►
Description
City of San José
Envision San José 2040 4-Year Review Task Force
View agenda at https://sanjose.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=sanjose_f266d18cdf07da0df099d054fe4d4379.pdf&view=1
A
C
C
A
Not
gonna
repeat
it
again:
it
wasn't
that
interesting.
So
we
have
a
long
meeting
but
we're
covering
very
important
things
we
have
fresh
faces.
We
have
experienced
faces,
I,
know
Patsy
Saito's
here
all
right.
Can
you
hear
me
now
yeah,
better
all
right
and
we
have
some
younger
folks
here.
Pat
I
just
mentioned
your
name,
because
I
was
thinking
of
you
weren't
you
on
the
general
plan
task
force
for
Horizon
mm
yeah,
that's
pretty
interesting
when
you're
on
a
task
force
planning
the
future
and
that
future
ended
20
years
ago.
D
A
So
our
view
nice
to
see
you,
so
we
don't
have
food
for
our
meetings
and
it's
not
in
the
budget.
I'm
informed
I
know
there
was
a
question
someone
had
asked
about
that.
So
everyone's
welcome
to
bring
food
I
guess
she
should
have
been
told
up
for
this
meeting.
It
didn't
happen,
but
you're
welcome
to
bring
it
to
the
next
meeting.
C
E
Don't
like
introduce
myself
as
well:
I'm
Teresa,
Alvarado
Sam's,
a
director
spur
really
wonderful
to
see.
All
of
you
I
think
this
is
my
third
or
fourth
general
plan
committee,
but
I
love
seeing
all
the
new
faces.
We
have
several
new
members
of
the
committee
and
so
I
think
you
know
with
the
folks
who
have
been,
who
has
served
on
a
previous
general
plan
task
force
in
this
on
this
committee.
E
About
half
I
would
say,
which
is
a
good
group
of
folks
who
are
familiar
with
this
with
this
conversation,
feel
free
to
talk
to
your
neighbor.
If
you
have
a
question,
there
are
no
dumb
questions
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
invite
and
engage
conversation
even
from
the
far
side
of
the
table,
so
we
will
do
our
best,
Leslie
and
David
at
the
end
there
we're
watching
you
it
will
try
to.
It
will
try
to
make
sure
that
we
engage
all
of
you
in
this
conversation.
F
A
We're
gonna
cover
all
of
that.
We're
gonna
convert
all
of
that
some
of
the
details
shortly,
but
why
don't
we
start
off
with
this?
We're
gonna
go
around
I
want
to
give
everybody
a
chance
to
introduce
themselves
identify
their.
Why
they're
here
how
they
had
the
pleasure
of
being
appointed,
and
you
know
we're
all
diverse.
We
all
have
different
viewpoints.
We
bring
unique
things
each
of
us
to
this
effort,
but
I
think
there's
one
thing
that
binds
us
all
and
that's
a
love
of
San
Jose.
A
B
Second,
I
just
want
everyone
to
be
aware,
take
maybe
10
seconds
or
15
to
go
around
the
table.
This
limited
time
I'm
going
to
do
some
housekeeping.
We
have
restrooms
when
you
go
out
the
doors
to
the
left
as
well
as
you
can
go
out
down
the
hallway
to
the
right
near
the
elevators
parking
validators
in
the
back.
You
can
access
it
during
the
break
or
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
inside
your
binders
there's
a
ethics
form,
please
sign
it
and
return
it
to
staff
by
the
end
of
the
meeting.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
E
G
E
I'm
Michele
Youzhny
I'm,
currently
a
member
of
the
Planning
Commission,
my
claim
to
fame
is
that
I
prepared
the
e
IR
for
the
general
plan,
we're
currently
reviewing
many
years
ago
and
I'm
proud
of
that
and
I
like
living
in
San
Jose,
because
it
was
a
great
place
to
raise
my
daughter,
I'm
Lindell
design.
Currently
the
chair
of
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District,
former
council
member.
This
is
my
third
tour
on
this
task
force
and
the
thing
I
love
about
Stanford,
San,
Jose,.
F
C
C
D
And
I'm
Pat
Saito,
former
councilmember,
yes,
I,
have
served
on
several
general
plan
task
force
and
committees
currently
I
represent
here
at
this
table,
the
Building
Industry
Association
we
build
housing.
So
what
I
like
most
about
San
Jose,
one
of
the
things
is,
it
has
been
a
great
community
when
I
raise
my
children
and
we
lived
in
one
of
those
suburban
neighborhoods,
which
was
a
great
place
to
raise
a
family.
J
Good
evening
I'm
Kiyomi
on
the
yamamoto
I'm,
the
South
Bay
regional
South,
Bay
advocacy
manager
for
green
belt
Alliance.
We
are
an
environmental
nonprofit
that
takes
a
holistic
approach
to
both
protecting
open
space
in
promoting
smart
and
full
growth.
I'm
really
excited
to
be
part
of
the
Task
Force
on
my
fourth
generation
San,
Jose
resident
so
happy
to
support
the
city.
That's
given
us.
B
C
M
Hi
I'm
Kevin
Zwick
and
I'm,
the
CEO
of
Housing
Trust
Silicon
Valley
we're
a
nonprofit
community
loan
fund
that
works
to
create
affordable
housing
throughout
the
entire
Bay
Area
and
I
was
on
the
task
force
last
time
so
excited
to
be
on
it
again
and
bring
a
perspective
about
the
need
of
affordable
housing
and
the
housing
crisis
were
in
and
my
favorite
thing
about.
San
Jose
is
going
to
avea
Stadium
when
the
earthquakes
win.
C
C
C
C
H
Good
evening
I'm
Leslie
Carr
Celia
I
am
executive
director
of
Silicon
Valley
at
home,
which
is
a
housing
policy
and
advocacy
organization
working
for
housing
for
all
in
the
Silicon.
Valley
and
I
have
not
been
on
this
committee
before,
but
I
worked
for
the
city
for
24
years
and
so
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
the
general
plan.
Onion
and
our
housing
policies
here
and
I
would
say:
there's
a
lot
about
San
Jose,
that
I
really
love
and
that
people
would
be
my
choice.
F
L
C
C
C
G
P
Good
evening,
Jim
Zito,
representing
evergreen
Elementary,
School
District
third
time
around
on
the
2040
taskforce
to
term
planning
Commissioner
and
what
I
love
most
about
San
Jose
is
ditto
on
99%
of
what
I've
heard,
but
also
the
inclusivity.
The
ability
for
people
like
ourselves,
like
the
regular
residents
to
be
able
to
participate
in
such
a
function
like
this.
E
I'm
I'm
Bonnie
mace-
this
is
my
second
go-around
I've,
also
been
a
redistricting
commissioner
and
a
housing
commissioner.
So
quite
a
few
and
I'm
representing
district
8,
Sylvia
Reina,
says
district
and
what
I
love
about
San
Jose
is
Michael
Sox.
So
we
are
very
fashion-forward
in
San
Jose
and
it's
exemplified
by
our.
C
Hi
I'm
Carly
I'm,
a
realtor
I,
was
on
the
initial
2040
task
force
representing
the
Chinese
American
real
estate,
Association
I'm
active
still
with
the
local
state
and
national
realtor
associations,
and
have
been
on
a
number
of
housing
use
committees
at
the
state
level.
I
left,
San
Jose
for
four
years
for
college
going
back
east
immediately
came
back,
grew
up
in
San,
Jose
and
still
a
resident
of
Berryessa
to
the
other
major
sports
arena
from
Kevin.
My
favorite
place
is
the
shark
tank
everyone.
C
My
name
is
Jason
C
I'm,
the
executive
director,
the
Guadalupe
River
Park
Conservancy
at
the
very
new
executive
director.
My
favorite
part
of
San
Jose
is
the
welcoming
aspect
of
it
and
the
opportunity
to
the
impactful
works.
I
came
here
in
2011
to
study
a
sassy
state
where
I
actually
currently
teach
and
in
my
experience
here,
I
really
found
the
people
to
be
really
welcoming.
M
My
name
is
shiloh
ballard,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
silicon
valley,
bicycle
coalition,
I
grew
up
in
West.
San
Jose
then
bought
a
townhome
with
my
mom
in
South,
San
Jose
and
then
moved
to
downtown
San
Jose
District,
six
right
near
the
dirt
on
station
did
on
basically
everything
that's
been
said.
Oh
I
also
chaired
the
Planning
Commission,
but
I
was
put
here
for
the
bike
coalition.
Oh,
what
I
love
about
San
Jose
right
now
is
all
the
great
bike
lanes.
R
L
E
I
Good
evening
I'm
Rosalyn
Huey
I
am
the
director
of
the
Department
of
planning,
building
and
code
enforcement
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I
love
about
San
Jose
is
I,
get
to
work
with
so
many
dedicated
people,
community
organizations,
business
organizations.
So
many
different
advocates
here
in
the
city
and
I'm
also
thankful
that
I
have
a
great
team
at
PPC
to
work
with
and
with
that
I'm
gonna
ask
Michael
biryeo,
who
is
one
of
our
deputy
directors
to
introduce
our
team
who
you're
gonna
be
working
with
over
the
next
several
months,
so
Michael?
S
Is
our
attorney
who's
assigned
to
our
team
she'll
be
telling
you
about
some
exciting
stuff
in
a
moment,
and
then
we
have
q,
lon,
Pham
who's,
the
the
Senior
Planner
planner
for
leading
this
team
and
then
Jared
Hart,
our
division
manager
on
citywide
planning
and
we
have
Robert
Rivera
who's.
Also
on
the
the
four-year-old
you
team
and
Jessica's
Jessica
CTO.
J
A
I
was
former
council
member
for
district
3.
It
was
quite
a
while
ago.
I'll
tell
you
how
long
ago
it
was
was
so
long
ago
that
Tomiko
grassed
was
a
little
kid,
so
we're
gonna
start
off
now
with
task
force,
roles
and
responsibilities,
as
well
as
a
presentation
from
our
representative
from
the
City
Attorney's
Office.
B
B
Before
that
Avera
our
city
attorney
will
be
presenting
the
Brown
Act
Jared
Hart
will
be
scenting.
The
four-year
progress
report
and
Jessica's
Sathya
wah
will
be
going
the
overview
of
the
urban
village
and
staff
recommendations
and
followed
by
that
there
will
be
a
task
force,
discussion
and
public
comment
period
and
all
of
us
will
be
in
the
agenda
in
your
binders.
B
So
the
taskforce
began
with
the
City
Council
approval
of
the
scope
of
work
back
in
June
2019
and
since
July,
through
December
staff
and
our
consultants
have
been
gone.
The
background
Alice's
and
development
of
preliminary
recommendations
prior
to
each
task
force
meeting.
You
will
receive
a
memo
and
any
member
of
the
public.
B
B
So
task
force
members
responsibilities.
We
really
really
need
you
to
review
the
materials
and
be
prepared
for
the
meeting
themselves.
We
understand
that
there's
a
lot
of
materials
to
go
through.
You
can
definitely
email
us
for
any
clarification
kind
of
questions
and
moving
on
for
or
Amy.
Basically,
if
any
planning
related
questions,
if
we
could
within
the
confront
the
confinements
of
the
brown
AG,
will
definitely
reply
and
respond
back
to
you
as
soon
as
possible.
B
You
need
to
regulate,
attend
meetings.
There
are
no
alternates
and
no
substitutes
from
now
moving
forward.
One
absence
is
allowed.
Follow
the
four
year
review
schedule
follow
the
taskforce
ground
rules,
those
are
also
in
your
binder
and
I'll
go
over
them
in
a
moment.
Another
slide
now
the
task
force
has
a
limited
scope.
That
means
there's
no
revisions
that
will
require
an
environmental
impact
report
analysis
and
they
must
there
will
be
no
changes
to
the
general
plan,
use
destinations
for
any
specific
areas,
and
each
member
shall
have
one
vote.
B
So
the
taskforce
ground
rules
start
and
end
meetings
on
time.
As
best
as
we
can,
everybody
participates,
be
open,
listen,
actively,
raise
your
hand
when
you
wish
to
speak
and
definitely
funding
staff
will
help
our
co-chairs
to
filter
out
the
speakers
in
the
timely
matter.
Another
suggestion
is,
if
especially
for
those
who
are
the
far
edges,
to
put
your
name
card
on
the
side,
so
definitely
see
that
you
wish
to
speak
at
that
time.
E
Q
They
change
colors.
My
name
is
Vera
Tata
off
I
am
with
the
City
Attorney's
Office
I've
been
with
the
city
for
17
years.
Much
of
it,
representing
the
planning
department
and
I
also
represent
the
Planning
Commission
I've
been
advising
staff
and
the
council
on
the
general
plan
on
this
current
general
plan.
Since
it's
a
since
prior
to
its
adoption,
I
wanted
to
talk
to
you
about
the
Ralph
M
Brown
Act,
the
Brown
Act.
Q
Many
of
you
are
elected
if
it
were
former
elected
officials
or
current
or
former
appointees,
to
City
Commission's,
so
I
apologize
for
repeating
some
information
that
you've
probably
already
received,
but
it's
important
to
do
so.
The
purpose
of
the
Brown
Act
let's
go.
This
is
to
provide
the
public
with
access
to
the
decision-making
process
of
local
legislative
bodies.
This
is
a
local
legislative
body.
You
are
making
recommendations
to
the
City
care
Council
on
changes
to
a
very
important
document
to
general
plan.
Q
That
is,
a
legislative
function
of
the
city,
so
you
are
subject
to
the
Brown
Act.
The
policy
declaration
in
the
Brown
Act
is
extremely
important.
It
says
and
I'm
sorry
I'm
repeating
this.
The
public
Commission's
boards
and
councils
and
the
other
public
agencies
in
this
state
exist
to
aid
in
the
conduct
of
the
people's
business.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
law
that
their
actions
be
taken
openly
and
that
their
deliberations
be
conducted
openly.
The
people
insist
on
remaining
so
informs
they
may
retain
control
over
the
instruments
they've
created.
Q
The
public
needs
to
be
able
to
hear
what
you
are
saying
and
all
of
you
need
to
hear
what
each
other
are
saying
as
well.
The
Brown
Act
applies
to
meetings
of
legislative
bodies
which
you
are
I,
am
NOT
going
to
get
into
this.
Much
because
I
already
told
you
your
government,
you
are
not
the
governing
body
of
a
local
agency,
but
you
are
a
commission
that
is
subject
to
the
Brown
Act.
What
is
a
meeting
a
meeting
is
a
gathering
of
a
majority
of
the
legislative
body,
I'm
informed
that
you
have
42
members.
Q
So
a
meeting
requires
a
quorum
of
22
members,
and
that
is
how
many
people
it
takes
to
take
action
and
it's
a
meeting.
A
meeting
is
a
quorum
22
members
of
this
body
at
the
same
time,
in
place
like
we
are
here
tonight
and
the
purpose
is
to
receive
information,
discuss
an
issue
or
take
any
action.
So
remember:
you're
not
just
having
a
meeting
if
you're
taking
action,
it's
if
you're
receiving
information
and
you're
discussing
an
issue
also
that
will
come
before
this
body.
It's
not
just
it's
not
just
taking
action.
Q
There
are
a
couple
of
exceptions
that
are
not
going
to
matter
to
you,
because
you
can
have
conferences
or
meetings
that
you
might
go
to
as
long
as
there's
no
discussion
or
specific
issues
among
yourselves
or
purely
social
or
ceremonial
gathering.
So
long
as
specific
business
is
not
discussed
so
again,
the
prohibition
is,
is
that
you
cannot
discuss
the
business
of
this
task
force
outside
of
this
room,
particularly
if
there's
a
quorum.
Q
So
if
you
go
to
a
conference
a
meeting,
let's
say
it's,
one
of
your
different
agencies
is
having
a
meeting
in
the
sense
of
being
discussed.
Can't
be
there
you're
on
the
task
force
you
need
to
leave.
Purely
ceremonial
gatherings
are
social.
You
go
to
a
party
or
something
people
want
to
talk
to.
You
don't
speak
about
this.
You
can't
talk
about
it
and
I'll.
Tell
you
why,
in
just
a
moment,
serial
meetings
of
this
commission
of
all
Commission's
are
prohibited.
What
that
means
is
a
serial
meeting.
Q
Is
a
series
of
communications
between
individual
members
or
groups
of
members
of
the
Commission
that
ultimately
involve
a
majority
and
ultimately
involve
a
majority,
is
important?
Will
explain
that
in
a
moment
it's
regarding
a
specific
issue
to
be
addressed
by
the
body
to
develop
a
concurrence
on
an
action
to
be
taken
by
the
body.
So
let
me
give
you
an
example
from
tube
planning,
commissioners
or
something
that
I
know.
Jim
might
call
Melanie
right
and
have
a
discussion
about
something.
Q
That's,
okay,
it's
only
two
people,
but
you
may
start
talking
to
others
about
it
or
you
may
have
three
or
four
people
who
decide:
let's
go
get
a
drink
after
a
taskforce
meeting,
let's
have
dinner
before
we're
hungry.
Let's
plan
on
meeting
that
meeting
among
maybe
five
six,
seven,
eight
people
or
more,
you
start
talking
to
other
people,
and
you
can't
control
who
those
other
people
at
that
meeting
or
at
your
dinner
who
they're
going
to
be
talking
to
and
before
you
know
it.
Q
22
people
may
have
the
same
information
and
you
have
violated
the
Brown
Act,
because
you've
spoken
in
an
attempt
to
get
ideas
or
concur
on
where
something
should
go.
There
really
is
no
other
reason.
You'd
probably
be
talking
about
it.
Unless
you
wanted
to
talk
about
some
resolution
or
some
issue
that
you
see,
so
the
communications
also
involve
face
to
face
meetings,
emails
text,
messages,
phone
calls,
social
media
and
the
use
of
personal
intermedia
Ares
I'm
gonna
have
my
I'm
gonna.
Q
Have
my
assistant
call
and
find
out
what
so-and-so
thinks
about
this
and
that
those
are
social
intermediaries
or
personal
intermediator
intermediaries
or
someone
hits
up
your
spouse
or
significant
other
and
tells
them
I?
Want
your
wife
or
your
you
know,
or
person,
to
vote
a
different
way
or
to
vote
a
certain
way
that
happens
as
well
so
or
where
you
have
meetings
where
people
call
a
group
of
people
intending
to
find
a
certain
result
or
influence
you
in
a
certain
way.
Q
It
is
a
particular
concern
with
a
group
this
large
when
we
have,
you
know
commissions
of
seven
people
or
so
people
remember
that
more
because
you
know
you
know
when
you've
spoken
to
a
couple
of
people
or
what's
happened,
or
they
limit
that
more.
Our
major
problems
in
the
city
have
actually
occurred
in
my
experience
with
groups
this
large
and
it
you
know,
we
had
had
one
attempt
many
many
years
ago
where
people
wanted
to
start
a
webpage
to
talk
to
each
other
and
do
that
stuff.
Q
You
know
we
stopped
that
we've
had
people
attempt
to
you
know:
tweet
do
all
kinds
of
things
and
it
all
before
you
know
it.
You
have
a
quorum.
You
know
looking
at
that
plus
it
creates
a
very,
very
negative
public
record
that
you
do
not
want.
You
know
you
these
folks
in
the
audience
people
who
have
an
interest
in
this
an
interest
in
an
open
public
hearing.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
out
there
who
critique
what
we
do
as
cities
and
what
Commission's
do
and
what
public
agencies
do.
Q
Q
The
agendas
need
to
have
a
clear
description
of
the
issue
to
be
discussed.
Planning
is
good
at
doing
that.
There
needs
to
be
a
public
opportunity
to
speak.
So
that's
why
you
see
you
know
public
comments
on
items
not
on
this
agenda
plus
they
have
to
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
every
item
that
is
on
the
agenda
as
well,
and
the
meetings
have
to
be
held
within
the
jurisdiction.
I'm,
not
worried
about
that.
We're
not
going
to
be
holding
our
meetings
in
Santa
Cruz.
Q
There
are
closed
meeting
exceptions
and
I
have
to
say
that
none
of
these
will
probably
apply
to
this
particular
task
force.
The
only
time
that
I
have
ever
had
to
take
any
body
like
this
into
other
than
the
City
Council
into
a
closed
session
was
with
the
Planning
Commission,
where
someone
had
attempted
to
enjoin
their
action
at
that
night.
Q
Meeting
and
I
had
to
show
up
in
court
that
morning
to
fight
it
and
they
needed
to
know
that
that
occurred
and
that
they
had
the
right
to
move
forward
with
what
they
were
doing
so
because
that
was
the
decision
of
the
court
at
the
time.
But
I
don't
expect
that
to
happen
here.
Unless
somebody,
perhaps
you
know,
alleges
something
is
going
wrong,
but
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
occur.
Q
Q
They
intend
to
deprive
the
public
of
information
and
they
know
that
the
public
was
entitled
to
receive
such
information.
So
you're
having
this
session
right
now,
because
you're
going
to
know
that
the
public
might
be
entitled
to
information.
If
you
do,
any
civil
remedies
are-
and
this
is
what
usually
happens
if
there's
a
Brown
Act
action,
there's
an
invalidation
of
the
action.
So
whatever
you
do
becomes
invalid.
Q
A
person
complaining
of
that
make
will
make
a
written
demand
to
cure
the
violation
to
the
city,
and
if
corrective
action
is
not
taken
within
30
days,
then
they
can
proceed
to
court
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
know,
and
so
the
good
thing
to
know
if
there
is
a
violation
and
it's
discovered,
a
decision
to
do
a
corrective
action,
which
means
to
take
the
vote
again
like
on
a
recommendation
for
this
board.
It
the
inference
that
it
was
cured.
It
doesn't
say
that
it
was
unlawful,
you're
off
the
hook.
Q
If
you're
able
to
do
that,
you
know
if
something
was
done.
You
know
something
was
not
on
the
agenda,
for
example,
and
you
voted
on
it
with
regard
to
enforcement.
The
civil
remedies
are
that
you
can
that
the
court
can
issue
an
injunction
for
prospective
relief
can
be
obtained
and
they
don't
have
to
prove
that
there
was
a
knowing
violation
for
this
remedy
and
they
can
do
it
without
a
demand
for
a
cure
for
the
alleged
violation.
The
Brown
Act
gives
broad
authority
for
courts
to
impose
an
order
sufficient
to
stop
and
prevent
violations.
Q
Q
The
appropriate
remedy
is
so
I
just
wanted
to
inform
you
that
the
importance
of
the
Brown
Act,
because
your
actions
need
to
be
taken
in
public.
Everyone
needs
to
hear
the
same
information
at
the
same
time.
People's
comments
and
concerns
about
you
know,
proposals
that
you
may
hear
very,
very
important
to
all
be
done
in
public
and
so
I
encourage
you
all
to
keep
that
in
mind
with
every
action
that
you
take
with
regard
to
the
task
force.
Q
Basically,
what
conflict
of
interests
are
and
I
don't
expect
you
to
know
whether
or
not
you
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
The
purpose
in
doing
this
is
for
you
to
issue
spot
whether
you
might,
and
so
you
know
there
are
rules
and
regulations
that
refine
this.
But
if
you
discover
that
you
may
have
any
of
these
issues,
please
contact
me
through
the
Planning
Department.
They
will
forward
your
questions
to
me,
and
so
the
first
is,
it
basically
says
and
I'm
just
I'm
gonna
read
this
and
explain
a
bit.
Q
A
public
official
has
a
financial
interest
in
decision
if
it
is
reasonably
foreseeable
that
the
decision
will
have
a
material
financial
effect
distinguishable
from
its
effect
on
the
public
generally
on
the
official,
a
member
of
his
or
her
immediate
family
or
on
any
of
the
following.
The
first
item:
a
is
any
business
entity
in
which
the
public
official
has
a
direct
or
indirect
investment
worth
$2,000.
Q
So
if
a
decision
being
here
is
being
made,
that
would
somehow
affect
your
business
entity
anything
to
do
with
it
in
a
way
that
is
worth
$2,000
and
the
$2,000
would
be
an
increase
in
value
as
well
as
a
decrease
in
value.
It
can
go
either
way.
You
may
have
a
conflict
of
interest
that
would
prohibit
you
from
being
in
the
decision-making
process
on
that
item.
Q
Second,
B
here
is
any
real
property
in
which
the
public
official
has
a
director
in
direct
interest
worth
$2,000
or
more.
So
that
would
include,
for
example,
your
residents,
whether
you
own
it
whether
you
lease
it
whether
you
have
a
license
to
use
some
property
for
a
particular
purpose,
whether
you
have
an
easement
over
some
property
that
would
be
affected
by
this.
It
can
be
any
type
of
property
interest.
Q
And
this
is
one
that
comes
up
quite
often
any
business
entity
in
which
the
public
official
is
a
director
officer,
partner,
trustee
employee
or
holds
any
position
of
management,
so
it
if
it
affects
the
business
entity
where
you
hold
any
of
those
positions,
then
again
you
may
have
a
conflict
of
interest
last,
any
donor
of
or
intermediary
agent
or
donor
of
a
gift
or
gifts,
aggregating,
250
dollars
or
more
in
value
provided
to
received
by
our
promise
to
the
public
official
within
12
months.
Prior
to
the
time
the
decision
is
made.
Q
So,
for
example,
you
got
a
gift
from
someone,
you
didn't
reciprocate
it
in
any
way.
You
know
you
just
you
just
got
a
gift
and
it
was
250
by
city,
ordinance,
I,
believe
it's
$50.
We
have
to
be
careful
about,
but
you
get
a
gift
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
you
know,
nine
months
later,
you
discover
you're
here
on
the
task
force
and
something
that
the
task
force
is
recommending
uniquely
impacts.
This
person
who
gave
you
the
gift
or
the
business
that
gave
you
the
gift.
Q
Probably
most
often
is
interest
by
your
spouse
or
by
businesses
that
you
have
or
your
spouse
may
have
and
their
clients,
and
so
you
know,
obviously
the
community
property
interest
in
in
your
spouse.
That's
a
50%
community
property
interest
under
California
law,
so
you
know
in
their
income,
for
example,
from
their
employer.
You
have
a
50%
interest
in
so
you
may
have
to
disqualify
yourself
if
something
impacting
your
spouse's
employer
comes
up.
That
would
you
know
that
would
cause
that
would
cause
a
change.
Q
So
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
kind
of
a
list
of
what
you
need
to
look
for.
I.
Honestly,
don't
think
that
the
general
the
general
plan
amendments
are
usually
so
broad
that
this
doesn't
really
that
you
are
not
going
to
have
any
conflicts,
but
you
never
know-
and
you
never
know
how
this
may
uniquely
impact-
maybe
a
small
group
of
businesses,
a
small
group
of
entities
or
a
small
group
of
people,
the
decisions
that
you're
making
and
you
may
be
connected
to
them
in
some
way.
Q
A
H
Are
just
a
couple
of
clarifications?
I
should
know
the
Brown
Act
pretty
well,
but
what
I
thought
I
heard
you
say
is
that
we
can't
talk
among
ourselves
and
I
mean
the
council.
Can
the
council
has
what
they
call
a
brown
act,
and
so,
if
there
were
like
five
of
us
who
wanted
to
form
a
brown
act,
we
can't
is
that
one
thing
you're
saying
and
then
the
second
thing
is:
can
I
bring
this
conversation
to
my
board.
I
do
have
board
members
who
are
at
this
table,
but
obviously
is
policy
and
advocacy
organization.
H
Q
Q
State
law
is
no
bias,
but
we
have
no
appearance
of
bias.
So
the
more
that
we
speak
to
others
about
it
and
express
an
opinion
before
something
comes
to
a
vote
before
the
task
force
or
any
Commission.
You
may
be
actually
giving
an
appearance
of
bias
where
you're
not
hearing
all
the
sides
at
a
meeting
who
want
to
talk
about
this
and
influence
you
at
the
meeting
to
vote
one
way
or
the
other
you're,
not
hearing
all
the
facts.
C
A
A
So
you
don't
have
to
feel
like
you
have
a
need
to
do
it
somewhere
else.
So
to
that
extent
we
have
talked
with
planning
staff
and
you're
good
to
get
these
packets
in
the
you
know
a
week
ahead
of
time,
they're
going
to
be
online
for
the
public
as
well.
Please
read
them
over
if
you've
got
questions
about
anything,
that's
in
the
packets
there's
going
to
be
a
public
forum
in
the
in
the
planning
staff
to
send
an
email.
Ask
them
the
question
that
you
have
the
information.
A
The
answer
will
be
posted
publicly
know
that,
and
so
that
way
we
can
maximize
the
time
that
we
do
here
have
for
discussions
and
not
trying
to
understand
the
reports.
That's
not
to
say
you're,
going
to
be
precluded
from
asking
questions,
okay,
but
really
try
to
take
advantage
of
that
and
keep
the
discussion
and
expression
of
opinions,
as
our
attorney
has
advised
us.
Try
to
keep
that
to
hear
your.
Q
Pandora,
thank
you.
I
really
appreciate
you
bringing
that
up,
because
the
other
thing
also
that
I
think
I
know
I
hate
and
staff
hates
is
I,
don't
like
surprises
at
the
meeting
and
last-minute
questions
where
I
need
time
to
really
look
at
what
your
issue
is
and
I
know.
Staff
gives
far
more
complete
answers
when
they
have
your
questions
ahead
of
time,
and
they
will
just
say.
Q
A
D
S
A
A
S
Right
so
I'm
gonna
quickly
is
go
over.
What
the
general
plan
is.
That's,
why
we're
here
as
the
envision
set
of
the
general
plan
so
really
I'm?
The
general
plan
is
the
city's
overarching
official
policy
statement
regarding
the
future
character
of
the
city,
its
land-use
patterns
and
quality
of
development.
S
It's
been
called
the
Constitution
for
a
city,
a
blueprint
for
the
future
of
the
city
and
it
what
it
does
is
it
identifies
a
vision
of
what
the
city
would
wants
to
become
in
this
case
it's
the
Year
2040
and
then
develop
strategies,
goals
and
policies
that
are
intended
for
us
to
get
there
to
achieve
that
vision
and
it's
a
doc.
This
is
a
very
broad
document.
There's
elements
that
a
general
plan
has
to
include
ours
is
very,
very
broad.
S
But
it's
a
document
that
informs
the
decision-makers
on
their
decisions,
so
when
a
council
is
making
a
decision
about
service
levels
or
new
parks
or
a
development
proposal,
a
whole
gamut
of
things,
the
staff
make
a
recommendation
based
on
whether
the
decision
or
the
Rec
or
the
project
or
whatever
it
is,
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
general
plan
and
besos.
Our
recommendation
is
based
on
that
and
counsel
will
make
findings
based
on
consistency
with
a
general
plan.
S
So
it's
really
it's
really
a
very
pragmatic,
practical
document
that
we
use
on
a
weekly
basis,
so
I
kind
of
touched
upon
this
already.
But
this
general
plan
does
include
a
vision.
Oh
there's
an
image
of
that
in
just
a
second.
It
includes
his
major
strategies
which
we'll
go
over.
It
includes
standards
for
city
services,
so
I
did
talk
about
those
services,
their
standards
for
parks,
provision
of
parks,
police
service
times,
fire
times.
That
sort
of
thing
there
used
to
be
what
was
called
level
of
service
for
traffic
or
traffic
congestion
or
delay.
S
That's
actually
no
longer
a
standard
and
then,
of
course,
the
thing
that
that
a
lot
of
us
really
look
towards
is
the
what's
called
the
land
use
transportation
diagram,
which
is
that
that
map
that
has
all
the
colors
on
it.
That
says
what
can
someone
do
with
their
land
if
they
want
to
redevelop
so
just
kind
of
history
of
planning
and
an
in
like
super
fast
and
a
five-minute
elevator
ride
is
that
San
Jose
really
didn't
grow
very
much
up
until
about
1955.
So
we
were
part
of
the
valley
of
heart's
delight.
S
Sorry,
the
Los
Angeles
in
northern
California
and
most
of
San,
Jose's,
urban
or
suburban
or
physical
legacy
comes
from
that
Dutch
Hammond
period,
then
starting
in
ninth
in
the
early
seventies.
There
is
really
a
backlash
towards
that
I
think
a
lot
of
it
had
to
do
if
the
city
was
subsidizing
development,
it
didn't
have
enough
resources
to
provide
a
lot
of
the
services
and
we
were
just
growing
outward
and
outward,
and
there
was
sort
of
a
questioning
of
that
and
sort
of.
S
Maybe
we
should
talk
about
control,
managing
growth,
chillie,
and
so
that
was
the
period
when
General
Plan
75.
The
first
modern
general
plan
was
enacted
by
the
City
Council.
That
was
the
beginning
of
the
the.
What
we
had
today
is
the
light
PTAs
light
rail
network
and
really
kind
of
the
focus
is
starting
to
grow,
inward
and
and
and-
and
you
know,
growing,
not
just
growing
but
bringing
back
our
downtown.
So
one
of
the
big
changes
that
this
happened
is
that
the
land
area
of
San
Jose
it's.
S
We
really
have
stopped
growing
in
terms
of
land
area,
but
our
population
of
course
continues
to
grow
and
we're
essentially
going
from
growing
out
to
growing
up
as
and
that's
what
that
chart
shows
so
I
think
some
of
some
of
you,
of
course,
about
a
third
or
half,
and
you
remember
this,
but
we
had
a
division
in
San,
Jose,
envision,
San
Jose,
a
task
force
process
at
a
community
engagement
process.
The
overall
process
update
process
started
in
August
of
2007,
and
it
took
five
years.
It
wasn't
done
until
November,
1st
of
2011.
S
When
the
council
approved
a
new
general
plan,
we
had
a
35
member
task
force
back
then
we've
grown
a
bit
and-
and
this
general
plan
really
builds
upon
the
previous
general
plans,
but
it
is
a
new
general
plan.
I
should
add
that
we
had
5,000
people,
independent
people,
not
people
participating
more
than
once,
but
5,000
discrete
people
participate
in
this
urban
village
plan,
and
just
one
thing
I
really
remember
is
that
staff
was
talking
about
concepts
and
ideas
of
what
we
could
do
and
the
task
force
said
to
staff
staff.
You
are
being
too
timid.
S
This
is
San
Jose.
We
need
to
be
more
bold,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
the
message
that
we
got
prior
to
this
general
plan.
The
words
urban
was
a
little
bit
too
scary
and
we
were
advised
not
to
use
the
word
urban
in
public
so
kind
of
coming
from
it.
So
it's
a
very,
very
bold
general
plan
and
that
boldness
came
from
the
task
force
in
the
community
members
that
were
involved
in
creating
it.
S
S
S
This
plan
really
again
builds
off
previous
plans
going
back
to
1975
it's
about
focusing
growth,
not
just
focusing
growth
inward,
but
focusing
growth
in
a
specific
growth
areas.
This
includes
downtown
North,
San
Jose,
the
new
and
old
Edenvale
kind
of
business
areas,
but
also
the
urban
villages
and
our
older
specific
plans,
and
it's
really
a
way
this.
S
This
general
plan
is
about
focusing
the
growth
and
then
preserving
the
quality
of
our
existing
established
neighborhoods
that
are
outside
of
those
growth
areas
and,
of
course
it's
it's
one
of
the
motivations
for
doing
that
is
to
reduce
environmental
and
fiscal
impacts
to
the
city,
so
regional
innovation,
employment
center
is,
is
one
of
the
key
major
strategies
of
this
general
plan
plans
for
four
hundred
seventy
thousand
new
jobs.
This
is
actually
out
of
date
right.
S
So
it's
three
eighty-two
thousand
new
jobs
I
think
we
did
business
from
the
previous
task
force
for
your
task
force
and
the
goal
is
to
achieve
a
1.1
two
jobs.
One
employee
resident,
actually
you're,
seeing
the
slide
from
four
years
ago
reflects
what
it
was
before.
This
task
force
recommended
changing
it
and
the
one
thing
about
this:
this
regional
employment
center.
It's
really
about
building
more
urban
job,
centers
and
focusing
them
on
transit.
S
S
I'm
gonna
move
on
we've
kind
of
touched
enough
on
that,
so
the
I
think
they're.
Really.
A
new
concept
for
this
general
plan
is
the
concept
of
an
urban
village
plan
or
urban
villages.
There
are
roughly
about
64
of
them,
spread
throughout
San
Jose,
and
it
really
the
idea
of
urban
villages
came
about
in
part,
because
the
city
has
an
urban
growth
boundary.
We
do
not
want
to
grow
outside
of
that
urban
growth
boundary
and
we
have.
We
don't
have
much
underutilized
land,
we're
not
Chicago
or
Gary
Indiana
I.
S
What's
called
complete
communities
on
our
commercial
corridors
that
are
often
very
well
sort
of
a
transit
that
would
provide
opportunities
for
people
to
do
things
in
closer
proximity,
maybe
live
and
work
in
close
proximity
play
and
and
and
would
create,
address
a
number
of
goals,
including
reducing
greenhouse
gases,
by
route,
providing
opportunities
for
people
to
drive
shorter
distances
and
maybe
walk
ride,
a
bike
or
take
transit,
and
it's
really
also
strategy
to
build
a
city
of
great
places.
So
I
think
we
have
great
people
in
the
city.
S
S
It's
not
I
mean
we've
been
working
out
for
a
while,
but
really
sort
of
acknowledging
and
embracing
that
and
and
designing
streets
to
serve
more
than
automobiles.
It's
really
one
of
the
key
new
major
new,
bold
steps,
we're
taking
with
this
general
plan,
so
a
measure
of
sustainability,
so
I
mean
we
did
have
the
green
vision
that
Chuck
Reed
had
that
a
lot
of
those
green
vision
goals
are
incorporated
in
here.
S
But
it's
also
really
about
our
Landy's
fabric,
and
I
think
this
was
an
aha
moment
for
staff
and
the
task
force
some
ten,
eight
or
nine
ten
years
ago,
when
we
really
became
really
became
aware
that
the
land
use
the
urban
environment.
We
have
affects
people's
health
in
an
environment
where
you
have
to
drive
your
car
everywhere
in
long
distance,
you're
more
likely
to
have
higher
incidence
of
diabetes,
heart
disease
depression.
S
So
it
affects
people's
health
significantly
and
so
trying
to
create
a
city
that
encourages
an
active
lifestyle
that
allows
people
to
a
bike,
walk
to
take
care
of
some
of
the
daily
needs.
We
all
aspire
to
go
to
the
gym
regularly
and
if
we're
lucky,
we
get
there
maybe
one
day
a
week.
If
you
could
take
care
of
your
daily
needs
by
just
without
even
thinking
I
am
exercising.
That
would
an
admirable
achievement.
S
So
the
other
major
strategy,
NIST
general
plan,
is
about
plan
horizons
and
periodic
major
review.
I'll
start
with
a
periodic
major
review.
That's
us
today!
Here
we
are
so
the
gener,
the
prior
general
plan
did
not
have
this
four
year
review
process
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
other
cities
in
California
having
a
four
year
review
process,
one
of
the
things
that
happened
with
the
prior
general
plan
2020
as
people
started
to
feel,
though
it
was,
became
a
general
plan
of
exceptions.
Every
Tuesday
there
was
something
being
considered
to
change
the
general
plan.
S
It's
not
every
Tuesday
was
four
times
a
year
and
that
it
was
it
was
getting
really
really
out
of
date,
and
there
needed
to
be
this
point
where
you
you,
people
got
together.
In
this
case,
we
recommend
the
task
force
that
got
together
and
said.
Let's
look
at
this
plan,
how
are
we
doing?
Are
we
headed
towards
our
vision?
Are
we
headed
towards
our
goals?
S
Do
we
need
you
some
course
corrections,
it's
kind
of
a
selves
to
do
self
evaluation
of
how
we're
doing,
and
so
that's
what
we're
actually
undertaking
starting
tonight
and
we
think
it's
a
really.
It's
a
really
it's
it's.
It's
a
great
process
to
build
in
to
sort
of
keep
the
general
plan
relevant
and
adapt
to
changing
circumstances,
so
the
other
one
is
horizons
and
this
this
urban
village
I'm,
sorry,
the
urban
village.
S
This
general
plan
plans
for
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
housing
units,
but
they're
the
task
force
and
the
council
had
some
concerns
about
letting
all
of
that
housing
growth
be
a
capacity
be
available
at
the
approval
of
the
general
plan.
So
they
created
these
horizons,
and
these
horizons
are
only
for
residential
development
they're
only
for
they're
only
for
urban
villages
and
the
idea
behind
this
is
because
the
city
wanted
to
grow
in
a
balanced
manner
that
so,
as
housing
went
up,
employment
went
up,
and
so
they
grew
an
imbalance.
S
And
if
you
remember,
we
will
talk
about
this
in
a
minute.
How
San
Jose
is
actually
an
imbalance
city
of
the
other
way,
which
is
we're
kind
of
the
black
sheep
of
Silicon
Valley.
The
other
idea
is
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
had
the
resources
to
provide
services
to
all
this
housing
unit,
so
it
was
a
way
of
managed
that
growth
over
time.
So
there's
the
horizon
one
urban
villages-
and
this
has
changed
by
the
way.
I'm
sorry.
S
This
is
not
completely
up
to
date,
but
it
gives
you
the
general
idea,
but
the
jet,
the
urban
villages
are
horizon-1
are
those
that
are
radiates
out
of
downtown
on
major
transit
corridors
and
those
are
the
urban
village
plans
that
were
intended
to
have
housing
development
move
forward.
First
and
then,
there's
the
horizon
to
urban
villages,
which
are
the
urban
village,
is
located
along
the
the
light
rail
lines
in
San,
Jose
and
Jarrod's.
Gonna
talk
about
this
in
a
minute.
S
So
so
I'll
quickly
go
over
the
four-year
review
process.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
J
is
gonna
talk
get
into
this
more,
but
one
of
the
things
we
do
is
we
assess.
How
are
we
doing
with
our
economic,
our
economic
goals?
How
are
we
achieving
our
jobs
to
employ
a
resident
ratio
are
becoming
a
more
balanced
E
or
we
still
an
imbalanced.
We
look
at
our
urban
village
policies.
How
we're
doing
achieve
that
strategy.
We
evaluate
environmental
indicators,
including
our
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
we
evaluate.
S
Is
there
our
housing
capacity
and
in
terms
of
do
we
have
the
right
policy
framework
and
goals
and
capacity
to
achieve
our
needed
housing
this
this
task
force
can
make
a
recommendation
based
on
its
analysis,
of
the
things
above
that
I
just
covered
on
terms.
Are
we
ready?
Should
we
open
up
a
new
horizon?
S
Just
gonna.
Take
a
breath
for
a
second
okay
so
now
on
to
the
scope
of
the
urban
the
scope
of
this
four-year
review,
and
this
was
in
a
memo
that
I
believe
it
should
be
in
your
packet.
If
it's
not,
is
it
the
move?
It's
it's
in
your
packet
that
comes
from
a
memo
that
was
written
by
Mayor,
Sam,
Accardo
and
approved
by
the
City
Council,
so
the
first
batch
of
scope,
items
real
is
relates
to
urban
village
implementation
and
we're
gonna
be
getting
into
this
tonight.
So
we're
not.
This
is
not
all
background
night.
S
We're
actually
gonna,
be
rolling
up
our
sleeves
and
getting
into
some
issues
and
we'll
be
looking
at
reader
distributing
some
of
the
plan,
growth
and
within
villages
modifying
some
urban
village
boundaries.
Looking
at
eliminating
some
urban
villages,
we're
gonna
be
looking
at
modifying
policies
related
to
mixed
in
related
to
housing
and
mix
these
developments
within
urban
villages.
S
We're
gonna
be
talking
about
urban
village
growth
horizons
where
it
might
make
sense
to
make
some
adjustments
we'll
be
talking
about
the
residential
pool.
Should
we
replenish
that
or
not
and
we'll
get
into
the
wonky
details
of
that
momentarily?
It's
not
about
swimming
pools,
it's
about
capacity
of
for
housing,
growth
and
we'll
be
talking
about
some
modifying
some
general
policies
to
further
implement
a
facilitate
on
the
development
of
urban
villages.
S
The
next
scoping
item
is
opportunity
housing.
So
so
this
general
plan
and
I
kind
of
covered
this
before
was
really
about
leaving
the
existing
single-family
neighborhoods
alone
and
focusing
growth
into
higher
density
corridors,
and
one
of
the
scoping
items
is
really
to
explore.
Could
you
allow
some
middle
density
in
existing
single-family
neighborhoods,
for
example,
duplexes
triplex
is
for
plexes
in
limited
areas
in
the
city
that
are
already
areas
adjacent
to
higher
density
areas
or
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
urban
villages
that
are
along
robust
transit.
S
So
that's
something
we're
going
to
be
looking
at,
as
you
may
be.
If
you've
been
following.
What's
going
on
to
the
state
Scot
Senator
Scott
wieners
had
various
bills
kind
of
getting
at
this,
but
San
Jose
is
actually
getting
out
ahead
of
that
sort
of
developing.
What
we
think
will
work
for
our
city
proactively,
we'll
also
be
looking
at
residential
uses,
analyze
underutilized
business
corridors.
So
a
number
of
our
neighborhood
business
districts
are
not
urban
villages.
S
Lincoln
Avenue,
not
an
urban
village,
Willow
Street,
not
an
urban
village
story,
Road
and
I'm,
forgetting
the
other
one
that
comes
to
mind
with
it.
13Th
Street
in
my
neighborhood.
So
could
there
be
opportunities
to
allow
for
the
introduction
of
residential
development
within
those
neighborhoods
districts?
S
The
the
other
scoping
item
related
to
housing
is
commercial
space
requirements
for
affordable
developments.
We've
heard
that
affordable
developments
have
a
lot
of
challenges
of
providing
commercial
space
a
lot
having
to
do
with
how
those
are
financed
so
we'll
be
exploring
some
changes
to
commercial
space
requirements
for
affordable
housing
where
there
are
requirements
there
are
not
all
these
requirements
and
I
think
one
of
the
okay,
so
one
of
the
big
ones,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
very
excited
about,
and
I'm
probably
eager
to
talk
about
is
coyote
Valley.
S
So
there's
a
long
history
to
coyote
Valley,
but
we're
kind
of
looking
at
a
significant
turn
here
in
terms
of
the
city's
vision
and
future
of
coyote
Valley.
So
measure
T
was
passed
by
the
voters
that
put
a
bond
for
15
million
dollars,
which
would
go
to
buy
a
significant,
if
not
them,
in
a
very
large
portion
of
north
coyote
from
the
two
major
property
owners
and
that's
an
area.
S
That's
been
planned
for
industrial
growth
for
many
many
years,
so
we'll
be
talking
about
that,
as
well
as
the
future
of
the
Mid
coyote
urban
reserve
and
then
we'll
be
talking
about
shifting
some
capacities
around
residential
capacities
a
little
bit
of
commercial
capacity,
particularly
with
the
focus
of
downtown,
there's,
actually
a
need,
given
all
the
development
interest
going
on
right
now
with
downtown
to
actually
add
capacity
to
downtown
and
then
to
more
so
vehicle
miles.
Traveled,
not
we're
going
to
be
recommending
going
to
what's
called
tier
two
policies
to
reduce
vehicle
miles
traveled.
S
S
A
So
we're
a
little
bit
behind
on
our
schedule.
We're
gonna
finish
at
nine
o'clock.
Okay,
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
just
sitting
here
and
listening.
We
want
the
meetings
to
be
active
with
lots
of
participation,
but
this
meetings
going
to
be
different
than
the
others,
because
we
need
to
get
everybody
to
the
same
base
of
information
as
well
as
what's
happened
since
the
last
four
years.
So
we're
going
to
be
sitting
here
listening
a
bit
more
before
we
get
to
the
first
issue.
I
I
I
I
We
get
right
into
staff
recommendations
on
urban
villages,
and
so
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
perhaps
we
skip
this
particular
portion
agenda
item
for
if
there's
specific
questions
that
any
of
the
task
force
members
have
on
the
progress
report,
we're
happy
to
take
those
but
I
think
we
can
make
better
use
of
our
time
if
we
go
straight
into
the
style
recommendations
and
then
really
get
to
a
discussion
among
the
task
force.
Members
around
those
recommendations.
A
E
C
E
E
E
A
Let's
do
this
good
exercise
a
little
bit
of
prog
ative
I
think
it
is
important
for
us
to
be
brought
up
to
speed
with
what's
happened
in
the
last
four
years,
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
changes
and
I
know.
This
council
has
been
very
concerned
about
the
challenges
that
the
city's
facing
right
now.
I.
Think
for
many
of
us
who
participated
in
this
process
back
when
Mayor
Reed
appointed
us
the
times
were
entirely
different.
We
were
coming
off
the
Great
Recession.
A
There
were
great
concerns
about
developing
a
plan
that
was
fiscally
responsible
for
the
city,
and
here
we
are
now
not
too
far
since
then,
and
the
city
is
facing
a
completely
different
set
of
challenges,
so
I
think.
To
that
extent
it
is
really
important
to
get
a
full
report
on
the
progress
over
the
last
four
years,
since
it's
really
going
to
be
a
basis
for
the
discussions
we're
gonna
have
on
urban
villages
and
all
the
scope
of
work
that
the
council
gave
us
so
I
know.
A
O
Okay,
yeah,
let
me
know
if
you
can't
hear
me
okay,
so
this
preservation,
it's
based
off
the
the
report,
the
background
report,
that
is
in
your
packet.
This
is
just
going
to
include
some
of
the
some
of
the
highlights
kind
of
looking
at
you
know:
development
trends,
urban
villages,
Economic,
Development,
Goals
and
other
other
kind
of
key
goals
that
were
directed
to
look
at
as
part
of
the
four-year
review.
O
In
terms
of
the
economy,
you
know
regional
economy,
the
country
right
now
we're
in
kind
of
the
longest
economic
expansion
since
World
War,
two
and
the
bay
area
has
is
the
thing
many
people
knows
outpace,
both
the
nation
and
state
and
job
growth.
Most
of
that
growth
in
the
bay
area
is,
is
largely
going
to
the
sub
regions,
particularly
Silicon
Valley,
in
San
Francisco.
O
One
thing
I
just
note
here
on
this
slide
kind
of
one
you
know
this
is
this
is
an
issue
regionally,
it's
that
San
Jose,
that
middle-income
jobs
have
been
trending
down,
while
high-skilled
jobs
are
trending
upward,
and
this
is
a
particulars
a
because
only
approximately
40
percent
of
our
workers
have
a
four-year
college
degree,
so
diving
into
development
trends
or
development
activity.
That
is
so
since
adoption.
O
In
the
general
plan,
we've
had
approximately
eight
point:
six
million
square
feet
of
new
commercial
and
industrial
op
and
office
space
has
been
built
since
2011
of
that
new
space,
57%
of
new
commercial
space
was
constructed
in
the
general
plans,
growth
areas
that
Michael
talked
about
in
the
previous
presentation
and
86
percent
of
industrial
office
space
was
located
in
our
growth
areas.
This
chart
here
this
shows
kind
of
over
time
from
fiscal
year,
1112
to
1819
the
construction
for
commercial
and
industrial
that
was
built
over
that
time
frame.
O
Moving
on
to
residential,
since
November
of
2011
building
permits
have
been
issued
for
twenty-three
thousand
eight
hundred
units,
which
is
a
a
ver
egde
of
approximately
three
thousand
units
per
year
of
those
ninety
four
percent
are
multifamily
units
and
eighty-five
percent
are
within
designated
growth
areas.
So
I
think
that
kind
of
speaks
to
the
success
of
the
implementation
of
that
particular
major
strategy.
O
So
to
this
end,
the
city's
housing
element
required
as
part
of
the
general
plan
by
state
law
was
certified
in
April
of
2015.
The
housing
element
plans
for
the
city's
fair
share
of
the
housing
assigned
by
this
signed
by
the
state,
which
is
based
upon
population,
population
projections
and
regional
forecast.
Then,
subsequently,
the
association
of
the
area
governments
assigns
the
region's
housing
allocation
to
each
jurisdiction,
known
as
the
regional
housing
needs
allocation
arena.
O
The
current
rena
cycles
from
2014
to
2023
San
Jose,
has
been
assigned
about
over
just
around
thirty
five
thousand
units
of
the
approximately
180
8,000
units
assigned
to
the
Bay
Area
region
itself.
So
that
equates
to
eighteen
point,
five
percent,
that
the
growth
that
the
city
has
been
assigned
for
residential.
So
during
the
current
Rena
cycle,
the
city
we've
we've
issued
building
permits
for
over
fourteen
thousand
units,
but
only
nineteen
percent
of
those
have
been
affordable.
The
the
Rena
allocations
are
broken
down
by
both
market
rate
and
affordable
were
assigned.
O
Sixty
percent
of
those
units
that
were
assigned
are
for
affordable
and
forty
percent
of
our
market
rate,
so
we're
doing
pretty
well
on
our
market
rate.
We're
gonna
reach
that
target,
but
it's
affordable
where
we're
struggling
and
pretty
much
every
city
in
the
state
is
struggling
on.
With
the
exception
of
a
few
small
assembly,
houses
I
think
the
one
city
meeting
the
arena
allocation,
so
one
of
the
primary
challenges
in
in
San
Jose
and,
of
course
across
the
Bay
Area,
is,
is
the
match
between
our
residents
incomes
in
the
cost
of
housing.
O
Some
of
the
challenges
in
terms
of
housing
I
mean
I.
Think
these
none
of
these
are
surprises.
You
know,
we've
had
the
dissolution
of
the
Redevelopment
Agency
that
previously
provided
40
million
a
year
towards
affordable
housing
and
then
two
other.
You
know
particularly
particular
challenges
that
both
market
rate
and
affordable
or
facing
is
just
a
high
cost
of
land
in
this
valley
and
then
extremely
high
construction
costs.
Some
of
the
strategies
there's
been
some
funding
that
has
come
forward.
The
county
measure
a
on
coming
out
of
the
state
we
have
SB
and
proposition
1.
O
O
In
terms
of
on
the
kind
on
the
local
front,
the
City
Council
established
a
citywide
goal
of
25,000
homes,
at
least
10,000
of
those
affordable,
be
constructed
or
approved
by
2022,
which
then
led
to
the
the
housing
crisis
work
plan
and
that
that
work
plan
prioritized
policy.
Actions
to
facilitate
the
development
of
housing
is
being
led
by
Office
of
Economic
Development
planning
and
housing
staff.
O
Other
noteworthy
policy
work
out
of
kind
of
a
lot
of
policy
work
going
on,
particularly
you
know,
with
our
with
the
housing
department,
but
updates
to
our
city's
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
and
then
also,
we've
done
multiple
code
amendments
that
have
significantly
eased
restrictions
on
accessory
dwelling
units.
So
we've
seen
a
really
big
uptake
on
permitting
for
ad
use,
so
urban
villages.
This
is
kinda.
This
is
the
topic
of
the
night.
O
So
one
of
the
key
topics
you
know
we'll
because
again
we'll
be
discussing
tonight
and
so
thus
far,
there's
been
12
urban
village
plans
that
have
been
adopted
by
council
and
two
are
currently
in
the
planning
process.
That's
Barry,
suburban
village
in
the
North
first
Street
urban
village
and
then
there's
three
additional
plans
that
are
gonna
be
initiated
next
year
in
2020,
all
urban
village
plans
have
and
they'll
continue
to
involve
extensive
community
input
when
developing
those
plans
looking
at
our
development
activity,
thus
far
in
urban
villages
so
over.
O
So
this
connects
with
the
of
the
horizon
strategy
that
Michael
was
alluding
to
in
the
previous
presentation,
and
this
is
a
subject
we
will
be
discussing
tonight
in
terms
of
some
proposed
updates
by
staff.
So
currently
six
signature
projects
have
been
approved
by
the
City,
Council
and
ones
in
the
pipeline
and
of
those
six
two
of
those
projects
are
currently
under
construction.
The
two
are
the
sparta
located
on
11th
in
santa
clara
street
and
then
the
orchard,
which
is
capital
along
the
capital
and
the
key.
O
O
It's
at
0.82
currently
and
really
what
those
numbers
shows
that
we've
been
adding
more
employed
residents
than
jobs
since
adoption,
the
general
plan,
which
is
contributed
to
the
jobs
to
employed
resident
ratio
moving
downward
there
other.
There
is
some
other
factors
that
goes
into
that
as
well
as
that
the
unemployment
rate
is
so
low.
That
also
kind
of
factors
in
to
when
this
particular
number
is
calculated.
O
The
city
would
need
to
average,
approximately
13,000
new
jobs
per
year
to
achieve
the
total
plan,
jobs
in
the
general
plan,
we're
averaging
around
by
10,000
or
so
a
year.
So
this
the
graph,
the
side
here
shows
of
the
city's
projected
job
growth
out
to
2040
in
the
actual
trajectory
of
our
job
growth
going
forward.
If
we
were
kind
of
to
stay
at
the
same
pace.
O
S
O
O
I
have
so
much
the
fifty
three
point:
almost
a
54%
increase
in
capital,
improvement
spending
and
I
think
that's
largely
due
to
measure
T
in
that
money.
That's
now
available
for
kind
of
critical
infrastructure
needs,
so
I
think
you
know
that
that's
a
positive
in
terms
of
the
city
CIP
program,
at
least
in
the
short
term,
so
moving
on
to
environmental
goals.
O
I'd
also
note
that
the
Environmental
Services
Department
also
recently
completed
an
updated
greenhouse
gas
emissions
inventory
for
San
Jose.
Some
of
you
may
recall
who
were
on
the
the
task
force
last
time
there
was
a
greenhouse
gas
inventory
prepared
last
time
around
with
a
baseline
year
of
2014,
so
the
results
of
the
most
recent
inventory
show
that
between
2014
and
2017,
the
city's
greenhouse
gas
emissions
have
decreased
by
17
percent.
O
So,
okay,
so
last
but
not
least,
helpful
community
goals.
So
there's
a
major
component.
The
the
general
plans,
helpful
community
goals
is
getting
people
out
of
their
cars
and
giving
residents
more
and
safer
options
to
travel.
Some
capital,
investments
and
programs
being
implemented
include,
of
course,
the
the
BART
extension.
The
various
Abart
station
is
anticipated
to
open
for
business
in
2020
and
then
with
Bart
phase
2
on
the
way
we've
seen.
O
Expansion
of
bike
share,
there's
about
72
stations
now
around
the
city
and
then
the
new
micro
mobility
options,
which
particularly
around
scooters,
which
weren't
running
around
I,
think
the
last
four
year
review.
City
has
approximately
forty
four
hundred
a
scooters
out
there
around
the
city
in
terms
of
access
to
helpful
foods
and
those
goals.
City
currently
has
eleven
weekly
farmers
markets
and
nineteen
active
community
gardens
in
2016.
The
City
Council
approved
the
urban
agriculture
agricultural
agriculture.
O
A
Thank
you
very
much.
We're
gonna
shift
over
into
the
urban
village
presentation
shortly,
but
let's
do
this
just
so
we
make
sure
it
gets
done.
Everybody
got
the
form
in
their
binder
for
the
city
of
San,
Jose,
volunteer
code
of
ethics.
If
you
haven't
filled
that
out,
fill
it
out
now,
we're
gonna
take
like
a
two
minute
stretch
break
and
then
we'll
start
off
with
urban
villages.
If,
once
you
fill
it
out,
just
pass
it
down
this
way
and
we'll
collect
them
all.
E
R
B
D
B
D
A
A
This
is
one
of
our
first
topics
that
we're
gonna
take
on
right.
Now
that
the
council
sent
to
us
is
urban
villages,
there's
going
to
be
a
staff
presentation
after
that,
we're
gonna
open
it
up
for
discussion,
we're
not
taking
any
action
tonight
after
the
discussion.
There's
a
public
comment
period.
Public
comment
can
pertain
to
urban
villages
as
well
as
anything
that's
been
the
subject
of
the
meeting
tonight.
A
Please
keep
in
mind
that
the
comments
need
to
be
confined
to
the
scope
of
work
that
the
council
gave
us.
So
the
plan
is
we'll.
Have
the
presentation
we'll
have
discussion
at
the
beginning
of
the
next
meeting,
we're
gonna
vote
or
take
consensus
action
on
the
urban
villages,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
we
want
to
take
into
account
public
comment
that
we
have
tonight
on
that
topic,
so
Jessica
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Good.
J
Evening
task
force
members:
my
name
is
jessica,
sathya
won
and
today
I'll
be
presenting
our
staff
recommendations
on
our
urban
village
policy
changes.
Please
note
that
all
these
staff
recommendations
are
outlined
in
the
memo
and
your
binder.
So
if
you
miss
anything
or
you
leave
today
and
you
need
to
refer
back
to
it,
please
refer
to
the
memo
it's
all
listed
in
there,
so
based
on
the
City
Council's
approval
of
work
approved
earlier
this
year,
we
analyzed
five
topics
pertaining
to
urban
villages.
J
The
first
is
redistribution
of
plan
growth,
urban
village,
boundary
modifications,
ii,
urban
village,
growth
horizons,
the
third
residential
pool
units,
the
fourth
general
plan
policy,
IP
5.5
and
then
the
last
but
not
least,
making
changes
to
general
plan
policy.
Ip
5.10,
which
is
a
signature
project
policy.
You
may
notice
that
the
mixed
income
within
mixed
use,
affordable
development
scope
item
is
not
listed.
J
As
part
of
eliminating
some
of
these
urban
villages,
we're
recommending
redistributing
plan,
housing
and
jobs
capacity
to
various
other
growth
areas
in
the
city.
However,
we
will
discuss
that
as
part
of
the
February
task
force
meeting
or
will
be
discussing
capacity
shifts
to
downtown
into
other
areas
of
the
city.
J
Our
first
recommendation
is
to
eliminate
the
Evergreen
Village.
It
is
a
49
acre,
horizon-1
neighbourhood
village,
as
shown
by
the
red
dashed
line
on
the
map.
On
this
light,
the
village
is
already
almost
entirely
built
out
with
single-family
homes,
townhomes
a
thriving
and
recently
updated
shopping
center
and
a
highly
used
public
plaza.
There
are
two
remaining
opportunity
sites,
totaling
1.3
acres,
but
because
the
urban
village
is
already
established
with
active
and
fairly
recent
development
and
has
limited
opportunities
for
growth.
An
urban
village
planning
effort
would
not
be
fruitful.
J
Staff
also
recommends
eliminating
the
east
capital,
flash
Fox
Dale
Drive
urban
village,
which
is
a
horizon
3
neighborhood
village
spanning
14
acres.
Approximately
nineteen
ninety-five
percent
of
the
village
is
already
occupied
by
the
Fox
Dale
village
apartments,
which
are
a
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing
project
that
provides
114
rental
housing
units
for
low-income
families
due
to
the
village
of
small
size
and
existing
uses.
Redevelopment
of
the
village
is
highly
unlikely
and
not
recommended,
as
it
would
displace
existing
low
income.
Families
from
rent
restricted,
affordable
housing.
J
Another
change
of
staff
recommends
is
the
modification
of
the
race
street
light
rail
urban
village.
This
urban
village
is
a
horizon
one
local
transit
village,
and
it
has
two
parts.
The
area
called
west
of
sunal
is
indicated
on
the
map
in
the
red
outline
and
Reid
and
Graham.
The
Reid
and
Graham
site
is
indicated
with
the
red
hash
polygon
on
the
map.
J
Additionally,
the
area
east
of
Lincoln,
Avenue
and
west
of
Reed
and
Graham
denoted
by
the
black
hash
polygon
in
the
map
are
existing
industrial
sites
on
land
designated
as
combine
commercial
industrial
and
would
not
be
locations
that
would
be
suitable
for
urban
village
type
uses
either,
especially
since
now
that
we're
keeping
or
we
recommend
to
keep
Reed
and
Graham.
So
staffer,
therefore
proposing
to
modify
the
race
street
light
rail
urban
village
boundary
to
remove
both
the
Reed
and
Graham
site
and
areas
east
of
Lincoln
Avenue
from
the
village.
A.
J
J
The
second
urban
village
scope
item
directed
staff
to
evaluate
the
city's
jobs
and
housing
balance,
fiscal
sustainability,
housing
supply
and
infrastructure
to
determine
whether
to
move
urban
villages
that
are
in
a
future
horizon
into
the
current
plan
horizon
as
part
of
the
four-year
review
and
outlined
in
general
plan
policy.
Ib
2.5.
J
So
currently,
the
jobs
to
employ
residence
ratio
is
0.82,
which
is
slightly
higher
than
the
envision
2040
general
plan.
When
it
was
adopted,
we
had
a
jobs
to
employ
residence
ratio.
0.8
demand
for
city
services
has
increased
since
2011
as
a
reflected
weight,
an
increased
population
and
increase
adopted
operating
budget
each
year.
J
The
city
continues
to
provide
services
and
infrastructure
to
meet
the
current
needs
and
anticipate
future
needs
from
potential
population
growth.
Furthermore,
the
current
horizon
1
urban
villages
and
other
base
growth
areas
contain
adequate
capacity
to
meet
the
regional
housing
needs
allocation
of
thirty
five
thousand
and
eighty
units.
J
Additionally,
Council
just
approved
shifting
a
total
of
eight
urban
villages,
as
recently
as
December
2018
as
part
of
the
general
plan
annual
review
as
part
of
the
housing
crisis,
work
plan,
council
directed
staff
to
move
key
horizon
to
urban
villages
located
along
existing
fix
rail
or
BRT
into
horizon
one
to
accelerate
residential
development.
So
it's
the
first
four
listed
on
the
slide.
J
City
council
also
directed
staff
to
move
West
San
Jose
urban
villages
such
as
Winchester,
say
in
a
row:
Valley
Fair
Stevens
Creek
in
South,
Bascom,
North
urban
villages
from
horizon
3
to
horizon
1,
because
that
we're
in
San
Jose,
where
the
market
rate
housing
is
most
likely
to
break
ground
in
the
current
market.
So,
based
on
our
analysis
on
policy,
IP,
2.5
and
the
shifts
last
year,
we
don't
recommend
we
do
not
recommend
a
wholesale
move
to
horizon
2.
J
However,
we
do
recommend
shifting
the
five
moons
Bart
and
the
South
24th
Street
/
William
court
urban
villages
to
horizon
one.
The
five
moons
Bart
urban
village
is
one
of
four
regional
transit
urban
villages
and
is
the
only
one
that's
not
in
horizon
1
the
South
24th
Street
/
William
court
urban
village
is
located
directly
south
of
the
five
wounds:
Bart
urban
village
and
adjacent
to
the
future
28th
Street
and
little
Portugal
BART
station.
J
J
But
within
the
current
regional
housing
crisis,
the
policy
could
be
an
additional
and
unnecessary
hurdle
to
our
need
for
more
housing.
Since
the
adoption
of
the
general
plan,
2011,
approximately
40%
of
the
5,000
unit
residential
pool
was
used
as
indicated
in
that
table
on
the
slide
full
disclosure.
We
realized
that
William
and
22nd
Street
Apt
townhomes.
J
J
Additionally,
part
of
the
intent
of
this
Poly's
policy
is
to
allow
projects
to
move
forward
within
villages
with
approved
plans
that
are
not
in
the
current
horizon.
However,
all
urban
villages
with
adopted
plans,
with
the
exception
of
five
wounds
and
the
24th
Street
and
William
Cort
urban
villages,
which
we
are
recommending
to
move
to
horizon
one
as
part
of
this
general
plan
process
are
already
in
horizon
1.
So
we
don't
see
a
value
and
having
this
policy
around.
J
The
three
the
three
objectives
listed
under
this
policy
were
added
by
the
City
Council
in
2014
to
strengthen
the
jobs
first
principle
in
the
general
plan,
while
it's
consistent
with
the
general
plan,
goals
and
policies
of
employment,
land
preservation
and
enhancement,
it's
resulted
in
barriers
and
land-use
planning
during
the
development
of
the
urban
village
plans
for
establishing
location
timing
and
mix
of
residential
and
commercial
of
development,
especially
since
the
current
regional
Crouse
housing
crisis
is
at
the
forefront
of
the
city's
current
planning
objectives.
City
recommends
that
this
policy
should
be
amended
to
its
original
structure.
J
J
The
last
urban
village
scope
item
directed
staff
to
modify
signature
project
policy,
IP
5.10,
to
establish
appropriate,
clearer
and
more
predictable
minimum
residential
densities
for
signature
projects,
and
also
to
establish
more
clarity
on
the
amount
of
commercial
that
would
be
required
for
signature
projects
so
based
on
staff's
experience
with
the
signature
project
policy
and
feedback
from
applicants,
we
analyze
ways
to
modify
the
policy
to
establish
more
clear
and
predictable
requirements
for
signature
projects.
Since
the
adoption
of
the
general
plan,
the
requirements
given
a
signature
projects
can
appear
subjective
and
inconsistent.
J
S
Policy
was
a
part
of
the
original
general
plan.
It
just
that
that
I
think
it
that
there
was
sort
of
the
task
force
was
talking
about
these
horizons
and
having
firm
horizons
and
drawing
a
line
in
the
sand,
and
then
it
was
a
wait
a
minute.
We
really
need
to
have
some
flexibility
so
that
really
exemplary
projects
could
go
forward
with
regardless
of
the
horizon.
So
I
just
want
to
make
a
clarification
on
that.
J
The
policy
yet
to
allow
flexibility
for
projects
to
move
forward
ahead
of
the
approved
land
plan
if
they're
exceptional
in
supporting
general
plan
goals,
providing
additional
uses
and
amenities
more
than
typical
projects
and
helping
create
complete
villages,
the
policy
was
created
as
an
incentive
for
cornerstone
projects,
as
we
go
through
these
recommendations.
Keep
in
mind
that
the
intent
of
urban
villages
is
to
create
complete
communities
that
have
both
jobs
and
housing
staff
analyzed
approved
signature
projects
to
determine
the
recommended
values
for
the
revised
policy.
J
J
For
site
selection
staff
is
recommending
a
prominent
location
or
a
site
with
a
minimum
size
and
frontage
for
viability
of
commercial
uses.
Projects
located
at
intersections
or
with
more
frontage,
have
better
visibility
and
therefore
a
better
chance
at
success.
Signature
projects
are
also
intended
to
be
a
cornerstone
project
for
an
urban
village
area
and
shall
be
in
a
location
where
it's
most
visible
to
passersby
staff
recommends
signature
projects
to
be
located
on
a
site
at
the
corner
of
an
intersection
or
an
interior
parcel
of
at
least
three
acres.
J
J
In
this
example,
the
150
foot
frontage
would
be
approximately
three
storefronts
and
our
existing
approved
signature
projects
actually
already
meet.
There's
this
requirement.
Six
of
the
seven
signature
projects
are
located
on
a
corner
parcel
and
only
one
is
located
on
an
interior
parcel
with
a
200
foot
frontage,
so
they
already
qualify
under
these.
These
recommended
standards.
J
For
the
commercial
requirement,
staff
recommends
a
certain
percentage
above
fair
share
depending
on
the
urban
village.
Typology
neighborhood
village
would
need
to
provide
five
percent
or
more
above
its
fair
share
of
commercial,
local
transit
and
commercial
corridor
villages.
We
need
to
provide
ten
percent
more
and
regional
transit
urban
villages
would
need
to
bribe
to
provide
15
percent
or
more
we're
also
recommending
an
additional
requirement
based
on
the
project
site
size.
So
for
a
project
between
five
to
ten
acres,
they
wouldn't
be
required
to
provide
five
percent
more
above
their
fair
share.
J
In
addition
to
the
requirement
based
on
the
typology
also
project
sites,
larger
than
10
acres
would
need
to
provide
10%
or
more
staff,
analyzed
the
proof
signature
project
to
determine
the
recommended
requirements
and,
on
average,
the
signature
projects
are
provided
approximately
40
40
percent
above
the
urban
villages,
fair
share
of
commercial
square
footage.
So
all
these
projects
would,
you
know,
would
already
pass
with
flying.
J
Colors
signature
projects
and
larger
sites
tended
to
provide
more
above
the
villages
average
than
those
on
smaller
sites,
and,
additionally,
staff
recommends
more
commercial
square
footage
on
larger
sites
because
those
sites
can
accommodate
more
when
compared
to
less
flexibility
on
smaller
project
sites.
We
actually
looked
at
zoning
I
believe
in
San
Diego,
and
this
is
where
that
came
from.
If.
S
I
could
just
add
that
to
I
think
the
reason
we're
recommending
this
there's
a
lot
of
unclarity
and
confusion
in
terms
of
developers
when
they
are
interested
in
doing
a
signature
project,
and
we
really
thought
it
would
be
better
to
just
provide
a
clear
objective
standard
of
what
what
would
be
expected
of
a
development
as
opposed
to
kind
of
a
negotiated
process
or
what
the
planner
is
feeling
that
day
or
the
planning
director
or
whatever.
And
it's
just
a
matter.
It's
very
clear.
Here's
here's!
J
Staff
is
also
recommending
a
minimum
residential
density
to
meet
the
vision
of
the
urban
village
typology
neighborhood
villages
that
are
established
within
mostly
mostly
residential
neighborhoods
are
recommended
to
have
a
minimum
of
30
dwelling
units
per
acre.
We
use
one
of
our
signature
projects
the
orchard
as
the
basis
for
this
recommendation,
because
the
project
was
set
in
a
mostly
residential,
neighborhood
and
needed
to
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
single-family
neighborhood.
J
The
local
transit
villages
and
commercial
corridor
and
center
villages
have
larger
opportunity
sites
or
provides
opportunity
to
support
local
transit
systems,
and
so
they
should
have
a
higher
density
of
55
dwelling
units
per
acre.
This
density
is
also
the
minimum
requirement
under
the
earth
village.
Land
use
designation
in
the
general
plan.
So
that's
why
we
use
the
55
billions
per
acre.
J
We
also
recommend
minimum
sizes
for
open
space
based
on
existing
policies
and
based
on
the
amount
of
open
space
provided
by
past
signature
projects,
policies
in
the
West
San
Carlos
South
Bascom,
the
Alameda
and
East
Santa
Clara
Street
urban
village
plans
have
a
required
minimum
size
of
2,000
square
foot
for
all
publicly
accessible
open
space,
which
we
use
as
a
recommended
requirement
for
neighborhood
village.
Signature
projects
passing
mature
projects
have
provided
an
average
of
approximately
47
thousand
square
feet
of
publicly
accessible
open
space.
J
J
J
However,
we're
recommending
clarifying
the
design
documents
that
the
signature
project
has
to
comply
with
and
that
they
would
move
forward
with
special
use,
a
site
or
special
use
permit
to
one
body
of
a
purple
that
is
still
to
be
determined,
but
that
is
what
we're
thinking
and
with
that
Ed's
staff.
Recommendations
on
urban
village
policy
is
that
back
to
you,
okay,.
A
One
of
the
thoughts
we
have
in
dealing
with
this
in
a
logical
manner
is
we
could
go
through
this
recommendation
by
recommendation
and
focus
discussion
on
that.
So,
although
I
do
see
some
signs
up,
let's
start
this
way.
So
if
you
turn
to
your
binder
and
on
page
seven,
one
of
the
first
one
of
the
first
recommendations
is
dealing
with
the
urban
village
boundary
modifications.
A
Let's
take
that
up
first,
and
so,
if
you
have
a
comment
or
a
question
on
that
issue,
go
ahead
and
put
your
nameplate
up
and
we'll
deal
with
that
and
keep
in
mind
again
we're
not
going
to
be
taking
votes
on
this
tonight
perfectly
free
to
express
opinions.
Ask
questions,
but
let's
just
do
this
topic
by
topic.
So
on
that
issue
of
the
urban
village
boundary
modifications.
M
Can
someone
comment
a
little
bit
more
about
the
race
treat
removal
of
the
industrial
use
and
I
mean?
Are
they
feeling
I
mean?
Is
their
intent
that
they
do
want
to
be
in
this
in
this
area?
For
a
long
time
or
I
mean
it's,
it's
yeah,
I
guess
I
wonder
given
our
housing
needs
and
that
where
this
site
is
located,
what
is
the
best
use
of
this
site,
and
do
we
want
to
have
this
industrial
use
in
the
middle
of
our
city
right.
A
S
Really,
staff
collectively
Public
Works
do
t
really
believe
it's
important
to
have
these
type
of
uses
in
the
city.
There
are,
as
we
said,
there's
only
two
of
these
facilities
left
in
the
South
Bay.
So
it's
important
for
the
so
you
have
competitive
bids.
It's
important
to
have
access
to
asphalt
when
you're
doing
construction
projects,
both
probably
and
private
asphalt,
doesn't
move
very
well
over
long
distances.
S
You
have
to
keep
it
hot,
so
if
you're,
bringing
it
down
from
Union,
City
or
Oakland
I,
don't
know
where
they
are,
but
they're
outside
of
Santa
Clair
County
there's
challenges
of
moving
a
house
for
long
distances.
So
this
is
part
of
that
sort
of
core
infrastructure
that
the
city
needs
to
function,
even
housing,
development
needs
and
stuff,
and-
and
on
top
of
that
we
really
have
very,
very
limited
land
in
the
city
for
industrial
uses,
and
this
is
an
area
that
that's
kind
of
working.
S
So
we
believe-
and
we're
going
to
be
talking
more
about
this-
like
only
talk
about
coyote,
about
removing
jobs
from
coyote
and
where
industrial
type
jobs
may
locate
in
the
city.
So
we
think
that
this
is
an
area
that
we
would
are
not
recommending
expanding
and
doing
urban
village
type
of
environment
over
this
area.
Carl.
E
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
now,
you
can
hear
me
now
so
I
represent
district
8,
so
I
have
a
question
about
the
moving
of
the
the
Evergreen
village
boundary.
So
my
question
is
how
that
affects
says
you
can
use
the
existing
capacities
and
obviously
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
this.
When
we
talk
about
the
EDP
in
February,
so
you
know
obviously
there's
a
whole
other
issue,
but
I
was
wondering
about
the
affordability
component
and
how
you
know
that
would
be
affected
in
terms
of.
E
S
In
any
way
affect
where
their
affordable
housing
could
be
located
in
that
in
that
village,
so
there
are
sites
where
a
housing
can
move
forward.
Now
there
is
one
remaining
site
that,
if
someone
wanted
to,
they
would
need
to
do
a
general
plan
amendment,
but
it's
across
from
the
library
there's
a
little
bit
of
land.
They
could
potentially
do
housing
there,
which
really
gets
into
the
conversation.
When
we
talk
about
the
Evergreen
area,
development
policy,
okay,.
S
G
S
G
S
P
S
Yeah
they
can
move
forward
but
385
units.
This
problem
is
not
feasible
in
this
village.
Unless
you're
gonna
build
a
10-story
tower,
I,
don't
know
people
would
be
jumping
up
in
arms,
for
that,
so
there
is,
would
still
be
some
our
limit
very
limited
opportunities
for
some
some
housing
in
this
village,
but
most
the
capacity
we
will
be
well.
We
talk
about
that
later,
but
moving
it
out
into
somewhere
else.
What
do
we.
S
So
there's
AI
will
be
dictated
by
the
general
plan
and
whatever
ADP
policy
that
comes
out
of
this,
so
the
Evergreen
specific
planner
for
which
this
is
in
has
been
retired,
so
it
no
longer
exists
as
a
policy
document.
It
exists
and
it's
been
built.
It's
there
and
so
yeah
did
I
answer
your
question
so.
G
You
chair,
my
issue
is
with
the
array:
Street
elimination.
So,
as
usual,
mr.
Bray
I
disagree
with
the
recommendation
to
remove
this
out
of
this.
This
important
area
we're
trying
to
create
connections
with
major
arterials
into
business
districts.
Your
even
know,
notating,
that's
future
opportunities.
G
I
understand
your
rationale
for
the
Reading
Graham
opportunity,
but
you
have
a
tow
yard
next
to
a
beautiful
del
Monte
Park,
you
have
the
Midtown
specific
plan
and
this
is
Lincoln
Avenue
and
so
we're
gonna
remain
this
substandard
industrial
use,
which
has
very
little
commercial
value
and
sacrifice
next
to
a
transit
station.
For
the
purposes
of
you
telling
us
how
to
do
the
developers
business
for
asphalt
additionally,
I
actually
physically
had
this
property,
the
Reading
Gaol
property
in
a
purchase
and
sale
contract
with
Gerry
Graham
I
believe
it
had
at
one
point
residential
designations.
G
So
again,
this
is
a
very
short-sighted
opportunity
here,
an
example
of
how
the
urban
villages
are
not
working
and
why
housing
is
not
being
built,
because
this
kind
of
industrial
property
is
a
tow
yard
as
meaningless
plus.
We
also
have
to
keep
our
tax
base
as
best
as
possible.
We've
invested
millions
of
dollars
in
Midtown.
My
company
specifically
has
invested
millions
of
dollars
in
Midtown
and
yet
we're
surrounded
by
this
haphazard,
San,
Jose
blocked
a
block
industrial
blight.
Taking
this
property
out
continues
that
industrial
blight,
let's
go.
S
S
Site,
West
well
east.
What
is
it
east
of
Lincoln
having?
It
was
actually
designated
commercial
combined,
industrial
commercial,
so
it
doesn't
preclude
non
industrial
uses.
It
could
be
office
building
there
could
be
a
news
of
broto
Center
for
nonprofits,
or
things
like
that,
so
it
doesn't
preclude
other
higher
intensity.
Cleaner
type
of
uses
is
just
basically
not
envision.
The
area
for
urban
village,
mixed-use
residential.
A
P
I'm
sure,
but
I
could
stand
up,
so
you
can
see
me
I
guess:
I
am
a
longtime
resident
of
Willow
Glen
I
grew
up
in
this
area.
I'd
like
to
echo
many
of
Michael's
sentiments
about
this
site.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
maintain
flexibility
and
how
we
look
at
the
site
in
the
future
and
and
keep
this
within
the
urban
village.
P
There
are
a
number
of
residential
developments
surrounding
this
area.
There's
a
brand
new
park,
that's
been
built.
I
think
we
need
to
consider
the
environmental
impacts
of
allowing
Reid
and
Graham
to
continue
to
operate
in
close
proximity.
The
Guadalupe
River,
which
holds
I,
think
some
potential
to
have
some
salmon
actually
and
run
up
and
down.
Then,
if
we
actually
get
some
rainfall
this
year,
but
this
is
a
site
that
should
be
included
in
urban
village.
P
The
city
should
use
its
professional
planners
to
come
up
with
the
use
that
make
sense
and
economic
development
should
work
with
Reid
and
Graham
to
find
another
location
within
our
city.
That's
more
appropriate.
This
is
a
huge
view,
corridor
for
our
downtown
and
dirt
on
station,
and
this
is
a
major
eyesore
for
many
of
the
residents
of
Willow
Glen.
Thank
you.
A
E
F
And
so
now
we're
saying
no
that's
a
bad
idea,
and
especially
also
then,
is
it
possible
to
still
add
a
hundred
jobs
to
this
location
without
displacing
anything
and/or.
Add
additional
units,
because,
if
it's
possible
to
add
additional
residential
and
jobs
in
not
displace
I,
don't
see
why
we
would
not
want
to
do
that.
C
O
S
M
S
I
was
on
this
part
of
this
body
that
was
preparing
this
plan
and
I.
Think
at
this
point,
I
was
not
working.
I
was
working
on
the
deer,
a
ton
specific
plan,
so
I
don't
think
there
was
an
intent
when
we
did
these
villages
I,
don't
believe
staff
went
and
looked
at.
Oh,
this
is
an
affordable
deed,
restricted
project
we
shouldn't.
You
know
we
want
to
get
rid
of
that
or
not
I
think
they
just
looked
at
it
as
an
opportunity
like
these
are
relatively
lower
density.
Apartments
at
some
point
in
time.
S
N
N
O
S
S
S
It's
really
so
CIC
kind
of
allows
anything
but
residential
basically,
and
so
the
idea
is
that
it's
probably
not
ideal
about
residential
right
up
against
Reid
and
Graham
by
being
CIC.
You
know
facilitates
a
lot
of
uses.
For
example,
I
can't
run
what
the
buildings
call
it.
Barry
Swenson
owns
it,
but
it's
got
a
hapa
and
good
karma,
and
and
what's
that,
I
couldn't
hear
that,
but
anyway,
I
think
you'll
know
what
I'm
talking
about,
and
so
that's
that
building
is
just
north
of
the
brown
hatched
area,
the
other
side,
the
railroad
tracks.
N
O
That's
correct
the
boundary
there
is
that's
largely
commercial
uses
there
and
then
the
rest
of
the
land
uses
east
of
that,
our
our
residential,
our
existing
residential
uses,
the
the
uses
within
the
the
blue
hatch.
There
are
kind
of
their
current
commercial
uses.
There's
a
used-car
dealership.
A
couple
restaurants
and
some
other
Oh
in
the
park-and-ride
lot
right
for
the
Caltrain
station
is
located
there
as
well.
A
A
M
Think
if
this
is
a
move
to
look
and
say,
are
these
sites
you
know
including
these
sites
in
urban
villages,
without
a
strong
anti
displacement
policy
in
the
city,
where
we're
just
tempting
the
fate
of
losing
the
the
existing
affordable
homes
that
we
have
so
I
glad
from
what
I
understand
to
see
this
removed-
and
it
made
me
think,
are
there
other
small
sites
like
this
that
are
mostly
just
mobile
home
parks
or
other
types
of
sites
that
we
should
be
looking
at?
Also
that
have
the
same
characteristic.
S
L
L
I
I
guess
I'm
to
the
comments
about
the
race
street
site,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
struck
by
is
that
we
have
this
bright-line
rule.
It
seems
like,
if
not
converting
industrial
to
residential,
but
not
all
industrial
uses
are
appropriate
in
every
location,
and
this
is
a
particularly
important
location
and
it's
also
one
where
I
think
that
the
economics
of
development
support
development
and
it's
one
of
the
few
places
in
the
city
where
that
actually
seems
to
hold
true
that
that
developers
can
actually
build
housing.
L
So
it's
it's
one
of
those
sites
where
I
think
we
should
look
closely
at
the
other
aspect
is
within
in
terms
of
the
unsuitability
of
redevelopment.
One
of
the
things
that's
cited
is
the
neighborhood
community,
commercial
designation,
but
presumably
that
could
change
during
the
urban
village
planning
process
so
citing
a
current
designation
as
a
as
why
it's
unsuitable
is
not
necessarily
a
reason
to
take
it
out
of
the
urban
village
and
the
other
aspect
that
gave
me
some
concern
was
at
least
with
the
Reid
and
Graham
site.
L
It
seems
that
one
of
the
reasons
it's
being
cited
to
keep
it
is
that
there's
really
a
public
use
for
the
asphalt,
but
it's
a
private
landowner
and
a
private
site,
and
so
putting
restrictions
to
take
it
out
or
I
suppose
taking
it
out
of
the
urban
village.
With
this
idea
that
we're
going
to
somehow
through
land
use,
have
a
private
landowner
continue.
That
usage
is
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
right,
the
right
thing
to
be
doing
for
planning.
So
that's
just
my
two
cents
on
the
race
street.
A
D
Ahead,
okay,
I'll
go
ahead,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
reading
Graham
and
the
race
boundary
as
well.
I
agree
with
many
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
so
far.
You
know,
Lincoln
Avenue
is
a
is
a
key
arterial
into
the
whole
Willow
Glen
area,
which
is
in
extremely
close
proximity
to
the
whole
Google
campus
development.
That's
going
to
be
taking
place
so
I
expect
and
predict
that
we
will
see
more
demand
for
housing
in
that
area.
D
Taking
these
properties
outside
of
the
urban
village,
we
lose
that
opportunity
from
a
long
term
perspective
to
potentially
add
additional
housing
into
the
area
which
is
going
to
be
definitely
needed
as
we
move
along.
The
properties
are
in
extremely
close
proximity
to
light
rail
and
we
over
the
last
few
years
have
expended
a
great
amount
of
investment
in
building
housing
on
the
Sobrato
property
the
office
and
light
industrial
that
he's
had,
obviously
the
one
that
is
over
by
Swenson
and
urban.
D
You
Michael
you
folks,
so
I
really
have
to
object
to
the
idea
that
we
need
to
take
these
properties
out.
Reading
Graham
has
been
making
asphalt
there
for
a
very
long
time.
That's
fine,
but
maybe
it
is
time
for
them
to
find
another
place
and
I
think
the
city
needs
to
help
them
do
that
environmentally.
We
are
turning
that
area
into
a
residential
area.
Also,
another
item
we're
going
to
cover
down
the
road
in
our
meetings
is
neighborhood
business
districts.
Can
they
begin
to
accommodate
some
opportunity
housing
sites?
D
Again
Lincoln
Avenue
was
mentioned
in
that
discussion,
so
we
obviously
staff
is
looking
at
this
area
from
both
perspectives
and
I
would
say.
We
need
to
really
not
take
this
out
of
the
urban
village
concept
and
let
it
play
out
over
the
next
few
years.
We
can
always
revisit
that
in
four
years
to
see
where
we're
at
all
right.
F
A
second
all
the
comments
on
Reed
and
Graham
and
I
want
to
give
a
personal
view
of
this.
I've
lived
in
North
Willow
Glen,
since
1983
were
downwind
from
the
reading
grain
site.
I've
noticed
in
my
lifetime
since
age
32
that
my
house,
my
cars,
everything
gets
a
very
sticky
black
foot
on
it
very
quickly,
no
matter
how
I
clean
it
it's
there,
so
there's
been
pollution
coming
from
that
area
for
quite
some
time.
Two
years
ago,
I
was
diagnosed,
never
smoked
with
emphysema,
so
we
are
building
all
this
housing
around
there.
F
E
Excuse
me
we're
talking
about
taking.
This
is
Reed
and
Graham
about
taking
a
resource
that
is
essential
to
urban
development.
We
use
the
material,
we
need
the
material
and
we
have
made
it
a
profitable
business
over
the
years.
We
need
it,
but
we
don't
want
to
have
to
live
with
this
nasty
unpleasant
thing
right
in
the
middle
of
where
we
are.
We
wanted
to
go
somewhere
else,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
face
a
number
of
decisions
here
and
just
telling
Reed
and
Graham
go
find
a
better
spot,
isn't
gonna.
Do
it.
E
We're
gonna
have
to
help
them
find
a
better
spot
or
we're
gonna
have
to
pay
the
long-term
costs
of
producing
that
material,
and
the
long-term
costs
include
has
pointed
out
by
staff
transporting
at
a
long
distance
or
like
with
the
landfills
and
the
garbage
processing
and
all
the
other
unpleasant
urban
uses
that
we
need.
We've
got
to
deal
with
what
we're
gonna
put
them.
Maybe
we
should
just
invent
something,
so
we
don't
need
asphalt
anymore,
but
this
I
I'm
not
saying
we
should
or
shouldn't
do
it,
because
I
still
need
to
think
about
it.
E
Like
the
rest
of
us,
but
if
we're
gonna
make
this
land
use
decision,
let's,
let's
make
it
clear.
We
want
to
get
rid
of
this
nasty
stinky
business
and
put
a
bunch
of
poor
people
on
here,
because
affordable
housing
is
what
we
need
and
we're
going
to
we're
talking
about
a
site:
that's
badly
polluted
and
slam
up
against
the
freeway.
So
it's
noisy,
dirty
and
probably
contaminated
with
toxins.
A
L
A
Am
gonna
call
on
everyone
else,
but
I
want
to
also
keep
in
mind.
There's
people
from
the
public
here
who
want
to
be
heard,
and
we
have
to
get
through
the
other
issues
on
this
there's
some
very
important
issues.
We
need
to
talk
about
urban
villages,
the
poll
the
horizons.
Do
we
still
want
to
stick
with
Verizon.
K
A
L
J
It
is
me
too,
for
for
the
race
Street
boundary
that
all
of
my
colleagues
have
stated-
or
most
of
my
colleagues
have
stated,
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
reading
Graham
is
looking
to
move
and
and
has
been
actively
looking
to
move
out
of
that
area.
There
are
a
number
of
industrial
they're,
not
the
only
ones
in
in
and
around
that
area
that
are
looking
to
move
because
they
don't
want
to
be.
J
L
Echo
and
all
the
comments
on
reading
Graham
but
I
wanted
to
talk
further
on
boundaries
associated
with
urban
village
plans
that
have
fixed
rail
and
or
high-frequency
transit
nearby.
These
urban
village
plan
boundaries
are
very
arbitrary.
We
are
not
capturing
full
walk
and
bike
sheds
and
I
would
like
staff
to
look
at
capturing
walking
bike
sheds
at
all
these
transit
locations.
F
Capital
expressly
say:
go
ahead
so
as
we
remove
it,
I
totally
agree
that
it
should
be
removed
in
no
one
should
be
displaced.
Then
I,
wonder
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
and
body
in
the
future
or
staff
will
recommend
additional
urban
villages
for
that
area.
Given
that
light
roll
will
be
extended
to
East
Ridge.
This
is
right,
near
story.
Road
are
there
other
areas
where
urban
village
designation
could
be
set
with
zoning
design,
I.
S
F
C
S
B
K
Genda
we
have
serious
policy
issues
which
we
should
be
talking
about,
that
impact
the
future
of
the
city
and
real
housing
production,
and
why
we've
spent
40
minutes
on
what
are
totally
insignificant
issues
for
the
future
of
the
city.
These
shouldn't
have
even
been
on
the
agenda.
They
should
be
removed
for
the
agenda
and,
let's
get
on
with
real
policy
discussions
that
actually
get
housing
built.
Okay,.
K
Staff
decided
which
boundaries
to
bring
forward
the
council
just
had
consider
boundaries,
they
didn't
say,
go,
look
at
Reid
and
Graham,
they
didn't
say,
go
look
at
Fox,
Dale
or
whatever,
that
is,
those
are
meaningless,
insignificant
urban
village
boundaries
and
the
fact
that
we've
now
wasted
over
40
minutes
and
having
to
talk
about
it
is
ridiculous.
Let's
get
on
with
it
all.
A
A
11
there's
the
recommendation
about
the
horizons
with
respect
to
two
urban
villages
on
the
next
page
on
page
12,
there's
the
recommendation
about
the
residential
pull
policy
which
relates
to
the
horizons
and
then
on
page
13.
There
are
the
staff
recommendations
on
policy
5.5
relating
to
urban
village,
planning
implementation
and
signature
project
policy.
I'm
going
to
put
these
all
together
because
they're
interrelated,
with
the
concept
of
horizons
and
moving
projects
forward
in
the
criteria
for
signature
projects,
I
know,
there's
been
some
discussion.
A
K
So
we're
discussing
all
of
the
remaining
items,
yes
yeah.
So,
first
of
all,
we
need
to
understand
that
that
the
systems
not
working
that
the
implementation
policies
of
the
general
plan
have
been
a
total
failure
in
the
production
of
housing
and,
let's
quickly,
just
look
at
the
data.
So
the
the
general
plan
capacity
was
for
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
units
over
twenty
nine
years.
That
average
is
four
thousand
one
hundred
and
thirty-eight
units
per
year
was
the
planned
capacity.
K
The
arena
goal
for
the
city
in
the
current
term
is
three
thousand
five
hundred
units
per
year.
The
City
Council
has
adopted
a
new
goal
of
five
thousand
units
per
year
over
five
years.
How
many
units
did
the
city
produce
in
the
full
calendar
year
of
2018,
two
thousand
nine
hundred
and
seventy-three
units?
K
Two
thousand
nine
hundred
seventy
three
units
we're
not
meeting
the
arena
goal,
we're
not
reading
the
general
plan
of
capacity,
we're
not
meeting
any
of
the
housing
production
objectives
and
we're
facing
the
results
of
that
record
rents,
record
sales
prices
and
people
living
on
the
street.
Why
is
that
important?
Because
these
horizon
methodologies
were
designed
to
stop
housing
production,
so
why
are
we
continuing
to
keep
this
horizon
methodology
in
the
general
plan
that
is
design
was
designed
in
2011
to
stop
housing
production,
get
rid
of
it,
abandon
it
completely.
K
K
If
so,
that's
a
good
change
to
the
policy
on
the
signature
project
criteria,
the
staff
is
going
backwards,
so
we've
heard
loud
and
clear
that
one
of
the
big
hurdles
to
mixed-use
development
is
overly
large
commercial
requirements
within
the
mixed-use
development,
and
so
staff
is
now
saying:
let's
take
the
current
policy
and
make
you
do
10%,
15%
or
25%
more
commercial
within
it.
So
it's
totally
going
the
wrong
direction
in
that
regard,
and
we
should
just
stick
with
the
policy
we
have,
which
is
meet
the
average
jobs
that
were
planned
in
that
urban
village
and.
K
K
And
also
on
the
urban
village
signature
project
criteria.
Why
do
we
have
such
prescriptive
things
that
a
parcel
has
to
be
a
hundred
and
fifty
feet
wide?
What,
if
I
bring
you
a
parcel?
That's
a
hundred
and
forty
nine
feet.
Why
does
it
have
to
be
three
acres?
What
if
I
bring
you?
What
if
I
bring
you
a
parcel?
This
that's
two
point:
seven,
eight
acres,
it's
absurd,
and
this
is
why
we
don't
have
housing
production
in
the
city
get
rid
of
it.
C
A
N
S
S
S
The
development
will
do
is
just
a
standard
practice
in
terms
of
sidewalks
and
improvements
to
the
public
right-of-way
we
are,
but
we
are
looking
at
coming
up
with
urban
village
of
elimination,
2.0.
That
would
have
a
much
more
limited
palette
of
things
that
can
be
selected
and
it
would
be
baked
into
the
zoning
code.
S
Well,
so
we're
exploring
that
I
think
this
is
kind
of
a
little
bit
outside
the
scope
is
for
your
review,
but
we
are
looking
essentially
at
baking
into
the
zoning
code,
sort
of
requirements,
for
example,
that
a
project
need
to
provide
a
Popa
which
is
not
a
cute
fluffy
animal,
but
a
publicly
accessible,
privately-owned
open
space
of
a
certain
size,
public
art,
other
types
of
things
that
be
very
clear.
So
there's.
No.
So
it's
just
very
clear
to
everybody,
the
community
developer.
S
What
can
be
expected
and
it
would
likely
be
a
menu
of
items
that
would
be
the
developer,
might
suggest.
There'd
be
conferences
for
the
community
about
which,
on
the
menu
of
items
of
development
would
propose.
But
we
are
in
the
early
stages
of
doing
that,
so
we're
just
kind
of
beginning
that
journey.
N
N
N
S
N
A
A
So
I
see
it
there's
a
number
of
other
cards
that
are
up
that
people
wish
to
comment
from
the
task
force
and
we
will
get
to
those.
But
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
we've
had
members
of
the
public
sitting
here
patiently
waiting
to
comment
as
well
so
I'm
going
to
invite
that
now
we'll
pick
up
afterwards
with
the
remainder
of
the
task
force
comments.
A
H
G
A
G
The
growth
in
West
San
Jose
I
was
very
excited
to
see
that
some
of
the
urban
villages
that
council
has
moved
from
horizon
3
up
are
in
West
San
Jose,
because
there's
peas
ability
analysis
showing
that
that
is
the
most
viable
place
in
the
city
right
now
to
add
new
apartments.
That's
currently
and
costs
current
development
costs
current
requirements
for
things
like
affordable
housing
and
if
we
want
to
add
new
homes
and
get
shovels
in
the
ground.
G
What
San
Jose
is
a
great
place
for
us
to
look
comes
with
a
lot
of
other
benefits
as
well.
Residents
of
West
San
Jose
would
enjoy
cleaner
air,
better
access
to
Silicon,
Valley
job
centers
being
sited
in
top
performing
public
school
districts.
These
are
all
reasons
that
the
area
is
identified
very
highly
on
ratings
of
neighborhood
opportunity
by
places
like
the
Hass
Institute
for
a
fair
and
inclusive
society.
G
Uc
Berkeley,
allowing
new
apartments
in
West
San
Jose,
would
help
reverse
historic
patterns
of
segregation
and
exclusion
in
San
Jose
and
again
it
is
the
most
viable
place
for
us
to
create
new
homes
right
now,
I
start
closing
our
housing
footage,
so
I
hope
that
there
will
be
some
scope
in
this
as
well
to
look
at
increasing
capacity
for
new
apartments
in
West,
San
Jose.
All
right.
Thank.
I
Tessa
Woodmansee
talking
about
the
general
plan,
how
it's
affected
our
neighborhood
and
how
we
haven't
been
outreach
to
our
neighborhood
of
the
general
plan
changes
and
how
that
has
really
impacted
our
garden
alameda,
as
they
have
decided
to
put
a
commercial
hotel
on
in
our
residential
neighborhood,
and
with
with
this
particular
zoning,
which
is
ncc,
we
have
no
chance
of
residential.
We
would
like
a
in
village
type
of
maybe
mixed-use.
We
could
have
that,
but
we
prefer
residential
and
the
issue
is,
as
we
look
at
climate
change
and
ecological
collapse.
I
11,000
scientists
are
warning
us
that
our
goals
need
to
shift
from
gross
domestic
product
growth
or
jobs
as
been
the
orientation
of
our
vision,
2040
and
we're
going
into
the
2040
where
2050
we're
talking
about
sea
level
rise,
which
has
increased
3
times.
So
we're
really
having
to
think
about
what
they're
saying
the
scientists
about
how
we're
developing
our
city
and
the
pursuit
of
affluence
towards
sustaining.
I
C
C
Buildings
in
a
sustainable
manner
do
not
try
to
reduce
cost
by
skimping
on
services.
The
people
need
parks
and
open
spaces,
plazas
and
so
forth.
Everybody
needs
to
be
able
to
get
outdoors
and
get
some
fresh
air
and
exercise
and
socialize,
and
regarding
Reid
and
Graham
I
thought
was
already
a
development
in
title
or
something
like
that.
C
I
appreciate
the
need
for
asphalt
and
business
taxes,
but
personally
and
selfishly
I'm,
hoping
that
it
will
go
away
because
the
Los
Gatos
Creek,
Trail
being
so
much
nicer
without
that
there
and
also
I'm
hoping
that
Lincoln
Avenue
would
be
enticing
walk
away
from
the
Midtown
development
to
the
shops
of
little
glance.
Thank.
C
C
G
R
Thanking
all
of
you
for
all
the
time
you're
gonna
put
in
and
I
hope
that
you're
all
sitting
here,
six
or
eight
months
from
now
stick
with
it.
It's
not
an
easy
job.
What
I
wanted
to
tell
you
was
that
I'm
trying
to
think
about
looking
at
all
of
who
you
are
listening,
who
you
are
in
terms
of
your
background?
It's
a
wonderful.
R
Congroo
people
who
can
rely
on
each
other
and
when
I'm
sitting
here
tonight,
listening
to
some
of
the
very
strong
statements
that
are
coming
out
and
I
would
encourage
you.
As
you
talk
about
the
policies
that
are,
they
may
bring
forward.
Think
of
the
chilling
effect
that
some
of
these
policies
have
on
the
development
you've
heard
people
talk
about
how
much
housing
we
need.
You
all
believe
that
housing
and
the
rest
of
the
development
in
the
community
is
very
important.
R
Some
of
the
policies
and
eric
is
quite
capable
of
pointing
out
the
chilling
effect
that
some
of
these
policies
that
sound,
very
good
have
you're
going
to
be
drawn
to
them.
We
should
have
more
commercial
in
a
residential
project,
and
yet
we
have
people
who
understand
clearly
and
some
of
the
housing
homeless.
Housing
advocates
understand
that
commercial
is
a
dead
space
in
their
building.
They
have
to
support
and
it
could
probably
get
more
residential
units
if
they
didn't
have
to
put
that
same
house
in
it.
R
I
would
encourage
you
some
of
you
who
do
not
understand
the
development
process
to
take
advantage
of
the
people
in
this
room.
If
you
will
get
to
know
them
find
out
why
they
think
a
policy
is
not
going
to
be
the
outcome
that
you're
looking
for.
We
need
to
encourage
development.
We
don't
need
to
regulate
more
development.
R
We
don't
need
more
regulation
on
development,
so
I
would
ask
you,
as
you
move
forward,
to
think
that
way
and
not
see
every
policy
that
the
planning
step
what's
in
front
of
you
as
the
panacea
to
a
problem,
it
will
not
be.
We
found
out
that
envision,
2040
hasn't
reached
many
of
the
goals
that
they
wanted
to.
It
may
be
because
they
were
ill
thought
out
or
not
properly
done.
In
the
first
place,
you
have
an
opportunity
to
rectify
the
numb
of
that
I
hope
you're
here
at
the
end.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You,
okay,
we're
going
to
continue
with
the
task
force
discussion
on
the
urban
village
issue
and
might
make
us
suggestions.
It's
just
a
suggestion
that
we
have
both
the
horizon
issue
and
the
signature
project
issue.
To
talk
about.
Many
of
you
will
recall
the
signature
project
idea
concept
was
developed
as
an
exception
to
accelerate
a
project
to
in
its
planning
and
its
horizon.
The
fundamental
issue
is:
what
do
you
all
think
of
the
horizons
now
have
things
changed
such
since
the
last
review
in
our
original
plan?
A
Is
that
a
concept
that
you
think
needs
to
be
changed?
And
if
that
needs
to
be
changed,
then
maybe
we
can
simplify
some
of
the
discussion
about
signature
projects.
So
if
you,
if
you're
interested
as
I
call
on
you,
share
your
opinions
about
the
horizon
issue,
so
is
that
yours,
Kevin
or
is
that
yours,
Melanie
who's
got
that
plate
up
here
on
the
right,
Melanie,
okay,.
L
So
my
comment
is
about
the
implementation
of
the
signature
project.
I
echo
Eric's
comments
as
well,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
see
in
some
of
the
implementation,
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
something
that
we
see
in
a
lot
of
different
policies,
is
the
emphasis
on
dwelling
units
and
dwelling
units
is
a
something
that
we're
moving
to
cola.
Ving
we're
moving
to
these
different
types
of
living
arrangements
and
it's
an
artificial
contract
that
really
doesn't
square
with
form
based
planning,
and
so
what
I
would
like
to
see
us
do?
L
Is
it's
focused
more
on
a
floor
area
ratio?
How
much
square
footage
do
we
want
to
residential
as
opposed
to
how
many
particular
dwelling
units,
because
that's
both
constraining
and
and
not
limiting
enough
in
certain
circumstances,
so
it
just?
It
creates
too
many
regulations
and
limitations
on
the
flexibility
that
we
need
to
provide
different
types
of
housing
opportunities.
So
that
would
be
my
suggestion
for
whether
it's
in
the
signature
project
or
in
other
areas
of
the
general
plan
is
to
focus
more
on
that
alright.
D
She
comments
briefly
horizons
I
believe
we
need
to
eliminate
the
horizons.
I
agree
with
spur
and
Leslie
and
BIA
has
felt
for
a
long
time,
but
the
horizons
have
been
an
impediment
to
allow
much
needed
housing
to
move
forward
and
get
built
on
the
signature
I
share
from
from
the
home
builder,
and
also
commercial.
The
concern
about
increasing
the
square
footage
for
commercial
in
our
signature,
urban
village
projects.
D
It's
extremely
challenging
to
meet
that
current
commercial
component,
we're
trying
to
get
housing
built
they're
already
our
spots
that
we
would
see
projects
come
forward,
can't
meet
the
square
footage.
Can't
pencil
doesn't
work.
I,
say
Eric's
concerned
that
he
raised
on.
That
is
a
very
valid
one.
Thank
You
Pat
Harvey.
A
F
Would
disagree
on
the
horizons,
I
think
the
writers
were
put
in
place
so
that
we
could
make
sure
that
we
get
the
BMP
the
veil
go
miles.
Traveled
down,
we
were
put
most
of
the
the
horizon-1
villages
along
the
greatest
transportation
corridors.
I
think
that
it's
helpful
to
have
the
signature
projects
because
yeah
then
to
move
it
up
in
in
in
horizons.
F
Gives
you
a
much
better
product.
I
would
just
I
I
know
we're
in
a
problem.
I
have
a
problem
with
housing,
but
the
housing
problem
is
not
San
Jose
solve
for
the
entire
valley.
The
problem
that
we
have
is
that
we
don't
have
enough
jobs
here.
We
still
have
point.
When
I
did
this
2007
we
had
point
eight
two
jobs
per
employed
resident.
We
still
have
point
a
two
jobs
per
employee
president.
Had
we
built
far
more
housing,
we
would
have
even
less
so
I
think
that
we
need
to
keep
the
horizons
in
place.
F
E
Thank
you.
So
my
comment
is
about
Spurs
letter,
and
this
is
first
staff,
and
this
is
about
this.
This
item
the
last
item
and
well,
the
two
items
that
we're
speaking
about
currently
I'd
like
to
see
your
response
to
Spurs
suggestion
in
the
letters
so
that
we
can
get
some
feedback
from
you
in
terms
of
limitations
or
any
response
that
you
have,
and
hopefully
some
of
that
could
get
incorporated
into
an
ultimately
into
a
recommendation,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
what
I'm
hearing
is
we're
kind
of
heading
into
what
spur
is
already
recommending.
E
I
want
to
echo
the
comments
about
eliminating
the
horizons.
It
seems
an
arbitrary
way
to
control
development
in
the
city.
Projects
are
going
to
be
built
where
land
is
available,
where
development
is
meant
to
occur,
where
opportunities
are
there
for
developers
and
to
have
these
horizons
and
then
the
signature
project
that
can
actually
jump
over
a
horizon
just
doesn't
make
sense.
I'd
like
to
see
the
elimination
of
the
horizons
all
together.
L
L
A
M
Comments
on
the
horizons
issue,
I
agree
with
the
different
sides
of
this
and
I
think
back
to
when
we
were
on
the
general
plan
task
force,
and
we
had
a
rationale
for
why
we
decided
upon
horizons,
which
was
that
Harvey
was
talking
about
and
so
I
think.
It
would
be
useful
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
from
staff
to
reflect
on
why
we
decided
why
we
liked
that
rationale.
Why
we
put
the
horizons
in
place
and
why
now
we
feel
it
might
not
be
useful.
I
mean
I'm,
a
believer
that
we
we
set
policy.
M
We
set
guidelines
that
then
help
the
market
figure
out,
what's
profitable
and
what's
not
based
on
those
policies,
and
if
we,
if
we
are
clearly
signaling
to
the
development
community,
as
we
have
with
a
with
a
thou
shalt,
not
convert
industrial
land
kind
of
policy
right
like
that,
was
a
hard
bright
line
in
the
sand
that
we
held
to
and
we
have
been
holding
to
it's
those
kinds
of
policy
decisions
where,
if
we
stick
to
it,
the
market
responds
and
says
all
right.
I
got
it
I'm
not
going
to
hire
the
best
consultant
here.
M
Eric
Schoen
our
to
navigate
the
process,
get
industrial
land
converted
right.
So
my
point
being
there
was
a
rationale:
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
what
that
was
understand
our
current
context
and
then
what
I
wanted
to
overlay
on
that
as
well,
which
I
think
is
not
a
new
context,
but
one
that
I
think
a
lot
of
us
shamefully
are
more
aware
of,
and
that's
something
that
or
embarrassingly
are
more
aware
of,
and
that's
something
that
Kevin
brought
up
I
think
with
the
foxtail
apartments,
and
we
were
getting
some
information
from
staff
that
hey
look.
M
We
don't
want
to
displace
poor
people
that
are
here,
and
so
let's
take
this
one
out.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
and
I
wonder
if
we
were
to
look
at
our
urban
villages
and
the
horizons
through
more
of
an
equity
lens,
if
that
might
help
inform
our
decisions
in
a
little
different
way
as
well,
so
I
I
would
look
to
staff
to
just
kind
of
bring
us
a
little
more
information
on
some
of
that.
M
M
Let's
do
you
know
you
developer,
show
us
what
you've
got
in
terms
of
bringing
the
community
in
and
it
tended
to
be
the
same
old,
same
old
and
so,
and
what
I
saw
here
was
like
Duke
to
community
meetings
and
to
me
that's
not
community
engagement,
so
I
would
and
again
I.
Don't
wanna,
be
prescriptive
of
the
development
community,
but
I
want
to
say
like
show
us
what
you
got
in
terms
of
like
bringing
the
community
in
working
with
and
figuring
out
a
great
project.
All.
C
E
I'm
always
asking:
what's
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
right
so
I
think
we
should
accelerate
the
horizons,
but
not
collapse
them,
because
acceleration
would
allow
us
to
solve
part
of
the
problem
that
we
have
without
collapsing
completely
the
rules
around
it,
which
is
the
jobs
to
employed
residents
ratio,
which
is
what
Harvey's
talking
about
right.
If
we
continue
to
want
that
rationale,
then
we
want
to
accelerate
move
faster,
but
not
eliminate,
and
that
also
is
with
the
signature
projects
as
well.
We
want
to
accelerate
them,
so
I
agree
with.
E
P
So
bonnie
stole
my
question:
what's
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve?
Well
we're
still
trying
to
solve
the
same
problem
if
I
remember
correctly,
that
problem
was
the
jobs
housing
imbalance
is
that
something
we
still
want
to
address
and
that's
what
we
really
need
to
understand
based
on
that
I
could
make
a
better
decision.
The
second
thing
is:
is
tax
base
I,
understand
that
part
of
the
reason
for
commercial
was
to
help
balance
that
tax
base,
because
without
tax-base
we
just
keep
passing
taxes
on
to
the
residents
and
to
to
fund
our
services.
A
G
To
much
common
sense,
it's
like
I'm
on
Fantasy
Island,
when
I
read
this
from
2007
I'm
waiting
for
Ricardo
montalbán.
To
tell
me
where
I'm
at
this
task
force
in
2007
was
created
to
control
housing
and
now
look
where
we're
at
look
where
we're
at.
We
have
to
have
just
common-sense
policies.
This
one's
easy
signature
project
I,
have
a
signature
project,
I'm
working
on
point
one!
G
G
It's
just.
If
you
want
a
signature
project
find
half
plazas.
Have
you
know
sustainability
aspects
to
it,
have
connections
to
trails,
but
but
don't
don't
tell
me
that
you're
gonna
create
all
your
jobs
and
solve
all
your
problems
with
your.
You
haven't
even
moved
the
needle
at
all
on
your
jobs,
housing
balance.
You
thought
this
since
2007.
As
Eric
said
this
general
plan
is
a
failure.
C
So
I
think
Spurs
memo
I
want
to
agree
with
that
on
both
pool
and
the
horizons,
but
second
I
think
there's
also
some
underlying
tensions
here
right
around
the
fiscal
sustainability
of
the
city.
But
my
understanding
is
higher
densities.
The
housing
scores
better
fiscally.
So
as
we
look
at
our
urban
village
process
and
how
we
dedicate
you
know
how
much
commercial
space,
how
much
housing
as
we
get
denser
and
we
give
more
density
to
the
developer.
C
You
know
we
should
consider
that
in
this
signature
process
and
other
just
urban
villages
period
outside
of
the
signature
process,
I
look
at
some
of
the
minimum
densities.
Here
you
know,
35
units
per
acre
in
some
of
these
villages
is
that
a
village
is
that
dense
along
bus
corridors
that
we
want
high.
You
know
we
want
people
to
take
BRT
bus
rapid-transit,
you
know
BRT
and
rail,
no
matter
what
kind
of
transit
you
have
really
does
need
density
to
support
it.
C
So
I
think,
as
we
look
at
this
lens,
let's
look
at
what
are
the
density
maximum
we're
imposing
in
some
of
these
villages,
not
just
the
density
minimums,
and
should
we
be
raising
the
floor
on
the
density
minimums
here
again
for
both
the
fiscal
sustainability
and
the
housing
supply
shortage?
We
have
alright.
P
The
facts
have
changed
since
we
started
this
first
general
plan
in
2007
we
had
a
different
sort
of
housing
crisis,
we're
in
the
midst
of
a
global
recession,
housing,
it
tanked,
I,
think
the
city
took
some
prudent
steps
to
make
sure
that
we
had
jobs
going
forward
and
guess
what
folks
I've
got
some
good
news.
So
by
my
calculations,
we've
got
about
20
million
square
feet
of
office
product
that
could
be
coming
into
downtown
San
Jose.
P
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
right,
the
general
plan,
the
first
time
as
we
identified
priority
development
areas.
So
let's
keep
those
priority
development
areas,
let's
get
rid
of
horizons
and
let's
build
some
housing.
One
of
the
reasons
why
the
states
come
down
so
hard
on
cities
and
local
control
is
that
we
had
the
capacity
for
homes,
but
we
didn't
have
the
ability
to
deliver
those
homes.
The
city
of
San
Jose
produces
some
of
the
lowest
housing
permits
in
the
western
United
States.
P
The
city
of
Seattle
is
about
250,000
people
less
than
the
city
of
San
Jose.
They
deliver
three
times
the
number
of
housing
units
and
their
housing
is
a
lot
more
affordable.
There's
a
lot
of
good
things
that
we're
done
in
the
general
plan,
but
the
facts
have
changed.
We've
got
to
change
course
and
we
got
to
make
corrections.
Thank
you.
Thank.
L
Good
evening,
Eddie
turn
with
the
syllabi
organization.
I
support
the
elimination
of
planning
horizons.
I,
see
the
planning
horizons
as
an
attempt
to
reverse
market
forces,
we're
in
the
middle
of
one
of
the
greatest
economic
expansions
that
we've
seen,
and
we
have
not
really
seen
any
housing
units
being
built
and
the
result
of
that
is
growing
displacement
due
to
rent
inflation.
L
That
will
continue
to
grow
since
2010
wrens
have
doubled
in
the
city
of
San,
Jose
and
I
think
that
we
really
need
to
figure
out
a
way
to
relax
the
regulations
out
there,
because
the
economic
headwinds
are
gonna
change
and
when
they
change
you,
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
eliminate
the
pine
horizons
three
or
four
years
or
now,
because
we're
not
going
to
see
the
financing
capabilities
to
get
more
housing.
And
so
the
time
is
now
to
really
make
the
changes
today.
If
we
really
want
to
hit
impact
in
the
housing
crisis.
L
And
the
third
point
I
really
want
to
make
is
that
we
really
need
a
general
plan
that
is
consistent
with
the
reality
is
the
marketplace.
And
what
that
means
is
that
if
there's
a
market
demand
to
build
housing
that
can
help
us
address
our
goals
to
address
the
housing
crisis,
we
shouldn't
get
in
the
way
of
that
and
that's
exactly
what
I
horizons
does
and
we
need
to
relook
at
that
all.
F
So
I
agree
on
the
need
to
revisit
horizons
and
appreciate
the
work
that
staff
did
and
wonder
if
next
time
they
could
recommend
whether
to
eliminate
or
accelerate
and
then
in
terms
of
the
lack
of
flexibility
with
all
the
requirements.
Then
I
agree
that
if
more
flexibility
is
available,
it
could
incentivize
more
development
which
would
help
all
of
us
and
so
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
for
staff
to
recommend
a
and
B
so
that
we
have
another
option.
And
those
are
all
my
comments.
All.
A
Right
all
right,
there's
been
a
lot
of
food
for
thought
here.
There's
been
some
questions
post
to
staff
as
well.
We're
not
going
to
answer
those
questions
now,
as
you
know,
at
the
next
agenda.
This
is
the
first
item.
That's
going
to
be
on
our
next
meeting
agenda,
which
is
December
the
18th
so
anticipate
in
that
packet.
You'll
see
answers
to
some
of
the
questions
that
been
posed
here,
as
well
as
some
recommendations
regarding
the
items
that
we
discussed
so
I
said.
A
It's
Shirley
Lewis
Shirley,
who,
as
you
know,
was
co-chair
of
this.
The
last
update,
as
well
as
the
general
plan
Shirley's,
not
here
with
us
in
person,
but
she's.
Certainly
here
with
us
in
thought,
Shirley
loved
the
future.
She
loves
San
Jose
and
she
was
a
really
powerful
force
for
good
planning
in
the
city
and
I
just
wanted
to
adjourn
our
meeting
in
her
memory.
All
right
so
we'll
see
ya
at
the
next
meeting
here
on
December
the
18th
thank.