Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose planners warn 126% workload as general‑plan and housing updates move forward
Summary
City planning staff told the Community and Economic Development Committee the four‑year general plan review and housing‑element work are consuming staff time and that the citywide planning team is operating at roughly 126% of capacity; staff will evaluate a planning fee update in the upcoming budget process.
Planning staff told the Community and Economic Development Committee on Monday that the citywide work plan for the coming fiscal year exceeds current staffing capacity and will require fee and budget decisions to keep projects on schedule.
Staff outlined a timeline for the general plan four‑year review — including a Planning Commission vote expected at the end of June and a City Council framework review in August — and said the team’s workload is already committed at about 126% for the next fiscal year. "Based upon our current projections for this project scope, we're looking at 126% of that capacity," staff said during the presentation.
Why it matters: The four‑year review ties to the upcoming housing element and other state‑required updates, including an environmental justice element. Staff told the committee the city must both meet state statutory deadlines and preserve local controls while trying to limit additional workload on an already overcommitted team.
Committee members pressed staff on outreach and engagement choices, asking whether using the Planning Commission as the principal task force limited diverse input from small businesses, seniors and other stakeholders. Staff defended the outreach strategy — four open houses (two held, two remaining) plus an online engagement tool — and said the format for the open houses is display‑based with multiple planners at stations to solicit one‑on‑one feedback.
On funding and next steps, staff said the budget direction includes a deeper evaluation of the citywide planning fee and other revenue sources. They cautioned that under the legal framework that created the fee, some types of planning work cannot be entirely funded through fees, so a fee increase would likely need to be paired with a general‑fund appropriation. Staff said they will bring a fee proposal and supporting analysis as part of the budget process.
Public comment: Lillian Koenig, who identified herself as a District 3 representative on the Senior Commission, asked whether staff track seniors’ housing patterns and requested clearer notice of open houses for stakeholders who may not receive event promotions through standard channels.
Outcome: The committee moved to accept the planning work plan report and proceeded to other business.
What’s next: Staff will continue the four‑year review process, hold the remaining open houses (Bascom Community Center and Chiricahua Community Center), and deliver fee‑analysis recommendations to the budget process for committee consideration.
