
going
to
try
because
zoom
and
PowerPoint
are
thrown
up
on
each
other
here,
but
basically
the
the
map
update
is
significant
as
I
as
I
said,
mostly
for
North
San
Jose.
That's
right.
The
addition
of
Bart
has
made
a
significant
impact
on
the
housing
element
of
VMT
in
that
area.
AN
Now,
there's
still
and
the
the
commercial
area
also
moved
a
little
bit,
but
the
problem
with
North,
San,
Jose
and
Commercial
is
that
there's
no
housing,
and
so
it
doesn't
change
all
that
much
right,
because
you're
still
having
to
drive
a
long
ways
to
get
there.
That's
why
putting
housing
up
there
is
is
really
helpful.
AN
G
G
So
I
want
to
make
sure
my
understanding
is
correct
of
the
policy
that
is
being
recommended
by
staff.
So
it
sounds
like
the
the
main
bit
of
it.
Is
that
like
this
is
about
replacing
vehicle
delay
and
Road
capacity
with
BMT
As
the
metric
and
you're
calling
that
streamlining,
because
of
VMT
analysis
is
less
work
intensive
to
do
is
that
correct,
so.
F
F
F
What
happened
was
that
hcd
came
up
with
their
metrics
San
Jose
was
one
of
the
few
first
cities
that
came
up
with
the
policy
to
implement
VMT.
It
was
a
very
good
policy
for
a
start,
but
just
like
the
Constitution,
it
has
to
be
amended.
We
made
it
very,
very
tough
for
ourselves
to
even
approve
projects
that
are
in
the
Red
Zone,
even
when
we
know
that
we
plan
to
transit
in
those
areas.
F
So
what
happened
was
that,
based
on
the
fact
that
the
projects
will
have
significance,
unavoidable
traffic
impact
in
those
red
areas,
it
was
no
goal
and
I
could
describe
it
as
build
absolutely
nothing
anywhere
near
any
red.
This
change
will
allow
us
to
do
that
to
fully
comply
with
SQL.
If
a
project
has
the
entire
package
and
allows
other
issues
to
be
looked
at
other
than
traffic.
F
Does
that
simplify
it
enough
for
you
and
it's
not
looking
at
any
particular
projects?
They
were
right
first,
that,
as
Michael
indicated,
are
no
more
being
considered,
but
from
a
purely
super
standpoint.
This
allows
the
city
to
fully
comply
with
SQL
because
of
the
inefficiencies
in
the
current
system.
P
Be
quick
as
well:
I
can't
remember
exactly
from
the
map,
but
it
seemed
as
if
a
great
deal
of
the
red
areas
that
were
in
the
eastern
part
of
San
Jose,
and
if
I
understand
it's
correctly
man
we
wouldn't
wouldn't
we
be
encouraging,
basically
affordable
housing
to
just
be
in
that
area.
If
we
use
this
policy
I
know
there
was
some
small
slots
on
the
west
side,
but
I
think
it
would
be
unproportional
right.
AN
If
you
look
at
this
map,
this
entire
huge
green
blob
is
where
housing,
affordable
housing
would
receive
an
easier
SQL
process
with
Transportation,
so
I
I
I.
Don't
think
it's
for
it
to
say
that
somehow
it's
being
pushed
to
East
San
Jose.
In
fact,
it's
actually
being
pushed
more
West
than
anything
else,
so
yeah
that
that
part
of
what
you
just
said
is
just
not
factually.
P
P
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
make
those
two
points.
One
I
think
it's
gonna
be
disproportionately
affordable,
housing
in
areas
that
shouldn't
over
carry
the
burden
and
two
we're
taking
a
tool
and
a
resource
out
of
the
city
council's
Vans,
which
are
elected
officials
when
bringing
more
housing
online
with
a
policy
and
I
think
we're
looking
at
this
on
a
project
level
when
we
should
be
looking
at
this
other
part
on
a
policy
level.
A
A
fair,
a
fair
point,
fair
question,
commissioner:
Garcia
I
think
this
is
already
agendized
for
the
city
council,
November
29th,
so
maybe
we
can
just
I
I
would
well
you're
free
to
make
the
motion
to
defer.
So,
first
of
all,
let
me
not
block
you
for
making
a
motion
so
I'll.
Let
you
make
that
motion
your
motion
is
made.
Is
there
a
second
to
defer.
A
A
AM
AM
A
AK
Yes,
hi
Larry
Ames,
chair
of
the
district,
6
neighborhood
leadership,
group,
I,
guess
you've
seen
our
letter.
We
support
your
efforts
to
work
to
balance
the
housing
and
streamlining
process
for
housing
and
affordable
housing
against
the
vehicle
miles
traveled
and
that's
the
purpose
of
the
main
purpose
of
the
body.
There
I'm
a
little
concerned
by
chart
six.
It
shows
how
the
affordable
housing
got
on
Coyote
Valley.
That's
new
I!
Don't
want
to
see
that
down
there,
but
my
main
point
is
we
oppose
the
alternative
recommendation.
AK
At
the
end
of
the
thing
it's
apparently
added
just
to
help
one
developer
develop
one
unused
properly
pop
Golf
Course.
Excuse
me:
our
concern
is
with
unintended
consequences,
whether
by
misinterpretation
or
by
subtle.
Tweaking
of
the
final
wording
of
the
policy.
The
development
might
somehow
green
light,
inappropriate
developments
and
lands
across
the
city
from
Alviso
down
to
the
Coyote
Valley
I.
Think
the
staff
report
says
it
best.
One
developer's
interest
is
in
one
potential.
Redevelopment
project
should
not
drive
the
direction
of
Citywide
policy.
Please
reach
out
the
alternator
recommendation.
Thank
you.
AV
Your
planning
Commissioners,
my
name,
is
Juan
Estrada
and
I'm
on
staff
with
green
Foothills.
We
ask
that
you
follow
the
planning
department
staff
recommendation,
don't
ties
council's
hands
and
also
ask
that
you
explicitly
reject
the
alternative
recommendation
that
would
facilitate
development
on
private
Recreation
and
open
space
land.
It
is
inconsistent
with
the
city's
General
plan
would
facilitate
development
of
huge
Parcels
of
open
space
without
a
community
envisioning
process
such
as
is
currently
being
provided
for
multiple
other
large
Parcels
in
San
Jose.
That
is,
of
course,
an
equity
issue.
B
AG
Yes,
good
evening,
Matthew
Reed,
the
director
of
policy
at
Silicon
Valley
at
home.
It's
a
pleasure
being
with
you
all
at
11
o'clock
at
night,
I'm
learning
tremendous
amount
from
your
discussions.
I
appreciate
that
honestly.
I
was
just
here
to
say
that
we
were
so
supportive
of
the
the
underlying
staff
recommendations
and
I.
Think
I
will
just
leave
it
at
that.
D
Yes,
yes,
Paul
saw
them
from
the
Horseshoe
I
want
to
thank
Commissioners,
Casey
Garcia,
and
because
what
you're
smelling
is
exactly
what
it
is.
It's
not
passing
the
sniff
test
and
there's
a
very
there's,
a
very
good
reason
why
you
have
just
seen
an
example
of
a
concave
okay.
Did
you
see
the
way
that
these
the
way
that
the
city
was
carrying
off
each
other?
They
were
just
like
dancing
around
and
just
shooting
at
you,
a
bunch
of
rationalizations
that
had
absolutely
no
merit
or
no
relationship
to
what
it
is
that
you
were
addressing.
D
It
was
a
bunch
of
words
that
had
no
substance.
We
rely
on
you
to
vote
your
conscience
and
vote
things
like
this
down.
I
want
to
thank
Juan
Estrada
for
getting
a
hold
of
me
about
this
particular
item,
because
when
he
told
me
about
this
and
coyote
about
it,
my
father
picked
prunes
in
that
Valley.
He
picked
prunes
and
he
picked
apricots
and
then
he
retired,
from
the
very
building
at
IBM's
research
and
development,
where
he
used
to
pick
prunes.
AT
Good
evening
this
is
Gene
Dresden
I'd
like
you
to
make
a
motion
to
support
VMT
the
primary
recommendation
and
oppose
the
alternative
policy.
I
watched,
the
transportation
and
environment
committee
meeting
and
I
watched
some
council
members
write
a
plan
for
East
San
Jose
for
the
Pleasant
Hills
golf
course.
They
were
allocating.
Oh,
it
should
have
some
commercial.
It
should
have
some
housing.
It
should
have
some
parks
that
should
be
part
of
a
community
visioning
process.
AT
B
AB
Jennifer
hi,
my
name
is
Jennifer
Denise
I
serve
as
a
board
member
for
the
power
Rancho
Lawyers
Association
for
the
past
19
years
and
I
also
live
on
the
street.
Adjacent
to
the
power
ground
show
Hills
Golf
Course.
The
property
was
snuck
in
as
a
late
addition
to
the
policy
change
and
a
proper
due
diligence
was
not
taken.
AB
It
is
also
only
one
developer
that
has
a
okay,
so
development
of
the
open
space
and
Evergreen
should
be
included
in
the
general
plan.
The
golf
course
property
is
currently
in
contract
with
a
developer
that
has
pushed
for
this
policy.
Amendment
I
would
like
to
voice
my
request
of
the
commission:
reject
the
inclusion
of
the
private
Recreation
open
space
amendment
to
policy
5-1.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
AI
C
B
AF
L
Name
is
Robert
Reese
I'm,
an
evergreen
resident
and
I
chair.
The
land
use
Committee
of
the
district
8
Community
Roundtable
I
want
to
thank
the
planning,
Commissioners
and
staff
members
that
have
zoomed
with
us
over
the
last
couple
years
discussing
this
for
those
Commissioners
that
may
not
be
as
familiar
with
the
east
side
of
San
Jose
as
we
are.
There
are
about
700
Acres
of
undeveloped
and
underdeveloped
land
south
of
Story
Road.
L
What
we
are
looking
at
is
comprehensive,
community-based
land
use
planning
that
looks
at
visioning
and
the
properties
as
we
would
like
to
see
them
developed
in
a
process
that
many
other
areas
of
the
city
of
San
Jose
have
been
able
to
benefit
from
the
West
Side
Urban
Villages.
The
work
that's
going
on
in
the
Monterey
Corridor
I
want
to
reiterate
what
Juan,
Estrada
and
many
others
have
said,
support
the
staff
recommendation
on
page
one
explicitly
reject
the
alternative
on
page
12
and
let's
work
together
for
some
good
planning
on
the
east
side
of
San
Jose.
AW
I
ask
that
you
explicitly
rejected
it.
It
doesn't
seem
appropriate
for
the
city
to
change
the
policy
city-wise
for
the
benefit
of
a
single
developer,
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
possibility
of
unintended
consequences
in
the
chance
that
the
alternative
recommendations
might
enable
the
in
entirely
the
inappropriate
development
elsewhere.
Appropriate
development
in
Pleasant,
Hills,
Golf
Course
parcel
should
follow
transparent,
Community
engagement
process.
Thank
you
very
much.
E
AX
Yes,
good
evening
staff
and
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Jordan
Grimes
I'm,
the
South
Bay
resilience
manager
with
Greenbelt
Alliance
I'll,
be
briefing
in
that
we
are
rapidly
approaching
Thursday
morning
here.
Just
want
to
say
that
we
appreciate
the
update,
we're
very
supportive
of
urban
and
Bill,
and
the
underlying
policies
presented,
especially
streamlining
and
especially
in
higher
and
highest
resources
of
the
city
areas
of
the
city.
AX
With
regard
to
the
alternative
proposal
by
tne,
it
sounds
like
there's
consensus
from
the
commission
based
on
what
I've
heard,
but
while
I
think
the
intentions
are
good,
the
specifics
of
it
are
such
that
we
cannot
support
it
in
practice,
so
we
do
support
the
staff
recommendation,
but
not
the
alternative.
With
regard
to
Pleasant
Hills
Golf
Course,
specifically
we're
not
necessarily
opposed
to
Housing
Development.
There
provide
specific
public
open
space
was
included,
but
we
don't
believe
the
tne
alternative.
It's
the
correct
venue
to
address
it.
AX
AY
Hello,
my
name
is
Shawna.
I
am
a
part
of
the
Colorado
Rancho
HOA
Association,
and
we
border
two
sides
of
the
Pleasant
Hills
Golf
Course,
and
this
would
be
I
I
recommend
to
move
forward
with
the
first
part
of
this
proposal,
but
to
definitely
reject
the
Amendment
and
I
want
to
work
with
with
staff
and
a
Visionary
process,
and-
and
you
know,
we're
not
against
development.
It
just
needs
to
go
through
the
right
channels.
Z
AF
AF
A
A
AF
A
A
A
This
is
within
the
street
grid
Network.
This
is
within
the
sewer
Network.
This
is
within
the
utility
power
Network
and
you
know
again,
I
voted
against
it,
but
you
know
what
it's
a
new
Council
it's
another
decade.
Housing
seems
to
be
an
important
issue.
I
think
they
need
to
discuss
it
and
I.
Think
I
I
really
think
that
they
need
to
to
face
someone
said
it
like.
You
know
they
need
to
face
the
criticism
or
take
the
arrows.
Well,
they
need
to
take
the
arrows.
A
They
need
to
discuss
it
and
if
they
want
to
do
something,
they
can
consider
that
if
they
don't
want
to
do
anything,
they
cannot
consider
that
same
way.
You
know
we
as
a
council
when
I
was
on
the
council.
We
took
a
vote
to
not
have
any
housing
in
north
in
Coyote
Valley
right.
We
eliminated
a
hundred
and
housing
for
120
000
people,
that
was
a
city
council
decision,
so
I'll.
Let
someone
make
the
motion
but
I
think
at
some
point,
the
city
council.
A
The
current
city
council,
needs
to
discuss
this
in
a
broad,
Manner
and,
of
course,
they'll
vote
for
what
they
want,
and
even
if
the
commission
doesn't
recommend
that
the
city
council
can
still
take
up
the
motion,
because
it's
on
the
agenda
and
I
guarantee
you
the
city
council,
there
will
be
at
least
five
votes.
Well.
I
won't
go
to
that
route,
but
there'll
be
at
least
support
to
discuss
the
items.
So
I
think
we
should
just
you
know,
throw
that
as
input
anyway.
That's
my
comments.
Apologies!
So,
commissioner,
Cantrell.
AD
You
know
I
I,
I,
I,
respectfully,
disagree
with
you,
I,
don't
think
our
job
is
to
pass
the
buck
to
the
council.
Our
job
is
to
make
sound
planning
decisions
with
a
Planning
Commission
not
to
pass
the
buck.
Commission
I
think
this.
This
proposal
definitely
concerns
me
I.
Think
adding
this.
This
alternative
is
the
concern,
so
I
recommend
that
we
approve
the
the
city
of
Staff
recommendation
and
specifically
reject
the
additional
alternative
to
this
proposal.
AD
G
Sure
yeah,
so,
just
in
the
interest
of
transparency,
I
was
asked
to
meet
by
some
of
the
East
Side
leaders
who
spoke
tonight
and
I
did
meet
with
them
and
discuss
this
and
so
yeah
I
think
our
discussion
got
complicated
because
sequel
is
complicated
and
often
hard
to
understand
and
I.
Don't
think
the
part
of
the
policy
recommended
by
staff
I
I,
don't
think
that
it's
controversial,
it's
I
mean
I.
Out
of
my
understanding
of
it
is
streamlining
the
SQL
process
for
low
VMT
projects.
G
I
I
think
we
can
all
get
on
board
with
that
when
it
comes
to
the
alternative,
it
seems
to
me
to
be
totally
in
the
opposite
direction.
Really
you
know
making
a
carve
out
for
encouraging
High
VMT
projects,
which
not
only
is
contradictory
to
the
policy
that
staff's
recommending.
It's
also
contradictory
to
the
vote.
We
just
took
on
the
last
item
to
abolish
parking
minimums
to
try
and
reduce
you
know,
travel
in
cars,
so
I
do
think
we.
G
G
There
was
a
really
good
slide
in
the
staff
presentation
that
I
think
we
could
use
to
get
started
on
that
I
mean
for
me
personally,
I
think
one
of
the
most
Salient
things
is
that
like,
in
addition
to
what
I
said
about
you
know
encouraging
a
high
VMT
project
or
high
VMT
projects.
This
really
does
seem
to
apply
to
just
primarily
to
just
one
property
and
I.
G
Don't
think
that's
the
right
way
to
go
about
things
of
drafting
a
policy
that
seems
to
be
generic,
but
is
really
specifically
directed
like
that,
and
especially
because,
as
was
noted
by
someone
in
the
public
and
and
as
noted
in
the
staff
report,
this
is
a
property
that
would
require
an
annexation
to
be
entitled
by
the
city
of
San
Jose.
So
even
more
so
just
does
not
seem
to
be
the
right
way
to
approach
this
yeah
I.
Think
that's
it
for
my
comments
there,
but
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
A
G
If
I
could
just
I
don't
want
to
go
back
and
forth
too
much,
but
it
is
a
decision
to
Annex
something
though
I
mean,
and
there
are
consequences
to
annexing
property.
I
mean
San,
Jose
I
think
has
learned
that
more
than
any
other
city
in
the
area,
and
so
it's
it's
not
something
to
be
taken
lightly.
In
my
opinion,.
AH
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah
I'm,
just
going
to
speak
in
support
of
commissioner
Cantrell's
motion.
I
think
he's
I
think
he
phrased
it
very
very
well,
and
I
I
just
want
to
there's
a
couple
of
things
that
have
been
said
by
other
Commissioners
I'm,
not
sure
if
actually
correct,
so
I
just
want
to
emphasize
what
it
is.
We're
voting
on
and
I'm
I'm.
AH
Actually
reading
from
the
item
that
gpt22,
it
says
a
men's
city
council,
Transportation
policy,
5-1
to
streamline
environmental
review
under
vehicle
miles
miles,
traveled
for
affordable
housing
projects,
I
I
can't
see
how
any
of
us
would
be
objecting
to
that.
We
want
more
affordable
housing.
So
I
think
anything
we
can
do
to
streamline
that
process
is
a
good
thing.
So
that's
my
first
point,
then
it
goes
on
to
say
and
to
allow
a
process
for
city
council
consideration
of
housing
projects,
including
those
in
high
VMT
areas.
AH
That
one
of
the
objections
I
heard
was
that
this
would
somehow
take
the
decision
out
of
the
city
council.
It
doesn't
do
that
at
all.
In
fact,
it
specifically
says
here
that
it
allows
a
process
for
city
council
consideration
as
long
as
the
Parcels
in
question
meet
the
general
plan
and-
and
just
the
last
thing
I
would
say-
is
that
I
think
there
was
a
concern
raised,
that
this
policy
would
push
affordable
housing
to
the
east
side.
I,
actually
think
if
you
read
the
staff
report,
it's
the
opposite
of
that.
AH
One
of
the
things
that
this
policy
is
trying
to
do
is
encourage
affordable
housing
in
higher
or
resourced
areas
of
the
city,
so
that
would
be
Cambrian
West,
San
Jose.
You
know
areas
that
have
higher
resources.
This
policy
would
encourage
affordable
housing
in
those
areas
which,
which
is
absolutely
correct,
what
we
should
be
doing.
So
those
are
my
comments
and
we'll
definitely
be
supporting
the
motion.
Thank.
AU
AU
AU
W
I,
just
it
just
really
quick,
yeah
I'm,
also
in
agreement
that,
as
as
read
without
the
alternative
recommendations,
it's
good
to
go
for
me,
but
I
do
have
a
question
formally.
How
how
have
the
alternative
recommendations
been
proposed
right?
Is
it
just
something
that
we
speculate?
That
could
happen.
That
is
really
right.
Now,
as
I
see
the
room
as
I
read,
the
room
is
not
really
going
to
happen,
but
when
was
it
ever
a
consideration?
AM
Well,
so
there
is
no
development
application
on
file
on
the
Pleasant
Hill
Golf
Course,
but
there
is
interest
from
a
developer
to
build
it,
and
so
I
think
that
sort
of
raised
this
issue
that
we're
talking
about
and
it
raised
the
issue
with
TNA
about
well
wait
a
minute
here.
Maybe
we
should
have.
Maybe
there
should
be
an
override
in
this
particular
case,
and
that
was
the
discussion
that
happened
at
TNA
in
May
and
then
at
coming
out
of
that
they
gave
us.
They
gave
staff
direction
to
come
up
with
a
proposed
criteria.
AM
That
would
provide
a
path
forward
under
this
policy
under
sequa
for
a
project
that
was
in
that
red
area
that
needed
a
general
plan
amendment
that
did
not
inform
the
general
plan
and
was
market
rate,
and
so
we
did
that
we
came
back
and
then
in
August
and
we
had
a
proposal
which
was
a
little
bit
different
than
what
I
presented
tonight.
I
only
presented
you
tonight
what
T
and
E
what
is
moving
forward
to
you
Council,
but
there
was
another
iteration
and.
AM
Feedback
and-
and
we
modified
it
and
that's
what
we're
presenting,
but
there
is
yeah
so
I
mean
there,
isn't
that
Golf
Course
can't
won't
stay
a
golf,
a
vacant
Golf
Course
forever.
Something
some
day
is
going
to
happen
there
and
it's
more
about
what
is
the
right
process
to
have
a
conversation
and
figure
out
what
should
be
built
there
right.
That's
kind
of
the
larger
issue
at
hand.
W
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
definitely
appreciate
the
Clarity
yeah
I
do
agree
with
members
of
the
public
and
also
fellow
Commissioners,
that
a
transparent,
community-based,
open
process
would
be
best,
especially
for
land.
That's
hooked
up
to
so
many
infrastructure,
and
it
is.
It
is
something
that
the
East
Foothills
and
the
Evergreen
area
is,
is
proud
of
right,
so
they
definitely
want
to
have
input
so
I
do
appreciate
where
we're
going.
Thank
you.
AC
I
just
want
you
know,
I
mean
overwriting.
Considerations
for
affordable
housing
is
fantastic,
but
I
also
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
mitigation
measures
that
you
know
for
traffic
impacts
are
not
void
right.
You
know,
I
really
want
to
make
sure
there's
pedestrian
safety
and
off-site
required
improvements.
So
you
know
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
what
I'm
understanding
is
that
you
know
we're
modifying
and
streamlining
the
SQL
process,
but
not
eliminated,
not
eliminating
mitigation
measures
for
traffic
impacts.
J
P
A
F
Yes,
there
is
a
report
from
yesterday.
That's
a
conforming
reasoning
for
real
property
located
at
179
desalvo
Avenue
was
approved
and
last
week,
November
8th
approval
of
a
license
agreement
with
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Transportation
Authority
for
vocational
Vehicles,
safe
packing
at
the
Santa
Teresa
live
station,
not
backing
up
those.
Two
items
didn't
come
through
this
commissioned
by
their
of
related
to
land
use.
A
X
I
just
wanted
to
say:
I've
accepted
a
position
with
another
city,
a
city
of
Palo
Alto,
my
last
day
with
city
of
San
Jose
will
be
December
2nd,
so
this
makes
it
my
last
meeting
and
it's
a
long
one
but
I
wanted
to.
Thank
you
all
for
your
service.
It's
been
a
pleasure
in
this
short
time,
advising
you
all
and
I
wish
you
all
the
best.