►
Description
City of San José, California
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force meeting of June 25, 2020
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=59868
A
B
C
All
right,
let
me
let
me
thank
staff
for
pulling
this
together
and
also
Teresa
what
has
happened.
As
you
all
know,
since
the
cove
in
nineteen
of
emergency,
we
obviously
had
to
postpone
our
meetings
and
with
the
continued
restrictions,
though,
Teresa
and
I
have
continuing
to
meet
with
staff,
to
try
and
figure
out
what,
if
any,
progress
we
can
still
make
with
the
task
force,
and
so,
even
though,
we've
been
able
to
do
a
lot
of
the
council
referral
and
covered
a
lot
of
ground,
there's
still
a
lot
of
work.
That
remains
to
be
done.
C
So
we
had
discussions
about
well,
what
are
some
of
the
options
that
we
could
do
to
allow
us
to
continue
to
make
progress
on
this,
and,
let
me
just
say
we
don't
have
clear
answers
on
all
of
that.
Yet,
but
one
of
the
things
that
staff
suggested,
which
was
let's
give
this
a
try,
let's
give
them
a
try.
Let's
try
a
virtual
meeting.
C
This
is
going
to
be
a
first
obviously
for
us,
it's
probably
a
first
for
the
city
in
that,
although
the
city's
been
having
lots
of
zoom
meetings,
we've
got
a
gigantic
task
force
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
been
a
group
of
people.
This
big
who've
tried
to
do
a
zoom
meeting,
obviously
we're
kind
of
we're
best
in
person
it's
best
to
work
this
way,
but
we
wanted
to
try
and
give
this
a
try
and
so
as
a
test,
we
didn't
want
to
run
a
full-fledged.
C
You
know
to
our
three
hour
plus
meeting
as
they've
been
going
they've
been
going
over
three
hours.
We
thought
why
not
just
try
a
single
issue
and
test
this
format
out.
We
expect
there's
gonna
be
bugs
with
many
people
who
are
involved
tonight,
but
we
thought
well,
let's
try
one
issue
for
discussion
and
see
how
it
goes
so
we're
going
to
give
that
a
try.
It
will
go
into
some
of
the
details
of
the
mechanics
of
how
the
meetings
gonna
go
in
just
a
minute,
but
before
I
do
that
understand
Rosalyn.
C
D
Great
thank
you
David
and
Theresa.
First,
it's
good
to
see
all
of
you
this
evening.
We
haven't
convened
since
February,
so
I'm
glad
that
we're
able
to
do
this
Visine
this
evening
so
before
we
did
get
started
and
the
work
that
we
have
before
us
tonight.
I
did
just
want
to
take
a
moment
really
just
to
acknowledge
all
that
I
will
say
we
as
a
city
has
been
through
these
last
three
plus
months.
The
weeks
just
seem
to
keep
going
on
and
on
and
on.
D
Obviously,
three
months
ago
we
found
ourselves
responding
to
the
Kovach
19
pandemic
and,
and
actually
our
city
was
just
clearly
focused
on
saving
lives
right.
We
were
focused
on
saving
lives,
keeping
people
safe
and
then
responding
to
the
most
vulnerable
of
our
of
our
population
and
that
that
work
clearly
continues
and
just
acknowledging
that
all
of
us
right
we
had
to
get
used
to
a
new
way
of
living.
A
new
way
of
working,
a
new
way
of
schooling
for
some
of
us
and
so
I
just
think.
D
You
know
witnessing
very
disturbing
acts,
and
it
is,
it
is
heart-wrenching
just
absolutely
heart-wrenching,
witnessing
black
people
being
murdered
some
by
police
and
obviously
the
outcry
from
our
communities
from
our
cities
across
the
country
really
across
the
globe.
About
the
issue
of
systemic
racism
and
racial
inequities
and
I've
been
saying
that
I
feel
like
that.
We
as
a
San,
Jose
community
I,
think
we're
clearly
in
a
time
of
both
reckoning,
so
a
time
of
acknowledgement
and
accountability
and
making
some
very
significant
changes
and
moving
forward
and
I.
D
Think
we're
also
in
a
time
of
reconciliation
and
I,
am
forever
optimist
and
believe
that
out
of
situations
like
these,
we
can
become
a
better
community
and
learn
and
grow
together
and
heal
a
lot
of
wounds,
right,
heal
wounds
and
individual
hearts
and
heal
wounds
in
our
community
and
really
come
out
of
all
of
this
together
being
a
better
community
and
so
I
think.
The
work
really
of
the
task
force.
D
I
think
that
you
now
have
an
awesome
opportunity
right
as
you
deliberate
policy
changes
and
new
policies
to
really
think
about
the
people
in
our
community
who
are
going
to
be
impacted
by
those
policies.
So
you
know,
as
an
urban
plan
as
a
profession
like
our
own
profession,
is
coming
to
grips
with
how
we
have
perpetrated
racism
due
to
planning
and
zoning
laws.
D
So
I
think
it's
now
an
opportunity
now
to
think
about
and
make
sure
that
we're
leading
people
and
so
I
just
encourage
all
of
us,
as
we
continue
to
work
together
to
think
about
how
these
policies
really
do
impact
the
people
that
we
all
get
to
work
with
and
grow
with
and
be.
But
so
with
that,
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
the
co-chairs.
Thank
you.
C
Thanks
Rosalyn,
so
our
main
topic,
a
new
topic
for
discussion
tonight,
is
commercial
requirements
for
affordable
housing
and
policy.
We're
going
to
talk
about
tonight
doesn't
pertain
to
just
urban
villages,
but
throughout
the
city
and
staff
will
be
presenting
on
that
momentarily
on
the
agenda.
Our
next
item
is
a
review
of
the
meeting
synopsis
from
way
back
in
February.
If
anybody
remembers
that
time,
when
there
weren't
we
weren't
sheltering
in
place,
are
there
any
Corrections
or
additions?
Anyone
wants
to
make
the
meeting
synopsis.
C
A
So
I
looked
at
the
these
minutes
and
I.
Remember
from
that
meeting
that
after
the
public
comment
period
because
it
was
so
late
and
so
many
people
had
left
and
that
a
second
issue,
that
the
map
of
the
opportunity
house
didn't
scale
up
in
a
way
that
people
could
see
whether
their
homes
would
be
affected
or
not.
That
I
asked
two
things:
one:
that
the
staff
provide
us
with
a
scalable
map
and
that
we
could
distribute
to
the
public
or
have
on
the
website
that
would
be
accessible
to
the
public.
A
E
C
C
C
F
C
Let's
do
this,
so
this
is
a
bug.
This
is
what
we're
talking
about
testing
things
out.
Let's,
let's
defer
sin
step
more
than
just
one
or
two
people
haven't
been
able
to
read
it.
Let's
just
defer
approval
of
the
synopsis.
I'll
just
say
for
the
record:
Harvey
I
do
recollect
you
bringing
up
that
issue
at
the
end
of
the
last
meeting.
It
would
just
ask
that
to
include
that,
in
this
an
amended
synopsis,
okay
and.
K
K
So
next
we
have
task
force
recommendations,
and
this
is
just
overview
of
agenda
and
I
want
to
remind
everyone,
including
public
attendees,
when
you
close
out
of
zoo
does
this
is
our
first
virtual
meeting.
We
definitely
would
like
for
you
to
thought
the
survey.
What
ways
we
could
improve
any
comments
are
welcome.
K
So
here's
the
recap
of
task
force
recommendation
from
the
February
27th
meeting
so
for
the
topic
of
urban
villages.
The
task
force
recommended
a
monorail
Road.
A
new
urban
village
called
a
capital
car
train
station
area
in
a
task
force
also
on
the
story:
Road
employments
area
from
as
an
urban
village
on
the
topic
of
neighborhood
business
districts,
the
four
residential
uses
in
neighborhood
business
districts.
The
task
force
recommended
to
allow
residential
uses
in
for
neighborhood
business
districts.
K
Can
you
willow
willow,
glen,
north
13th,
Street
and
Japantown
the
Taylor
Street
portion
only
if
these
residential
projects
meet
the
following
criteria?
First,
to
replace
a
higher
percent
of
existing
commercial
or
industrial
uses
to
comply
with
citywide
design,
guidelines
to
adaptively,
reuse,
historic
resources
and
finally,
to
protect
businesses.
Small
businesses
that
are
existing
along
with
this,
the
four
areas
will
be
established
as
a
growth
area
and
will
have
an
initial
pool
of
600
residential
units.
K
C
K
C
C
K
So
the
following
are
the
remaining
topics
for
the
meetings
through
from
July.
We
anticipate
July
through
November.
If
we
do
one
topic
per
meeting,
we're
next
in
July
on
the
30th
is
opportunity,
housing
or
task
force,
discussion
and
recommendation
and
to
open
to
public
comment
in
August
we
have
coyote
Valley
and
shifting
plan
capacities.
K
So,
in
the
contract
of
the
general
plan
for
commercial
requirements
that
effect
affordable
housing
projects,
there
are
three
policies.
The
first
is
the
signature
politic
policy
IP
5.10,
though
typically
signature
projects
are
generally
proposed
in
one
hundred
percent
market
rate
units.
Next
is
policy,
IP
5.12
and
then
policy,
HT
2.9.
K
So
in
the
context
of
in
January,
when
a
task
force
passed
recommendations,
it
was
the
first
two
policy
on
the
signature
project
policy.
The
task
force
recommended
as
part
of
us
feasibility
analysis
to
evaluate
the
reduction
or
elimination
of
commercial
requirements
as
an
incentive
for
affordable
housing
or
signature
projects
and
in
all
urban
villages
on
policy.
Ip
5.12,
which
allows
a
higher
percent
affordable
housing
projects
to
move
forward
ahead
of
an
adopted
urban
village
plan
or
a
growth
horizon.
K
K
So
here
the
policy
is
on
the
side
and
estates
to
increase
the
supply
of
affordable
housing,
one
higher
percent
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing
developments
would
be
allowed
on
sites
outside
of
existing
growth
areas
on
properties
with
mixed-use,
commercial
or
neighborhood.
Community
commercial
land
use
designations.
If
the
development
meets
the
following
criteria,
number
one
the
site
is
1.5
acre
or
less
number
two:
the
site
is
vacant
or
underutilized.
Number
three:
the
site
has
adjacent
properties
within
a
residential
general
plan.
K
Five,
the
site
is
located
when
a
HAP
within
a
half
mile
of
an
existing
transit
line.
Six,
the
development
integrates
commercial
uses
that
support
the
affordable
housing
project,
and/or
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and,
finally,
seven
development
of
properties
that
contain
structures
that
are
on
or
are
eligible
for.
Inclusion
on
the
city
of
San
Jose's
historic
resources
inventory
should
adaptively
reuse.
These
structures.
K
Staffs
recommendation
is
to
remove
criterion
number
six.
This
removes
the
requirement
on
affordable
housing
projects
to
provide
on-site
commercial
uses.
The
policy's
intent
is
to
create
an
exception
for
affordable
housing
since
the
site
existing
characteristics
based
on
the
policy
criteria
indicate
that
is
unlikely
to
be
successful
for
commercial
uses.
K
Even
with
a
commercial
use,
designation,
the
site
has
remained
vacant
or
underutilized.
Staff
also
recognizes
the
financial
challenges
for
affordable
housing
projects
to
incorporate
commercial
into
their
projects.
Therefore,
to
provide
further
flexibility
for
affordable
housing
staff
recommends,
removing
the
commercial
replacement
acquirement,
and
that
concludes
staff,
strengthen
our
presentation.
C
Ok,
thanks
keulen,
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
as
we've
done
it.
Some
of
our
prior
meetings
is:
let's
see
if
we
can
divide
this
into
two
parts.
What
I'd
like
to
do
first
is:
if
you
have
a
question
on
about,
what's
being
recommended,
let's
deal
with
questions
first,
because
then
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
open
it
to
public
comment
and
then,
after
the
public
comment
period,
then
we'll
have
comments
and
discussions
on
the
staff
recommendation.
So,
let's
start
with
any
questions
and
I
see
a
lot
of
hands
Teresa.
I
J
Jared
yeah,
so
so
we're
stops
exploring
refinements
to
the
other
criteria,
to
set
more
objective
standards
that
will
facilitate
projects
moving
forward
under
this
policy
is
a
work
item
in
the
housing
crisis.
Work
plan
we're
anticipating
that
work
will
be
completed
by
early
2021
so
that
it
can
be
brought
forward
at
the
same
time
as
it
changes
for
the
commercial
requirements
that
are
being
contemplated
tonight.
Okay,.
A
D
L
H
L
This
so
no,
and
so
one
of
the
issues
with
that
project
was
that
you
needed
to
have
residential
on
two
sides
that
was
changed
by
the
council
consistent
with
the
original
task
force
recommendation
to
make
it.
You
only
had
to
be
adjacent
to
residential
on
one
side.
So
there's
this
policy
change
we're
doing
further
work
on
this
policy
change,
to
make
the
standards
more
clear
and
objective.
So
I
think
we'll
have
to
see
what
you
know.
It'll
depend
on
that
work.
L
A
A
D
M
Thank
you
David.
This
is
Eric
Shane.
Our
I
actually
had
two
questions.
The
first
was
I
was
confused
by
why
we
had
the
the
description
of
the
new
policy
for
neighborhood
business
districts
and
the
13th
Street
and
Calle
Willow.
Were
we
talking
about
that
or
what
was
that?
Why
was
that
brought
up
this
meeting.
J
J
M
That
has
already
been
problematic,
because
staff
has
on
some
sites
claimed
that
the
site
is
not
underutilized,
while
development
interest
would
argue
that
it
is
underutilized,
and
so
somehow
getting
clarity
on
the
definition
of
underutilized
would
be
very
important.
In
my
opinion,
if
there's
a
one-story
building
on
it
in
this
city,
by
definition,
that's
underutilized
and
I
know
staff
doesn't
agree
with
that
viewpoint,
so
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
Somehow.
C
Okay,
anything
else,
any
other
questions
remember
we're
trying
to
stick
with
questions
and
we
will
set
it
aside
time
for
comments
which
Eric
you're
expressing
and
I
understand
that.
But
let's
just
stay
focused
on
questions
now
any
other
questions
that
you
have
Eric.
No
thank
you
thanks.
Eric
next
Jessi
O'malley
Solis.
B
Thank
you,
I
was
curious,
could
stuff
give
a
little
bit
of
context
on
what
the
reach
of
this
current
policy
is?
How
many
sites
does
this
policy
as
already
in
place
or
with
these
edits,
how
many
sites
citywide?
Would
this
actually
apply
to?
Can
you
provide
a
map
that
has
context
doesn't
seem
like
this
would
apply
to
very
many
sites,
yeah.
J
J
Of
course,
some
of
the
criteria
is
rather
subjective
and-
and
you
know,
we're
working
on
on
coming
up
with
more
objective
criteria
for
that
which
would
be
brought
forward,
but
but
with
the
current
criteria,
as
it
is,
there's
about
a
thousand
sites
just
using
the
locational
criteria,
and
then,
of
course
that
would
be
whittled
down
once
you
apply
some
of
the
other
criteria
on
it
and
as
we
move
forward
with
with
defining
the
additional
criteria,
those
sites
could
be
better
identified.
It.
N
Yes,
oh
I
could
have
to
run
everyone
I
do
have
a
question.
I
believe
is
similar
to
the
previous
I
hear
a
couple
of
times
that
staff
is
recommending
to
develop
ways
to
protect
businesses,
and
it
also
mentions
that
small
businesses
need
to
be
protected.
We,
we
are
boring
today,
but
do
we
have
a
plan
of
how
these
businesses
will
be
protected
as
staff
started
developing
ways
to
protect
businesses,
and
can
we
get
that
information?
How
are
we
going
to
be
protecting
the
businesses?
If,
again,
if
we're
signing
and
voting
for
this
today,.
J
Speaking
that,
in
that
context
of
the
policy
that
so
for
this
particular
policy,
the
intent
of
it
is
that
these
would
be
sites
that
are
not
well
positioned
for
commercial
uses,
which
is,
which
is
why
the
exception
is
being
made
to
allow
affordable
housing
a
bit
move
forward
on
those
sites
in
terms
of
business
displacement.
You
know
we're.
Certainly
the
city
is
working
hard
on
that,
and
that's
that
efforts
being
led
by
OAD
and
I
know
they.
J
I
I
C
C
O
J
That
was
adopted
with
last
the
last
task
force
review
process,
so
that
would
have
been
in
2016
Leeds
Council,
adopted
that
we
we
made
amendments
to
the
policy
in
2018
so
that
took
it
from
there's.
You
know
the
criteria
that
required
residential
on
two
sides
that
went
down
to
one
side
that
opened
up
a
lot
more
sites.
J
O
O
C
O
I
think
David,
it
is
an
important
question.
Are
there
projects
we
had
asked
the
staff
to
come
back
with
a
policy
that
exempted
affordable
housing
from
from
the
commercial
requirement
and
I'm
just
asking
straight
up
is
what
the
recommendation
before
us
does
that
do
that
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that
and
I
can
speak
more
to
it,
but
I
think
it's
a
really
important
question.
I
know:
yep
I.
L
Can
respect
so
and
I
talked
to
Matthew
on
the
phone
beforehand
about
this,
so
the
scope
is
about
related
to
general
plan
works
right
here
where
the
screws
task
was
looking
at
the
general
plan
and
making
changes,
in
course,
corrections
or
whatever
to
the
general
plan,
and
so
the
general
plan
has
three
policies
that
require
currently
commercial
to
affordable.
There's
only
really
three
and
that's
the
signature
project,
the
urban
village
policy
camera
the
number
but
allows
for
double
housing
projects
to
jump
ahead
in
a
village
plan
or
horizon
and
there's
this
one.
L
L
There
is
I'm,
not
we're
not
cognizant
of
all
the
affordable
housing
projects
being
proposed
right
now,
but
there
is
one
for
example
that
is
proposed:
it's
not
downtown
and
not
an
urban
village
and
not
in
a
specific
plan,
and
that's
the
I
think
it's
a
home,
a
supportive
project
and
fourth
Street
at
the
old
Dix
market.
A
younger
and
fourth,
and
that
is
the
project
that
is
using
the
current
one
and
a
half
acre
rural
policy
that
we're
talking
about
so.
L
They're
all
yeah
so
I
mean
you
could
do
that,
but
there
isn't
a
general
plan,
citywide
policy
requiring
affordable
housing
to
provide
commercial.
So
if
you
have
a
site,
that's
designating
the
general
plan
for
high-density
housing
or
whatever
housing
it
is.
You
can
build
100%,
affordable
housing
on
that
site.
It's
only
when
you
have
layer
on
the
urban
villages
or
it's
a
commercial
property
that
you're
trying
to
convert,
which
is
the
policy
before
you
tonight
or.
L
No,
the
zoning,
so
the
zoning
is
relatively
Israel
relevant.
It
really
is
about
what
is
the
general
plan
say,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
we're
this
group
is
tasked
to
do
is.
Are
there
general
plan
tweaks
that
we
need
to
make
so
in
the
general
rule?
Is
that
you
know
if
you
want
to
redevelop
a
site?
You
look
to
what
the
general
plan
allows
to
to
sort
of
guidance
of
what
you
can
build
and
the
zoning
is
changed
to
be
consistent
with
the
general
plan
and
as
of
state
law
changes.
O
C
Well,
I
think,
as
Michael
explained,
that
affordable
housing
planned
on
properties
that
are
planned
residential,
don't
have
the
requirement
at
all
and
that
properties
where
it's,
where
it's
mixed-use
or
commercial.
There
are
the
current
restrictions.
That's
in
the
policy
that's
being
proposed
to
change
now.
I
guess
is
the
question:
is
there
some
other
policy
within
the
general
plan
that
has
not
been
brought
to
the
task
force
that
still
imposes
commercial
space
for
building
requirements?
Is
that
is
that
the
question
no.
O
I
think
the
question
is:
is
there
not
a
way
for
us
to
add
something
that
says
that?
But
if
that's
not
the
appropriate
way
in
the
appropriate
way
is
for
a
council
policy,
then
that's
also
that's
good
for
us
to
know,
because
I
do
believe
that
the
task
force
last
at
the
last
meeting
or
I
guess
in
January
thought
that
it
was
suggesting
a
broader
policy
than
one
that
that
was
fairly
restrictive
to
what's
before
us
today.
So
it
may
be,
may
be
that
there's
another
way
to
get
what
we're
suggesting.
C
Thank
you,
Ray
council
member,
a
Reynes.
It
was
good
to
return
to
you.
I
You
know
this.
This
really
goes
along
with
what
Leslie
was
bringing
up
and
I
know
that
we
spoke
about
this
earlier,
Michael
and
and
Jared,
and
in
the
last
meeting
I
think
somebody
had
brought
up
the
N
and
B
DS
and
I
can't
remember
the
acronym,
but
there
was
different
set
of
rules
for
those
projects
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
how
we
can
apply
different
rules.
Maybe
some
blanket
rules
for
projects
possibly
like
in.
I
So
so
my
question
would
be:
how
would
this
the
recommendation
really
impact
or
effect
that
attempt
to
build
affordable
housing
and
urban
villages
that
have
already
kerbin
Village
plans
and
Jared
and
Michael?
We've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this,
so
that
would
be
the
question
without
going
further
into
the
discussion,
because
I
know
that
you
were
you're
trying
to
clear
up
that
these
are
informational
questions
or
trying
to
clear
up
our
understanding
and
so
I
know
we're
moving
into
discussion,
so
I'll
hold
off
that.
That
would
be
my
question.
Thank
you.
J
Right
so
yeah,
so
the
policies
that
we
brought
forward
for
discussion
for
the
task
force
are
the
ones
they're
there
in
the
general
plan.
Those
are
the
three
policies
is
Michael
mentioned
that
that
have
requirements
for
affordable
projects
to
include
commercial.
There
were
there
too,
you
know
in
urban
villages,
and
then
this
one
we're
discussing
tonight,
that's
outside
of
it.
The
urban
village
plans.
You
know,
they're,
really
they're
extension
of
the
general
plan
like
a
specific
plan,
so
those
those
policies
are
specific
to
those
individual
villages.
J
So
you
know
changing
the
those
plans
specifically
or
eliminating
the
requirements
or
setting
a
policy
where
you
similar
to
the
MPD's,
where
maybe
you
there
would
just
be
a
requirement
to
replay.
You
know,
replace
the
commercial
that's
there
or
some
portion
there
that
it
could
necessitate.
You
know
really
focused
updates
of
those
twelve
adopted
urban
village
plans.
J
C
J
Correct
so
yeah,
what's
been
what's
before
you
tonight
is
the
the
1.5
acre
one.
So
those
are
first
sites
outside
of
urban.
Is
that
our
1.5
acres
located
on
those
commercially
designated
properties
that
meet
the
subject
criteria?
You
know
we
the
as
I
mentioned
the
two
other
policies
are
focused
on
urban
villages,
and
the
task
force
gave
recommendation
on
those
in.
C
And
this
issue
has
come
back
to
the
task
force
because,
if
I
recollect
Lesley,
it
was
you
who
had
reminded
staff
that
this
was
a
referral
to
the
task
force
that
wasn't
being
addressed
when
we
had
that
prior
discussion.
It
was
something
that
was
part
of
the
housing
crisis
were
complaining,
correct,
yeah,.
O
C
C
O
I
mean
it's
happening,
so
I
think
that
that's
that's
the
issue.
There
are
projects
that
are,
as
the
staff
had
said,
they've
in
the
last
four
years
have
not
approved
even
one
a
project
under
the
1.5
acre
rule.
Yet,
and
then
there
are
a
number
of
projects
that
have
been
pre-approved
in
urban
villages,
but
they're
also
been
projects
approved
outside
urban
villages
that
have
been
required
to
provide
commercial
and
that's
what
we
thought,
maybe
maybe
mistakingly,
but
we
thought
that
the
conversation
was
about
was
that
it
would
be
citywide
and
not
just
in
specific
locations.
O
C
All
right
and
I
thought
it
was
pretty
clear
that
when
I
asked
staff,
the
question
I
asked
whether
it
was
the
general
plan.
Zoning
council
policy.
Anything
is
there
any
policy
law
rule
regulation,
that's
in
place
in
the
city
right
now.
If
we
approve
the
this
last
piece
tonight,
that
requires
commercial
development
by
one
hundred
percent,
affordable
housing
projects
right.
J
L
Yeah
and
so
also
just
yeah
village
plants-
oh
god,
but
also
specific
plans.
Did
you
say
that
Gerry?
So
there
also,
we
have
specific
plans.
There's
not
many
laughs,
but
Martha
garden
is
one
that
comes
to
mind,
I.
Think
on
first
trip
south
first
tree.
It
requires
commercial
and
just
full
disclosure.
We
do
have
a
policy
and
zoning
for
certain
streets
in
downtown
that
require
commercial.
It's
it's
for
any
years.
L
It's
use
agnostic,
but
what
we
did
a
whole
downtown
retail
strategy
and
it
kind
of
actually
tightened
up
some
key
corridors
that
we're
defined
as
retail
corridors
and
the
other
streets
were
let
go,
and
so
they
don't
need
to
have
any
active
uses
in
the
ground
place
really
more
about
active
uses
on
the
ground
floor.
So
there
is
an
ordinance
houses
in
downtown
related
to
that
on
specific
streets
apply
to
any
development
commercial
office,
buildings,
market
rate,
housing
hotel
is
affordable.
I
With
my
question,
since
that
was
the
answer
to
my
question,
because
I
think,
if
we're
trying
to
find
a
way
to
make
this
citywide
without
messing
up
already
pre-existing
urban
village
plans,
that
we
should
consider
putting
that
kind
of
criteria,
the
same
criteria
that
that
was
similar
to
the
NB
B's
in
the
neighborhood
business
districts
and
apply
those
rules
as
criteria
for
urban
villages
that
already
exist.
Otherwise,
those
are
that's
the
the
group
that
will
continue
to
be
outside.
Of
this.
I
Sort
of
similar
to
Leslie's
idea,
but
so
we
have
seven
criteria
and
we're
getting
rid
of
one
or
we're
modifying
one
at
those
seven
right
Michael.
So
is
there
some
reason
why
and
that
one
criteria,
it's
going
to
open
up
a
thousand
slice,
but
to
Leslie's
point
that
doesn't
mean
a
thousand
developers
are
gonna
rush
into
those
thousand
sites.
So,
in
order
for
us
not
to
come
back,
is
there
some
reason
why
we're
not
modifying
the
other
criteria
or
some
of
the
other
criteria
as
well
like
number
two
underutilized,
subbytes
cetera?
Thank
you.
L
Right,
so
we,
what
we're
talking
about
tonight,
doesn't
affect
the
number
of
sites
that
Jared
mentioned
Jared
mentioned.
There's
a
thousand
sites
that
meet
the
locational
criteria,
there's
actually
a
lot
less
once
you
get
into
the
hundred
utilized
and
other
things,
but
this
policy
doesn't
affect
that.
L
The
reason
we're
only
talking
about
the
affordable
house,
I'm,
sorry,
the
commercial
requirement
part-
is
because
that's
within
the
scope
of
the
four-year
review
task
force
process,
the
other
pieces
of
it
are
part
of
our
housing
crisis
work
program
and
we're
not
as
far
along
in
that
work.
What
we're
not
as
far,
that's
not
the
reason.
The
reason
it's
not
part
of
the
scope
of
this
of
this
task
force,
but
we're
also
not
that
far
as
far
along
in
that
work,
as
we
are
with
this
one
policy
about
the
commercial
requirement.
C
All
right,
I
see
hands
up
for
Harvey
and
hey-zeus,
but
since
I
already
called
on
you
I'm
good
at
next
go
to
Susan
Butler
Graham
I.
L
Yeah
so
I
think
the
idea
of
this
policy
again
is
it's
underutilized
in
vacant
land,
so
I
think
the
thought
is
probably
not
a
market
thriving
grocery
store.
That's
there.
Now
so
by
allowing
affordable
housing
to
be
built
on
the
site,
it
wouldn't
be
vacating
a
grocery
store
and
thereby
creating
a
3d
desert.
So
we
don't,
we
don't
think
so
yeah.
They
would
result
in
that.
H
L
E
Hi
I
think
this
was
partially
cleared
up
earlier,
but
so
the
question
we're
being
asked
is:
do
we
want
to
accept
the
recommendation
about
striking
bullet
number
six,
or
do
we
have
a
different
recommendation
regarding
bullet
number?
Six,
or
do
we
want
to
make
no
recommendation?
Are
those
are
three
options.
C
I'll
just
jump
in
here.
What
came
back
to
the
taskforce
was
the
item
from
the
housing
crisis
work
plan
that
was
considered
part
of
our
scope
of
work,
which
was
whether
or
not
100%,
affordable
housing
developments
should
or
shouldn't
be
required
to
replace
commercial
space
with
the
staff
recommendation
two
in
order
to
support
affordable
housing
development,
which
has
been
admittedly
slow.
E
Right
so
so
we
are
only
being
asked
I'm
just
trying
to
to
get
a
good
sense
of
the
scope,
because
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
different
topics
that
we
could
discuss,
and
so
let
me
give
you
an
example:
there's
a
different
topic
that
addresses
one
or
more
concerns.
Then
it's
not
what
we're
looking
at
now
and
is
there
a
portion
in
the
meeting
where
somebody
could
suggest
that
for
a
future
meeting.
C
C
G
E
C
L
I
just
want
to
clarify
something
I
think
I
think
one
is
generally
correct,
so
what
the
task
force
is
being
asked.
I
don't
have.
The
numbers
in
front
of
me
is
worse.
The
scope
within
the
task
force's
talk
about
the
afford
of
the
commercial
requirements
for
affordable.
That's
the
item
for
you
to
pass
a
recommendation
on
the
rest
of
the
policy.
You're
welcome
to
talk
about
it
or
give
your
thoughts,
but
that
rest
of
the
policy
is
outside
of
the
Council
of
crude
scope
for
this
task
force.
Thank.
C
A
J
A
J
It
would
guess
it
would
depend
on
on
the
we
would
look
at
the
other
criteria
depending
on
the
you
know,
location,
but
that's
a
that's
a
good
question.
If
the
site
was
then
vacant
for
some
time,
we
would.
We
would
take
a
look
at
that.
Typically,
you
know
to
demo
a
building.
You
need
a
you
would
need
to
replace
it,
but
yeah
I
mean
if
the
site
were
to
stay
vacant
for
some
period
of
time,
I
suppose
that
could
be
a
possibility
under
this
policy
that
it
would
then
qualify
as
a
vacant
or
underutilized
site.
J
C
N
J
N
The
question
was
actually,
if
you
we
understand
that
there
are
some
places
that
will
replace.
There
will
not
be
any
new
commercial
space
built
there.
If
this
is
policies
approved,
if
if
he,
if
the
staff
has
already
identified
sites
that
can
be
used
as
commercial
or
those
businesses,
that
might
be
this
place,
because
I
still
believe
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
lot
of
displacement
after
business
displacement.
After
this
changes,
where
those
will
be
relocated
to
or
if
they're
new
construction
way
allocated
for
promotion.
J
Yeah
in
the
context
of
this,
you
know
for
this
policy:
I
think
that
would
go
in
line
with
our.
You
know
our
work
that
oh,
we
D
is
doing
a
you
know
for
this
policy.
It's
really
focused
on
these
on
sites
that
are
that
are
underutilized.
So
our
hope
is
that
the
business
displacement,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
this
policy,
would
be
fairly,
would
be
minimal,
because
these
are
sites
that
would,
you
know,
likely
be
whether
they're
vacant
or
they
may
have
vacancies
on
them.
Currently
long
standing
vacancies.
N
Okay,
so
that
will
be
then
the
definition
of
underutilized
to
be
bacon
for
a
long
period
of
time
or
to
know
how
many
businesses,
located
at
the
current
side
or
as
Harvey,
was
mentioning
if
there
was
a
drastic
change.
There
was
a
business
previously,
but
then
the
building
burned
down
and
the
owner
doesn't
want
to
rebuild
a
business.
Would
that
be
under
the
criteria
under
journalists,
delicate.
L
Jump
in
and
I
think
this
is
stuff
that
we
are
still
working
through.
So
we
don't
have
an
answer
of
what
we're
recommending
on
this,
because
we
don't
have
a
recommendation
yet
so.
But
we're
just
taking
your
comments
on
that
and
we'll
consider
that,
as
we
may
be
concerned
about
the
business
displacement
issue-
and
we
were
kind
of
hearing
that
as
a
comment,
we
will
take
that
under
consideration
as
as
something
to
think
about
as
we
craft
the
definition
of
vacant
and
underutilized.
M
As
of
the
question
of,
should
we
support
a
sentence
that
says
that
affordable
housing
shouldn't
have
to
provide
commercial
space
I
think
the
clear
answer
is
yes,
we
should
support
that,
but
in
this
policy
construct,
the
big
hurdle
to
new
development
is
criteria,
and
the
word
underutilized
first
of
all,
let's
just
acknowledge
there
basically
is
no
vacant
land
in
San
Jose.
It's
extremely
rare
that
there's
a
vacant
parcel,
so
that's
inoperative,
and
if
it
were
vacant
it
would
have
no
commercial
requirement
anyway,
because
it's
vacant.
M
So
the
word
underutilize
is
the
big
issue
here,
and
staff
has
consistently
taken
a
very
cautious
and
conservative
interpretation
of
the
word
underutilized
and
basically,
if
there's
a
building
on
it,
it's
utilized
and
the
Planning
Director
said
as
much
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
when
she
talked
about
the
teacher
housing
project
on
Lincoln
Avenue,
saying
that
there
was
a
retail
building
on
the
site
and
therefore
it
wasn't
underutilized
well.
That
site
has
I
think
that
retail
building
is
one
story
and
covers
about
20%
of
the
site.
M
The
remainder
of
the
site
is
a
surface
parking
lot.
80%
of
the
site
is
a
surface
parking
lot
and
the
cool
to
the
planning
department.
Is
it's
not
underutilized,
so
we
can
talk
all
we
want
about
criteria
six,
but
if
the
definition
of
underutilized
isn't
changed,
there
will
be
no
new
residential
development
in
this
city,
and
let
me
also
just
clarify
what
Jared
and
Michael
said
when
they
say
a
thousand
sites.
They
they
clearly
use
the
term
meet
the
geographic
criteria.
M
C
The
form
of
the
questions
discussion
I'm
just
trying
to
keep
this
in
a
certain
order
and
I'm
sure
people
from
the
public
who
are
participating
tonight
would
like
to
be
heard
before
everybody
starts
forming
their
own
opinions.
So
I'd
like
to
go
to
that
at
this
point
in
time.
That's
item
5
public
comment
and
I'm,
going
to
ask
the
staff
to
help
manage
that,
because
that's
going
beyond
my
expertise
on
zoom',
so
Jessica
are
you
going
to
manager
this?
Yes,.
B
I
am
so
I'd
like
to
begin
by
reminding
everyone
that
the
code
of
conduct
for
public
meeting
still
stands
and
that
no
disparaging
remarks
towards
individuals
or
groups
of
people
or
profanity
will
be
tolerated.
So
for
those
of
you
who
haven't
already
joined
the
public
comment,
queue
I,
don't
see
any
right
now,
now's
the
time
to
do
so.
B
So
if,
on
a
computer,
a
tablet,
you
just
press
the
raise
hand
feature
at
the
bottom
of
your
zoom
window
or
if
you're
calling
in
you
can
press
star
9
to
activate
the
raise
hand
feature
when
it's
your
turn,
I'll
sit
there
name
or
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number
and
then,
after
that
you
should
be
able
to
unmute
yourself
and
speak
for
the
allotted
two
minutes.
Cue
line
it
has
the
screen
shared
and
show
became
a
timer
once
we
can
hear
your
voice.
B
Also,
if
you
don't
feel
comfortable,
providing
your
comments
verbally
feel
free
to
email,
us
at
general
plan
staff
at
San,
Jose,
CA,
govt,
and
it
looks
like
we
have
one
public
public,
commenter
Matthew,
please
unmute
yourself,
and
you
may
begin
your
comment.
Yes,.
P
I
think
the
general
point
that
I
want
to
make
is
that
there
is
development
and
residential
development
that
happens
outside
of
planned
areas
in
the
city
and
subsequently
they
fall
outside
of
the
sort
of
the
rules
and
the
structures
of
the
general
plan.
Some
of
them
do
fall
within
the
general
plan.
There
are
planned
development
areas
that
are
not
urban
villages
and
are
not
part
of
the
1.5
acre
rule.
They
include
huge
portions
of
downtown
this
dear
Don
station
area,
north
San
Jose.
P
These
are
areas
where
housing
is
planned
and
are
not
covered
so
far
by
the
actions
that
that
this
body
has
taken.
There
are
also
areas
that
are
just
outside
of
planned
areas
where
people
do
build
housing
and
right
now,
in
that
environment,
it's
a
complicated
of
return
to
the
zoning
codes
and
conditional
use
permits
and
special
use
permits
and
zoning
variances
zoning
category
changes-
and
this
is
where
planner
discretion
and
political
intervention
really
shaped.
City's
priorities
makes
it
very
very
difficult
to
navigate
and,
we
believe,
is
killing
opportunities
too.
B
B
C
O
Thank
you
David.
You
know.
I
first
wanted
to
really
thank
Rosalyn
for
her
comments
at
the
very
beginning,
because
I
think
this
is
a
really
critical
time
for
the
community
and
for
housing.
The
housing
market
has
has
created
over
the
years
systemic
problems
that
need
to
be
addressed,
but
nationwide
that
have
that
need
to
be
rethought
and
so
I
think
some
of
the
work
that
this
this
body
is
doing
can
help
that.
But
I
think
that
that
I
really
appreciated
your
comments
and
I
think
we
we
need
to
do
whatever
we
can
I
think.
O
It's
also
raised
the
fact
that
housing
and
homelessness
has
to
be
a
priority,
because
we've
got
people
who
are
who
need
to
stay
in
place
and
need
a
home
to
do
that,
and
we've
really.
We've
really
seen
the
importance
in
the
connection
of
housing
and
health.
So
I
want
to
raise
that.
But
you
know
to
the
issue
at
point
today:
ray
and
I
did
submit
a
letter
and
to
remind
the
task
force.
Why
we're?
Having
this
conversation,
commercial
space
in
affordable
housing
is
very
challenging.
O
Affordable
housing
finance
does
not
allow
you
to
pay
for
the
commercial
space,
and
so
it
needs
to
be
paid
for
by
other
sources
which
there
aren't
other
sources.
So
what
ends
up
happening
in
cases
is
that
you
end
up
with
cold
shell,
and
it
requires
significant
amounts
of
money
to
be
able
to
to
make
the
sale
for
other
uses.
O
So
we
we
believe
that,
what's
before
us
today
is
a
little
too
limited
which,
in
my
questions,
I
had
had
said
that,
before
it's
obvious
and
to
Eric's
point,
the
1.5
acre
rule
really
hasn't
done
very
much,
even
if
there
are
a
thousand
potential
parcels.
That's
just
we're
just
not
seeing
that
happening.
So
by
making
the
change
we
may
affect
a
few
parcels,
but
it's
certainly
not
going
to
to
be
a
big
change.
O
I
C
H
And
you
know
Leslie,
he
said
most
everything
that
I
would
say,
but
I
just
you
know,
I
think
it's
worth
highlighting
that
when
we
talk
about
hundred
percent
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing,
sadly
we're
talking
about
a
small
small
fraction
of
the
total
housing
being
built.
Citywide
we're
not
talking
about
major
displacement,
we're
not
talking
about
thousands
and
thousands
of
parcels
being
taken
up,
we're
talking
about
just
a
few
limited
opportunities
and
it's
getting
harder
and
harder
to
build.
H
Affordable,
I,
really
I
appreciate
staffs
recommendation
to
remove
leave
commercial
requirement
from
the
one
and
a
half
acre
role,
but
to
Eric's
point
I.
Think
we're
gonna
have
to
do
more
than
that
with
the
one
and
a
half
acre
role
to
make
it
work,
because
I've
done
some
some
ground
truthing
with
some
of
our
development
partners
of
those
sites,
and
there
are
not
many
good
specs
in
in
that
thousand.
So
we
have
to
do
everything
we
can
I
think
to
get
out
of
the
way
and
to
make
things
possible.
H
So
you
know
I
very
supportive
of
less
these
motion.
I
think
this
is
a
time
now
more
than
ever,
that
we're
going
to
need
housing
for
the
most
vulnerable
in
our
community,
because
there's
a
lot
more
people
whose
incomes
are
nothing
are
a
lot
less
or
zero
than
they
were
a
few
months
ago.
So
affordable
housing
is
gonna,
be
critical
for
a
community
and
if
we
can
make
even
a
policy
statement
back
to
Council
that
we
don't
think
commercial,
which
is
a
killer
for
a
hundred
percent,
affordable,
should
be
required
anywhere
in
our
city.
H
C
You
all
right-
and
let
me
have
one
clarification
here-
I
think
as
Michael
had
explained,
that
the
issue-
that's
for
us,
that's
within
the
work
plan
is
the
commercial
space
requirement,
but
Michael
had
also
said
that
it
would
be
appropriate
for
the
task
force
to
share
comments
with
the
council
with
respect
to
the
other
criteria
that
are
in
that
one
and
a
half
acre
rural
policy.
So
we
can.
C
We
can
make
a
recommendation
on
the
commercial
space
requirement,
but
nothing
precludes
us
from
sharing
comments
with
the
council
as
well
with
respect
to
the
other
criterion,
I
believe
Erik.
You
have
mentioned
one
of
them
being
the
vacant
I'm
not
going
to
ask
you
to
reframe
your
motion,
yet
I
think
what
might
be
a
kind
of
a
collaborative
way
to
deal
with.
This
is
let's
hear
from
other
people
on
the
task
force
and
then
I'll
come
back
to
you
and
see.
C
B
Yeah
and
I
just
wanted
to
note
that,
while
I
support
staffs
recommendation
and
the
motion
Leslie's
point
that
so
far,
the
existing
policy
has
only
been
taken
advantage
of
by
one
project
really
stripping
one
criterion
out
of
nine.
When
you
look
at
them,
I
know,
there's
seven
listed,
but
there's
two
more
in
the
text
above
stripping.
One
of
nine
qualifiers
feels
pretty
meaningless.
I
I
questioned
the
scope
and
the
reach
of
this
policy
change.
I.
B
Think
staff
should
affirm
councils
direction,
asking
our
task
force
to
review
this
policy
if
the
intent
was
to
remove
commercial
requirements
for
100%,
affordable
housing.
This
recommendation
really
misses
the
mark
significantly.
In
my
opinion,
if
stuff
and
and
this
motion
wants
to
create
additional
change
or
have
additional
reach,
I
think
it
should
strip
additional
and
restricting
criteria.
That's
it.
B
I
I
think
the
fact
that
when
you
look
at
all
of
the
criteria,
even
stripping
out
number
six,
the
the
reach
of
this
policy
is
relatively
minimal,
meaning
we're
talking
about
a
small
handful
of
sites,
citywide
and
I
I
just
feel.
Like
you
know,
the
vast
majority
of
these
criteria
need
to
be
seriously
analyzed
because
this
policy
is
essentially
meaningless
if
nobody
can
take
advantage
of
it
all.
G
Thank
you.
I,
don't
like
to
echo:
what's
the
minimal
value
to
this,
because
there's
very
little
development
that
takes
place
because
of
it,
and
so
I
tend
to
agree
with
Eric
that
you
know
the
policy
number
two
needs
to
be
addressed
before
we
really
I
can
go
forward.
So
the
scope
of
this
question
isn't
large
enough
for
really
us
to
make
an
effective
that
the
other
policy
or
the
other
like
criteria
here
is
criteria
for
the
development
will
not
impact
viable
commercial,
develop
properties
of
businesses.
G
G
If
there's
a
theory,
so
it's
really
hard
to
understand
what
how
policy
four
plays
into
this
as
well-
and
somebody
mentioned
earlier:
what's
the
definition
hundred
utilized
from
a
temporal
perspective
with
:,
we're
gonna
see
a
lot
of
failures
and
small
businesses,
particularly
restaurants,
and
so
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
more
available
space
potentially,
but
the
city
also
wants
to
maintain
the
viability
of
these
business
districts.
So
how
these
two,
inter
flying
with
each
other,
is
unknown.
It's
not
just
looking
at
the
policy
it's
gonna
be
based
on.
E
Hello,
give
me
just
a
second
if
to
switch
from
zoom
to
the
document,
I
also
support
the
motion.
I
understand
that
we
are
providing
commentary
on
additional
bullets
that
could
be
or
should
be
changed.
I
agree
with
the
need
to
clarify
underutilize
or
revisit
that.
That's
for
number
two
in
response
to
feedback
from
other
task
force.
Members
I
would
say
that
number
four,
perhaps
instead
of
just
noting
that
it
should
not
impact
the
viability
of
surrounding
commercial
or
industrial
properties
or
businesses.
E
If
that
doesn't
already
refer
to
small
businesses,
it
should,
and
so
that
would
be
my
comment
and
that's
consistent
with
because
number
one
I
think
then
is
a
limiting
factor.
If
I
understand
correctly
I'm,
not
a
developer
but
I'm
assuming
it
is,
and
so
perhaps
the
1.5
acre,
unless
criteria
should
be
changed,
I
would
defer
to
someone
who
is
a
developer
on
the
task
force
to
tell
us
what
a
better
number
would
be,
but
it
seems
like
if
that
was
increased,
then
the
number
of.
C
F
F
There
are
a
number
of
factors
in,
for
example,
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
that
says
that,
if
there's
residential
adjacent
to
your
business,
you
can't
use
your
back
setback
area
for
storage.
You
can't
do
anything
outdoors
after
11
o'clock
at
night,
you're
not
allowed
to
generate
noise
over
a
certain
level.
F
F
The
issue
of
compatibility
goes
both
ways.
The
this
criteria
had
I
think
you
have
to
have
residential
on
one
adjacent
property
line
already,
which
means
which
is
a
good
thing,
because
there
sometimes
is
this
to
put
in
affordable
housing
in
areas
where
there
is
no
housing
and
the
reason
there's
no
housing.
F
If
there's
already
residential
along
one
property
line,
there's
at
least
some
hope
that
residential
is
it's
going
to
be
a
compatible
use
because
it
will
be
next
to
other
residential
and
that
creates
the
beginning
of
a
neighborhood.
So
the
idea
of
changing
or
eliminating
these
criteria,
in
my
opinion,
is
not
something
to
be
taken
lightly
or
simply
suggested
as
a
blanket
change.
F
Changing
one
criterion
is
a
minimal
change,
and
maybe
it's
not
enough
by
itself,
but
we
shouldn't
be
recommending
automatically
that
the
other
criteria
be
changed
as
well,
because
I
don't
think
we
would
be
doing
a
service
to
either
the
businesses
in
the
area
or
the
people
who
might
live
on
this
property.
Thank
you
thank.
I
Okay,
I
thought
there
was
other
folks
in
front
of
me.
I
was
I'm
actually
supporting
the
the
motion
and
because
it
really
addresses
the
point,
I
was
trying
to
make
about
urban
villages
and
how
those
those
plans
would
just
be
stuck
with
with
the
plan
that
they
currently
have,
not
that
most
of
them
are
moving
quickly.
I
I
It
says.
Additionally,
a
verbal
addendum
from
staffs
presentation
was
approved
to
explore
changes
to
commercial
space
requirements
for
affordable
housing
developments,
and
so
I
read
this
really
broadly
I.
Don't
know
that
it
has
some
of
the
limitations
that
people
have
the
impression
it
does
and
I
and
I
think
that
the
the
motion
on
the
floor
is
broad
enough
and
goes
far
enough
to
be
able
to
support
where
it
makes
sense
to
build
more
affordable
housing.
G
No
I
would
like
to
I
support
the
motion
on
the
floor.
My
only
comment
would
be
you
know
historically,
I
know
at
one
point
then,
rather
than
a
one-and-a-half
rayker
rule,
we
were
talking
about
a
a
two-acre
rule
and
I
know,
that's
something
that
had
been
discussed
in
the
past
and
so
would
hope.
You
know,
in
whatever
community,
like
side
bar
communication
that
we're
sending
to
council
thinking
about
what
that
number
should
be.
G
A
Wan
made
the
point
earlier,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
have
that
kind
of
historical
grounding,
that
it
wasn't
always
one
and
a
half
it
used
to
be
two
and
there
I
think
in
recent
time.
There's
been
some
discussion
about
that
at
least
maybe
a
couple
years
back.
It
was
before
the
council,
so
amongst
those
seneschal
areas
of
for
council
to
consider
change,
perhaps
also
that
that
size
of
parcel
a
part
of
the
question
we
should
include
in
a
communication
of
council.
C
L
Well,
the
previous
general
plan
2020
had
Paul's
a
whole
slew
of
policies
related
to
parcels
that
were
two
acres
or
less
a
lot
of
flexible
excuse
being
that
allowed
a
lot
of
flexibility.
That
was
the
general
plan.
2020
you
could
do
different
uses.
You
could
go
up
density
down
density.
There
was
a
lot
a
lot
of
flexibility
and
those
policies
weren't
carried
over
to
indigency
envision
san
jose
2040,
because
the
task
force
said
that
the
general
plan
2020,
was
a
general
plan
of
exceptions
so
that
didn't
carry
forward.
J
Yeah,
when
we
did
the
analysis
last,
the
previous
task
force
process
yeah
that
was
kind
of
there,
was
that
discussion
on
what
would
be
the
appropriate
size
and
and
the
task
force
felt
like
with
you
know,
the
input
from
affordable
housing
developers
that
that
was
a
that
was
a
good
size
in
terms
of
the
parcels
when
we
analyzed
going
up
to
something
larger
or
say,
2
acres,
I.
Think,
though,
the
amount
of
sites
gained
were
pretty
minimal.
C
I
The
conversation
you
know
I
supported
the
I
seconded
the
motion,
because
I
think
it's
you
know
incredibly
important
to
what
we're
doing
here
with
regard
to
affordable
housing.
I
also
want
to
agree
with
Bob
levy
and
Michelle
Jasna.
With
regard
to
to
item
2
I
think
we
got
to
be
really
really
cautious
in
this
particular
moment
in
time.
In
looking
at
vacant
or,
what's
you
know,
you're
from
Italy
called
underutilized
that
it's
you
know
it's
kind
of
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder,
so
I
think
that
you
know
we
shouldn't
we
should
in
our
comments.
I
The
council
are
fine
and
there's
three
council
members
here,
there's
the
planning
director
here.
You
know
I
but
I,
but
I
want
to
be
really
careful
in
not
you
know
kind
of
saying:
oh
wow,
all
these
sites
are
vacant.
Now
we
can,
we
can
just
you
know,
move
in
with
the
housing,
particularly
with
regard
to
small
businesses.
If
it's
you
know
currently
might
be
underutilized.
This
bob
was
talking
to
and
I
think
that
goes
hand-in-hand
with
number
four.
You
know
that
the
development
wouldn't
impact
the
viability
or
surrounding
commercial
I.
I
Think
it's
not
so
much
that
the
housing
would
impact
it,
but
what
the
lack
of
maybe
the
commercial
that
was
there
and
because
it's
underutilized
suddenly
disappears
because
we're
looking
for
affordable
housing
sites,
so
I
think
those
two
kind
of
go
hand-in-hand
and
we
just
need
to
you
know,
send
our
comments
over
to
the
council,
but
the
other
thing
is:
if
I
was
on
the
council,
still
I
would
not
be
happy
with
the
1,000
member
that
was
quoted
by
staff.
I
would
want
to
know
exactly
you
know
what
what
sites
are
we
talking
about?
I
You
know:
do
they
meet
any
of
this
criteria?
Are
they
underutilized?
Are
they
vacant,
and
rather
than
just
saying?
Oh,
this
policy
change
will
open
up
a
thousand
sites.
I,
don't
think,
that's
that's
correct,
and
now
what
regard
to
what
Michelle
said
with
regard
to
you
know
housing
is
forever,
but
but
it
also
has
to
be
in
places
that
it's
going
to
be
successful
and
not
for
small
businesses.
So,
while
we're
you
know,
cuz
well
we're
looking
at
helping,
you
know
our
communities
with
affordable
housing.
I
B
Yeah
hi
David,
thank
you.
You
had
posed
a
question
to
me
and
I
I
wasn't
prepared
at
the
moment,
but
listening
to
the
commentary
and
studying
the
policy,
you
know,
I
think
it
may
be
wise
for
the
task
force
to
consider
reducing
the
size
from
1.5
acres
down
to
one
and
removal
of
criterion,
two
and
perhaps
even
amending
criteria.
Five
to
capture
both
the
walk
and
bike
shed.
B
The
current
criteria
and
five
limits:
the
sight
capture
to
one
half
mile
of
existing
transit
lines
as
a
transit,
professional
and
representing
VTA.
We
really
encourage
increasing
both
market
rate
and
affordable
densities
in
our
walk
and
bike
shed,
and
our
bike
shed
expands
out
to
the
three
mile
mark.
So
I
wanted
to
add
that
to
the
discussion.
C
C
J
I
think
the
intent
is
that
it
actually
would
increase.
Although
you
jesse
was
saying
you
know,
you
could
decrease
the
size
to
1
acre.
However,
the
recommendation
was
to
eliminate
criteria,
to
which
I
believe
is
underutilized
criteria
and
then
for
the
location
to
transit.
You
would
go
to
a
walk
shed
instead
of
the
current
the
current
criteria,
so
it
effectively
it
effectively
would
increase
the
site's
most
likely.
H
You
so
I
support
the
recommendations
of
the
task
force
members
who
are
in
favor
of
making
this
more
helpful
in
creating
significantly
more
affordable
housing
and
for
there
to
be
more
data.
That's
backing
up
how
the
different
elements
of
this
policy
overlaid
over
one
another
impact,
the
range
of
affordable
housing
that
might
be
built.
We
have
one
number
already
that
the
current
policy
as
it
stands
has
built
one
affordable
housing
development
as
I
understand
it.
H
However,
there
gonna
be
a
lot
more
people
who
are
working
from
home
more
often
and
not
needing
to
drive
or
get
to
their
office
as
much
so.
The
half
mile
from
transit
requirement
might
not
make
sense
anymore,
so
I'm
in
favor
of
this
recommendation
to
council
to
look
at
the
entirety
of
this
policy
again
and
consider
a
sitter
what
citywide
application
with
the
lens
of
a
greater
number
of
people
working
from
home,
who
are
hopefully
self
selecting
units
that
don't
have
loads
of
parking
included.
Obviously
we
don't
have
you
know
two.
H
C
H
H
But
I
think
we
as
a
city
mean
to
recognize
those
things
are
changing.
For
example,
do
we
need
to
have
more
restaurants
and
food
sources
in
those
type
of
retail
commercial,
retail?
More
so
in
neighborhoods,
residential
neighborhoods
versus
where
you
see
a
lot
of
times
in
downtown
clusters
or
or
the
commercial
development
there.
The
other
is
I
think
the
way
that
the
market
or
a
community
is
going
to
utilize.
Commercial
may
also
be
changing,
and
that
may
be
evolving.
Retail
may
not
be
what
we
think
of
retail
historically
anymore,.
I
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion,
but
with
the
caveat
that,
as
many
people
have
said,
this
is
a
very
minimalist
change.
It's
not
really
it's
a
small
change
in
the
right
direction,
but
it's
not
really
the
change
we
want
so
moving
forward.
The
two
comments
I'd
like
to
make
to
council
are
that
we
look
at
a
more
at
the
principle
of
how
do
we
build
more
affordable
housing
citywide,
as
we've
all
said,
and
how
does
that
balance
again?
I
I
A
Am
supporting
the
motion
with
the
caveat
that
bob
michelle
linda
bonnie,
that
we,
whatever
changes
and
tweaks
we
make
because
we
do
need
more,
affordable
housing,
and
this
is
is
this
is
clearly
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing,
which
was
my
concern
that
we
don't
kill
the
Golden
Goose?
We
don't
kill
a
small
business
community
and
their
ability
to
thrive
in
San
Jose
thanks.
C
Harvey,
okay
Leslie
wanted
to
get
back
to
you
to
give
you
a
chance
to
sort
of
restate
the
motion
and
make
any
change
to
it.
In
view
of
the
comments
that
people
made
sure.
O
I'll
try
to
because
I
we
moved
a
little
bit
into
the
one
and
a
half
acre
policy
and
I
did
want
to
clarify
for
many
years.
We
added
to
it
what
we
called
the
two
acre
rule
and
there
were
a
number
of
developments
that
moved
forward.
Under
that
two
acre
rule.
We
lost
the
two
acre
rule
when
the
employment
framework
was
approved
by
council
and
through
very,
very
hard-fought
work.
We
were
able
to
get
back
a
one
and
a
half
acre
rule.
We
could
not
get
back
the
two
acre
rule.
O
We
tried
very
hard
to
do
that.
Certainly
we
would
be
thrilled
to
have
the
to
occur
rule
but
I
think
we're
a
little
afraid
to
relitigate
the
whole
policy
again
because
it
was
so
hard
to
get
back
what
we
had
lost
on
a
couple
of
comments.
I
wanted
to
just
say:
I
mean
the
floodgates
are
not
gonna
just
open,
there's
not
enough.
O
Affordable
housing
funding
out
there
to
create
affordable
housing
on
a
thousand
sites
or
a
hundred
sites,
or
this
is
just
a
tool
to
allow
more
house
more
opportunities
for
housing
and
that's
what
we
need
to
do
right
now,
because
it
is
hard
to
build,
affordable
housing.
There
are
a
hundred
reasons
why
it's
hard
and
what
we
need
to
be
trying
to
do
is
take
away
some
of
those
reasons
and
make
it
easier,
and
so
the
more
we
can
can
take
away
these
barriers.
O
That's
what
we
need
to
do
and
that's
why
it's
really
important
for
us
to
to
try
to
respond
to
the
commercial
requirement
which
we
know
is
an
impediment
before
I
mentioned
the
the
motion
again.
I
did
want
to
say
that
we
need
to
risk,
we
need
it.
Let's
say
we
keep
the
one
and
a
half
acre
rule
as
it
is
with
the
one
change
that
will
be
part
of
the
motion.
We
have
to
deal
with
that
definition
of
underutilized,
because
that's
the
reason
why
we
have
only
had
one
project
come
forward.
O
C
C
And
maybe
just
for
clarity
as
I
understand,
you're
talking
about
a
citywide
policy
with
respect
to
affordable
housing,
you
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
uniform
policy
throughout
the
city
that
does
not
put
an
obligation
on
one
hundred
percent,
affordable
housing
developers
to
develop
commercial
space,
correct,
okay,
okay,
so
here's!
How
is
that?
Okay
with
the
second?
If
that
would
be
you
Linda?
Yes,.
C
So
here's
how
we're
going
to
do
the
vote
teresa
was
asking
about
that.
We're
not
going
to
go
through
everybody
here,
all
all
35
or
so
of
us.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
I'm
gonna.
Ask
first:
is
there
anyone
in
opposition
to
Leslie's
motion
and
if
you're
opposed
to
the
motion,
what
we
want
you
to
do
and
right
now
everybody
needs
to
clear
their
hand
off
the
participant
list.
That
would
be
council
member
Ramos,
Bonnie,
mace
and
Rosalyn.
You've
got
your
hand
up
the
moment.
Actually.
D
C
D
D
O
L
Hang
on
there's
two
different
issues
here:
we're
confusing
I
think
the
thought
is
March
of
for
the
four-year
of
you
to
go
to
council
there's
the
one
and
a
half
acre
rule
and
its
entirety,
which
is
going
to
council
in
a
separate
track.
Jared
is
that
what
was
the
plan
was
at
the
same
time
line?
Is
the
four-year
review?
I'm,
sorry
yeah.
J
J
J
O
I
C
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
Michael
I
think
it's
clear
Leslie
that
your
motion
wants.
This
brought
back
before
all
the
other
general
plan
recommendations.
So
that's
understood.
So
this
is
how
we're
going
to
do
the
vote.
The
board's
been
cleared
for
everybody's
hand
now,
if
you're
in
opposition
to
the
motion,
only
if
you're
in
opposition
to
the
motion
now's
the
time
to
indicate
that
and
you're
going
to
indicate
it
by
raising
your
hand
on
the
participant
board
there
and
then,
if
there
are
any
hands,
we're
going
to
read
those
just.
C
C
K
C
So
please
I
know
it's
wrong.
This
was
a
single
issue
was
designed
to
go
quicker.
It
seemed
to
follow
the
old
role
that
no
matter
how
much
is
on
the
agenda.
We're
still
gonna
be
here
for
a
couple
hours,
no
matter
what,
but
we
do
want
you
to
complete
the
survey,
because
we
have
to
figure
out
how
we're
gonna
continue
meetings
and
this
one
seemed
to
work
to
some
level,
but
meetings
can
always
be
improved.
So
please
complete
that
and
we'll
be
in
back
in
touch
as
to
how
we
will
proceed
with
our
next
meeting.
C
I
know:
there's
a
preference
that's
been
expressed
by
some
people
to
meet
in
person.
We're
just
gonna
have
to
see
whether
that's
feasible
or
not,
and
so
Teresa
and
I
will
continue
to
meet
with
staff
and
look
at
the
opportunities.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
your
patience
tonight
and
I'm
gonna
keep
for
your
participation,
everybody
stay
healthy
things
are
getting
they're,
not
getting
better
out
there.
So
be
very
careful.