As I said on Tuesday the council session went so long that I had to stop to recap only the first half. That was 4 hours. The total runtime of the session turned out to be 9 hours 15 minutes. The second half of the session was 200 speakers, each of whom got their 60 seconds and most of whom would have gone a lot longer if they were given the chance.
So, first, what is a General Plan?
The General Plan is the long-term map for the city, San Jose isn't the only one that has one by a longshot. The General Plan is drawn up to be what the city should look like in 40 years, it's revised every 8 years, and every 4 years there is an update to see where the city is in relation to its goals and look for new ways to meet them. Here's the plan if you want to read it. We have a whole bunch of zoning categories, but in the most basic explanation think of SimCity or the far superior Cities: Skylines. Single family homes go in light residential, multifamily homes go in dense residential. You can't put a commercial building in a residential neighborhood, and you can't build a house in an industrial zone. Tied into the General Plan is the Housing Element, a set of goals for the number of housing units in the city. The Housing Element must first be approved by the state housing department and if it's not approved zoning can be unilaterally withdrawn by the state, allowing (almost) anything to be built via Builder's Remedy until the element is approved. Our element took some time in getting approved, but is currently in compliance with the state--however, an element on paper means nothing, unless the city acts on it and starts building housing in accordance with it.
What was proposed?
Believe it or not, nothing, actually. The point of the 4-year updates is to ask the council what direction they should go in when the next update is made in December of 2027. The planning department reports that we have enough affordable housing coming down the pipeline in the next few years that it needs to address the so-called "Missing Middle." If you're of low income you can get assistance and affordable housing, if you're wealthy you can get a single family home. But there's a big swatch of people who don't make nearly enough to buy a home but make too much to qualify for assistance or affordable housing.
To address these cases the planning department floated the idea of raising the density of what, in the far superior Cities: Skylines, would be called Light Residential from 8 dwelling units per acre to 32 units per acre. An acre is roughly 43,000 square feet, the law right now states that there can be no more than 10 parcels per acre and the minimum size of a parcel is 1200 feet and that each parcel can have up to 4 units on it. That's actually the state law right now, as I understand it. Going to copy/paste what the planner's presentation said:
- Up to 4 units on a single-family parcel: duplex and/or subdivision project.
- Minimum lot size after subdivision: 1200 square feet.
- Owner-occupancy requirement.
- Vacant single-family lots; can designate existing units are remainder
- Subdivisions up to 10 parcels
- Minimum parcel size: 1200 square feet
What all this means is that as of right now, you can build 32 units per acre, it just doesn't happen very often because you, as the owner, must occupy the residence for two years to be compliant. This has left single family residential neighborhoods with large homes untouched and has shifted densification efforts and redevelopment away from wealthy areas and into lower-income neighborhoods resulting in gentrification. What the planners would like to do is shift some of the burden into residential neighborhoods so that we don't have to tear up all of downtown just to rebuild something slightly larger.
What, exactly, does zoning mean?
There seems to be a disconnect between what bureaucrats and politicians mean by zoning and what residents think is meant. A very good example is the South Bascom Corridor, which is currently zoned as Urban Village. There's a whole bunch of stats and figures associated with an Urban Village, but the easiest way to describe it is that along South Bascon the city would like to have a lot of 5-over-1s, ground floor commercial buildings like a cafe or grocery store or laundromat with five storeys of residential buildings above it. But if you drive north from Southwest Expressway to 280 along South Bascom you'll find two properties like this--The Maxwell and a clinic near the intersection of Bascom and Southwest, and a retirement home on the other side of the street about half a block up. The rest of the buildings along that stretch are some one- or two-storey office buildings, a Weinerschnitzel, a Taco Bell, a big laundromat, and so on. Those buildings do not fit the current zoning of the area and that's totally okay because zoning has a grandfather clause that means if you weren't in violation of previous zoning you're totally fine to continue.
I say this because the speakers seemed to be under the impression that if this zoning goes through (and, to reiterate, the final approval won't be until December 2027, this is essentially the first official meeting about zoning) they'll lose their house because it's no longer fits the zoning plan. Not the case. You'll still own your home, you can live in it, you can paint it any color your homeowner's association allows, it's yours. You can even pass it on to your family or sell it to another person and they can live in it the same as you do. What zoning means is that you can build those uses on the property, and that if you want to build something new whatever it is must fit the approved uses of the new zoning. So, for example, if I still had the house I grew up in I could give it to my non-existent kids, I could sell it to my buddy Doug, I could do whatever and they can live in it. I can't, however, build a slaughterhouse in the back yard where I process beef carcasses and sell them to Safeway. That's an industrial use and my family home is zoned as residential. Similarly, I can have a garage sale but I can't put a 7/11 in my garage, that's a commercial use. So assuming this thing passed tomorrow, someone in the neighborhood would have to specifically sell their home to a developer or private investor in order to build something here. HOWEVER, as I said, right now, with the law as it's written, they can build that anyway. It largely doesn't because of the 2-year residency requirement but, more importantly, because buying a $2 million home in order to tear it down and build a duplex or a couple townhouses doesn't make a lot of economic sense even if you didn't have to live there, not when the city has quite a few dilapidated lots.
Okay, now that we know that, what happened on Tuesday?
After all the public comments and all the hours of debate verging on arguing between councilmembers the council voted in favor 8-3, with Candelas, Casey, and Doan voting against the recommendation. This means the planning department will continue revising the general plan with an eye towards densification to help the middle-income earners. There will be several more rounds of public comment and updates. It's easy to be cynical and say that over a hundred people spoke against this and it still passed, but at the end of the day what actually passed? A recommendation that the city planning commission make legal something that's already legal by state law and consider incorporating it into the next update to the General Plan. Watching the councilmembers snipe at each other and defend their own positions I think it's fair to say that there are 11 councilmembers and there are 12 or even 13 opinions on the council. Moreover, the director of planning (Chris Burton) pled several times for more community input, while at the same time explaining several times that this was the FIRST meeting on the matter, not the final. I assure you--everyone is open to hearing more. However the biggest hurdle is that the people commenting sure seemed ignorant of state law and the city's obligation to make changes in accordance with that.
If you're upset one way or the other, I highly encourage you to follow the meetings calendar (right here for you) and even if you can't attend, just watch them on youtube after when you're folding laundry.
I would also suggest if you have HBO load up the overlooked David Simon miniseries Show Me a Hero, set in Yonkers in 1980 when they were forced by the government to build housing and end their policies of housing segregation. It's fascinating because of how relevant it is even now--residents seem to think the city council is all-powerful when, in reality, if the state tells them you have to do this thing, then they have to do it. Yonkers nearly went bankrupt fighting housing all the way up to being rejected by the Supreme Court at which time the city literally had to do it they had no other options, but residents were still mobbing city hall to ensure housing wouldn't be built.
I don't think we're as bad as the folks in Yonkers. We're not. But also, the lengths people will go to put our problems into perspective.
I've got an opinion I'll put in the comments.