Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

Good evening. My name is Carlos Rosario, and I am the chair of the Planning Commission. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The parking validation machine for the garage under City Hall is located near the rear entrance. At this point in time, if you are able, we will do a salute to the flag. All right now for roll call vice chair Bickford here Commissioner Borossio here Commissioner Bond all Not here yet. Commissioner Cantrell is absent. Commissioner Cow? Here. Commissioner Casey? Here. Commissioner Escobar?

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen? Here. Commissioner Oliverio? I see him on Zoom. He is online? Yes. All right. And Commissioner Young? Here. And I am here making nine of us, so we have quorum. All right. If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located at the table near the audio-visual technician and deposit the completed card into the basket. There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance. The procedure for this hearing is as follows. After staff's presentation, applicants and or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation. During the comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received for those members of the public who attend in person. As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber. Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes. At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors. Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted. After public testimony, the applicant and or appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes. Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers. Response to the commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance. The public hearing will then be closed and the planning commission will take action on the item. The planning commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission's actions on rezonings, prezonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings on these items. Section 20-120-400 of the Municipal Code provides the procedures for legal protests to the City Council on rezonings and prezonings. The Planning Commission's action on conditional use permits is appealable to the city in accordance with section 20, 100, 220 of the municipal code. Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed at the city's website. Okay, before we begin, I want to remind the Planning Commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings. This includes commenting on a specific agenda item only and addressing the full body. Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff. All members of the Planning Commission, staff, and public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting of the Planning Commission will now come to order. On the public comment. Public comments to the Planning Commission on non-agendized items. If you'd like, please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to two minutes. The Commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on the agenda. In response to public comment, the Planning Commission is limited to the following options. Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public. Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda Staff do we have any speakers for public comment? For the Commission for items that are not on the agenda No comments on public comment, okay, we'll move on to deferrals and removals from the calendar Any items scheduled for this hearing this evening which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Yes, good evening, commissioners. Munira Sandhir, deputy director of planning. We do have a late request for a deferral for public hearing item number 5B, which is SP24-029 and ER24-198, an administrative hearing which is an appeal for the special use permit to increase an existing recycling transfer facilities permitted maximum daily inflow capacity. And I have staff here planner Alex Hughes to explain the request for the deferral.

Thank you Thank You chair, thank you vice chair planning commissioners, my name is Alex Hughes planner with PBC e I'm the project manager for the appeal file number SP 24-0 to 9 staff recently received new documents that may affect this use permit findings and or conditions of approval and Staff recommends the commission consider deferring SB 24-029 to March 25th Planning Commission.

Thank you. Okay.

Is there any public comment on the item being deferred? That may be deferred.

We have K. Okay. If they can't make it next time, they can make their comment now.

If you can't make it to the next time, you can make your comment now if you'd like. Okay. All right. Do we need discussion or can we go to vote?

You need a motion.

Do we have a motion?

I'll motion to accept the deferral.

Second then. All right. We'll go to a roll call vote then. Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso? Yes. Commissioner Bondal? Yes. Commissioner Cantrell? Absent. Commissioner Cowell? Yes. Commissioner Casey? Yes. Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen? Yes. Commissioner Oliverio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young? Yes. Myself is yes, making that 10 yeses and one absent. The motion carries.

Okay. That's it for us today? Yes. All right.

We'll move on to the consent calendar. For the public, there will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and adopted by one motion. If a member of the commission requests debate, separate vote, or recusal on a particular item, that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately. The public may comment on the on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair. Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar. If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come to the podium at this time. Are there any speakers on items currently on the consent calendar?

We do not have any speaker cards for items on the consent calendar.

All right. Commissioners, are there any items you'd like to remove from the consent calendar or do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? Motion to approve. Second from Commissioner Casey. On to a vote. Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barrosio. Yes. Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell is absent. Commissioner Cowell. Yes. Commissioner Casey. Yes. Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen. Yes. Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young. Yes. Myself is yes. And we have nine yeses and one absence. All right. And the consent calendar is approved. And we go on to the public hearing now. All right. Generally, public hearing items are considered by the Planning Commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda. However, please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony, or may defer discussions of items to later agendas for public hearing and management purposes. The first item on the calendar tonight is CPE 20, oops. It is . There you go. All right, item 5A, H23-030, an appeal co-site development permit for a builder's remedy on Willow Street. Do we have a staff presentation?

Yes, we do. Let me bring up the slides real quick.

All right.

All right, there we go.

Evening chair, commissioners, members of the public. My name is Alec Atienza. I am the planning project manager for the 940 Willow Street project. This is an appeal of the planning director's decision to approve a site development permit on December 3rd of last year. So the application before you is a project site at 940 Willow Street. It's at the corner of Willow Street and Cotenburg Avenue in City Council District 6. So this application is a site development permit for a builder's remedy project. It's the construction of a seven-story mixed-use building with 126 residential units and approximately 1,626 square feet of commercial space. 15% of the units are reserved for very low income households and 15% of the units are reserved for moderate income households. So there's an existing 5,500 square foot commercial building that's there that would be demolished and the removal of six trees as well to accommodate the development. With this site development permit application is also an application under state density bonus law with a request for a 97% density bonus as well as multiple incentives, concessions and waivers. It's important to provide some context for this application, particularly under Builder's Remedy. I know this commission has seen one other Builder's Remedy application before, but it was quite a while ago. That was for the Elviso project, so I want to give everybody some context here. The Builder's Remedy is defined by Section H-11 of the Housing Accountability Act. as a project that has to provide a certain amount of affordable housing to very low low or moderate income households and there's a sliding scale of options that applicants can choose from the applicant must also have submitted an application while a city did not have a substantially compliant housing element and i'll get into that a little bit later as to how this applies to this project But that housing element must be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD for short. The project also must be within the parameters for minimum and maximum densities, as defined by the definition of builder's remedy in that code section that I referenced. And the project can also not abut a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use. So When projects qualify for builder's remedy, cities cannot deny a qualifying builder's remedy project based on inconsistency with the city's general plan land use designation or zoning ordinance. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a city from denying a builder's remedy project unless the city can show that the project will cause, excuse me, a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety. So for this project, so we get some dates in order here to understand how this project qualifies for builder's remedy. So the applicant submitted a Senate Bill 330 preliminary application on June 12th of 2023. So what that does is it locks the application in to the date that it was submitted. So when I say locked in, that means any ordinances, policies, or fees that are in effect at the time that application is submitted, that project is locked in on that date. And then the formal application, so the site development permit that you see, that was submitted on October 10th of 2023. The city's housing element was certified and found to be in substantial compliance on January 29th, 2024. So that gap is where projects are eligible for the builder's remedy. So since they submitted before that date, they are eligible under builder's remedy. Sorry, let me take a pause. A lot of content. All right, so Assembly Bill 1893, that is an important component of this as well. So when these builder's remedy applications were first received, it was a bit of a wild west, right? We didn't really have any parameters to put on these projects. And so what Assembly Bill 1893 did was that basically clarified the builder's remedy law. In essence, it put a lot of legal arguments that cities were making to rest, as well as set some standards around density and what projects could and could not qualify for builder's remedy. So that was effective July 1st of 2025, and this applicant invoked Assembly Bill 1893 on April 21st of 2025. So what does this mean for staff's project review? The city must treat the project as if it meets the general plan land use designation and requirements of the zoning district. So in this case, this application is for a site development permit for a site that is designated neighborhood community commercial and is in the CN zoning district. We don't allow housing on these sites unless it's 100% affordable. Because it's builder's remedy, we have to treat it as if it's compliant with both of those designations. This is a key piece here, the product does not require approval of a general plan amendment rezoning and shall be deemed consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, redevelopment plans, implementing instruments or other similar provisions for all purposes. And again to that last point that I put on the last slide, the city must evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards. That's the key, that's the highest bar that we have to hit basically. Nevertheless, we still went through the review process for this project, and if you read through the site development permit resolution, we highlight basically any inconsistencies and consistencies with our standards and policies, despite the fact that the project may not meet many or most of them. So I just highlighted, you know, what we reviewed here. So particularly state density bonus law, that's something that we see for a lot of housing projects nowadays, as well as the Envision San Jose General Plan. That includes policies as well as the land use designation itself. The municipal code, things like zoning standards, but also, say, tree removal controls. The citywide design standards and guidelines. uh... the city council policy six dash thirty which is for public outreach so you know we did go through the the public outreach policy with the signpost on-site we also public community meeting that was attended by almost two hundred folks on zoom uh... and then also we reviewed under sequel california environmental quality act so in this case the project uh... is exempt under a relatively new bill assembly bill one thirty i think uh... some of you've been aware of this uh... but it's it's fairly new just came into effect uh... July 1 of 2025, and that statutorily exempts most projects in the state of California. Excuse me, housing projects in the state of California that meet certain criteria. So this project was heard at the December 3rd, 2025 director's hearing. The project was placed on public hearing. We had 12 members of the public that spoke, nine against, three in favor. An appeal of the decision to approve the site development permit was received on December 12th, 2025. So this appeal asserts that the project is not compliant with several sections of the citywide design standards and guidelines, and those are listed in the staff report as well as the appeal that you have in your packets. So those standards include landscaping requirements, solid waste pickup requirements, bicycle parking, lighting, building setbacks and stepbacks, building entries, driveway design, and the provision of flat roofs. It should be noted that the applicant did actually request an exception for that flat roof requirement. So there was also some additional information that the commission received just in the last few days, between a week and the last few days, Staff did not analyze against that supplemental information that was provided, but I just wanna make sure that everybody understands that that was submitted and sent to you guys, and that can obviously be weighed in your decision tonight. So staff did include responses in the staff report. Staff's main contention is the project is compliant with citywide design standards, but also just the fact that that last sentence that I put here, and I'll go back for everybody's benefit, That second to last bullet point is that the project, because of its nature of being a builder's remedy project, is consistent with all applicable plans, et cetera, for all purposes. So with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct this administrative hearing on this appeal, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the permanent appeal and uphold the director's decision. So that concludes staff's presentation. I believe we have both the appellant and applicant here to make their case. Oh, yeah, appellant goes first, I believe, right, Daniel?

All right. At this time, we'll have five minutes for presentation from the appellant. Is the appellant here?

The appellant, David Fox. Is he here? Marin? Is David here? Is David here? David Fox? I don't see him either. Let me email him real quick or see if I can call him.

Does an appellant be present?

No. the appellant doesn't need to be present sorry the appellant doesn't need to be present but the appellant is giving an argument as to why the commission should deny the uh director's hearing so if the appellant isn't here we can give the applicant a chance to speak yeah why don't you give him a call jeff do you want to speak first and just for the record the appellant did provide some responses uh... about uh... some of the letters that were provided there was a back and forth i think the commission has these this communication between the applicant's attorneys and the appellant, and the appellant did make some arguments. I think those are submitted to the record, and they'll stand on their own until maybe we can get them on the call.

Good afternoon, members of the commission, evening, members of the commission. My name is Dan Golub. I am counsel to the project applicant. I think what I'd say is we'd certainly much prefer to respond to the appellant if you're going to hear from him this evening. If you're not going to hear from him this evening, I'll give you... five minutes or so, but I would prefer not to go first and then not have an opportunity to respond to what the appellant is going to say.

Makes complete sense.

Would it be okay if he can use these five minutes and then if he doesn't decide to come, then he can go again?

I think what Mr. Golub is saying is that he'd prefer not to go until we have a final answer from the appellant to make sure that the appellant is not going to be appearing tonight. Then he'll take his five minutes. But I think we can respect that, not having to go first and respond to some arguments.

To the chair, if I could make a suggestion, perhaps we could receive public comments and public testimony, and if there are comments from the public that the applicant wishes to address, whether the appellant is able to join or not, perhaps that might be an option here.

Certainly follow the direction of the chair. I'm sorry.

Would that be all right with you?

Yes, just fundamentally, if the appellant gets a five-minute presentation, I'd like an opportunity of about five minutes to respond to it.

Absolutely.

Okay.

All right, so let's start with public hearing then on this item. So we will please come down Theodore John Forsman, Marin Cederquist, and Jeff Tooley. My apologies if I mispronounced your name.

Okay, ready?

Yes, please go ahead. Good evening, I've got two minutes and it's just about two, so I'm gonna just keep going here. I'm formally here to object to the approval of the 940 Willow Street project based on what appears to be a calculated suppression of technical data and a flagrant violation of council policy 630. This policy explicitly states the city must provide opportunities for public participation early in the process, that's the wording, to ensure residents can provide input before decisions are made, before decisions are made. At the December 3rd hearing where this was approved, the city did the exact opposite, it appears. A critical sewer capacity study was introduced for the first time, for the first time effectively airdropping technical justifications at the 11th hour. Only one can speculate that this was done to neutralize public oversight. This isn't just a clerical error. It appears to be a strategic move to bypass the only legal lever that we have under billless revenue. We just saw that from Alec. Public health and safety concerns. Exceptions. By withholding the study until the moment of approval, the city prevented a vetting of a fatally flawed model. Your engineers claim the system is sufficient, but they model the theoretical, perfectly maintained system. I live in Willard Lane. I've seen major sewer collapses nearly every year for a decade. We're dealing with currently a 100-year-old infrastructure. Just today, coming down here on Minnesota and Cotenburg, sewer guys were out there fixing the sewer again. How ironic. Policy 630 exists specifically to prevent this kind of ambush planning. You cannot claim to protect public safety while suppressing the data that proves a safety risk exists. I formally serve the city. The entire council is on notice.

Thank you very much.

You're part of an ongoing procedural violation. Halt further certifications.

Thank you very much. Your two minutes are up. Thank you very much. Your two minutes are up. No. No, the other guy was the... That's your time, sir. Okay. We can go to the next speaker now. All right. Theodore John Forsman or Marin Cederquist.

Good evening. My name is Maren Sutterquist. I live a few houses away from the development, and I support affordable housing for the public good. But I also support the city's Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, which directs dense housing at transit, corridors, downtown, and designated urban villages. This project exists only because San Jose failed to submit its housing element on time, triggering builder's remedy. Neighbors should not bear the consequences. This lot is more than half a mile away from freeways or meaningful transit. Comparing it to a tall development on Meridian is not valid. That site is on a five lane road next to a freeway, while this site is at the corner of a two lane road and what is functionally a one lane street. I'm also president of Willow Glen's Neighborhood Association. Over 1,800 neighbors have signed a petition opposing this project. Only holding planning Zooms where questions are not allowed to be answered shows a lack of respect for your new neighbors. I ask that you take our concerns seriously. State law allows this project to move forward, but it also requires objective standards and public health and safety requirements to be upheld. Shortcuts have been taken for both. It does not fully demonstrate compliance with the objective standards as Mr. Fox has written. There's also been no traffic study in the public record with comprehensive review including vehicle conflicts and pedestrian safety in line with San Jose's Walk Safe San Jose and Vision Zero action plan. Developers, just because you can do this doesn't mean you should. At a minimum, at least meet with the neighbors to mitigate impacts. Planning department, you're supposed to serve the community. Please do better. Planning commission, because standards have not been fully addressed, I respectfully request a motion to continue this item until full verifiable compliance with all standards is documented. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. After Mr. Forsman, we will have Michael Bantam, Diane Solomon, and Alex Shore.

Hello. You guys can hear me? All right. Good evening. My name is Jeff Huell. I live at 1140 Cotenburg, which is the property right next door to where this is going to happen. The technical document that was printed out that's all with you right now, that is something that I created. In investigation, I found there are many blind spots in the sewer study. So the first one is blind spot asset 51585. It's a 19-foot diagonal pipe that connects this project From Cotenburg to Willow Street, if you look right at the website right now, the slope of that is NA. There's no data on that. So I find it very hard to believe that we could do a sewer study when the 19-foot connection point that goes from Cotenburg to Willow literally has no data. Secondly, Manning's friction there on asset 27169, which is the pipe that goes on Willow, it's an 80-plus-year-old vitrified clay pipe. The map shows only a slope of 0.0023, which is the bare minimum for a brand-new pipe. Applying a smooth pipe Manning's coefficient of .013 to an age-rough clay ignores physics. It should be at least .017 or greater, which would reduce the pipe's capacity by 40%. Basically, if you think about it, it's a 12-foot pipe that's made of clay that's 80 years old that's probably six, you know, diameter's now six because of all the sediment and residue that's been over there for, you know, 80 plus years. Lastly, the city is currently spending $1.4 million on a project PW10526 to replace identical clay pipes because they are documented as failure risks. So you're doing that in other areas, but not here. I find it hard to believe that we're going to load 126 units and basically put it into aging infrastructure. So therefore, I demand a continuance for the following. Physical CCTV inspection to verify the actual roughness of the 80-year-old pipes, a field survey to fill the zero data gap in the 19-foot connection, and a dynamic hydraulic study to prove with math, not assumptions, that the peak flow from 126 unit will not result in a sewage backup into my house. That means assume rain, Super Bowl Sunday, and everyone's flushing the toilet after the first quarter when the 49ers are up 14 to 0. Thank you very much. By providing these facility IDs, 27169, 51585, PW10526, into the record, I'm establishing a prior notice of a dangerous condition under city government code.

Thank you. Michael Banton, Diane Solomon, Alex Shore.

Yes, I'm Michael Banton. I live... On that picture there, you can see me about 100 feet away from this monstrosity. I have not talked to a single neighbor who is in favor of this project. I'm an ex-engineer, so I don't buy any of the studies, so-called studies. I don't buy any of the data that's been presented. It doesn't make any sense to me as an engineer. I have a personal animus, of course, because having gone over to Union and Bascom and checked out a similar project, I realized my backyard is going to be completely blotted out from the sun, the evening sun. My garden's going to be destroyed by this project. But aside from that, I want to represent the people of Willow Glen in my little neighborhood here. This is going to be wreaking untold damage on my neighborhood, our neighborhood, It's going to cause many problems. Here's a picture of my street, Curtis Avenue. This was last week. This is a road blocked for sewer repair. This week, our road is blocked again. This was two days. This week, our road is blocked again, two days with sewer repair or something that's going on. This is not unusual. My neighbors will all back me up. We don't have the infrastructure for this giant project. It's just plain as the nose on my face. Parking is an obvious problem. Willow to Bird is backed up regularly, frequently, in front of this monstrosity, this tower. My street is basically a one-way street, as was said before. I second everything my neighbors just said. It's just... It's outrageous and it's beyond belief that something so big and inappropriate for this area could have been approved. And so I just want to make sure. When we had these cards, I filled it out. It said against or for. I just want to make sure I'm for the appeal.

I'm definitely against the original project. And I submitted an email ahead of time on the original one in September. Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Diane Solomon. I represent St. Brantway. How can this project comply with objective safety standards, builders' remedies, one-size-fits-all, regardless of our city's safety? St. Brantway is a city of San Jose defined flood zones. Santa Rosa-type wildfires could easily destroy this entire neighborhood. We are still at risk for the Big One earthquake. It will prevent, Seventh Story will prevent emergency vehicles from serving us in nearby areas in the event of likely disasters that will occur over here in the next decade. Shebrant Way and Cotenborough Avenue are effectively one-way streets when there are cars parked on both sides of the street. High-density housing here, not safe. Our city's infrastructure can't support this project. As others have said, our streets are already narrow and choked and... The nearby arteries that get to the freeways will be impacted and our budgets gonna make things better It's not going to make things better in the first in future builders remedy is one-size-fits-all regardless of public endangerment and it regardless of our city's democratically elected leadership that approved our city's existing codes and our city's standards that govern the height of buildings parking and public safety I urge you to take a big bold step and don't appeal this. I think other people are going to be suing the state of California that's going on in San Francisco. This is not a good, I second everything everybody else said and I urge you to do what's hard and not approve of this and grant the appeal.

Thank you very much. We have Alex Shore and then Roland Lebrun.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Alex Shore. I'm the co-founder and executive director of Catalyze Silicon Valley. Please forgive my late letter that I sent you this afternoon. I do want to introduce myself a little bit to the new planning commissioners. I represent a number of members who had a chance to evaluate this project in June of 2024. Our organization is a yes and organization.

Yes, we want to see development in this community, and we want to see it be as sustainable, equitable, and vibrant as possible.

We scored this project a 3.4 out of five, which is unfortunately just below our threshold for support. Nonetheless, it appears the city does need to approve this project under Builder's Remedy. Let's be very clear. To survive as a region, we need a lot more housing. So I want to thank the developer for proposing such a bold project that strives hard to build a high number of homes because this is such a need in our city and region. Our members scored this aspect of the project a five out of five. We love, love to see so many homes, especially affordable housing in the wealthy neighborhood of Willow Glen. That is equity. Our members would also be delighted to see that the developer has increased the affordable housing from 20% when we scored it to 30% that you see here tonight. Areas of improvement for the project would be community engagement. The purpose of community engagement is not just to follow the law or get a project approved, it's to make projects better based on community input and thus build long-term support for good development. Our members gave this project a two out of five on community engagement. As you approve this project tonight, please look at our scorecard for areas our members liked and others that could be improved. Thank you so much.

Roland wanted to speak on 5C. Okay.

And then Brendan Justin? Is that for this item? Please come down.

My first time coming to one of these meetings, so I don't really know what I'm doing, but I just want to say, like all the folks have mentioned, needing improvements to infrastructure in the area, like the sewers, and I just want to say investment like this, more people in the area and more money coming there and more housing, as the last speaker said, we desperately need around here. More investment in the area is just the thing that we need. I live, I want to say, some 1,500 feet from where the project is proposed, 940 Willow Street, and I walk by there all the time, and frankly, from what I've seen from people living around there and talking to neighbors and such, a lot of the roads, frankly... make me feel less safe than they could. But I guess that means there's more capacity there, as far as I can tell, for more development along Willow Street specifically than any other street around there. I live about 250 feet off of Willow Street, and that's my main street to go places in my car or often on my bike going east-west. The place is not too far from downtown San Jose and pretty close to downtown Willow Glen. So I think these are all good reasons to support the project, even aside from the builder's remedy requiring it, from what I can tell.

Thank you so much for coming. Another?

Thank you, Commissioner Escobar. Gail Seeds. Feel free to come up.

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

I am Gail Seeds. I live on Cotenburg Avenue, so I have great interest in the proposed development on the corner of Cotenburg and Willow. First, I'd like to say I concur with what you've heard from David Fox in writing and this evening. I had a chance to preview some of it. ran and secondly I'd like to request that when a construction management plan comes forward for the proposed project that the neighbors have a chance to review it while it's in the review process and in my career I've written them and I've administered them and I've enforced them and I know generally how they work quite well. So in particular, I'd like to request thoughtful attention to details in the plan that will protect the neighborhood during construction and the larger area in terms of air quality protection measures as applicable per BAAQMD standards, which is our air quality board. And more specifically, dust and particulate matter emissions. That would be super helpful. Secondly, there are hours of work standards in San Jose, usually 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday to Friday. We would appreciate adherence with those. Thirdly, anything that can be done to mitigate construction noise would be appreciated. Fourthly, good traffic control will make a difference to the neighborhood during the pretty lengthy construction process.

Your time is up. Thank you so much for taking the time to participate. Seeing no more cards, is the appellant here? Please come forward. You have five minutes.

Commissioners, I am sorry that I was not here earlier. My mother is 95 years old. We had an emergency with her tonight. It's as important as this is. I'm a family first guy. We needed to take care of that. So thank you very, very much for your indulgence on that. I really appreciate it. Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Fox. I have sat where you are sitting tonight. I was a two-term planning commissioner in Campbell. And I know exactly what it feels like to be told that your hands are tied on a particular item. I want to offer a different perspective. This appeal isn't about stopping the building. It's about oversight that our city rules entrust to you. While the state law mandates housing, it specifically leaves objective rules in your hands. This hearing is where we ensure the project actually meets those requirements. We are asking you to use your authority tonight not to challenge the density, but to make sure this project follows the city's written standards. These rules protect everyone, the developer's rights, the future residents' quality of life, and the stability of our neighborhood. We're requesting four practical fixes. The first is a landscape buffer that can be found under Section 2.3.8, Standard 9. If you use the proxy zone rules to require a five-foot buffer where the building abuts houses on the rear south property line, we can plant trees to create a landscape buffer. To do this, there would have to be a modest redesign of the interior of the building. Since the state doesn't mandate parking or bike storage for this project, Losing six parking spots and some bicycle storage doesn't make the project infeasible, but does provide a buffer between a high-rise building and a low-rise neighborhood. The second would be on the podium tree plantings. They propose some large trees. Hold the developer to the city's math on the soil per tree. They are currently deficient. 1,400 cubic feet of soil for medium trees, not the lesser amount shown on the plans. The logic here, this is a quantifiable objective standard. We just want the trees to have the best chance of survival so they can perform the duties that they are supposed to for both the residents and the neighborhood to provide some interior screening. On lighting. Swap out the horizontal and the upward facing fixtures for downward directing lighting that 2.3.7 standard one calls for. This is really simple to do. They just need to swap out the lights. It keeps the project bright and safe for the people that live there, but it doesn't let the lights spill into the neighborhood. In addition, we're asking for compliance with the state Title 24 standards that require automatic shutoffs for all of the lighting. Roof massing. The project currently has slanted roofs for most of the roofs on the building. We're just asking that the project comply with 3.3.2 standards 2 and 3, which requires flat roofs for buildings that high. It would reduce the overall mass in the neighborhood. But because on the current plans, that area is shown as empty above the units, it doesn't cost the developer any livable housing at all. The developers council has argued in several ways that the city must facilitate and accommodate this development. And I agree with that. We're not asking to reduce the density. We are keeping every single one of the 126 units. But facilitating a project doesn't mean the city has to surrender its standards. You can accommodate 126 units while still requiring the wall on the rear property line to move five feet or to create a landscape buffer. You can facilitate 126 units while ensuring the trees have enough soil to survive. You're likely to be quoted three code sections the attorneys have consistently put forward. The 30-day window is intended to prevent the city from disapproving a project through delay. We're not asking for disapproval. On facilitate the development, Holland and Knight argues that you must facilitate this project, and we agree. But the government code says you have to facilitate density, and we're protecting the density here. And on subordinating the Muni code, The state reigns in the municipal code, but you still have the power to impose objective standards. I'm not here to litigate this tonight. I'm here because this building is going to be a part of our neighborhood for the next 50 or 100 years. What I would like it to do, like you to do, is give us these four objectives. Give the developer their units. We can create more housing stock and still keep the character of the neighborhood intact. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We'll now hear from the applicant.

Good evening again to the chair and to the commissioners. Dan Golub, I'm a partner with the West Coast Land Use and Environmental Practice Group at Holland & Knight, and we're counsel to the project applicant. We specialize in particular with the Housing Accountability Act and density bonus law issues. Needless to say, you'll not be surprised to hear that we think the director got it right, and we also agree with staff's recommendation not to grant the appeal. I'll just take things back a quick step, even though I think staff laid out builder's remedy quite well. This is a limited series of projects that got in the door when the project city did not have a substantially compliant housing element. And as a result, the state law is quite clear that those projects may be proposed and must be approved, notwithstanding their inconsistency with general plan and zoning. Not every project is going to be able to do that. The door is closed as long as the city has a substantially compliant housing element. But this is one of those projects. The appeal, always nice to note where we have agreement with the appellant. The appellant is clear that they do not seek the disapproval of this project. They are only appealing on grounds of design issues. I will note there's no appeal before you on a sewer capacity issue. We do agree, of course, with the appellant that the project cannot be disapproved and that it would violate the law if the city were to do so. The problem we have with the appellant's analysis is, even though the law is clear that you may not disapprove this project for its inconsistency with general plan and zoning, the appellant says you should approve it on the condition that it be made to comply with a general plan and zoning. I think it comes down to the same thing at the end of the day. That's a disapproval of the project on a ground level that the state law doesn't permit. I should also note that despite our argument that we really don't think the law could allow the city to make the project comply with general plan and zoning, we did try to do that as much as possible. And we noted that we had an independent right under the state density bonus law to waive certain standards even if they applied. And perhaps that's where we got into trouble by noting these two completely independent reasons that the project doesn't have to comply with these standards. So I'll give one. The landscape buffer, which staff has said doesn't apply pursuant to density builder's remedy, We independently said, but in any case, we would request a waiver of that standard pursuant to density bonus law. And the director granted that waiver. That waiver now could only be disapproved if there were a violation of an objective public health and safety standard based on a preponderance of the evidence that isn't before the city. So that standard would have been waived anyway, and only under very narrow public health and safety grounds could it be disapproved. It absolutely would require a very fundamental redesign of the project. We did want to comply with it as much as possible, but a waiver was granted of that pursuant to state density bonus law. I certainly defer to architects on architectural issues. Jeff Currant from the applicant's architect team is certainly here and able to get into those issues, and I defer to the appellant who has expertise in architectural issues. On the law, I'll respectfully request that it be noted that I have some experience with that. And the contentions in the appellant's appeal about the law are incorrect. The appellant cites to a provision of state law that says nothing in this section prohibits a city from applying objective standards. But as we noted, that has been amended. The law that is currently the law says except for builder's remedy projects. the city is allowed to apply its objective standards. So that was expressly carved out, and that's the basis of the appeal. I'll just also mention subdivision J2 of the HAA does impose these timing requirements and says that any standards with which the project was not found inconsistent are now deemed consistent as a matter of law because of the timing prescience in J2, and that the city would, even independent of builder's remedy, be very limited only to objective standards. And objective means no two people could disagree. You know, absolutely unambiguous. Every single person would read the language the same way. And quite a few of the standards, maybe all of them, that the appellant contends that the project conflicts with are standards that are set forth in the staff report. Your staff and your planning director think the project does meet. the staff thinks it's already been met, planning director found that they'd been met. The idea that it's an objective standard with which we conflict just doesn't make sense. I will note that I'm sure people don't necessarily agree about this, but some significant effort was made to redesign the project as it went through the process, to set back from adjacent uses, notwithstanding our rights under the law. We don't think we did everything we could have tried to do for this project, but we do think that it's clear that there would be a burden on the city to make public health and safety findings to do what the appellant asks. We don't

Thank you very much. We have for the appellant, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you. I didn't write this in a vacuum. I didn't write what I presented to you today in a vacuum. I'm a practicing landscape architect. I'm part of the development team that does multifamily housing. And I consulted my entire development team, everybody that we work with across the board, and they disagree with Mr. Glow. That in a lot of projects, we have been asked and we have acquiesced to objective design standards in different cities. I can give you an example. We did a SB 330 project near the corner of Meridian and Dry Creek. we got significant pushback from the neighbors. In fact, after the approval we got, which it was approved, of course, because it's SB 330, the neighbors filed an appeal. Instead of ignoring them, we interacted with the neighbors, we changed the design, we significantly moved fences, we moved lines, we moved houses, we added landscaping, and in the end, the neighbors dropped the appeal because we worked with them. There has been no effort by this developer to work with the neighborhood. And I understand the attorney's points. I understand that there is law, but there is also nuance. And I don't believe, and my development team doesn't believe, that the city is tied and cannot do anything in this case. That the Planning Commission does have the power to look at the director's decision and make changes to that decision if the standards are objective and definable and written down, which they are. Many times, Holland and Knight has put forth the argument, how would a reasonable person look at this? Well, I believe that if a reasonable person took a look at moving a wall five feet to create a landscape buffer that would lower the visual impact of a building to the neighborhood I believe that a reasonable person would find that reasonable. And what I'm asking you tonight is to use the powers that you have to grant five fairly minor conditions. I can tell you truly that if a developer, let's call them a reasonable developer, if a reasonable developer were asked Here's a parcel in downtown Willow Glen where you can build virtually any building that you want, but you have to create a five-foot buffer on the property line. Is that reasonable developer going to turn down that project? No. No developer would turn that project. Our group certainly wouldn't turn down that project. So I'm asking you today if you can make the building slightly more compliant, if you can use your powers tonight to grant those four asks for us to bring it a little more into the fabric of the neighborhood. And I thank you for that.

Thank you very much. We will move on to comments from the commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Bundall and then Commissioner Casey.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the appellant and thank you to the project applicant and everybody who came and spoke out tonight and thank you for staff for their presentation. I'd like to just quickly bring up sewer capacity. We have a note here from someone that says technical objections, sewer infrastructure deficiency. My question for staff would be, will existing utilities such as sewer, storm, drainage, water, required to be upgrades due to this project and if so who would be paying for that and

Thank you, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Michelle Kimball with the Department of Public Works. So hydraulic modeling of the sanitary sewer system was conducted for the project. The results show that both the 10-inch sewer main along Willow Street and the 6-inch sewer main along Cottonburg Avenue do have adequate capacity to accommodate the project consistent with the criteria established in Council Policy 8-7. If the results of the hydraulic model had indicated that the project flows would exceed available capacity, the project would have been conditioned to construct sanitary sewer improvements such as upsizing the sewer main to mitigate its impacts. That was not identified with that model and no improvements were conditioned.

And then a member of the public mentioned that there's some kind of upgrade that's happening at the moment. Just for clarification, is there anything in the neighborhood happening for this project or because of this project?

I know there was an item in the handout here. I haven't had a chance to look at it specifically for this particular capital improvement project. But in my coordination with our capital group previous to this note, there are no capital improvement projects within that area.

thank you um second i like to bring up uh parking um there is 127 parking spaces for 126 units which is averages out to one per uh unit and you know we haven't even taken into account future residents and visitor parking and such. What's the minimum that this project would need? I know there isn't one, but just for clarification, if you could just kind of chime in on that.

Are you speaking to like under the old parking code when we had minimums? Are you asking what the normal would be?

To this specific project, what would be the minimum?

So there are no parking minimums anymore. The required number is zero. Instead, the project has to implement a transportation demand management plan. That's basically the trade-off, right? For no minimum parking requirements now, all projects that hit a certain threshold have to implement a transportation demand management plan. They can pick from a menu of options. to achieve a point total, so we assign points to certain measures that they can implement. Some of them are physical improvements. Some of them are programmatic measures, like if you're handing out bus passes. If you want, I can give you those measures, but to answer your question, zero parking spaces are required.

Thank you for that. And then I do have a question for the applicant, if he'd like to come down.

Feel free to mediate in the hallway if you'd like. What's that? Feel free to mediate in the hallway if you'd like. Yeah, I know.

That's sort of happening.

Yes, Commissioner. So, yeah, thank you for your presentation earlier. Of course. So, you know, a few of the members of the neighborhood mentioned that you guys didn't meet with the community. Did you guys meet with the community? And if you didn't, then could you kind of just explain why, maybe?

There were community workshops. I don't think I have the dates in front of me of exactly when they occurred, but I know there were. I'm happy to answer that. Sure. So Chris Freeze is with the project applicant team. Go ahead.

Thank you, commissioners. So my phone number and my email are on the sign in front of the site. They're also on my website. I'm pretty accessible. The folks that spoke this evening were not part of the early community stakeholders that represented the residents nearby from my perspective. These are sort of some late voices to the project. A lot of the massing and articulation and things that were under consideration were spoke about during our community stakeholder meetings, the requirement for parking for a Feasible project, the setbacks that we did off of both sides of the project. I'll add this in that I've personally probably received 40 phone calls from residents of the neighborhood, always taken the phone calls, always listened politely and talked about issues. I'll kind of address the comment that we're not a, reasonable developer. I think we are a reasonable developer. We care about the city of San Jose. I volunteer on the SJDAP bid board. I care, I've done a lot in this city. Care deeply for its residents. I want great outcomes. At the end of the day, Willow Glen needs housing. That's where folks want to live. We talked about equitable. So I just think that that's my comment is that the residents that were the most vocal were immediately adjacent and the residents that were the most In favor of the project, we're less vocal, but not immediately there, if that helps give you some color.

No, no, it definitely does. I appreciate you having your number and your email and such on there. I just think that if you guys would have just met with the community, such as the Willigan Neighborhood Association leaders here, the appellant, David Fox, and other community leaders, it would have just opened up that dialogue that some of that, mediation that you guys are having now, you guys could have had that, had a chance to have that. I mean, I think the appellant's pretty flexible. He's saying that, you know, we understand the units, but such as the lighting or the setbacks, you guys would have had a chance to kind of meet and kind of discuss those prior to this. And also if, you know, if someone, if a community member is asking for we want this and you guys aren't able to provide that, that's okay, then you guys can kind of explain why so the community understands why you guys aren't able to do that. So that's just my two cents. I mean, you don't have to follow what I'm saying, but that's just my verbal opinion. And then also somebody brought up construction. If this was to go through, when would the construction need to be have, like, do you need to set time zones for that or days and whatever?

So as you guys realize that we're not through building permit, right? This is a planning approval and we would still need to complete construction drawings to get there. Our estimated construction schedule is about 18 months. So that's a typical type three project of this size and scale. We have two levels of concrete podium, but that's our estimation for that timetable.

OK, thank you. That's it for my questions for you. And then I do have another question for staff. I promise I'll be quick. Last question. So if the commission upholds or denies the appeal today, what are the next steps? Does it go to, it doesn't go to council, right? Just for clarification.

So, and Danny, you can correct me here. This is the appeal of the director's decision. So if you deny the appeal, which is staff's recommendation, the project is approved. If you uphold the appeal, you can potentially place conditions on the project or deny it outright, if that makes sense.

Thank you. That's it for my questions. I won't make any motions at this time. I'd like to hear what my peers have to say as well. Thank you.

Commissioner Casey, then Commissioner Bickford.

Thank you, Chair. I'll start with city staff and then a couple for the developer. For this particular location, is it in the SB79 area? So if this didn't go forward, then does it actually get encompassed by SB79, and would we then potentially see other properties of this type in this location?

I don't think we know off the top of our head whether it's eligible for SB79. Oh, hold on. We have some staff up there.

You want to get to your next question as we research that real quick?

I can come back to that one then. That's fine. And I guess the follow-up to that is if it would be covered by SB 79, what height would be allowed by SB 79 for this particular parcel? Because obviously right now this is completely out of character for anything in the area. But if SB 79 is going to open the door to additional ones like this, then maybe that has a different bearing. And follow on to that, since the building is kind of out of character for height for anything in the general area, from a safety standpoint, do we have fire coverage with ladders capable of reaching the seventh floor servicing this particular area?

Yeah, sure. So we have an approved fire variance for this project. If you want, I can go through the details of that.

So there's a variance for this. Right, correct.

From a safety standpoint. Pretty typical for any mid-rise building, particularly in areas that are, you know, up against single-family homes or up against other multifamily buildings. If you want, I can go through the details.

Well, I mean, just because I know under builder's remedy, I mean, there's only certain things in which a builder's remedy cannot go forward, and one of them is safety. And so if we did give them a waiver, I'd be curious as to why we would give a safety waiver in this instance.

Sure. So the reason for the variance is actually kind of what David was pointing out. So the backside along Cotenburg is right up against the property line. So a fire department needs like six feet around. So for that back portion, they need a fire variance. So they have fire rated walls up against that back portion, increased sprinkler density, and then they have certain requirements for the podium level to have fire access.

But if they had just put in the five foot or six foot setback, that would have... You got it, yeah.

If they put in a six foot setback, the fire department looks at it totally differently, yeah.

Interesting.

And then from a commercial standpoint, we're so desperate for commercial space. I know we're cutting it from 5500 to 1626. There's no provisions within Builder's Remedy, et cetera, for us to maintain this critical resource in our community?

We don't have anything in Builder's Remedy that requires replacement of existing commercial space, even less so on our own city policies for affordable housing, too.

Okay. And then I guess you can follow up or if you don't have the answer I can take it with the developer. Were there any changes made to this project based upon the feedback from the community or from the planning commission that were substantial? Or was it just this is builder's remedy, we're moving forward, thank you for your input, this is the law?

I would say in general, no. No, not too many changes at all. Minor changes, but the form of the building, the massing, pretty much was the same from the start. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And then I think we can answer your SB 79 question. That'd be great. Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Casey. Jason Lee Planner. This project does not appear to be in an SB 79 area. It looks like the closest station is Tamien, and it's about 3,500 feet away, and it needs to be within a half mile to qualify for SB 79.

Okay, so under no other...

laws going for at this time would a building of this size be allowed in this particular location so yeah i will caveat that a little bit yeah it could potentially qualify just as a hundred percent affordable housing um yeah they need some pretty significant density bonus waivers or a density bonus itself to probably get to this height but not infeasible okay but in this case we're doing 30 percent uh right yeah okay thank you

Commissioner Bickford, then Commissioner Barrosio.

Thank you, Chair. I actually have some questions for the builder. If we could, the gentleman in the green shirt. I have questions for you, sir. A couple of people here this evening have talked about four or five what seemed to me to be relatively small changes, except for the five-foot setback. I know that's a big one. The other ones, putting downward-facing lighting, putting flat roof instead of pitched roof, how difficult are those to implement in the plan for the building that you have now?

I'll kind of take them one by one because I don't think they all go together.

Sure.

I agree with you that the five-foot setback is a challenging redesign for drive aisles and parking to work in our, and one of the earliest comments we got from the community is that parking is a massive problem. And what we plan to do in our, we have two levels of self-parked stalls, but we're planning to add scissor lifts, and basically any person who's living in this building will not park on the street. They're going to park in our project. And that costs space and time and setbacks. So that's one issue. The lighting is a relatively inconsequential issue. So I think we could talk about that as like a condition of approval for something here. I would just say that this was a new concern that came very late to the process. In fact, never voiced to us as the applicant was just voiced an appeal. And so the appeal fee is relatively small versus what the developer has to pay to defend it. And we did hear a lot of things. And so we're happy to kind of make that adjustment, but we're also trying to move forward with a much needed housing project. The soil, I'm not a landscape architect, so I'm going to kind of defer to my team. We have a very qualified landscape architect, Spielberg O'Hara Studio. They go by saw. They've done some of the most beautiful work I've seen in my projects. And so I would like to consult with them before we say, hey, this works or it doesn't. But I don't have a firm answer on that. And I think I'm forgetting the fourth issue here, which was? Yeah, so I think that came from, you know, Jeff Currents here, he's our architect, and it came from comments we heard early on to try to sculpt the massing to not feel so tall. So if you make that structure, like one of the things that we looked at early on, which is maybe we're all forgetting, is we could have built a box straight up. You know, it could have been 12 stories, right? And we chose very much so to sculpt and set back and provide a more expensive project that we think kind of makes it feel less massive to the neighborhood. So the pitch roofs were intentional. And also to kind of go back and adjust them now is a fairly robust redesign. We'd like to kind of push forward on CDs.

I kind of agree with you. I mean, pitch roofs are what most of those surrounding area have, so it would be weird to me to cap a seven-story building flat. But I also believe in listening to what the people in the community are saying and at least ask those questions. I have one other question for you, and it's actually related to parking, because I kind of disagree with your statement. I don't think there's any house in San Jose anymore that has one car. So there will be on street parking and there will be problems unless you've addressed them in the transportation demand management plan. And I haven't heard anything about that. So I don't know if you have that info or I should address that to staff. Okay. Hang on a minute because I have another question for you. Don't go anywhere.

Sorry.

Oh, are you going to? Sorry.

I'm going to pull it up real quick.

Okay, thank you. While he's doing that, did I hear you say that you are willing to consider changes to downward facing lights? And I'm not asking to make it a condition of approval, but I am asking that the people that live in this community I think deserve to have some of your support in keeping their space livable. And I know that 18 months of construction and on-street parking for people is going to be something, but people are going to live in these residences, and we need to make sure that they have a good experience in addition to the people that are already there.

I think I was consistent. We'd be willing to look at that. I don't see a massive issue with the lighting. You ready for TDM plan?

Yeah, please. I'll read it off. You can stop me wherever you like. So these are their measures that they're implementing. So they're providing transit network improvements with improvements to the existing bus shelter that's directly in front of the project site on Willow Street, and that's in coordination with VTA. They also have pedestrian network improvements, so monetary contribution for an in lieu fee for a future class four protected bike lane along Willow Street. That's $144 per linear foot along Willow. A monetary contribution of $6,000 for high visibility back plates for improved visibility of signal heads at Willow Street and Bird Avenue, and then Willow Street and Lincoln Avenue. And then they are installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons at the existing pedestrian crosswalk along the Willow Street project frontage. And then lastly, they have unbundled parking costs from property costs. Do you want me to explain? Okay. That means that when you rent an apartment, you don't automatically get a spot.

So you're going to pay for a parking spot if you decide to get one. Okay. I have one more question, sorry. And this is about the construction management plan that we were talking about during the construction process. One of the speakers asked about how much involvement the community would get. It feels like there's friction between the community and the developer currently and closing that gap and having community involvement in the construction management plan, I think is a reasonable request. Is it something that you're also willing to entertain? Understanding that I can't hold you to that if this gets approved.

Yeah, I think we're happy to listen and work through staging plans and schedules and trying to estimate what this is going to be the impact to the neighborhood. You know, in terms of how we think about construction for that site, it really can't be staged anywhere other than Willow, right? And a job site like this will have some picks and some cranes, and that will kind of be oriented towards Willow, so away from, you know, fortunately the type of construction that it is is not, you know, the worst type of construction out there. We're doing it mostly above grade, We're pouring concrete for the two levels, and then it's framing wood. So it's... Oh, not modular. Okay. Yeah, it's two levels of concrete with wood frame above. So I don't know. There's noise, but I've been standing on Willow, and frankly, car noise is... There's a lot of actual physical neighborhood noise. It's not as... quaint and quiet as we all like to think. I think the other part that I would add to the Commissioner Casey, your comment about commercial space, just to kind of address that. We are struggling to make that commercial space viable and not a nuisance to the neighborhood. So we've been working with the neighbors to mitigate ongoing dumping in our parking lot, ongoing problems with you know, some of the liquor store issues that come with it. So I think it's, there is a, I believe, a net benefit to the neighborhood and the city. Not all commercial space is created equal. I think that 1600 feet is going to be really dramatic and impactful for the neighborhood. And I can picture a lot of people sitting down having a cup of coffee, which is we're anticipating for that retail space versus kind of what it is today. So, yeah.

Commissioner.

Sorry, I just want to close that by making a motion to deny the appeal.

Okay.

Second.

All right, we have a second. Next up will be Commissioner Borossio and then Commissioner Young. Thank you.

Thank you everyone for your presentation and for the community members who've come out. A lot of the commissioners have asked the questions that I've had in my head and thank you staff for your great responses. The only question that I have is perhaps for staff that works in the public works. The first or second public comment mentioned something about a serial report or some report that was submitted late that didn't allow for proper oversight or proper vetting. Is this accurate and can you say more about how that went and is that a typical practice of a report that is seen to have substantial weight on the project to be submitted at that time?

Thank you. Michelle Kimball, Public Works. So the hydraulic model that was prepared for the project and is typical for most development projects is run by our sanitary sewer master plan group. And it takes into account, you know, as built drawings as well as any available data. When that model is run, it's the the capacity for the sewer main information is provided to development services. But the data and all the technical aspects of it that are inputted into the model are not generally released for public viewing. But if there is a request for it, I mean that is something that can be shared.

Okay, so.

Again, it's not a typical practice to have all the information publicly released.

Publicly released. So the information was... the report or the information was completed in advance, but it was just submitted at the time that it was submitted, and then at that time it was available. How would a community member know, one, about that process, right, because it's a very industry insider type of information that, I mean, any person probably wouldn't know that, right? Like, I don't know that. Is that information accessible? And then two, how would one know to ask for that? If it is available upon request, or is it available upon request? And if it is, again, how would a community member know how to ask or when to ask? Why isn't it part of the process of it being a public document? or a public document that's available along with everything else?

Yeah, I think I can just answer generally for like any technical document. I mean, it's just they need to request to review it. It's not like we post every single technical document for every project. Some we do, we're required to post like say for CEQA documents. But just in general, we're not posting every single technical document that goes into a project review.

I'll take, for example, John 2 Division Manager. I mean, you're analyzing can police get to a site. You're analyzing for water capacity to a site. You're analyzing can utilities go to these sites. All that are going to be analyzed by staff before we provide a recommendation. It's just not typical practice that we would dump the base data for all those determinations out to the public. Now, if a member of the public asks us for that, I have a question about emergency response, or I have a question about that. Where did you draw that conclusion? Can I see that data? That's more than likely to happen, but it's just not something we generally flood to the general public. I don't know how, I mean, we can let public know we have this information, but it's not something I would say every project. Just to let you know, we have the base data for all this, if you want to know. It's just part of our normal review.

Okay, thank you. And I think, I hope that that brings some light into how that happened. Thank you.

What's that? Will Commissioner Young go first? Commissioner Young?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank the appellant, Mr. Fox. I really appreciated your reasoned, calm presentation. Couldn't tell you used to be a planning commissioner because that's what we like, right? I also appreciate, oh, I also wanted to say I hope your mom's okay. I know how scary that can be. I'm glad you were able to make it. That makes me think she's probably going to be okay. I also appreciate the developer, his reasoned responses. It sounds to me like he's done everything he can to work with you folks. That's not an easy process because we have lots of different neighbors with lots of different concerns and issues, and I get the sense that he tried to address them the best he can. Mr. Fox, I also appreciate that you walked up and sat next to the developers. That's pretty cool. That's pretty cool. So I just want to address a couple things and then kind of give my feelings about the project. First of all, the legal side of this is clear. There's no question the developer has the legal ability to do the project. There's a reason why the state passed builder's remedy. There's a reason why the state has passed all the building and planning bills that they have. It's because folks like us, and I'm including myself, I live out in District 9 in Cambrian, we don't want change. We don't want anything to change. We just want our single family neighborhoods to stay the same. The problem is that can't happen anymore. And I'll get back to that in a minute. As far as the infrastructure goes, I'm not convinced that there's any problem with that. We had a sewer report. I'm pretty confident Public Works wouldn't have let this go forward. As far as the fire department goes, I'm a retired fire chief. We deal with mid-rise buildings all the time. It's not a problem. There's a sprinkler system. There are stairwells. There are smoke detectors. That's not an issue. By the way, this is a mid-rise building. It's not a high-rise building. So just for clarification on that. But I think the most important thing about this is we need housing in San Jose desperately. And this is the exact kind of housing We need, it includes some affordable housing, quite a bit of it actually. It's in Willow Glen, which is an area that has very little affordable housing. My area down in District 9 needs more mid-rise affordable housing. None of us like change, none of us like a seven story building, I get it, but the future of this city is going to go one way or the other. Either we're going to stay the same and people can't afford to live here, right? So my kids, my grandkids, I'd like them to be able to live in San Jose. They can't. They can't afford the rent, let alone buy a house. And it's a supply and demand issue, right? The more housing supply we can create, the rents are going to moderate. That's the only way we can do it. So, you know, I very much like this project. I'm in favor of it. I see a developer that wants to work with you all. I think he will. And that's why I seconded the motion and eager to see this project go forward. Thanks.

Vice Chair Bickford, then Commissioner Casey.

Thank you. Following on Commissioner Borossio's questions, two things came up for me about the sewer thing. First, Mr., is it Ewell? Jeff Ewell? Yeah. I want to commend you on this exceptional engineering document. It's probably the best analysis that I've seen of a situation like this. So I don't know how you did it. Well, let me say one thing.

I would like to get the details of one of the sewer pieces here.

Yeah. Please come down, because I am directing a question to you. So if you wouldn't mind coming down.

Yes, all of the information is publicly available on the San Jose website. So, you know, I would like to get the sewer report and, you know, work with my lawyer and the people that helped me kind of craft this thing. Basically what I'm seeing is a couple of different things, one of which on the sewer piece, like I said, the 19-foot critical thing.

Sorry, sorry, I'm not asking you to re-give your testimony. I'm going to have it pointed order here.

This gentleman's already had his two minutes.

I understand that, and my only question was, Did he get information from the city website or from the city to Crowley? That's my only question.

I searched for the sewer report, and I think Alec was saying, you can't find it. So basically, I saw the information that is publicly available, and there's no way you could actually do a real report based on that.

Thank you. That was my question. For city staff, Michelle, I'm sorry I didn't get your last name, but my question is, hypothetically, During construction, they do all sorts of tests, right? I'm assuming there's more than one sewer outlet for this building that's being constructed. It's going to connect in multiple places. If they find during construction that there is an issue, would remediation be required?

Yes. I mean, if it's identified that there is some deficiency associated with the specific project, the project would also need to address it at that time. And, you know, those are some of the items that would be reviewed during the implementation stage. Thank you.

Commissioner Kasich.

Thank you, Chair. Following up on something Commissioner Young mentioned that from a fire standpoint, there's nothing, it's in compliance, the law says we must proceed. For the legal team for San Jose, just a question clarifying. We granted a waiver. If I object to us granting the waiver, that's under safety grounds. Is that grounds from a builder's remedy standpoint to not approve it?

I mean, at this point, if we're going to say we want to backtrack against providing this variance, I think at this point it's pretty much too late. I mean, we...

So can we clarify? Yeah, we can... We didn't grant a waiver of variance. It's not a waiver. This is a fire department process. As they're doing their fire review, they look at the plan and propose on how they're meeting the fire code. And in a lot of cases, if you are deviating from the standards, very typically, the fire department will grant them a variance, meaning... So, okay, we can't get access to the back ladder, then you have to do a fire-aerated wall on this side, additional sprinklers on this side. That's typically not a discretionary action. That's an action by the fire department as an administrative action.

If you think about it like a mitigation measure, right?

Okay. So it's an either or. You either have the five foot setback or if you don't, then you must do this. Right.

We can't say, okay, since this is the condition, then we're just going to use, you know, D2 to deny this whole project and ignore the possibility of a variance. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Barroso.

Okay, so my question is just around the motion. So the motion, the staff recommendation is to deny the appeal. Yes, staff? Yeah? Okay, and then the motion is to deny, to uphold the denial. Okay, perfect. Just clarity around that. Thank you.

Through the chair, if I can clarify, I think the maker of the motion, Vice Chair Bickford, you mentioned to uphold the denial, but do you mean to uphold the director hearings, the director's decision and to deny the appeal? That's right. Correct, thank you.

All right. Uh, before we go to a vote, I just wanted to say, or echo commissioner young's sentiments regarding how this city is changing, right? We can, the city is going to change. It's going to change in the positive. It could stay the same, but the way it's changing today, at least as I see it is we're seeing a lot of our school districts close schools. We're seeing the little leagues, evergreen, random Hills are all closing because of the reduction in children. And a director on one of the neighborhood leadership councils today told me that the closings are her generation's message to the younger generation that they should not have kids. And I think being a father, that really just kind of breaks my heart. So I truly want to ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL BUILDING AND I SEE WHY OUR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS HAVE IMPLEMENTED RULES LIKE BUILDER'S REMEDY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER OLIVARIO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

a facilitated dialogue between applicant and community, but that's no longer the case. The city's general plan allows for an additional 400,000 person population growth in strategic areas of the city that was done with massive community input. And that's where the city had intentions to put housing. But in this case, Builders Remedy goes over that. I'd like to point out for those in the community that are not a fan of not being able to voice neighborhood feedback in a typical process that both the elected state representatives who represent this area voted for all the laws mentioned tonight. And when it comes to affordable housing in District 6, actually it's one of the top districts that's provided the most affordable housing and not too far away from this development site at Meridian and Willow, very near there, are 250 units of housing what we call subsidized low-income affordable housing that will be open at the end of this year.

Thank you, Commissioner Oliverio. Commissioner Escobar.

Unfortunately, I'm going to take it back to the sewer one more time. I was waiting to see if it would get answered before I asked. So we have numerous people that have come forward and said there's a lot of activity surrounding sewer repair, but yet we're being told that the sewer can hold the new load. That's two different sides of what I want to hear of. So what is going on that there's so much sewer repair But yet we can accommodate the new load with this building because that doesn't reconcile with me. So I would think that would go back to a health and safety standard. So enlighten me please.

So some of the concerns that are being raised with regard to maintenance activities that are occurring In the area, in a sense, our existing conditions, those can be addressed through additional maintenance activities, and they're not necessarily due to the project. With regard to the vicinity of the area, I don't know exactly the specifics as to where those maintenance activities are occurring. But, again, you know, as we assess the project for the modeling for the project, we're looking at the area along the project frontage and then downstream of the project. But it doesn't necessarily incorporate the whole vicinity within Willow Glen, just the impacted line associated with the project.

Okay, if we were to find, let's say that the building is fully occupied, and I know this is getting way far ahead, but the building is fully occupied, and now downstream or upstream from the building, it's exasperating an existing issue that's currently recognized and being worked on. Is that something we're looking forward to pay attention to? And if so,

would we then take it back to this developer to say you need to work on this with us at that point you know again if there are additional issues that arise after the project is built technically that would be the responsibility of the city to help address, correct? Because we maintain the sewer mains within the public right of way.

Okay, so once it's built and they're gone, that's our problem as a city.

I mean, if I can phrase it another way, Commissioner, just like how the existing houses on there got an infrastructure built. And they are the ones potentially causing any downstream or any issues. We don't go back to them to fix the pipe. It's the responsibility of the city. And I think that's why the city would do its due diligence to ensure that they right-size and model it because they know that we're on the hook in the long term.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments from any commissioners? We have a motion on the floor. We will go to a roll call vote. Vice Chair Bickford.

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this. I'm voting yes for my motion.

All right.

Commissioner Ambrosio? Just let me clarify what's happening here. So Vice Chair Bickford's motion was for the staff recommendation. So if you agree with the staff recommendation, you're voting yes.

Commissioner Borosio? Yes. Commissioner Bondal? Yes. Commissioner Cantrell is absent. Commissioner Cowell? Yes. Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen? Yes. Commissioner Oliverio? Yes. Commissioner Young? Yes. Myself, yes. The motion carries with 10 yeses and one absent.

to the chair if i can confirm the planning commission's decision is uh... final on this project there is no appeal

Next will be item 5C, SB 79.

While we are moving on to the next item, if folks can please clear the chamber from the previous item. Thank you.

Where's that from?

Through the chair, I'm happy to introduce staff for this item. So the item before you is proposed amendments to our zoning codes in order to implement Senate Bill 79. And in the box we have division manager Martina Davis, planner, supervising planner Aparna, and our project manager for this item who will be presenting, Irina Hourie. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Okay, yes, good evening, commissioners. My name is Rina Horie Ong, and I am here as the project manager for today's presentation on file number PP25-006, Title 20 Zoning Code Update for Senate Bill 79. So Senate Bill 79, also known as Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, is a state bill that was authored by Senator Scott Weiner and signed by Governor Newsom on October 10th, 2025. The provisions of the law will take effect starting on July 1st this summer. In general, SB 79 supersedes local zoning and allows housing on all sites currently zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development within a quarter or within a half mile of certain transit stops and specifies maximum heights and densities that a local jurisdiction may not restrict. SB 79 applies to counties with more than 15 passenger rail stations, and in the Bay Area, this includes Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. SB 79 standards are based on the distance of the housing development to the transit stop. In other words, the closer you are to a transit station, the more height, density, and FAR you are allowed. SB 79 splits these standards based on a tier system. So tier one includes heavy rail transit and very high frequency commuter rails like Caltrain and BART, of which the city has a total of 10 stations. Tier two includes light rail, high frequency commuter rail and bus rapid transit with a dedicated lane like our VTA light rail and BRTs. The city has a total of 46 of these tier two stations and overall we have 56 TOD stops throughout the city. The proposed ordinance includes the implementation for SB 79. All projects looking to use SB 79 have to meet the eligibility requirements. As I had mentioned earlier, the project must be on a site where the existing zoning allows residential, mixed use, or commercial development. For San Jose, this means nearly all zoning districts except for industrial, open space, and agriculture. The table on this slide shows three different distances from a TOD station that dictate development standards with density decreasing with an increase in distance from the station. The standards also vary between tier one and tier two stations. An SB 79 project is subject to different standards based on the distance of the site to the TOD stop that ranges from half mile, a quarter mile, or within 200 feet of a pedestrian access point as established in state law. The densities vary from 80 to 160 dwelling units per acre. The project must generally be a residential mixed-use development with at least two-thirds residential, permanent or supportive housing, or farm worker housing, The development cannot contain a hotel or other type of temporary lodging. The project must include five or more housing units with a minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre or the minimum density required by a city, whichever number is greater. The proposed housing units cannot exceed an average of 1750 net habitable square feet per unit. So in general, this is the livable space and excludes garages, unfinished basements, parking and the like. Projects must also meet prevailing wage, skilled and trained workforce requirements for buildings that are over 85 feet. Planning staff presented a preliminary analysis on SB 79 to City Council on January of this year. At that time, City Council directed staff to designate qualifying industrial areas identified in the city's general plan as employment areas as industrial employment hubs and to exempt non-residential sites within those areas from the provisions of SB 79. city council gave staff additional direction as listed here but for this evening we are bringing forth item one in the proposed ordinance items two through four will be addressed separately SB 79 allows local agencies with more than 15 TOD stops to exempt employment areas within half a mile of a TOD and San Jose has 56 stops. So an industrial employment hub that has a contiguous area of 250 acres designated in the city's general plan on or before January 1st, 2025 as an employment lands area. During the draft and review stage of SB 79, the city helped to negotiate this exemption into the bill. The city's general plan diagram, as shown on the right, has identified existing employment areas highlighted in the blue, and of those lands, staff further identified employment lands that would qualify for the exemption, highlighted in a yellow outline. These include North San Jose, Berryessa International Business Park, Lundy Milpitas Bart, East Gish, Mayberry, and then the south of downtown we have the Monterey Business Corridor, and further south is the Old Edenville and Old Edenville Transit Employment Center. These employment lands are planned to accommodate a wide variety of industry types and development forms, including high-rise and mid-rise office, or research and development uses. Heavy and light industrial uses and supporting commercial uses to respond to the projected demand for each type of industrial land. Significant job growth is planned through intensification of the city's employment land areas, with a major capacity identified for North San Jose with approximately 100,000 jobs. When staff conducted the analysis to identify which employment lands could be excluded based on the criterion SB 79, we found that these five parcels had at least 250 acres of contiguous area of primarily industrial designated parcels. The industrial zoning districts we propose to exclude from SB 79 provisions consist of light and heavy industrial, industrial park, combined industrial commercial, and transit employment center. A total of 2,051 parcels designated as industrial with a total of 4,448 acres are proposed to be excluded from the SB 79 provisions. Zooming into these industrial employment hubs, hubs one through three include North San Jose, Berryessa International Business Park, Lundy Milpitas Bar, East Gish, and Mayberry. They are located to the north of the city, just south of Highway 237, and have sites that are within council districts three, four, and six. Hub number four, the Monterey Business Corridor, is located just south of 280, between Highway 87 and 101, and have sites within council district seven. Hub number five, Old Edenville and Old Edenville Transit Employment Center are located further south, surrounding Monterey Road and Blossom Hill Road. These sites are within council districts two and 10. The city's overall land dedicated specifically to jobs is small. And with SB 79, this bill would make most of the city's industrial land open for residential development. So the proposed amendment will protect what we can to ensure we retain land specifically for jobs. Parcels zoned for industrial uses provide crucial employment opportunities across education and professional levels. allowing community members an access to a wider variety of jobs in addition to San Jose's parcels that are dedicated to commercial office and retail uses. Also, the preservation of employment lands supports job growth at planned and existing regional transit stations. If the city were to allow SB 79 residential development on these identified industrial employment lands, these actions could significantly diminish revenue to the city or significantly increase its service costs to the city, as there would be no way to significantly make up for it anywhere else. Our industrial lands are primarily privately owned and make a significant contribution to the city's economic development as well as fiscal sustainability. North San Jose is the city's largest employment district, home to many important tech companies and a key growth area for the city. The city's general plan designates a growth capacity of about 100,000 new jobs and 32,000 new housing units to further its development as a regional employment center. The industrial designations in this area support uses like tech offices, research and development, and advanced manufacturing. More notably, North San Jose includes sites with residential general plan designations as well as residential overlays denoted in the housing element. So, applicants with a property that have a residential GP designation or residential overlay can propose a housing project using SB 79. Looking at areas at International Business Park and Lundy Milpitas Park, one of the key characteristics of these employment areas is that they collectively have about 94% designated industrial uses. Some of the key industries in this area include companies that work on digital services, scientific equipment, ceramics manufacturing, and similar industries. East Gish in Maybury is home to a large amount of heavy industrial sites, such as automobile parts manufacturing, contract supplying, and services that require heavy mechanical equipment that would not be conducive around communities due to their nuisance or hazardous characteristics. Monterey Business Corridor, surrounding Monterey Road, which was a historic thoroughfare and former gateway to the city's urban core, this led to the growth of the area as an industrial center, which it remains today. This area is categorized by light and heavy industrial, which provide much needed employment opportunities, particularly for middle income blue collar jobs. For Monterey Business Corridor, there are at least 92% industrial GP designations within this employment area, all of which are light or heavy industrial or combined industrial commercial. Just as we have done for Hubs 1 through 3, the handful of these industrial designated parcels that overlap with SB 79 transit buffers will be excluded from SB 79 provisions. One of the unique aspects of Edenville is that it is home to IBM's first West Coast site with a campus that was built in 1957. Over time a lot of major industries were established here such as Western Digital who actually retained a significant portion of the site. It is also home to a lot of other unique and important industries like companies that make medical and surgical products. and looking back when the city initially looked at preserving potential employment lands during the creation of the city's current general plan the task force argued that selective industrial development within the edenville area would generate revenues to support city services and support a reverse commute pattern to make better use of existing transportation infrastructure by placing job growth in the southeast portion of the city Retaining employment uses within Old Edenville and Old Edenville TEC will contribute to the economic resiliency and future opportunities of industry in San Jose. For Old Edenville and Old Edenville TEC, these identified employment lands have at least 91% industrial designated parcels and will be excluded from the SB 79 provisions. As mentioned earlier, the land throughout the city dedicated to jobs is small. And with SB 79, this bill would make most of our industrial land open for residential development. So the city must protect what it can to ensure retention of land specifically for jobs for now and for the future. The timeline for this update is to proceed to City Council hearing on March 17th, 2026 with a second reading on March 24th. Planning staff will submit the ordinance to HCD for review on March 25th and once again SB 79 will be in effect by July 1st, 2026. Staff have received three public comments for this proposed ordinance. Please also feel free to visit our planning webpage on our zoning ordinance updates at the link shown here. And we are proposing to take this with your recommendation to city council. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you so much for your time. Staff are now available to take your questions.

Commissioner Bundle. Oh, I'm sorry, do we have public comment on the item? Roland, Lebrun, and Roberts work?

Okay, there we go. So can we maximize this? Okay. I'm not sure what's going on here. So this is where, okay, there we go. So I'm going to talk to you about a precedent. Next slide, please. Oh, I do that. There we go, oops.

Okay, this is not going well.

Okay, basically what I want to talk about is the I-Star parcel and what happened there, and this commission back in 2014, actually changed the zoning for that parcel to generate funding for the Avaya Stadium. And it really had severe impact on us. So this is straight from Gemini. Ask Gemini what happened here. And that's what Gemini said. So it's been done before, but they didn't just make $80 million. They bought it for $5.1 million and sold it for $102.3 million. That's not included in the cost goal. Okay, there we go. So that's what happened to the ADP. That's what the Planning Commission did. They moved the 32 acres of residential from area two to area five, so the square at the bottom, that's the VTA light rail, and I start as a parcel on the other side of the freeway. And then they moved one million of R&D down to our side. So I got the date of the planning commission when this happened, and the city council, the videos are gone. Actually, you watched the video a month ago. It's gone now. All the materials are gone. And what I'm saying, my last slide, is I'm asking staff to comply with SB 79 by restoring the 32-acre housing element in Area 2 back to where it was, which was around the Santa Teresa light rail. The collateral damage of what they did to us, our neighborhood associations at the bottom, is incalculable. This is not industrial land. They've got RV parking, tiny homes, and God knows what else. There are no jobs there. Thank you.

Thank you. Robert Swart and then Mike Sodergren.

I'll just wait for the timer. Timer.

Should I proceed? There we go.

Good evening members of the Commission. My name is Rob Swirk. I'm a principal planner at VTA. Thanks for the opportunity to speak briefly on this item. VTA has been following the SB 79 rollout process very closely and is interested in continued dialogue with cities about their SB 79 implementation plans. VTA staff has been meeting with City of San Jose staff on this topic as well as related topics including the general plan for your review. VTA submitted a comment letter which is included in the online packet but I'd like to highlight a few points here. First, VTA strongly supports land use policies that enable mixed use, mixed income development on these scarce lands near high capacity transit. We are concerned that the proposed industrial exemption would limit the ability to deliver these kinds of outcomes at VTA's Santa Teresa and Cerrone transit oriented development sites. By precluding residential uses, the exemption would prevent the type of mixed use development that's necessary to fully realize the benefits of TOD on these sites. VTA encourages the Planning Commission and the City Council next week to direct staff, city staff, to continue working with VTA to establish a residential overlay or a general plan designation change to allow mixed-use development on these two TOD sites. VTA is more than willing to work with the city on a development approach that would balance housing production with providing a considerable employment capacity on these sites. Alternatively, the Planning Commission and Council could direct staff to remove these two VTA-owned properties from the proposed industrial exemption. Regarding non-VTA-owned lands within one-half mile radius of the Berryessa and Milpitas BART stations, if the city ultimately adopts the industrial exemption in these areas, VTA strongly encourages the city to adopt policies that intensify industrial and commercial densities within these areas, such as establishing floor area ratio minimums This would complement the substantial transit investment that has happened in these areas. And we're happy to meet with city staff to further discuss. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hi, Commissioners and staff. Preservation Action Council of San Jose, Mike Sodergren speaking. We have been tracking SB 79 for some time now for reasons directly related to our concerns about historic properties, but we specifically never argue against housing. So we are in favor of what staff has put forward as a recommendation, yet with the VTA stuff withstanding, to preserve our employment lands. It wasn't that long ago that we were definitely concerned and envious of our neighbors all around us that San Jose was providing the housing. We were the bedroom community for all of the industries. I don't think the issues have gone away in terms of supporting our fire, our libraries, our parks, our police, by magically SB 79 allowing us a carve-out, an exception for employment lands. So I would support staff, staff's recommendation. They've done a brilliant job with very little time. define these overlay areas and to specifically pick out the zones that should be preserved for employment purposes. But it is an opportunity, I think, to make sure that we send a message back to our state that local autonomy, local authority, local decision making is really important for housing as well, but definitely for employment lands. So thank you very much.

NOW MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION IF THERE ARE NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER BONDAL.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AS WELL. I SEEN THE TIMELINE FOR HCD AND WHAT TIME WE NEED TO GET IT TO THEM BY AND HOW THERE'S A STOPPAGE ON THE WAY TO CITY COUNCIL BEFORE WE'RE DOING THAT. IF HCD WAS TO REQUEST ANY CHANGES OR FIND A NONCOMPLIANT, THEN WHAT'S THE PROCEDURE? HOW DOES THAT WORK OUT?

Thank you, Martina Davis, division manager, planning. So if they were to deem it noncompliant, they would have to tell us why, and we would have an ability to make additional findings, either change the ordinance or make additional findings saying, no, we do believe this is in compliance and this is why. From there, HCD can decide to, you know, agree with our findings or start enforcement actions. So basically we would almost have our own appeal to ourselves, you know, saying, yeah, no, we uphold our decision or based on your feedback we're going to change it and then HCD can kind of decide what to do with that.

And then a VTA member mentioned that the VTA lounge, did you look into that or did you guys take on that?

Yes, we've been having conversations with VTA about those lands, and we are happy to continue those conversations about those lands. We do understand VTA has a strong desire for housing development in these areas, so we're happy to continue to talk to them about a path forward for those sites.

Cool. My take is, you know, I believe in protecting and preserving the land for our job opportunities is essential for the growth of any city, the city of San Jose, our city especially, you know, we're known as a bedroom community because we've tossed over so much land towards single-family homes in the past, and we haven't preserved enough. Yeah, we are envious of our neighboring cities. So many people go there to work. I CAN START NAMING. THEY'RE ALL AROUND US. BUT WE'RE STUCK IN THAT CITY PHASE WHERE WE'RE SUPPORTING THE BEDROOM FOR THEM AND THE HOUSING FOR THEM. SP 79 IS A STATEWIDE BILL. IT'S NOT SPECIFIC FOR SAN JOSE, BUT I APPRECIATE SAN JOSE STAFF FOR Jumping ahead and kind of preserving those The Employment land that we so much desperately need so I commend staff for that. This is a necessary step I thank you for taking it. I'll be supporting the change to the title 20 tonight and Agreeing with the staff recommendation. Thank you, but I won't make a motion.

Yeah, I want to hear what peers have to say We'll go to Commissioner Oliverio then Commissioner Barroso

Thank you, Chair. I'll just simply make a motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Do we have a second? Second. Second by Casey.

All right.

On to Commissioner LaRosio.

Thank you. Thank you for your report, very detailed. Would you be able to talk a little bit about what was mentioned by the first public comment in terms of a little history of what happened in terms of the swap of the 32 acres and is it possible for that to happen? Just for clarity and for the benefit of the commenter, thank you.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I don't know, none of us know that specific project well enough to be able to speak to it. I can speak a little bit more broadly on that I-Star swap with regards to the earthquake stadium. I do believe that originally did start before 2014. I suspect the 2014 action was just kind of part of something that had already happened. But yeah, under our old general plan, it was not as strong on preserving employment lands. And so that kind of I-Star exchange to let that industrial property turn to housing in exchange for an extraordinary benefit, that was a policy framework that had been developed under our old general plan after we saw a lot of industrial conversions. So at that point, we did allow that conversion with exchange for it would help fund the earthquake stadium, and we have an earthquake stadium now. I am not aware of any further swaps with regard to other things in that area. I will say that bigger picture conversion with regard to that I-Star property was under our old general plan, which really wasn't as strong on the industrial preservation at the time.

Okay, and just to follow up a question, is that just a situation that happened that closely relates to SB 79, or is this just something that's not even in the realm of SB 79 in terms of being close to transit? Is it just some sort of confusion about maybe they're closely related, but really we're talking apples and oranges. Like that process of flipping back and forth, it's really not an SB 79 thing.

It's somewhat related, if I understand the speaker, in that, you know, according to him, that property was designated for residential at some point, and it got changed to industrial. And if, without this exception, under 79, it could effectively go back to residential and be developed as residential. So I think that's what the resident is, or some resident, the person is asking is, don't exempt that property from SB 79 so it effectively goes back to residential. THE RESIDENTIAL THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST SO I THINK THAT'S HOW IT'S RELATED BUT YOU KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE ANALYZED BECAUSE IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY NOW AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO PRESERVE OUR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BICKFORD. VICE CHAIR BICKFORD.

THANK YOU. I'm in District 4 in North San Jose and it feels like, this is a huge volume, it's the largest set, and it sort of, when I look at it, it casts that entire area as zoning for industrial that wouldn't even allow mixed use residential in the areas that are on transit corridors. Do I have that right?

So North San Jose actually has a mix of planned for intense job growth because of the transit proximity as well as we are proposing a lot of housing in that area. So if you look at the North San Jose map, you'll see we're not proposing to exempt a number of sites that have housing overlays or underlying designations, right? So yeah, so North San Jose is very much a mix. And one of the things I'll always say is that if the train just goes from apartments to apartments, what are people taking the train for, right? So it is important for us to plan for both intense jobs and housing up there.

In your presentation, do you have that diagram that actually shows, because all I could really see was an entire block moved to industrial and holding for only industrial use, and that was concerning to me. I'm thinking about specifically some of the corridors and places where it would make sense to put large volumes of housing that would then be able to serve the businesses. Like there's a data center and a second harvest food bank being built there, and there's not any housing around it to support the people that are going to work there.

Can I just pull up the North San Jose map, please? Yeah, and just speaking to the North San Jose policy, so it is very much a balance because you're absolutely correct, right? The whole North San Jose area development policy that we had was about creating that balance in North San Jose so that there is residential to support the housing. Now, that said, I do want to remind us that North San Jose is a very important employment area. for the city. And the more housing you introduce to it, the more difficult it actually is for that industry to sustain. You know, industry sometimes does have, you know, hazardous materials. It changes the land values as well. So, you know, I would agree housing near transit is very important, but in North San Jose, it is also a very important employment area. So on this map, the blue is transit employment center, so that is the planning for intense employment growth. They could build office high rises, for example, research and development, manufacturing, that kind of thing. The sites with the residential overlays, you'll see them in that hashed pattern. And then you'll see there are a number of sites that have a residential underlying designation, and they're kind of sprinkled through North San Jose. Those sites have been chosen, again, as ones that we think would be suitable for housing and not as likely to impact the industrial ecosystem up in North San Jose. So when we do plan for housing up there, we're very thoughtful on the sites that we plan it for.

Yeah, actually, this diagram helps quite a bit. Thank you very much.

All right, if we have no other comments from the commissioners, we can go ahead to a roll call vote. Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barrosio. Yes. Commissioner Bondal. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell is absent. Commissioner Cowell.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey. Yes. Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young? Yes. And myself is a yes. So the same vote as all the others tonight. Ten yes and one absence.

Who's the seconder?

The seconder was Casey. Okay. On to agenda item number six, referrals from the city council, boards, commissions, and agencies.

No referrals.

And... Agenda item seven, good and welfare.

Yes, I do not have any reports under good and welfare for items seven B and D, but I do have a quick report on the city council items. So next week on March 17th, the council will be considering these SB 79 ordinance amendments that the planning commission just announced. recommended approval of. But in addition, the council will also be looking at historic resource protections and specifically how SB 79 affects historic resources and how those resources may or may not have adequate protections under new sequest streamlining bills such as the AB 130 state legislation that was effective July 1st. So that's coming up next week. And then March 24th, the City Council will be considering the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. And if they approve it, staff will be sending that on to HCD before April 1st. On item C, Commission calendar and study sessions. So our next meeting for the Planning Commission will be on March 25th. We have one big item lining up for you. It's another Builders' Remedy project, but it is associated with an environmental impact report with significant and unavoidable impacts. So the planning commission will consider that item and make a recommendation to council because that project will require an override if it is to move forward. And then on April 8th, we also have a couple of items lining up for that meeting as well. And also on March 25th, we'll have the deferral item that was just deferred today. Thank you to the task force for a really good conversation last week on continuing our efforts on the general plan for your review around missing middle housing. I am excited to share that our next task force meeting will be on April 1st and that'll be focused on the second conversation around residential capacity, but also we'll be talking about jobs and employed residents ratio at that meeting.

thank you anything for the commissioner bundle yeah it's a good question you said ab120 ab130 thank you anything for the public record not the meeting is adjourned at 8 49. thank you good night

Thank you.

We'll be right back.