Letters from the Public — San Jose City Council, December 17, 2024

December 2, 2024
Dear San José Planning Commissioners, Mayor, and City Council, On behalf of Catalyze SV, I write to you today in support of the proposed streamlined ministerial approval process for infill multifamily housing.

Before proceeding with our remarks, we want to recognize and thank city staff for connecting with housing organizations on this policy.

Catalyze SV is a community-based organization composed of members who want to help create vibrant housing opportunities for all Silicon Valley residents amid California’s housing crisis.

San José must build 62,200 new homes in the next eight years. This is a monumental undertaking. And one that is sadly not likely achievable within San José’s current approval process. Protracted review periods kill housing—a delayed, lengthy, or unclear review process increases risk and turns private developers away from San José.

This is not a new or unknown issue. In 2023, the city took the first steps to address lengthy review timelines by including Strategy P-7: City Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance within the Housing Element update. It is now time to take the next steps and implement Strategy P-7 as a tangible policy.

As previously acknowledged by this Commission and City Council through the approval of the updated Housing Element, there is a clear need for this policy. For our Housing Element and General Plan to mean anything, this Commission and Council must stand by them. We urge the Commission to approve staff’s recommendation while also considering the following three issues of Strategy P-7:

1. Community Engagement: The proposed streamlined review process puts infill projects on a path for ministerial approval. As ministerial permits do not require a public hearing, it would also not be required to facilitate a community meeting. As such, a community meeting could become dispiriting for community members looking to shape the process when they show up to a meeting in which they are merely informed of a project compliant with city regulations and thus slated for ministerial approval. They may ask themselves, “Why did I come tonight then?” When community members gather together and interface with decision-makers, they understandably expect to shape decisions.

The only thing worse than no community engagement is a cloudy, disempowering process that turns community members off from engaging and lowers their faith in government. So, while we accept the elimination of the required community meeting as a crucial component to accelerating housing development, we maintain that community members should still be informed of development proposals in their neighborhood and the process for approving them.

Therefore, we ask the City to develop new ways to provide residents with easily accessible information regarding ongoing development within their communities. These would be alternatives to the community meeting under this streamlined process.

Resources for such information could take the form of:
● a project website,
● a slide deck with key details of the project,
● a pre-recorded video presentation of the project by city staff, and/or ● a web map application allowing community members to explore projects in their neighborhoods.

The ultimate goal in providing these resources is to keep residents informed and make the development process as transparent as possible. We anticipate building off this point in our upcoming discussions with the City as it begins reforms to Council Policy 6-30.

2. Geography: Under the proposed policy, the number of sites eligible for streamlining is relatively small, roughly 550 acres out of the many thousands San José reserves for residential development. If the City truly wants to meet its housing goals, it should explore expanding ministerial approval for multi-family housing to many more sites. This policy should apply to all sites in growth areas/approved urban villages and all land use designations that allow multifamily housing.

3. Density: The proposed policy establishes a minimum density of 40 DU/AC for projects seeking ministerial approval. If this policy encompassed a broader geography, 40 DU/AC would be acceptable. However, as is, the policy targets a limited number of sites within urban villages and identified growth areas. Projects proposed for these sites should, on the whole, be our densiest, and the City must incentivize developers to build denser by raising the bar. Lower densities can still go forward, of course, using the current process.

A 50 DU/AC minimum is a more suitable density for the inventoried sites. For instance, this could further incentivize a developer to build five stories instead of four (especially if they know they don’t have to contend with a community opposition seeking to reduce heights during a community meeting, as suggested in this new policy). Moreover, denser development provides more tax revenue for the City and is a more cost-effective way of providing ongoing city services. We are asking you, city staff, the Mayor, and the Council to increase the density from 40 DU/AC to 50.

With these considerations in mind, we reassert our support for the proposed ministerial review process and urge the Planning Commission to send it to the City Council for approval.

Sincerely,

Jake Wilde, Manager of Development Projects, Catalyze SV

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: SJ City Council Votes on 12/17/2024 on Elimination of Public Comment on Infill Housing From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 10:50 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Will Belknap < >
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 1:53 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Mahan, Ma <Ma[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: SJ City Council Votes on 12/17/2024 on Eliminaon of Public Comment on Inﬁll Housing

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Absolutely do NOT pass this. We need a council and government that listens to the people, not just the developers and ﬁnanciers.

It's bad enough the state is trying to do this, but the council and local governments are our last line of defense.

DO NOT pass this and ignore our voices.

We will pay aenon and remember.

Will Belknap
Long me Willow Glen resident.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:SJ City Council Votes on 12/17/2024 on Eliminaon of Public Comment on Inﬁll Housing Date:Sun, 15 Dec 2024 19:13:25 +0000
From:Families & Homes < >
Reply-To:

To:
12/16/24, 11:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/5

SJ City Council To Vote on Eliminating Public
Comments & Public Environmental Review for Infill
Housing Projects
The City Council will vote on a streamlined review process for infill housing and multiuse developments citywide including all designated urban villages.

The proposed approach includes two major changes:

1. No public hearing or public input required for infill projects meeting certain requirements.

2. CEQA ministerial exemption, which would eliminate public comment on environmental review report requirements.

The City Council will vote on:

Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 Time: At 1:30 pm or later (no specific time for voting set) Place: City Council Chambers at City Hall Public Comment: Only In Person and by email
to [email protected] by 8:00 am on Tuesday, December 17, 2024. In Title State: Agenda Item 10.3
Requested Actions
Attend the council meeting and make public comment. Or write emails to your council members and the City Clerk requesting that public comments and elected official oversight remain in the infill housing permitting process. 12/16/24, 11:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/5 Send your email to:
[email protected], [email protected], Rosemary.Kamei@san joseca.gov, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], peter.ortiz@sanjoseca .gov, [email protected], [email protected], domingo.candelas @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected] Items to Comment Upon:

1. This ordinance is being proposed to increase housing infill. Consider a time limit or expiration date of 4 to 5 years to determine if this actually produces more housing. This would require a future council to actually review the impact instead of leaving a bad law in place.

2. Numerous impacted parcels are in District 3. D3 residents have no representative currently on the City Council. Delay the vote until there is a D3 representative.

3. The planning staff had only 1 public meeting on the ordinance. But they met with numerous organizations that support the ordinance. We have obtained the list. If you would like a copy, then send us an email.

Some Items to Know

1. The state has reduced or eliminated public and elected official’s oversight of local housing and zoning decisions with the passage of several bills including SB9, SB35 and others. Now our local officials are using the same techniques to eliminate public comment further.

3. Staff & council memos state that public comment had already been received when urban villages were included in the General Plan and during review cycles. That input, in most cases, is years old or was not specific to any individual development. The public was informed that there would be additional public comment during the actual permitting process. The staff and council are breaking their promises. The Council and staff maintain that extensive public outreach occurred on the housing element and for the proposed ordinance.

The state criticized the city’s housing element for lack of public outreach. 12/16/24, 11:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 3/5

4. The proposed ordinance maintains some existing “environmental” requirements including noise abatement, dust reduction, etc. All of the items being maintained are good and standard items that have existed for years. This is not a replacement for public comment on an environmental report.

Additional information is available at Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance | City of San José. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning- division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/active-eirs/infill-housing- ministerial-approval-ordinance) and City Council Dec 17 Agenda (See Item 10.3 & attachments)

About Families and Homes SJ
Families and Homes SJ is a 100% volunteer-staffed grassroots coalition of San José residents and organizations joining together to defend the rights of single- family residential neighborhoods within the city of San José. The organization supports the city’s Urban Village housing strategy, which will produce large numbers of affordable and market-rate housing that is both environmentally and fiscally sustainable.

We also support Our Neighborhood Voices
(https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/) initiative that would restore the responsibility for land use and zoning to cities and counties where it has historically been. Currently the state continues to expand its “one-size” fits all land use and zoning laws. Please join their mailing list to receive current information.

Learn More About Families & Homes SJ
12/16/24, 11:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 4/5 E-Mail Us:

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

12/16/24, 11:40 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 5/5

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3, City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 10:51 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachment (182 KB)
12-24 Letter to Council-Support for Ministerial Infill Ordinance.pdf;

From: Alison Cingolani < >
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 6:42 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Ma Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; Orz, Peter <Peter.Or[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Regina Celesn Williams ; Manuel Salazar
< ; Mathew Reed < >
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 10.3, City Streamlined Review Process for Inﬁll Housing Development

Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Kamei, and Councilmembers Jimenez, Cohen, Orz, Davis, Doan, Candelas, Foley, and Casey,

Please ﬁnd aached SV@Home’s leer of support for Agenda Item 10.3, City Streamlined Review Process for Inﬁll Housing Development.

Warm regards,
Alison Cingolani
Director of Policy | SV@Home
|

12/16/24, 11:41 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Join our Houser Movement. Become a member!
Website Facebook LinkedIn Twier

12/16/24, 11:41 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

w
ww.svathome.org •

Via email

December 13, 2024

RE: Agenda Item 10.3, City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development

Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Kamei, and Councilmembers Jimenez, Cohen, Ortiz, Davis, Doan, Candelas, Foley, and Casey,

As an organization dedicated to ensuring every resident of Santa Clara County has access to a safe, stable home they can afford, we at SV@Home believe it is critical to streamline the approval process for residential infill development, especially in locations near transit. We see this Zoning Code update as an important step towards efficiency that will lower the cost of market-rate development. We support the staff recommendation that the City Council adopt this package of Zoning Code amendments, along with the recommendations in the December 13, 2024 memorandum from the Mayor, Vice Mayor Kamei, and Councilmembers Jimenez, Cohen, and Davis, and SV@Home’s recommendations below.

We have actively engaged with staff in the development of the Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance since its inception as part of the Housing Element. Our staff has attended community meetings, study sessions, and stakeholder focus groups. We have also shared our perspective through both written and direct exchanges with Planning Department staff. We believe that this ordinance will have the greatest impact towards achieving the City’s RHNA goals for market-rate development. And, while San Jose exceeded its market-rate housing goals in the last Housing Element cycle, the RHNA has increased significantly with nearly 38,400 moderate income and above moderate income units planned for in the current Housing Element cycle. The remaining 23,800 affordable homes of the total 62,200 homes that the city must produce will require additional policy strategies.

Based on our conversations with Planning Department staff, we understand this to be the first of several phases of work on the Infill Housing Ordinance with future versions expanding to additional growth areas, which will significantly expand eligibility for the streamlined approval process. We encourage the establishment of a timeline for future phases of the Ordinance.

We strongly recommend the following modifications to the ordinance:

1. Explicitly state that developments using provisions of applicable state law to waive objective design standards, if otherwise complying with the terms of the ordinance, are eligible for the ministerial approval process. We are concerned that the language of the proposed ordinance, in section 20.195.080 Local Ministerial Standards, states that developments qualifying for the Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance must “comply with all objective design guidelines.” Developers often use waivers available under the state’s Density Bonus law to receive exceptions to objective design standards, which can Board of Directors

Shiloh Ballard, Chair

Aubrey Merriman, Vice Chair
LifeMoves

Andrea Osgood, Treasurer
Eden Housing

Nevada Merriman, Secretary
MidPen Housing Corporation

Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA

Julie Mahowald
Housing Trust Silicon Valley

Candice Gonzalez
Sand Hill Property Company

Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern CA

Maria Noel Fernandez
Working Partnerships USA

Randy Tsuda
Alta Housing

Steven Yang
Northern CA LIIF

Victor Vasquez
SOMOS Mayfair

Javier Gonzalez
Google

Pilar Lorenzana
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation

Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community
Service

Chris Neale
The Core Companies

Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director

Date: December 13, 2024
Re: Agenda Item 10.3, City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development

Page 2 of 2 ends

• www.svathome.org •
significantly increase development costs. The ability to leverage both local streamlining and the State’s cost reduction measures, including waivers of design standards, is a need that has been elevated by our members who are developers of affordable housing. Density Bonus law waivers of objective design standards also enable market rate developers to accommodate more homes and more deeply affordable homes on-site than would otherwise be feasible.

2. In order to facilitate the development of affordable housing as well as additional market rate housing, we recommend that future versions of the ordinance also include more General Plan land use designations, opening up more qualifying parcels. Applying the policy to all land use designations that allow multifamily housing would ensure more parcels are eligible, expanding the effectiveness of the ordinance at achieving its stated goals and facilitating the City’s RHNA achievement.

We appreciate the work the City has done to prepare the Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance and look forward to continuing our active engagement as the ordinance is implemented.

Sincerely,

Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director

Silicon Valley @ Home is a nonprofit advocacy organization that supports housing and affordable housing development throughout Santa Clara County. SV@Home works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing needs of the diverse residents across all our communities. We advocate for solutions including increasing production of homes at all income levels, especially affordable housing; preserving existing affordable housing; and protecting our community’s most vulnerable residents from displacement.

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Vote on Eliminating Public Comments & Public Environmental Review for Infill Housing Projects From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 10:50 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Angela Elsey < >
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 4:24 PM
Subject: Vote on Eliminang Public Comments & Public Environmental Review for Inﬁll Housing Projects

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I am writing to request that public comments and elected official oversight remain in the infill housing permitting process.

2. Numerous impacted parcels are in District 3. D3 residents have no representative currently on the City Council. Delay the vote until there is a D3 representative.

3. The planning staff had only 1 public meeting on the ordinance at which quite a few people were concerned about this issue. But staff met with numerous organizations that support the ordinance.

2. This ordinance eliminates public, Planning Commission, and City Council comment and approval. Our elected officials are abdicating their responsibilities to developers. There is a memo submitted by 5 of the council members to require "one information public meeting" but with no requirement to address comments received.
12/16/24, 11:42 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The staff and council are breaking their promises. The Council and staff maintain that extensive public outreach occurred on the housing element and for the proposed ordinance.

The state criticized the city’s housing element for lack of public outreach.

Angela Elsey
Land line:

Cell:

Life isn't about waing for the storm to pass.

It's about learning to dance in the rain.

12/16/24, 11:42 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 12:15 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Brenda Dohmen < >
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:29 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Mahan, Ma <Ma[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Orz, Peter <Peter.Or[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important We are opposed to this ordinance.

2. Numerous impacted parcels are in District 3. D3 residents have no representative currently on the City Council. Delay the vote until there is a D3 representative.

4. We are strongly in favor of brining back local control of zoning. We think the State's decisions on housing legislation and RHNA numbers are all driven by special interests such as CAR, real estate developers, political campaigns, and truly don’t have community best interests in mind and are unnecessary. It’s not serving the people well.

12/16/24, 1:18 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Other considerations

5. Every new resident and new build hurts the environment, we have illegal dumping everywhere, homeless living in our creeks and parks, abandoned vehicles, plastics in our water, medical waste dumping. Every single person creates more waste and pollution, we are over crowded already with poor quality of life, poor education, poor transportation and roads. Basic city services are lacking. We don’t need more density here. We are strongly in favor of neighborhood input, public comment for all new builds in our city and state. We need to take back our city and our neighborhoods with more public input not less. There is nothing wrong with preserving our SFH neighborhoods. CEQA streamlining should be avoided and public input should be heard and expanded.

Happy Holidays,
Brenda Dohmen

12/16/24, 1:18 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3 on 12/17/2024
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 2:24 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: jim gailey < >
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 2:11 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3 on 12/17/2024

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Greengs,

I want to register my strong opposion to shung out the many thousands of voices of the people in San Jose who are vehemently opposed to developments being ramrodded into their neighborhoods.

If this is voted on and passed it would be a high handed take over of our rights as cizens to control what could end up destroying our neighborhoods we live in.

The City Council has no right to become totalitarian and Elist in vong our right's away,

Jim Gailey
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

12/16/24, 2:32 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1

Outlook
FW: Opposition to rezoning properties as SB35 eligible
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 2:24 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Creighton Nolte < >
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 2:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning properties as SB35 eligible Importance: High
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I am protesting the rezoning of any area in the City of San Jose to be rezoned as SB35 eligible for infill housing.

Community Outreach is our right. I have never been informed of this planned zoning change and non of my neighbors have been notified or given the opportunity to express our concerns regarding this matter.

CEQA is vital to our communities. A proposed development at 1371 Kooser Road is immediately adjacent to an existing gas station and placing a residential development next to the gas station is in violation of State restrictions.

Creighton Nolte

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/16/24, 2:32 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/16/2024 3:10 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachment (177 KB)
South Bay YIMBY Comments re Streamlined Infill Housing .pdf;

From: Aaron Eckhouse < >
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 2:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Bhaacharjee, Smita <Smita.Bha[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Orz, Peter <Peter.Or[email protected]>; [email protected]; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Batra, Arjun <[email protected]>; The Oﬃce of Mayor Ma Mahan <[email protected]>; Alex Shoor < >; Alison Cingolani < >; Ali Sapirman < >; Elizabeth Conlan
< >
Subject: Re: City Streamlined Review Process for Inﬁll Housing Development

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello,

Please see the aached leer from South Bay YIMBY in support of San Jose adopng a streamlined approval process for inﬁll housing.

thank you,

Aaron Eckhouse
Local and Regional Policy Program Director
California YIMBY
12/16/24, 3:18 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. he/him/his

12/16/24, 3:18 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 SouthBayYIMBYisagrassrootsgroupof SouthBayresidentswhoseeksolutionstoour area’shousingcrisis. Aspro-housingactivistsfightingfor moreinclusivehousingpoliciesandafutureof abundant housinginour county, wearepleasedtooffer commentsonSanJose’sproposedordinancefor ministerial approval of infill housing. WeurgeSanJosetofollowthroughonitscommitment toenact thispolicy, andmakesuggestionsfor howit canbestrengthened.

Ministerial approval of housingmakesbuildingnewhomesfaster andlessrisky. Infill housingoffersmajor environmental benefitsinenablinglower-carbonlivingandprotectingnatural landsfromsprawl, soit isappropriatetoprovideit withastreamlinedapproval processthat avoidslengthyenvironmental review&potential lawsuits. Ministerial approval isapolicywithprovenefficacyat thestatelevel (throughSB35) andinother Californiacities(suchasSacramento).WeareexcitedtoseeSanJosemovingtoimplement thispolicyinatimelymanner, somethingSouthBayYIMBYidentifiedasatoppriorityduringour review&comment onthecity’sHousingElement update.

Weurgethecitytocontinuemovingforwardtoadopt theministerial approval policyinatimelyway. However, wealsowishtoidentifyseveral improvementswefeel areneeded. TheproposedpolicyistoolimitedtofullyaddresspermittingdelaysanduncertaintyinSanJose, andwill notachievethedesiredimprovementsinprocessingtimeandhousingproduction. Fundamentally,theeligibilitystandardsfor bothsitesandprojectsaretoonarrowandwill excludetoomanynewdevelopments. Theordinanceasdraftedappliesonjust 550acres, lessthan1%ofthecity’slandarea, simplynot enoughtoaccommodatethescopeof SanJose’shousingneeds.

Werecommendexpandingthepolicyinthefollowingways:

1. Expandcoveragetoincludeall approvedUrbanVillageor Special PlanAreasandallmajor transit areas.2. Expandeligiblelandusedesignationstoincludeall whichallowmultifamilyhousing.3. Allowlimitedwaiversof thecity’sobjectivedesignstandardsfor densitybonusprojects,rather thanprohibitingthementirely.4. Inlater updates, further loosensiteexclusionstandardsandeligibilityrequirementstoallowfor broader useof theministerial approval program.

Indetail, werecommendthat SanJose:

1. Expandcoverageareastobringmoreof thecityintotheministerial infill ordinance. Asproposed, thepolicyappliesonlyonparcelsthat arebothinanapprovedUrbanVillageofSpecial PlanAreaandwithin½mileof amajor transit stop. Instead, weproposethat it shouldcover all approvedUrbanVillagesandall major transit areas. SanJosehasmanyurbanvillagesthat arenot entirelywithinmajor transit areas, yet it hasstill identifiedthoselocationsasappropriatefor growthanddevelopment. Thoseareasshouldallowministerial approval ofhousingdevelopmentsthat areconsistent withtheapprovedplanandzoning. Similarly,transit-orienteddevelopment inSanJoseisnot andshouldnot belimitedexclusivelytourbanvillages. All areasnear major transit stopsshouldallowfor ministerial approval asawaytofacilitatemorehousingopportunitiesinthemost transportationefficient locationsinthecity.

2. Expandeligiblelandusedesignationstomakemoreparcelswithintheidentifiedgrowthareaseligible. Toincludemajor transit areasoutsideapprovedUrbanVillages, thecitywouldneedtoincludenon-UrbanVillagelandusedesignations. Evenwithintheboundariesofapprovedurbanvillages, theareasthecityhasidentifiedasmost appropriate&desiredforgrowth, thecurrent policyexcludesthemajorityof parcels. Thisisduetoseveral additionaleligibilityrequirementslayeredontop, includingalimitationtoonlycertainlandusedesignations: UrbanResidential, Transit Residential, UrbanVillage, or MixedUseCommercial.Wewouldrecommendapplyingthepolicyonall landusedesignationsthat allowmultifamilyhousing.

Wewouldalsorecommendthecityconsider looseningtheminimumdensityrequirement,especiallysincethecurrentlyeligiblelandusedesignationsalreadyrequireminimumdensitiesof 30-50du/acre. Insteadof addingaseparateeligibilityrequirement totheministerial approvalprocess, thecitycouldrequirecompliancewiththeminimumdensityof thesite’szoningdistrict.

3. Allowlimitedwaiversfromthecity’sdesignstandardstoprovidemoreflexibilityandbetterincentivesfor on-siteaffordablehousing. Asproposed, ministerial approval wouldnot bepossiblefor anydevelopment seekinganymodificationtothecity’sobjectivedesignstandards.Manydevelopmentswithon-siteAffordableHousingseekwaivers&concessionsfromthosestandardsunder statedensitybonuslaw. Densitybonuslawisanimportant tool for creatingAffordableHousing, andwaivers&concessionsareanimportant part of howdensitybonuslawworks. Theyoffer greater flexibilitytodesignbuildingsaroundthespecificneedsof thesiteandfutureresidents, andtoaccommodatemorehomesandgreater affordabilitythanwouldotherwisebepossible. SanJoseshouldnot excludedevelopmentsfromusingbothdensitybonusandministerial approval.

4. Inlater updates, further loosensiteexclusionstandardsandeligibilityrequirementstoallowfor broader useof theministerial approval program. Thiscouldincludeallowingredevelopment of existingrental housingwhenappropriaterenter protectionmeasuresarefollowed. Muchof therental housingstockinCaliforniaandSanJoseisold, andsomeof it is approachingtheendof itsuseful life. Replacingsmall oldapartment buildings, whicharegenerallypoorlyinsulatedandoftenfull of leadpaint andmold, withbigger newbuildingsbuilt tomodernhealth&safetycodes, canbeawin-winfor bothcurrent andfutureresidents–especiallysincestatelawrequiresanyexistinglowcost housingbereplacedwithdedicatedAffordableHousing. Thiswill requirerobust verificationprocessesbythecitytoensurethatcurrent residentsreceivetherelocationassistanceandright toreturnwhichtheyareentitledtounder law.

Thefirst threerecommendationsshouldbewrittenintothecurrent ordinance. Thefourthwouldbefor considerationinfutureupdatestotheprogram. Giventheverylimitedscopeof thecurrent proposal, wewouldhopetoseeregular updatesandexpansions. Ministerial approvalshouldbethenormfor infill multifamilyhousinginSanJose, not anexception. It isanessentialpart of achievingthecity’shousingneedsandall thebenefitsthat comewiththat: relief forburdenedrenters, shorter commutesfor essential workers, expandedhomeownershipopportunities, andavibrant &inclusivecity.

Thankyoufor your consideration, andthankyoutocitystaff for their ongoingworkonthismeasure, SouthBayYIMBY

San Jose City CouncilDecember 17, 2024

San Jose City Council
December 17, 2024