San Jose Planning Commission Meeting - May 14, 2025

This meeting of the San Jose Planning Commission, held on May 14, 2025, began at approximately 14:30 hours and was chaired by Anthony Tordillos. The commission considered two privately initiated general plan amendment requests (Ketman Road and Winchester Boulevard), heard extensive public testimony, and made advisory recommendations to the City Council. A consent calendar item was approved, and a report on the upcoming General Plan four-year review was provided.

Consent Calendar

• The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the April 22, 2025 meeting (7-0-2, with Commissioners Bickford and Oliverio absent).

Public Comments & Testimony (Items Not on Agenda)

• Brian Darby: Expressed that decisions made by the commission affect people's homes and memories, feeling that community voices are not heard. He urged the commission to consider that homes represent more than economic value.

Discussion Items: GP24-010 (3630 Ketman Road)

• Staff Recommendation: City Planner Laura Maurer recommended denial of the general plan amendment from "Lower Hillside" to "Rural Residential," citing inconsistencies with the Focus Growth strategy, hillside development restrictions, high VMT area, and geologic/seismic hazards. The site is 8.29 acres, currently has one single-family home, and the proposed amendment would allow up to 13 single-family residences (10x the current density).
• Applicant (Van Tihun): Arguing that the current "Lower Hillside" designation is inappropriate because the site is well within the urbanized area, the applicant requested the commission approve the amendment, asserting that the proposal is consistent with the city's housing goals and the Housing Accountability Act.
• Public Testimony (Speaker cards submitted; multiple speakers):
  • Pat Brooks (retired City employee, Twin Falls Court resident): Opposed, citing geologic hazards, historic landslides, flood risk (observed flooding at Ketman and Casey intersection), traffic impacts, loss of 204 trees, and high VMT.
  • Amanda R. (D8 resident): Opposed, stating the site is a hazard (landslides, flooding) and she gathered 80 signatures from neighbors opposing the plan.
  • Robin Banks (adjacent property owner): Opposed, noting three earthquake faults on the property (preventing an ADU), four fires since the new owner took over (one within 50 feet of her home), and lack of response from the developer regarding fire clearance.
  • Kirsten Pantoha (SJSU student, neighborhood resident): Opposed, raising safety concerns for children playing in the court, increased traffic, noise pollution, and lack of community engagement by the developer.
  • Moses Rodriguez (adjacent court resident): Opposed, citing environmental impacts (protected red-tailed hawks, tree loss), increased landslide/flood risk, and existing low water pressure in the area.
  • Dean Wynne (developer): Supported the project as a much-needed housing addition.
  • Feed Int (nearby resident): Supported, noting the area lacks housing (small homes costing $1.4M) and that development would bring more affordable options.
  • Stephen Tian (neighbor): Supported, noting the site is overgrown, a fire hazard, and that development would bring cleanup and reduce fire danger.
  • Chris (retired UPS driver, 30+ year resident): Opposed, citing flooding from the man-made hill (Sequoia Creek) and fissures on the slope.
• Commission Deliberation:
  • Commissioner Bendal (D8) noted the site is in a geohazard/seismic hazard zone and high VMT area, and stated she would not support the project due to inconsistency with General Plan 2040.
  • Vice Chair Cantrell questioned the applicant about affordable housing options, fire/flood mitigation, and fiscal impacts. Staff noted the city's general fiscal analysis shows most residential development is fiscally negative, especially lower-density projects.
  • Commissioner Young asked staff to respond to the applicant's assertion that the lower hillside designation is inappropriate; staff noted many similar properties exist within the urban growth boundary and that the site is on a hillside with landslide issues.
• Outcome: The commission voted 8-0-1 (Bickford absent) to approve staff recommendation, i.e., to deny the general plan amendment, with Vice Chair Cantrell making the motion and Commissioner Bendal seconding. The recommendation will go to City Council.

Discussion Items: GP23-011 (826 North Winchester Boulevard)

• Staff Recommendation: City Planner David Fong recommended denial of the general plan amendment from "Neighborhood Community Commercial" (NCC) to "Transit Residential" (TR), citing fundamental inconsistencies with the Focus Growth strategy, loss of employment land, incompatibility with adjacent single-family homes (proposed 17-story tower adjacent to 1-2 story buildings), high VMT, and lack of proximity to regional transit.
• Applicant (Kelly Arardi, VCI): Requested the commission allow the process to continue, stating the site currently has a vacant office building (no jobs) and the proposed project would bring 135 housing units (20 affordable), jobs, and tax revenue. The developer noted they were halfway through the EIR process and wanted to continue community outreach.
• Public Testimony (Speaker cards submitted; extensive testimony):
  • Brian Darby (resident): Expressed concern about 17 stories on the site but admired the developer's commitment to housing; suggested a lower height (e.g., 4 stories) as more appropriate.
  • Lindy Hayes (Concerned Corey Neighbors): Opposed, citing liquefaction zone, former gas station (contaminated soil), developer's lack of experience (referenced abandoned Delmas Village project and pending lawsuit).
  • Ihor Studovich (resident): Opposed, noting nearby apartment complexes are only 4 stories tall and the area is already dense with over 1,000 apartments within a mile.
  • Jake Wilde (former NAC president): Opposed, raising concerns about liquefaction zone risks (referencing the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake), buried contaminants from former gas station, and deep drilling risks.
  • Rigo Gallardo (carpenters union): Supported, provided the developer uses responsible contractors with good wages and training opportunities.
  • Bill Deedy (45-year resident): Opposed, calling the 17-story tower inappropriate for a single-family neighborhood, citing traffic and safety concerns for senior citizens crossing the intersection.
  • Alex Shore (Catalyze SV): Supported, arguing that opposition is NIMBYism and that the project is a test of whether San Jose will evolve into a dynamic 21st-century city.
  • Michelle Hittleman (neighbor): Opposed, citing 70 cars needing on-street parking daily, pedestrian safety issues, and dangerous traffic backups at the intersection.
  • Craig Tomasello (22-year electrician): Supported, citing job creation and potential for improved transit.
  • Sarah Noto (resident): Supported, repeating a quote from a missing neighbor: "Don't let NIMBYism put up roadblocks."
  • Kevin Golden (30-year homeowner, Woodland Ave): Opposed, citing loss of afternoon sun, increased traffic/parking on Woodland Avenue (a cut-through), insufficient parking (110 spaces for 135 units), and lack of transit.
  • Renee Ayho (resident): Supported, arguing the city needs housing to remain inclusive.
  • Atika Sajid (local realtor): Supported, citing the building's green energy features and economic benefits.
  • Alan Rosendez (young professional): Supported, citing affordable housing for young adults.
  • Bianca Valors (business owner): Opposed, stating the 17-story tower would shade her garden, killing endangered plants and wildlife, and that the City of Santa Clara is opposed.
  • Chris Sarbach (neighbor): Opposed, arguing the TR designation is overly permissive (21st out of 26 districts with least restrictions) and that the project would set a precedent for similar development in every neighborhood.
  • Greg Carlson (senior underwriter, Corey neighbor): Opposed, stating the developer said they would not compromise on height and claimed a traffic study showed no impact (which Carlson disputed).
• Commission Deliberation:
  • Commissioner Oliverio (former councilmember) strongly supported staff's recommendation to deny, emphasizing the importance of the General Plan and planned growth. He noted the project was never planned and that City Council could consider it in the next General Plan update.
  • Commissioner Rosario made a substitute motion to deny staff recommendation (i.e., allow the process to continue), seconded by Commissioner Lardnois. He argued the city should be more aggressive in building housing.
  • Commissioner Lardnois spoke in favor of continuing, noting that the developer had shown willingness to adjust the project height and that the project addresses a genuine housing need.
  • Vice Chair Cantrell expressed openness to continuing the conversation.
  • Commissioner Young opposed, arguing the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and that the commission should not circumvent the planning process.
  • The vote on the substitute motion (to deny staff recommendation) resulted in a 4-4 tie, failing (Ayes: Young, Rosario, Lardnois, Cantrell; Nays: Oliverio, Brosio, Bendal, Tordillos; Bickford absent).
  • The original motion (to approve staff recommendation) also resulted in a 4-4 tie, failing (Ayes: Oliverio, Brosio, Bendal, Young; Nays: Rosario, Lardnois, Cantrell, Tordillos; Bickford absent).
  • The commission took no subsequent action, effectively allowing the item to move to City Council without a recommendation.

Key Outcomes

• GP24-010 (Ketman Road): Denied by the commission (8-0-1) to recommend denial to City Council.
• GP23-011 (Winchester Boulevard): Motion to adopt staff denial failed 4-4; motion to reject staff denial also failed 4-4. The item will proceed to City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
• The Planning Director announced that the General Plan four-year review will be initiated, with the Planning Commission acting as the task force for study sessions (estimated 4-6 sessions). The memo will be released the week of May 19, 2025.
• The meeting adjourned at 9:36 PM.

Notes

• The meeting was held in-person at San Jose City Hall. Quorum was established with 7 members present (2 absences).