San Jose staff proposes consolidating and streamlining urban village planning as SB 79 looms

San Jose planning staff on Tuesday presented four recommendations intended to accelerate urban village planning and unlock housing capacity across the city, while warning that new state law, SB 79, complicates mapping and next steps.

"Staff has four preliminary recommendations to address strategy P40 of the housing element," Cora McNaughton, a planner with the Planning Division, told the Envision San Jose 2040 task force, listing consolidation of transit-corridor villages, a streamlined process for neighborhood villages, clearer outreach limits and simplified plan text as the proposed changes. Jared Ferguson, principal planner, said the work supports the general plans focused-growth strategy.

Why it matters: Staff said accelerating village planning will help make more parcels eligible for mixed-use and residential development, a critical step toward meeting the citys housing allocation of 62,200 units by 2031. The proposals aim to reduce the number of separate planning processes for unplanned villages from 42 to roughly 14 (or 15 planning processes including a targeted rezoning package), with 6 combined station-area plans and 8 commercial-center plans.

Key details and numbers cited by staff: - The city has 62 urban villages; 16 village plans are completed (staff said 43% of village land area is currently under an adopted or in-progress plan). - Staff reported the signature project pathway has produced 9 entitled projects (2 built, 1 under construction) and that policy IP 5.12 has yielded 15 entitled projects (2 built, 8 under construction, 2 under entitlement review). - Staff said the typical village plan has taken about 3.5 years from first outreach to council adoption; recent efforts have shortened that to under three years (North 1st Street: ~2 years 9 months; Capital Caltrain area: ~18 months), and the urban-village team is working toward a two-year maximum for plan completion.

SB 79 and mapping: Staff cautioned that SB 79s provisions, which allow increased height and residential uses near high-capacity transit, introduce mapping complexity because the laws distance standard depends on pedestrian access definitions rather than a simple straight-line radius. "At this time staff is focusing on the implementation of the law and the impacts it will have on housing and land use in San Jose," Ruth said; staff expects an initial SB 79 map within a month or two and a full analysis for the June task force meeting.

Commissioners pressed staff on particulars: several asked whether staffs SB 79 analysis will include parcel counts and hypothetical unit increases, how radii will be drawn, and how site-specific density ranges will be set. Staff said parcel-level capacity work is underway and that site-specific minimums or maximums will generally be resolved during the individual village planning process or targeted rezoning work.

Outreach and equity: One recommendation would define a baseline of three scheduled community events for conventional village planning, plus targeted stakeholder meetings "as warranted." Commissioners and community speakers urged stronger outreach to marginalized groups, use of community-based organizations, and clearer standards for consultant selection and local/small-business preferences. Staff said it will collaborate with the Office of Racial Equity and use a city manager list of community-based organizations to broaden engagement.

Public comment highlighted competing priorities: Dr. Robert Wood, representing San Jose State faculty, called the current general plan "pretty much a failure" and urged lower-density options he said would enable cheaper wood-frame construction and greater affordability. Rigel Gallardo, a field representative for the NorCal Carpenters, urged labor standards on projects that receive city support, listing "health care, local hire, and apprenticeship" as priorities. Other speakers warned about lost parkland in some plans and urged clearer transition zones between high-density villages and adjacent single-family neighborhoods.

Costs and resources: Commissioners asked about the per-plan cost. Staff said that cost accounting is complex, that they have not yet calculated a per-plan figure, and that they will return with more complete cost information. Staff also said that drafting plans in-house for recent village efforts has saved time and produced stronger outcomes, but acknowledged staffing and grant constraints remain.

What was not decided: The meeting included no motions or votes on the recommendations. Staff asked the task force for feedback and said it will return with SB 79 mapping, capacity analysis and final recommendations by June. The next task force meeting is scheduled for January 21 at 6:30 p.m.

Quotable from the meeting (verbatim from transcript): - "We are proposing grouping those urban villages into 6 plans, which would reduce by 10 the number of plans required," Cora McNaughton said when outlining the transit-corridor consolidation. - "At this time staff is focusing on the implementation of the law and the impacts it will have on housing and land use in San Jose," Ruth said about SB 79. - "The plan that we've got is pretty much a failure," Dr. Robert Wood said during public comment about housing production since the plans adoption. - "Health care must be a at the forefront of any development that receives city support or tax exemptions," Rigel Gallardo said when urging labor standards.

Next steps: Staff will produce an SB 79 map and memo for council and return to the task force with capacity and recommendation updates by June; no formal actions were taken at this meeting.