Good evening, everyone.

My name is Carlos Rosario.

I'm the chair of the Planning Commission.

Welcome to this evening's Planning Commission meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine is for the garage underneath City Hall is located at the rear of the chamber.

Following roll call, during the summary of the hearing procedures, we will review how the public may provide comment during today's session.

At this time, if you're able, please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

We can go through everything and see if somebody comes through.

All right, we'll now move on to roll call.

My name is Carlos Rosario and I am here.

Uh Commissioner Bickford.

Here.

Commissioner Barroso.

Absent.

Commissioner Bondal.

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Here.

Commissioner Olivario.

Commissioner Young.

Is not here.

So we have one, two, three, four, five in attendance, which is not quorum.

Is that correct?

Correct.

We have less than a quorum, but we can still move forward with deferrals.

But once we get to taking action on consent calendars and general plan early consideration, we will not be able to take action.

Okay.

And it's my understanding that one of the commissioners will be 15 minutes late to the meeting, so hopefully they're here by then.

Um I want to uh remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers may not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission, staff, and the 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.

First, I would like to note that there will be a small change in tonight's planning commission meeting.

I was notified that agenda item number seven on tonight's agenda.

Close the general plan calendar is not needed at the end of any early consideration items.

Therefore, after the two general plan items are presented and voted on, we will move straight to agenda item number eight, referrals for the city council, boards, commissions, or other agencies.

All right, now for the summary of hearing procedures.

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 in the basket.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

The procedure for this meeting is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants and or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out the names on 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 change depending on the number of items on the agenda, the 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 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 public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

If you choose to challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to only raising 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 action on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 212400 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 council in accordance with section 2010 220 of the municipal code.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed on the city website.

All right, moving on to public comment.

This is time for the public to comment on the planning commission to the planning commission on non-agendized items.

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 to 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 items not on tonight's agenda?

Good evening, Chair Manira Sandir, Deputy Director of Planning.

Um I have one comment from Kat Powell, but it doesn't list the agenda item.

Are you here to speak on public comment?

Okay, thank you.

Then there are no public comments.

Okay.

Um are there any scheduled items for this hearing for which deferral is being requested?

Yes, there are.

So we have one item uh that is requested for deferral.

It's um PP25-004, which is an action item to adopt an ordinance of the City of San Jose, amending various sections of Title 20, part 16 of the San Jose Municipal Code uh related to temporary uses of outdoor pro private property.

Uh this item is being requested to be deferred to the September 10th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting for staff's request.

Uh my understanding is that this item is a joint collaboration between the Office of Cultural Affairs and Planning Building and Code Enforcement, and we are still developing some nuances in the ordinance, um, and thus this deferral is being requested of the planning commission.

Thank you.

Do we need quorum to take a vote on this?

So, Chair, um a motion should be entertained to defer this to a date certain, and it looks like staff is recommending September 10th as the date.

Um, but we do need a motion to and a vote of the majority of commissioners present to defer.

Okay.

Do we have any requests to change the suggested deferral date or a motion to proceed?

Um I would like it if we moved it to the meeting after the 10th of September, um, but only because I'm not going to be here on September 10th.

All right.

Would you like to make a motion to that effect?

I I would like to make a motion for the deferral and moving it to the meeting subsequent to September 10th.

And perhaps staff can give some clarification if anyone is available to give such clarification on whether or not the the next meeting, what date the next meeting might be held.

Uh the next meeting would be September 24th.

That would be my request.

All right.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um discussion?

Or would you like to we can move on to a vote then?

Uh Vice Chair Vickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso is absent.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantral is absent.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Olivario is absent.

Commissioner Young is absent, and myself is a yes.

So with five yeses, the motion passes.

Do we have any other items to defer today?

No further items.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we can move on to the consent calendar, but we cannot vote on it.

Is that right?

Right.

We can if you want to move that to later and we can start the public hearing and just go through.

Can't take action until you have a quorum here.

So we can go through everything.

Listen to staff.

Okay.

Listen to public comment, etc.

We just can't take so maybe just skip consent calendar for now.

Okay, so because we don't have quorum and we can't take action on items right now, we will skip ahead to the public hearing.

Uh staff is asked that we reverse the order between 6B and 6A.

Um is that still the case given that we cannot take action at this point?

Chair Rosario, I think the 6A and 6B can move forward as agendized.

Um I don't think we're proposing to change the order of the two uh items.

Um however, as noted um by the city attorney's office, they cannot be in action on it unless we have quorum.

Uh but the staff is prepared to present on both those items, um, and I believe the applicants are also here to present.

Okay, let's move on to item.

Let's go to item six A is on the agenda.

Um this is uh BP 2500 two, a privately initiated general plan amendment to change land use transportation diagram designation from neighborhood community commercial to mixed use neighborhood at the northeasterly corner of Emory Street and the Alameda.

And does uh at this point, would anybody like to to disclose any conflicts of interests or ex parte communications?

Nobody um and just to clarify if folks aren't familiar with that term.

Uh if you met with anyone concerning this project or proposal, please uh disclose that at this time.

All right.

Um I met with uh the developer and consultant uh Eric Schaenhauer at the site uh at Emory and the Alameda.

Let's see.

So uh at this time we will have.

Oh, I'm sorry, is there a staff presentation?

Yes.

Thank you, David.

I'll turn it over to you, but before I do that, I would like to note that uh Commissioner Boracio is here, so we do have uh quorum.

Thank you.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

We can we can move forward with the staff presentation now.

All right, thank you, Chair.

This is David Fong with the general plan team in the planning division.

File number GP 25-002 is a privately initiated journal plan amendment to change the general plan land use diagram, land use designation from neighborhood community commercial to mixed use neighborhood on a point nine nine gross acre site located on the north corner of Emory Street and the Alameda.

As part of the application filing, the applicant had requested an early consideration review hearing.

Uh our envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan policy IP-3.11 provides for an applicant of a privately initiated general plan amendment to request the early consideration of their project.

The process allows the city council to decide whether or not to continue processing a general plan amendment before the full review of the general plan amendment is completed.

After recommendation from planning commission, city council can either deny the proposed general plan amendment or direct staff to continue processing the general plan amendment and any other required permits.

The point nine nine gross acre site is a corner lot with frontage on both the Alameda and Emory Street.

The site is currently vacant.

The site is adjacent to a fraternity hall use to the north, a religious assembly use to the south, office uses and single family residences to the east, and as well as office uses, single family residents and a religious assembly use to the west.

This area is characterized as low density neighborhood with mixed current residential and commercial uses.

The few single family residents adjacent to the subject site were built at different times with varied heights and density.

The subject site is not located in a designated growth area.

The closest growth area is approximately 2200 feet to the north at the Alameda West Urban Village.

The subject site fronts the Alameda right of way, which is designated as a city landmark district.

One of the most notable standards is a 40-foot landscape setback for buildings and surface parking from the Alameda.

The existing general plan land use designation of the site is neighborhood community commercial, which supports a broad range of commercial activity, including commercial uses that serve the communities in neighboring areas, such as neighborhood serving retail and services and professional office development.

The proposed general plan land use designation is mixed use neighborhood, which can accommodate a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

However, it does not have a minimum density.

The mixed-use neighborhood designation is typically applied to areas intended for development primarily with either townhouse or small lot single family residences and should be used to establish new neighborhoods with a cohesive urban form.

They also help facilitate new development within an existing area that does not have an established cohesive urban character.

Although mixed use is allowed, the proposed mixed-use neighborhood land use designation does not require any commercial uses for residential developments.

This proposed general plan amendment is inconsistent with general plan with the general plan in two main areas.

First is focused growth.

The focused growth major strategy directs new growth in specifically identified growth areas and strictly limits new residential development outside of these growth areas in order to preserve the quality of established neighborhoods.

The strategy is additionally supported by land use policy 2.3 and 9.17, which restricts development outside of growth areas and limits residential development to the existing land use designation.

Secondly, this proposed amendment is inconsistent with economic development related policies.

The current neighborhood community commercial land use designation is an employment generating land use designation.

The redevelopment of the site under the current GP designation could allow a commercial development of up to approximately 150,000 square feet.

The proposed mixed-use neighborhood land use destination.

Does not require any commercial uses.

Thus, the proposed general plan amendment would convert employment only land to predominantly residential land with optional commercial use.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the housing social equity and diversity goal H1, which seeks to provide housing throughout the city in a range of residential densities to meet the city's share of regional housing needs assessment allocation.

The proposed amendment could allow up to 30 residential units to be built above what is allowed under the current land use destination.

However, the city's housing element has identified sufficient sites to meet the city's allocation through the focus growth strategy and affordable housing policies, among other policies.

Therefore, this project is not required to be used to meet the city's allocation needs.

However, a conceptual site plan for 18 town homes was included with the general plan of amendment application.

If the project is deemed to continue processing, a plan development rezoning conforming to the new general plan designation and a plan development permit application would be required to be submitted.

A plan development zoning would be required in order to preserve the historic character of the area.

The standards of the zoning district would be determined after historic review is completed during the environmental review.

As part of the initial review, staff conducted a preliminary analysis of state housing laws that may facilitate housing development on the site without a general amendment.

Based on recent state legislation and the current zoning district of plant development, which primarily only allows commercial uses, the site likely qualifies for a hundred percent affordable multifamily housing project under Assembly Bill 2011.

AB 2011 allows for a streamlined ministerial process with no secret review.

A market rate residential or mixed use project under Senate Bill 6 may also be ministerially approved, provided all development standards and prevailing wage requirements are met.

A hundred percent affordable residential project is also allowed on the site under the current general plan designation through the use of general plan housing policy H2.9, and such a project may take advantage of state ministerial streamlining laws as well.

Staff also provide analysis on an alternative general plan land use designation that could be supported under current general plan policies.

The mixed-use commercial land use designation allows a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre, which would a max yield a maximum of 50 units on the subject site with a maximum height of six stories.

Commercial space with a minimal floor area ratio of 0.5 is required for residential commercial mixed use projects, which would translate to approximately 22,000 square feet of commercial space.

Staff suggested the mixed-use commercial designation would be a more suitable land use designation for the site as it would support housing while ensuring a minimum commercial components suitable for this vibrant commercial corridor.

However, the applicant explained that they faced challenges in trying to achieve the 0.5 FAR commercial requirement, and the proposed density is the most feasible option for the site at this time.

The applicant also stated they have looked at another commercial uses, residential care facility and determined that it was not feasible as well.

As part of the consideration, staff recommends looking at this site and surrounding areas as part of the general plan four-year review.

The four-year review uh will provide an opportunity to evaluate policies and goals related to housing.

Staff will conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify area outside of the current growth areas to accommodate more residential growth for mixed mid-density housing development.

The surrounding area of the subject site is one area that will be examined comprehensively for a possible change of land use designations to allow for increased residential density.

We will also review and consider amendments to existing policies that currently do not support growth outside of identified growth areas.

Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council to request to amend the envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan use transportation diagram designation from neighborhood community commercial to mixed use neighborhood on approximately 0.99 gross acre site and direct staff planning staff to evaluate the subject site in the context of evaluating the surrounding sites as an area that would allow for residential or mixed use development in the future as part of the general plan for your review.

Thank you.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I've been building in San Jose since uh 1989.

For the first uh 10 years or so, we're building exclusively uh affordable housing.

Uh after that I went off on my own, and since then I've been building affordable housing, assisted living, uh mixed-use podium, and then a smaller amount of um attached ownership, which this is.

I'm here to respectfully ask for your support in continuing the process of the early consideration general plan amendment for the vacant site at Alameda and Emery.

I understand the recommendation is deny is to deny this request, citing the general plan's policy of discouraging the conversion of commercial land or residential use, and they've also suggested that the residential rezoning could wait until the uh next uh four-year general plan update.

But I want to ask why wait.

The need for housing is urgent today.

This land is set vacant for over 60 years, attracting weeds, dumping, and neighborhood problems.

Waiting another four years or another 60 won't make the currently allowed uses any more feasible than they are now.

And I would like to look at the uses that were suggested as potentially feasible.

Uh read retail in office obviously could go there.

Uh the current owners are experienced developers of office and retail, and I actually have a letter from them if anyone wants to see it where they indicated that yeah, if that would they had tried a few times, couldn't get it done.

If that were viable, they'd have already done it.

Um the fact that they haven't tells us clearly retail and office are not realistic options.

Assisted living.

I initially looked at this as assisted living since I've actually built more of it.

I built the uh project across from the Winchester Mystery House and and a few others.

Um that was my initial idea, and I know the model.

Um, but since the pandemic, there have been some changes in how the operators do their um management programs, and they're really looking for larger facilities uh to be able to survive at this point.

And so once we really looked in the facility that would be required, it was going to overwhelm the adjacent historic structures and be out of character with a neighborhood.

Uh the other possibility that a couple of the uh state laws mentioned was affordable housing.

Um I've actually the most of anything I've built has been affordable housing, including uh quite a few projects in district six, and I would have gladly done it years ago if it were possible.

This site is uh not in a difficult to develop area or a qualified census track or a high resource area, and distances from certain amenities.

It isn't that it doesn't check all of the boxes for being eligible for affordable housing financing, it doesn't check any of them.

And the sellers pointed out that in the 50 years that they have owned this project, they haven't had an inquiry from a builder of affordable housing once.

And I I think that speaks to I mean, I've been in that role where I was out looking.

If they haven't heard once, it's because it they can't do it.

Um I actually built a mixed-use project down the street uh next to uh the the Whole Foods, um, which was a podium with uh 50 percent the same designation of uh uh mixed-use commercial, same uh 50 percent FAR of commercial.

That would be 22,000 square feet of probably retail space on this site uh with a podium building up above it, and I'll think that and there just isn't a chance that that's uh um economically viable right now, and the commercial uh giving given vacancy rates would again just not be viable at all.

Um beyond feasibility, context matters.

This section of the Alameda is a registered historic monument dating from the late 1700s.

There are eight contributing historic structures within 200 feet of the site.

Um this is the oldest road in Dortha, California, and I think the historic elements of this neighborhood are lots of areas have historic elements.

This I believe is unique in San Jose in terms of uh what it's bringing.

Um larger scale uses like podium mixed use and assisted living would be uh just out of scale with that sensitive setting.

Um by contrast, the proposed townhouse use uh is the most compatible.

Its scale and architecture type can complement the character of the Alameda seamlessly.

And that is your five minutes for finish.

Um and you'll have five minutes after public comment.

Um anyways, it seems that none of the currently options are feasible or appropriate, waiting four more years, another 60 will not change that.

Um the surrounding neighborhood is residential, the city's greatest need is residential.

This site is actually recognized in the housing element as being a future residential site.

Um the need is great, the land is vacant, the opportunity is here now.

Why wait?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

All right.

And this time we'll do public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

And I will start here.

If you haven't filled out a speaker card and would like to provide comment, uh please do uh submit a card.

All right.

Um first we have Judy McDowell, then Andrew Crockett, and Jeffrey Bedora.

You can make a line behind or however you feel so please state your name for the record.

Okay.

Um I'm a neighbor.

I live around the corner from the subject property, and I'm in favor of changing the general plan designation.

Uh for the 25 years that I've lived here.

Um of the commercial buildings on the Alameda have had either for rent or vacancy signs on them.

So I don't think this location is a viable spot for another commercial building.

Um it's been an attraction for people camping for RV parking and dumping.

So I would like to see housing there.

Um the Alameda has a ton of history going back to the 1700s.

Um maybe some of you have read the book called The Alameda, The Beautiful Way.

It's really interesting, it's written by a local author.

Um, if we could encourage the development which looks harmonious to the rest of this very, very historic area, let's do it.

Attractive single family dwellings, even if they are fairly dense, would fit in the neighborhood.

So I hope that you will vote yes on changing the general plan to mixed use neighborhood at this location.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

The next speaker, Andrew Crockett.

San Jose Planning Commissioners.

I am Andrew Crockett, past president of the San Jose Oddfellows Community Center, located adjacent to the one acre vacant lot with APN number 261284.

And I urge you to support the general plan amendment that would rezone this vacant land from commercial to residential use.

I request this rezoning in my capacity as a responsible steward of the community center.

We would love to have dozens of new neighbors who we can engage with socially from the betterment of our broader neighborhood.

The development of this vacant site as homes will synergize well with the community center as we provide a family-friendly third place for new community members to gather adjacent to such a residential development.

Whereas if the city chooses to do nothing, the probable, almost certain future of the property is that it will continue to be vacant, as it has been for the last 60 years.

Up until this present development proposal, this parcel was generating under 4,000 a year in property taxes.

Shackled to what 60 years of evidence testifies is a non-viable zoning designation.

And now if this acre is developed as residential properties, you would have the opportunity to increase government revenues on this acre by 1,000% and provide homes during a housing shortage as a bonus.

Lastly, speaking in my capacity as a citizen living and voting in District 6.

Where does it zone change?

That is your two minutes.

Thank you so much.

I would be glad to see this long vacant property put to productive use.

You have the opportunity to vote to support fiscally responsible and effective government with this rezoning.

And that's been your two minutes, thank you.

I trust that this development would be further strengthened on neighborhood character.

Thank you for your consideration.

All right.

Next up we have Jeffrey Bedola.

If you could limit your comments to two minutes, it would be appreciated.

Hi, y'all.

Public servants.

Thank you.

Um I uh am from this neighborhood as well.

Uh my dad moved into San Jose in this district in 1963.

The property was vacant then, and we always wondered what was the story.

Um I'd just like to make a uh just a few comments of as to what I heard here.

I had prepared comments, but I don't think it's proper to send them in because you want to wait a little while to think this out.

Um the first thing is commercial usage is ebb and flow.

So you just don't know what is coming down the road.

So that's not that's a uh a questionable uh argument.

And the other questionable argument is is that if you've looked at something for 60 years, it doesn't necessarily follow that hurrying up is the right answer.

Could could be that if you wait just a bit more, that's also good.

I'm neutral on the project, although it's not really defined yet what it would be.

Um it comes down to what, what to build.

And um I would like to know if it's possible to submit some written remarks to your consideration, because I would like to address contextual points that I don't think would pertain to the specific matter under consideration, but but which are important to the overall uh well-being of San Jose as a whole and the region.

So if that's okay, I'll just send you guys some kind of a uh written writing and then we'll just see how it goes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Would it be appropriate to send us written correspondence after this meeting?

It certainly is not something that's prohibited, but they are going to be taking a vote tonight.

So your comments would best be directed towards the city council.

Because this is okay.

All right, thank you.

Next uh let's see, we have Scott Weber, Teresa O'Connie, and Elizabeth Monley.

Thank you very much.

My name is Scott Weber.

I'm a resident of D6 who lives close to the site, who frequently runs through it, runs by it in the area.

Absolutely love San Jose.

I've been here eight years, and I gotta say I'm impressed by this city and the changes that are happening within it.

Um from what I've heard, and uh compliments to the planning commission.

I didn't understand half of that, and I'm a general counsel for a tech company, uh, the amount of detail that goes into these things.

But one thing I do know this has been vacant for 70 years.

I mean, that's crazy.

If commercial use could be put in, it could be put in commercial use, it would have been done.

We drive down the Alameda all the time.

You see signs for lease, for lease, for lease.

Doesn't make sense.

We don't need another O'Malley as somebody who lives there.

We don't need another motel.

What we need is housing.

What we need is housing for families that are trying to get started, families that are able to do market rate, but not able to do a three million dollar house or two million dollar house.

They're doing something reasonable.

And that's something that the kind of investment that also supports the local businesses there, the teeny ties, the lunas, the rositas, the greenleys.

These restaurants need people.

They don't need another empty lot that attracts blight and everything else.

And so while I would honor and I respect the planning commission's duty and diligence, their hands are somewhat tied in the sense of precedent and what they're trying to do.

This fits within the plan, the image, the vision of what do I want?

What do I want as a neighbor and a resident of Singapore?

Or not say I was in Singapore before of San Jose.

Where do I want to see?

What do I want to see thrive?

I want to see my neighbors thrive.

And I would love to see the site go to that use.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Teresa O'Cani.

Hi, my name's Teresa O'Kain.

I was born and raised just maybe less than half a mile from the property.

I live just around the corner from it right now.

Um I think you have a builder ready, wielding, and able to provide housing that would we believe will fit in with the neighborhood.

And I just echo what everyone else said about empty um commercial property up and down the Alameda.

And it is a historic street, it's a beautiful street.

And I I echo what my neighbor said about trying to get your hands on the book, Alameda the Beautiful Way.

Um, and I I believe the developer has um good intentions when it comes to beautifying this neighborhood further.

So I just want to say I I support it, and um, like I say, you have someone ready, willing, and able to put housing there right now when we need it so badly.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I think I'm gonna stop trying to pronounce people's names, but could you say your name for the record?

I'm sorry.

Could you state your name for the record?

Elizabeth Monley.

All right, thank you.

I live in the neighborhood of College Park, and the property at the intersection of Emory and the Alameda has been vacant for I think you said 60 years.

It's been a long year, a lot of time we've lived there, and we even looked into seeing if our council member could maybe help us get it turned into a park.

It's been so vacant.

That didn't get very far.

Um, but at any rate, um it connects the historic Alameda and College Park, one of San Jose's oldest neighborhoods.

Several homes in the neighborhood date back to 1866 when the unincorporated village was established, essentially to serve the University of the Pacific, which sat there.

We in the neighborhood would love to see housing on the site.

But housing that would reflect and honor the nature of that entire community.

The Alameda was made an historic landmark in 1984 to protect the oldest highway in the state of California from further destruction of the historic homes and buildings that sit along it.

Um that were becoming vulnerable in 198 in the 1980s.

Today, some of those homes have been restored as residential properties, and some as businesses with the purpose of working with planners to establish and I'm sorry, I jumped ahead.

And others that we were restored as commercial.

Several years ago, I served on a small committee of residents and business members, business owners, with the purpose of working with planners to establish the Alameda as a complete street.

It's now called the Beautiful Way.

Yes, that concludes your two minutes.

Okay.

Well, I support my support housing.

All right, thank you.

Next we'll have uh Mason Wolf, Stephanie Ligsay, and Karen Lynn.

Hello, my name is Mason Wolf.

Uh, like Andrew Crockett, I am also a past president of the Oddfellows Lodge right there, True Fellowship 52.

Uh I've been a member for six years of that institution, and I've been at the site basically every week.

Um I'd be there tonight if I wasn't here, as a matter of fact.

Uh for that time, the lot, of course, has been vacant, which is the refrain that you're hearing from everyone.

And I really don't understand why.

Every time I would look at that lot, I would just be mind boggled that some of the most valuable real estate in San Jose and one of the most desirable neighborhoods to live in, right there next to Ballermin College, College Park area.

It's it's such a beautiful place and such a waste.

Um, I know that you are probably often haunted by the fact that San Jose became the first city to have an average home median price, uh, not a medium price of over two million dollars.

The townhouses that the developers want to build would be, of course, less than that, a step in the right direction, but more importantly for the neighborhood, um, just getting people in there who would be part of the fabric and um able to participate in the community, patronizing the businesses, riding the buses, attending the school if they have kids with the right age, uh, eating over at the deli, getting their hair cut at the local barber.

There is just a lot of need for more people.

Um, I am quite familiar with walking around passing out flyers.

I'm sure some of the neighbors know the odd fellows very well because of that.

It does not take very many flyers to cover that entire neighborhood.

We are just not dense enough.

Um, anyway, I don't need the full two minutes.

Uh, thank you for your time and thank you for the work that you do for the city.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Ligsey, and I'm the current president of the College Park Neighborhood Association Association.

I speak on behalf of many of the neighbors who weren't able to be here tonight.

Last Monday we had 20 neighbors attend our board meeting where Dan Moncier spoke at length about the potential development.

I, along with our CPA residents, support this project, and that is why we are urging you to vote in favor of the general plan amendment today.

This site has been vacant for a long time, and we are concerned about dumping, camping, substance abuse, and other undesirable activities, all of which have occurred and we've all seen.

And we're concerned because of the current um cleanup happening in Columbus Park, that happening.

Please do something.

There's no reason to wait four years.

The vicinity around this site is primarily residential.

Even the nearby structures that are currently being used as commercial were built as homes on the Alameda.

There are eight historic structures with it in 200 feet here.

The proposed use offers the best complement of the historic context with regards to architecture and scale of the neighborhood.

I've lived here for 25 years, as is many of the people that have spoken tonight.

We've lived here for decades.

There are several historic homes on the architect that the architectural firm Wolf and Higgins, uh, and you can find them in College Park and all along the Alameda, including 10 uh 24 Emory, which is just adjacent and across the street from this property.

It consists, this this neighborhood is Spanish Revival, Craftsman, Victoria Queen Anne, Tudor, Bungalows, and even Colonial.

This eclectic style is indicative of the College Park neighborhood, and we welcome this uh new housing, and we are supportive of that, and we want to make sure that we have it indicative to what our neighborhood is and build on that characteristic of the historic neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh for the next speaker, we'll have uh Todd Perea and Kat Powell.

I'll make this very brief.

I was born and raised in San Jose.

I love San Jose.

I love the neighborhood.

I came back after 20 years.

It's an amazing neighborhood.

That being said, I just want to take out my trash, which is a weird thing to say because taking out your trash is a basic activity.

Shouldn't be a big deal.

In this particular area where this is going up, it is not permitted parking.

And that's not a bad thing.

But it is when there's dumping, it is when there's homeless people that keep coming by, and it is when it means you can't take out your trash.

I live over office 725 Myrtle Street, which means for the past 10 months I've had to battle just to be able to find a place to put my trash.

We've had two homeless encampments.

We have people returning for that.

I've had a legal dumping in my trash can.

And I only mention this because all of these homes going in, people are gonna have multiple cars.

Where are the cars gonna go?

All along Emory, it's already packed full of cars.

I take photos every day seeing these people there.

My big concern, I'm neutral on whether the homes go in.

I think it'd be great to own a home.

I'm a renter, I don't have much in the way of rights.

But when I say this, I'll never be able to afford a home.

But it'd be nice to see other people who can.

My biggest thing of all is please do the proper environmental planning that goes into this.

Please double check on the zoning and more importantly, the traffic.

You play Frogger every time you go across that street, and it's great that you're able to pause the traffic when you can, but these are serious considerations.

And I know that a lot's been done to improve along there, but if more isn't done, you're gonna be putting people at risk, especially if families are going in there.

So I'm glad the neighborhood's in favor of the housing.

I aspire to win the lottery and maybe afford one of the houses coming up, but more importantly, please not just consider the character of the neighborhood, consider the safety and the ability to actually functionally live in these homes.

Because I'm in my area, there is no permit, which is part of the reason why I'm battling it.

So just a thought, please conclude that in your considerations.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We have Todd Perea and Kat Powell.

Good evening.

Uh, I'll keep my remarks brief.

My name is Todd Pereira, and my wife Samet and I have owned and operated Teeny Thai cuisine uh on the Alameda for the last 18 years.

Um before that, we uh operated a uh restaurant uh in downtown San Jose called House of Siam.

So we've been business owners in San Jose for over 30 years.

Uh we love the Alameda.

Uh we love uh operating our business there, our customers, uh, and I can tell you the buzz at our restaurant when when there's talk about this project is 100% positive.

Uh we also know the developer.

He's been very much involved in the community as a volunteer and as well involved in the uh Alamedia Business Association for a long time.

We trust him.

We know that his intentions are right.

Uh the neighbors that you heard spoke tonight, some of them are our customers.

Uh they know what's best for the neighborhood.

Uh I think it's been unanimous.

Um, so it it probably behooves you to listen to the neighborhood and go yes on this.

There's no harm in further exploring this.

Uh as a business owner, this is only good news for us.

We'd love to see more customers walking into our door.

Uh, and that's that's partly what will happen here.

We'll contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood uh from a business perspective.

I've operated this business now for 18 years.

Uh there's a business to our left, the town theater that has been vacant for many years, uh business to our right, our immediate right that has been vacant since I think the last four years.

Ummer is not thriving the way we would like it, but if we can get residents in there, the neighborhood will continue to thrive, and we would love to serve them.

Thank you for your consideration.

All right, the next card I have is from Kat Powell.

Hello, my name is Kat Powell, and I'm also a member of the Odd Fellows Lodge, and I'm in support of the project, just like Andrew and Mason.

I envision the development of a blighted plot in the housing that will bring more community and positive energy.

I love this community and envision the good of the whole.

Yes, for the better of our society.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all the cards that I have at this time.

Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak?

If not, we will conclude public comment and provide an additional five minutes to the applicant if you would like to use it.

Thank you.

We are fully committed to having adequate parking on our project to meet our own need and not further impacting what is already a significant issue in the neighborhood.

Also on the trash, our plan is to have the cans and everything that serviced internally and not know we're we're not looking to just put them all out on the curb on Emory Street.

And it all also relative to the parking, uh we would look to have homeowners association uh requirements that people put their cars in their garage and not just use it for storage and the whole thing.

That's anyways, we we do realize it's an issue in the neighborhood, and we will we want to be sensitive to that and not add to that at all.

Uh the other thing I would just like to point out is the vote tonight.

This is only a continuing process to continue to work out these details of the project.

A no is to just end all discussion of the project and the whole thing.

A yes is just for us to continue talking about it.

It's not actually an approval.

Uh actually, all of the design and stuff goes forward.

So if we could just say yes, can we just please keep talking?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh with that, we will turn it over to the commission.

Let's see.

And we will uh first have Commissioner Casey followed by Commissioners Bondal and Bickford.

Thank you, Chair.

Um one clarification about uh a no tonight is is final.

Uh that's not the case.

A no tonight, uh I think even was mentioned in the city um report that every four years the envision 2040 plan is reviewed, and we're about to start that review in September, so next month, um, which would give us the opportunity to look at this area and other areas holistically and decide if uh the best case is to change the zoning.

So uh not saying which way I'm going at this point, but just to kind of clarify that it's not uh something completely done.

Um one question though, um, for the the city.

Um we're we're starting the the four-year review for the 2040 um envisioned plan.

When would any zoning changes that come about from that review?

I know it starts in September and it goes through June of 26, but when would a developer know of any approved uh zone changes for this particular or areas in San Jose in general?

When would those become effective that they could then develop on based on the new zoning?

Um the full four-year review cycle is anticipated to be about three years.

Where the main review session would start this fall and in the around late summer of next year.

Uh we wouldn't have actual text amendments ready for city council until probably the end of end of 2027.

End of 2027.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um that helps for clarification.

Uh and then just I I thank you for all the residents coming out, and I read all the letters as well.

Um, I mean, we do we do listen, we appreciate you coming out, and obviously there's strong opinions and um I did not meet with the developer.

I have driven by that area many times.

My son went to Santa Clara, I'm very familiar with the area, born and raised in San Jose as well.

Uh and then someone mentioned as well, yes, we definitely have a challenge in terms of the jobs to residence ratio in the city.

We you know, once you give up commercial space, you don't get it back.

That said, we also have a dire need for housing.

Um so it is uh a complicated situation to try to balance and maintain the character of the very unique neighborhood as well.

Um so just acknowledging we we hear all your comments and input.

Uh and uh yeah, we'll we'll make a vote on it later tonight.

Uh but thank you for everyone coming out and providing your input.

Commissioner Bandal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, thank you, city staff for the beautiful presentation, and thank you for the applicant for the project.

And last but not least, thank you for everybody coming out here tonight, the residents and the business owners here and spending your time with us.

So we appreciate that.

Um, San Jose is a bedroom community, uh, meaning there's an exporter of workers.

So more people are leaving San Jose to work outside the city than people are coming inside.

So and commercial businesses overall are key to our city's tax revenue.

So why the general plan amendment, it's sorry, why the general plan is built the way it's built, uh it's for good reason, so I can understand why it's built that way.

But with that being said, I think it's a case by case situation.

And when we take Emory and Alameda, for example, it's been vacant for 60 years, and no business thus far has found it appealing enough to come in and and set up shop, right?

So and also taking into a fact that if town homes are being built here, it's not or no, it's not in the middle of downtown where it'll be odd.

I think it does fit the character of the neighborhood.

And as we heard today, the neighbors like it, the business owners also like it, uh like the idea.

So you know, we are in a housing crisis, so you know sometimes making a decision um and voting can be difficult because what you take if you fulfill what we need now, which is the the housing crisis, we would attack that head on.

But if you looked at it from a hundred years from now, you look back and say, hey, was this the right decision or not?

That's the juggling act, right?

That's why sometimes making these decisions could be a little bit more difficult.

But like I said before, it's a case by case approach, and I believe that in this case the townhomes being built now would be more beneficial than not, right?

It's been vacant for 60 years.

We could wait another 60 years to see what happens, or we can wait another five, or just the economic uncertainty that we have going on right now with so much office space being available, so much of downtown being available.

So you know, I would make a motion.

Actually, I'll I'll wait to make a motion.

Um I would like to hear what Commissioner Vic Vicford would have to say.

Um, but I do support the project.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bickford.

Commissioner Bickford for the record said, don't wait, Commissioner Bandal, because you just forced me to do it.

So uh I want to ask one question before I say anything else.

There was a mention early on in the presentation from staff about the 40-foot setback in this area, and I'm questioning what happens to that 40-foot setback if we rezone to mixed-use neighborhood.

So the Alameda Historic District is sort of memorialized in the PD zoning, and that is where the 40-foot setback lies.

Uh, but during what once the project comes in with a development permit application, uh, it would have to go for environmental review, uh, which includes a historic review.

Uh so staff is recommending a PD zoning uh for the project if it does come in um is decided to continue.

Uh we would recommend a PD zoning to help sort of continue that 40-foot setback uh through the zoning district in the new Silvia district.

Thank you, staff.

And for the developer, what is your plan for that area facing toward the Alameda?

What is the setback that you had in your plan just because we're not knowing if we you know are even going to be considered uh we uh you know certainly haven't completed our design and the whole thing like that.

But if you look at it at our plan, we certainly see the setback, and while I haven't quantified it exactly, because again, we you know wouldn't even know if there's anything to talk about.

Um if you if you know if you uh look at our plan, you can see that we have recognized the setback and we're committed to uh in every way, both in terms of the materials, the setback, um the roof materials, everything like that to matching the historic element of this community.

That's very important to us.

But again, I I I we we haven't worked out all of the civil engineering details at this point, but we're looking to maximize that's a big deal.

I saw your I saw your layout, and it looked like there was a setback, and all I wanted to make sure of is that you were taking that into consideration.

Yes, we can't.

Thank you.

Uh I I would like to say one other thing to the community who came out here.

You go thank you for being interested in your community in your neighborhood and for recognizing that a piece of land that has been fallow for over 60 years, uh that is ripe and has a developer should have an opportunity to be constructed and be useful to the city rather than being a dumping ground.

So thank you very much for taking this interest and being here.

And Commissioner Bandal, I am making the uh recommendation that we accept this proposal, not deny it, and that we carry forward with not waiting another two years to see what's gonna happen in this plot of land and allowing at least the consideration for this project to go forward.

Second.

Okay, would the motion be to recommend that council approve the request?

That's correct.

All right.

Uh next we have Commissioner Barroso.

Perfect, thank you.

Um similar to what my colleague said, thank you for the community's input, but also thank you for staff who who's charged to make sure that the integrity of the general plan and w what's in there is consistent, right?

It's consistent through all districts through all zones, but at the same time, the voice of the community is pretty unanimous in when we get housing, especially in such a um popular well-used route, um, we don't get thoughts like this.

We get traffic, watch out, you know, people are gonna you know uh be in trouble.

And I and I do understand that there was a comment about we just have to be thoughtful about that, but but in terms of the community's input in adopting new new residents, new new um new revenue for for the businesses, I mean something for us to consider.

Um two questions, one for staff and one for the developer.

One is uh it was recommended to to explore AB 2002 and SB6, and I wonder uh the feasibility of SB35, um, which when we met last um it seemed to be another way to fast track housing uh in front of Top Gulf.

So I wonder how does SB35 fit into this and why wasn't that a recommended route?

Um we didn't um specifically call out SB 35 um in this case, although I think someone could come forward with an SB35 project for um a hundred percent affordable on that site.

Right now, that is the only path forward for a site with neighborhood community commercial is for it to be 100% affordable.

Um but we we probably could add some more to our uh uh memo to city council just to outline that that is another sort of avenue for someone who wishes to.

We did focus on more so um policy H-2.9.

That's another policy, but someone could combine that with SB35 if they wish to.

Right, thank you.

Would it be too late to include um some language of mixed income um at this site, or is that totally a developer choice in terms of the price points of each of each um of each unit?

Our recommendation to council is based on the change in the land use and um the way we sort we when we review this um the income levels are not is not necessarily something we look at in terms of general plan policies.

We we generally leave that to the developer for their you know their consideration.

Okay.

So say that at the city council level, they also um see the need to amend now and not wait for the future.

Um would then the project come back to us in terms of a a proposed development, and then at that point, then we can talk numbers in terms of how many units are are for affordable market rates, um, stuff like that.

Is that is that sort of in this hypothetical the way things would go?

So should council um direct us to continue processing the project, the applicant would have to come back and submit a a rezoning and a site development permit.

The general plan amendment rezoning and site development permit would all come together to planning commission for a recommendation to city council.

Um I think um the applicant would probably prefer to hear your thoughts on affordability now.

Um right now, our understanding is it's a market rate project, but um requesting some you know a change from a holy market rate project to some affordable or more than 50 percent affordable, I think it presents challenges to to builders and developers when it's at the point of approval.

Right.

Perfect, thank you.

Um and just a couple questions for the developer, if you don't mind coming back to the podium.

Um the first question is related to this.

Uh down the road if if the path is more clear after city council and our vote, and let's let's continue with the hypothetical that it moves forward in terms of yes, this site could be rezoned, development plans and stuff like that could be submitted.

Um is your intention to keep it all market rate, or is there is there a possibility to do some mixed mixed income price units at different points?

Again, we haven't gotten super far into the design elements of the project because there's sort of no has hasn't, you know, we haven't been encouraged uh to do so.

Um I can say um I I've been in the industry 35 years and um I've built 10 times as much affordable housing as I have market rate housing.

And I'm still on the board of several um service providers and nonprofit, you know, nonprofits, and I still still involved very much in that industry.

So I'm very much an affordable housing advocate, so I will do what I can.

And um, but we yeah, we we haven't analyzed that fully, but again, I've built far more affordable than market rate.

Right on, thank you.

Um and my second question is you uh at least at least in the initial draft, um, it looks like there's uh rows of housing, and I wonder if if there's gonna be a community room for for the residence plan, some sort of playground for children, anything that could be of community use, or is this strictly housing um and there's no community gathering space there, or is there a plan to include something for children, something for the community to gather in this in this acre on this acre?

One of the things we have to work out before we can get into any details on that though, is is uh actually our representative from our civil engineer is here.

Uh but as far as how is the drainage gonna work and what can we do with some of the drainage retention requirements?

We don't know any of that yet at this point.

But um, so certainly we'll do what we can.

And one of the things that we're looking to do that we've agreed to do is the sellers uh patriarch passed away a few years ago, and this is one of the first properties that he ever purchased and whole thing like that.

So we've certainly agreed to have sort of a memorial garden probably along the the street that'll be usable for everybody for him uh in honor of him.

But the other thing is um we're looking forward to collaborating a lot with our neighbors.

We have the odd fellows next door to us that have a community hall, and we're looking at engaging with them fully on um working together, um, which I think they're open to um where we can um help utilize their facility more fully and and we could work together.

There's a YMCA across the street um that has an indoor pool, outdoor pool, uh so we want to like fully utilize that business.

So one of the things we I really liked about this site is that there's a lot of those sorts of businesses around us, and so instead of competing with them internally and the whole thing like that, we we we'd rather contract and work with them.

Right.

Yeah, I would say definitely leverage the the potential partnerships around around this site.

Um and at the same time, I think what would make it attractive would be some sort of community space, right?

I think if it's just rose, rose, rose, rose, rose, yes, um, it does fit a need, and the garages will definitely um alleviate some of the uh congestion on the street.

But I would say, yeah, like a playground for children that may not be able to walk all the way across into the Y.

Um I don't know what nearby parks are there, but but to something that would bring community together in a space would look very much in favor of that.

We'd love to have you know whether it's barbecue areas or um whatever it would be.

Again, we we you know we we have not worked out our civil engineering yet for the right.

Yeah, we're barely at the initial stages if this is even feasible.

But thank you.

Thank you for your projection and your vision.

We appreciate it.

That's it for for me.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Casey.

Thank you.

Commissioner, um I wanted to clarify just two things for um for for the residents as well, uh, and maybe city can just confirm for me.

The designation that's being requested, um, this would allow up to 30 dwelling units on this particular lot if the developer wanted to go that direction.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Up to 30, okay.

And also confirming since parking was mentioned that the city does not have a mandated parking requirement for these residences.

So while the developers mentioned two per dwelling unit, that's not a legally binding thing as well, correct?

Yeah, that's uh it's a citywide standard that there's no park requirements for any type of use.

Okay, including residential.

So I just want to clarify for residents to stay involved in the discussions as well, um, because the the change allows for much more than what has been discussed.

So I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh if I could say just a few comments.

Also, I also used to run past this site, but that was only because my high school coach made me.

And I am surprised it's still open or still open space today.

Now I think we understand the situation that San Jose is in with the jobs to uh employed resident ratio with the push and pull between that and housing is very real.

Um, but I don't necessarily see this location really causing San Jose to become that innovation hub that we all hope.

Instead, uh maybe there could be like a lawyer's office there.

Uh but rather during my visit, I saw blight.

Uh I saw alco empty alcohol bottles, um, trash, I saw a few pill bottles.

Um and if I'm not mistaken, based on a very robust conversation at City Council yesterday, the city council appears to be opposed to such blight.

Um I'm hoping that uh we can change that.

I really love that street and hate that it's just filled with trash right now.

So for those reasons, I will be supporting the motion.

Any other commissioners like to speak all right?

With that, we have a motion from Commissioner Bickford to recommend council approve the request to amend the general plan with a second from Commissioner Bandal.

All right, uh to a vote.

Commissioner Bickford uh I'm not sure how to say this, but I support my proposal to approve this request.

Commissioner Barroso.

Commissioner Bandal.

Approve.

Commissioner Contrell is not here.

Commissioner Casey, approve.

Commissioner Nguyen, approve.

Commissioner Young is not here, and myself as a yes.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

There's six yeses with zero no's.

So the motion passes.

Staff's recommendation was of course to look at this early consideration as a denial and consider reviewing this as part of the general plan for your review.

But just wanted to clarify that that this is the first step in the process for the community, and that this will go to council next for that early consideration.

And if council uh moves forward with the I just want to clarify something because I I don't I don't think what you said is exactly right.

Uh, like my my assumption was if we if we suggest to city council that they approve the request to amend that they would do it immediately, not waiting for the envision plan.

Right, but the the um general plan amendment itself that the applicant is requested has not yet gone through an environmental review process, and we do not have the applications for rezoning and the plan development permit.

Uh that principal planner Cuero mentioned earlier.

So the what the council will consider will also be this early consideration request, and they can either uh choose to deny that request or direct staff to continue processing this application separate from the general plan for you.

Thank you for the clarification.

I somehow thought that you said in there that it would still subsequently wait for the general plan.

That's not my understanding since the commission uh voted against that.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Barroso.

Yeah, just a clarifying question.

I know that we approved for this to keep moving forward.

Is the way we framed it correctly?

Because right uh it was it was to basically deny the denial, right?

That is we do it right.

Did we do it right in terms of denying the denial?

That is correct.

I think I just wanted to clarify for the community so that they understood that you know the early consideration process would move to council, and council could continue, could uh uphold the commission's recommendation and direct staff to continue processing it.

So it's not a final approval.

Right.

Yet.

Okay.

Okay.

If I could just sort of add to what you just said, what that means for you in the community is that you should be speaking to your city councilman.

Okay, because the city council is going to take this up next.

All right.

Uh thank you all for coming.

Um we will now, now that we have quorum, we will move on to the consent calendar now that we can take action.

Um 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, a separate vote or recusal on a particular item that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you would to speak on any of these items, please come forward.

On the consent calendar tonight, we have just one item reviewing and approving the action minutes from August 13th, 2025.

Are there any public speakers on the minutes?

I'm assuming no.

So turning to the commission, do we have any requests for changes to the minutes or a motion to proceed?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Bundal to approve the consent calendar and a second from Commissioner Cantrell.

And if there's no further discussion, we will go to a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

Commissioner Contrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Mr.

Alavero is absent.

Commissioner Young is absent, and myself is a yes.

So that is seven yeses with two absent.

And the motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to item six B.

Let's see.

All right.

Oops.

There it is.

All right.

Item 6B, BP 25005 is a privately initiated general plan amendment to change the land use transportation diagram designation from neighborhood community commercial and residential neighborhood to mixed use neighborhood at 1030 and 1038 McKendry Street.

Do we have a staff presentation?

We do.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Laura Maurer, Planner 2, working on the general plan team and the planning division.

I will be presenting today for the early consideration hearing for general plan amendment file number GP 25005.

I'm also joined today by principal planner Ruth Quait.

An early consideration hearing is for a general plan amendment to be heard by the planning commission and city council before full review to be either denied or to allow for continued processing for a full review of the proposed amendment.

The general plan allows for an early consideration hearing either for projects that staff brings to hearing because it is fundamentally inconsistent with the general plan policies under policy IP 3.3, or for an applicant to request an early consideration hearing to receive direction from planning commission and city council before full review or before full submittal under policy IP 3.11.

For general plan amendment GP 2505, staff has brought the proposed amendment to early consideration because it is fundamentally inconsistent with the general plan.

The subject site for the general plan amendment is a 0.46 gross acre site comprised of two parcels located at 1038 and 1030 McKendry Street, located in Council District 6.

The site contains a parking lot that is connected to additional parking through the rear of the site, which is utilized for the office building at 1900 the Alameda.

The parking lot is also accessible from McKendrie Street.

The site is surrounded by office commercial and church uses to the southwest, office, single family and duplexes uses to the northwest, single family and duplexes to the northeast, and a parking lot to the southwest.

The existing general plan designation of the southern parcel is neighborhood community commercial.

This designation is intended for most types of commercial uses, including retail and offices.

The existing general plan designation of the northern parcel of the subject site is neighborhood or residential neighborhood.

This designation is intended for low density residential of up to eight dwelling units per acre.

The type of residential allowed is determined by the zoning district.

The existing doning district is R18 single family residential, which only allows single family residences.

The proposed general plan land use designation of the for the site is mixed use neighborhood.

This designation is intended for medium density residential, up to 30 dwelling units per acre, commercial uses like office of retail and a mix of uses.

This designation does not have a minimum commercial requirement.

While a development permit has not yet been submitted, the site plan shown was submitted by the with the general plan amendment to provide context for the intended development that would be facilitated with the proposed general plan amendment.

The site plan shows the removal of the existing parking lot to construct 12 townhomes across two buildings off of McKendry Street.

The proposed general plan amendment is inconsistent with the general plan in two main areas.

First, the general plan includes the innovation regional employment center major strategy, which seeks to preserve and expand employment land because of the economic and fiscal benefits.

Additionally, fiscal beneficial land use policy FS 4.4 supports maintaining employment land to provide commercial uses for residents and visitors and to increase sales tax revenue for the city.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the major strategy and policy because it would convert employment land to non-employment land since the mixed-use neighborhood designation does not include a minimum commercial space requirement.

Second, the general plan includes the focus growth major strategy, which focuses new housing and job growth in designated growth areas and limits growth in areas outside of designated growth areas.

This strategy is additionally supported by land use policies 2.3 and 9.17, which restricts development outside of growth areas and limits residential development to the existing land use designation.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the major strategy and policies because the amendment proposes increased density on a site that is not within a designated growth area.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the Social Equity and Diversity Policy H1.9, which seeks to facilitate the development of new housing to meet the city's share of the regional housing needs assessment allocation.

The proposed amendment and project would allow up to 12 additional residential units to be built above what is allowed under the current land use designations and could contribute to reaching the city's reno allocation.

However, the city's housing element is already planned to meet the allocation through the focus growth strategy and affordable housing policies, among other policies.

Therefore, this project is not required to meet the city's allocation.

Under the current general plan land use designations, there are several state laws that it will allow for a legible residential development above what is currently allowed by the current land use designations without the need for a general plan amendment.

For the northern parcel of the subject site, SB9 has two options.

For land that's designated single family, SBN9 allows for the development of a duplex.

These duplexes are additionally allowed ADUs under state law.

SB9 also allows for a parcel to be subdivided into two parcels with each parcel allowed up to two units.

For the southern parcel of the subject site, assembly bill 2011 and Senate Bill 6 allow for residential development on commercially designated land if all development standards and prevailing wage requirements are met.

As noted in the recommendation in the staff report, staff believes this site and surrounding area are one we would consider as part of the general plan four-year review.

We will conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify areas outside of growth areas to accommodate more residential growth through mid-density housing development.

We will also review and consider amendments to existing policies that do that currently do not support growth outside of the identified growth areas.

Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend to the city council to deny the proposed general plan amendment and to direct staff to evaluate the subject site and surrounding area to allow for increased residential density as part of the general plan four-year review.

Thank you.

That concludes staff presentation.

Thank you.

Do we have a presentation from the applicant?

Five minutes, and then after public comments, you will have another five minutes.

Thank you for reviewing our request for GP amendment for the two properties at 1030 and 1038 McKendry Street.

Relatively small.

One has a GP of residential neighborhood, as was stated, one has a GP of neighborhood community commercial.

Our proposal is for both lots to be changed to mixed-use neighborhood, which allows up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

And our proposal is for 12 three-story town homes.

In 2017, we submitted both properties for a site development permit after a preliminary review was done on the property for a four-home court development.

And the feedback we received from San Jose Planning during the preliminary review is underlined specifically.

It's all in the highlighted area there, but by right, you have the opportunity to build a single family home or duplex on each site.

At the time the zoning on both sites was R2.

After investing over 75,000 in several months on a site development permit application, we were finally denied and told that we now must get a GP amendment to do anything.

Fast forward to 2025, and the cities should have really done a GP cleanup on their own over the past 10 years or almost 10 years since the last proposal.

Instead, the choice was to change the zoning of the two lots to CP commercial pedestrian for the commercial lot, and R18 actually decreasing the density zoning on the single family lot on the residential lot.

Um in kind of the middle phase of that office building's lifespan.

It was not part of the office building when it was developed, and it's not needed by the office building today.

This is an aerial photo of the site just off the Alameda on McKendry.

We sit directly behind a four-story and six-story office, and adjacent to smaller one and two-story single-family homes to our east.

The proposed three-story townhomes, we feel are the right scale and density to serve as a transitional project between the higher density buildings along the Alameda corridor and the one and two-story residential that kind of takes place east of the Alameda there.

Um shows our inspiration images again, leaning in the Spanish style and landscape inspiration.

And so I just want to thank you for allowing us to present this evening, and we think the project will be a great addition to College Park and the Rose Garden neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this time we'll do public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Oh wait.

Monley.

She's rotarian.

Okay, still.

Thanks very much.

I know this property very well.

It's been a parking lot for a long time on a street that's otherwise beautiful.

They are not a com they are not a combined eyesore, but they are just a parking lot.

They're located right in College Park, one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city.

There is a parking lot attached to a church that has served the community for many years at the corner of the Alameda, and a beautiful restoration of an older home across McKendry Street, which now houses Tennis Kedder construction.

It's a beautiful property.

We would support housing that reflects the nature of the surrounding neighborhood, perhaps a townhouse community on a single joined parcel.

We would not support a high-rise type housing property nor commercial development here.

This is not, there is not adequate parking, and the nearness to the Alameda would create dangerous congestion and turning points.

At this site, we would support housing at this location, just not high high density.

And I love the project that was presented by the developer this evening.

It's just exactly the right look for College Park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we have any other members of the public that would like to speak, please come down at this time.

If not, we will provide an additional five minutes to the applicant if you would like to use it.

Okay, then we will turn it over to the commission.

Commissioner Bickford, followed by Commissioner Cantrell.

Does anybody know how much tax income the city receives from a parking lot?

I'm just curious.

Okay.

But we are talking about a parking lot.

I listened to all of my fellow commissioners about not wanting to lose commercial business space in San Jose.

We need it.

We need all of it that we can get.

We need to be attracting businesses to San Jose for our residents that live here.

But we also need housing.

And you can probably tell from my previous response that I'm viscerally object to waiting another couple of years to figure out what we should do with the space that is ripe for some housing that would presumably be reasonably market rate.

But to that end, I'm going to make a motion that we again request that we carry forward and not deny this request.

Second.

All right, Commissioner Cantrell.

I'd probably be a third, but we'll see.

I'm actually curious because I think we're at this kind of apex.

Uh when we're about to really approach, hopefully, really look at our traditions and our histories and zoning and in our communities here.

Um, because I think this one is a prime example of a community that was not redlined officially, but was designed to keep others out.

This this single family zoning that we use is the the hidden agenda.

Um it makes it impossible to create anything that is remotely affordable, other than a single very expensive house.

Um so I I think that's something we're hopefully going to address.

But when we look at this, and I know you guys, your hands are tied, right?

You have the you have this plan, you know, you this vision, and this is what you have to judge projects by.

Um I lived in other cities.

I lived in Chicago, um, I've lived in St.

Louis, I've lived in Bath in the UK, where you see a lot more what we call gentle density, um, where you you see an opportunity for families at different levels to exist in communities together.

And I think that's what these plans are kind of trying to get to.

We missed it here in Chicago, they built it, and they don't have the same crisis we have here.

Um, and I think this is something we really need to really look at and evaluate as a as a city, because that's part of our problem with equity, and it would be really good for us to look at it and address it very honestly today.

Um as um Commissioner Bickford said, I don't know that waiting is a good plan.

I I don't see how that makes a lot of sense.

Um I know we have rules, and I know you can't break the rules, that's that's clear.

Um, but I I think I think this this project makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Um it's just hard to look at it any other way.

And by the way, um the commercial use failed.

It is no longer a product, uh a parking lot.

So you're not collecting any sales tax there for certain.

So with that, I'll return it back to the floor.

All right, are there any other commissioners that wish to speak?

I just wanted to address something real quick, if possible.

Yes.

Um just to uh make a comment on the applicant's presentation about the zoning.

I just wanted to clarify that the reason that those were rezoned was part of um the SB 1333 uh required zonings that are part of state law.

So um that was the reasons as those were changed from the R2 to the R18, which is the conforming zoning district for residential neighborhood and CP, which is one of the conforming zonings for the um neighborhood community commercial.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Borodio.

Perfect, thank you.

Um here we have something interesting, right?

We have two proposals tonight right within a couple blocks of each other, and both are denying both would deny.

I mean, if we do the same thing we did in the last item to this one.

Is too too many, right?

Like, is this is this pretty much setting us up for like when are we going to listen to staff, right?

Um and say, hey, I think I think staff has some insight, some expertise.

Um as somebody said, once this goes residential, it won't ever become commercial.

And we're furthering the divide of being able to support um services for residents.

Um I don't uh it's tough.

It's tough, it's tough for us to have two of these tonight.

Um because it does it does feel um that we're not listening to staff input and at the same time, but we do want to honor the community, the project, the design.

I think it's thoughtful, I think it's considerate.

But big picture taking a step back is when are we going to um align or not a line, take into consideration the flip side, right?

We do need more money to come in through the business route through commercial space in order to be able to support a thriving San Jose.

Right.

So I don't know how I'll vote.

Um I'm sorry, you you came in second tonight.

Um I think the first one really got us in terms of our hearts and minds.

Um but now two back to back.

Um it does, it does it does make us reflect about the direction.

Well, not the direction, but how to balance this thoughtfully, because we're we're human, right?

Like we're commissioners, so we're from the people, right?

We're here to give the people's voice, but at the same time, um I think I think we're also um at a at a um have to be thoughtful about the general plan and the predicament the city's in terms of being able to provide services across the city, and the best place to get that is through commercial space.

Um and if this goes the other way, yes, community becomes more complete, this parking lot goes away, there's more kids playing, um awesome, you know, customers along the Alameda.

Um plus is everywhere, but at the same time, I think um a lot of reflection, at least on my part, in terms of um how to balance competing interest.

Thank you.

Uh I just wanted to point out that we actually did vote no um on a similar um request uh with the Winchester property a few weeks ago.

And uh also I think you know the general plan could be changed this upcoming year, and then that might adjust staff's recommendation.

So just two things to consider.

Uh Commissioner Candrell.

I'm saying this because I'm hoping to help you kind of see maybe a balance here, because I understand where you're coming from.

It's a slippery slope.

Get it.

Understand.

Um unfortunately, I think it's a slope that we missed in the past.

If we had developed or allowed more zoning for gentle density, we'd probably be in a different position with housing in our city.

Um I'd also say that I think it's probably more likely that someone will have a home-based business there that pays taxes than it being developed for commercial use.

Feels pretty locked to me.

I I just think the probability is that an architect will work from his home or uh some other use that might help with that balance as well.

I also think that the math, quite frankly, the math is off on this whole services um metric that we use to determine whether or not um more density is is will create more cost for the city.

I think some very careful analysis needs to be done there.

I don't think it's what we believe it is, but um that's a totally different argument.

Uh, but just hoping to help maybe find a little balance there.

That's all.

Thank you, Commissioner Cantrell.

Commissioner Casey.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you, uh Commissioner Barroso.

I mean, that was I was thinking those same things as well, like okay, we we if we keep saying yes, yes, um, what is the criteria?

The criteria that I'm looking at is this is a half acre total, one half of that half acre is already residential.

So now we're we're talking about increasing the density for that quarter acre.

The other parcel, um, the southern parcel is commercial and it's a quarter of an acre.

If this was if the second one that came and it was five acres, I would have tremendous concerns and things like that.

In this case, because of the size, at least that's the criteria that I'm looking at as well.

Um, that gives me more comfort um in uh allowing for this one to move forward.

Thank you.

Through the chair, if I may add a few comments.

Um I think we were as staff also, you know, evaluating the conundrum that uh Commissioner Barroso brought up because we are embarking on the general plan four-year review process, and we felt that that was a better forum to look at these transitional areas to explore the gentle density that Commissioner Cantrell mentioned and evaluate like citywide what that could mean for the future of San Jose.

Um, and that is why staff was recommending that perhaps in this these two instances we we was suggesting that that these be delayed or at least evaluated further through that entire process.

So it is a challenge uh and we do recognize it, and that'll be explored further through the four-year review process.

This is still the early stages for these two projects before you tonight, and so there is still you know that those steps in the process, but it has to go to council, and over the next year, as we do the general plan four-year review, perhaps new information may emerge that may also inform uh these two projects as they evolve uh in the future.

So just wanted to share that with the commission as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Casey and then Commissioner Barroso.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um, one follow-up.

So initially I was leaning towards, okay, we're about to start the four-year um every four-year review.

But the the question about we're starting that now, and you weren't here for that particular question that I had.

Um, any zoning changes wouldn't go into effect until the end of 2027 was the response.

So it's two and a half years.

So if it was six months, nine months, twelve months, um, I think I could probably lean to yes, we're that close.

Let's defer, let's do this in a more methodical manner.

Um the situation we're in, waiting two and a half years before they can execute with certainty, uh, is just too long in my mind.

And so that also leads me then to to favor um allowing them to proceed.

Uh just to clarify too that if we continue processing, the earliest this could come back to planning commission and council would be at the end of 2026, the next um general plan hearing cycle that would be available for them to go to.

So it'd be about a year difference from the the four-year review when they would go to council.

Yes, but I guess they could start with more certainty now, I guess more clarity now, um, as opposed to maybe having to wait for that clock to start then.

I hear you totally.

It's there's still not going to be breaking ground next week.

Um, I I fully appreciate that.

That would be wonderful, but I that's a good point though.

Thank you.

Commissioner Barroso.

Technical question.

Um staff mentioned that in the fall of this year, the process for the review is gonna open.

Would that would that pause um items like this coming before us until it closes in 2027, or will we continue to see this happen throughout the open ongoing process?

Um well, we do have one more hearing cycle that is still open, so people can still submit to be heard at the end of 2027, um, but that would be at the same time.

Um we would definitely let people know if they're submitting that that if that is a possibility, if it's an area we're looking at, we could still let them know and they can make that decision on whether or not they want to apply on their own as a single one, or is whether it would be as you know, to wait and do it as part of the four-year review, but it is still open, so people can come out, and I'm not sure that we've had any direction yet to not take in anything.

So early consideration applications, we will still continue to process them if they come in.

The general plan four-year review would not stop that process.

Okay, so it's interesting because the timing of both of these seems to be right on time in terms of developing because the process hasn't opened, it's easier to say 2027, it's gonna open later on this year, but once we're in it, proposals like this, I think we'll be able to say, okay, look, the process is open, right?

But now it's it's sort of the last minute ones before it opens, it kind of feels that that process is gonna lag, but in a couple months, like what's gonna be the difference.

A couple months we we could honestly say, well, go to the meetings, go to the public comments at these at these reviews, right?

So yeah, the more that I think about it, um I think I think the timing is interesting.

The timing is very interesting on when these are coming in.

Um the timeline of of the review and the wonderful um designs and public input.

I mean, it's it's all it's all a lot to take in, but at the same time, I think I think the process is right around the corner.

And I think because I mean, even to get a permit for something simple like an ADU, you know, quote unquote simple, still takes a long time.

Now imagine developing 18 units or 30 units.

Yes, it is gonna take a year plus, I imagine.

So I think for us, those are years and months too much for for the average person to to hear, but I think in the grand scheme of things, that's that's the timeline to develop in the Silicon Valley, right?

So um so yeah, okay.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for giving me the response that early or early applications or early considerations will still be open even during the review process.

Thank you.

Um just a point also just to clarify.

So if someone were to come in um, let's say tomorrow and they wanted to propose another conversion or another change to the land use designation, um, they can either choose to do early consideration or they can go through the process for review.

They actually wouldn't be able to go to a hearing for approval until 2027.

The way we we stagger our submittal dates for general plan amendments only.

It's like you have kind of one chance a year to do this, and so that window has closed.

So anyone else who comes in tomorrow, they won't be able to come in next year, 2026.

They would come the following year.

General plan amendment applications.

But early considerations, sort of these these moments, folks can come in um as they wish.

Okay.

And how long has it been open for this year?

Like is it a six six month window?

Is it um the last for to be heard for the like the 2026 cycle?

Most um applications needed to be in by like June and July.

So the general plan is usually due it by June, and then the subsequent permits that like the site development and the rezoning is due by the end of July.

So that like had closed the cycle for being able to be heard at the 2026 hearing.

So right now, if somebody like Ruth said, if somebody applies now, we would um we would take them to the 2027 hearing cycle at the end of the year, which would be about the same time as the four-year review, or at least what we're tentatively planning to.

Um, and that's open until like June and July-ish of next year.

So there's still an open window for people to submit to still be heard before or around the same time as the four-year review.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think what I'll do is be consistent.

Um, and I do apologize to staff because I do think that the intentions you had in terms of hey, the process is coming up, like let's just let's just hold on, let this let this be part of the process, um, and not and not make any side adjustments before the process really takes a comprehensive look at things.

So I'm gonna be consistent um and I'll be voting in favor, especially if it's within a couple blocks.

I imagine that the community just a couple blocks away would probably feel the same way about hey, you know, it's a parking lot, maybe it's not as blighted.

Um, but it's still, you know, like let's activate it.

But it does it does for future for future projects.

Um I'll definitely be much more considerate about timelines and staff input.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

All right, then we will move to a vote.

We have a motion from Commissioner Bickford.

Second by Commissioner Bandal to recommend the council um accept the request to amend the GP.

Approve.

Approve.

I think that was the word she used was approved.

Approved.

Okay.

All right, approved.

Okay, Commissioner Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Mandal.

Wait, the yes means to deny.

So we would say approved, right?

I said approved.

Yes is approved.

Yes is approved.

Okay, that's a yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

To approve, yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Approval.

Commissioner Oliverio is absent.

Commissioner Young is absent.

And myself is a yes, making that seven yeses and the motion carries.

Okay.

Any referrals from City Council, boards, commissions, or other agencies?

No referrals.

Okay.

On to good and welfare.

Yes, we have a couple of reports from the city council.

So at their first August meeting or mid-August meeting, the council approved the rezoning and plan development permit and associated entitlements for the San Jose Buddhist Church, the Bedswin Expansion Project in Japan town that had come before the Commission a couple of months ago.

And then last night, the council also approved the general plan amendment, allowing the planning commission to serve as the task force and the advisory body on the general plan four-year review process.

For this year, some of the changes they made were tied to more flexibility on how the task force and advisory bodies convened in future four-year reviews.

And with that, I think the planning commission will be moving forward in that role.

We're getting raises for the other work meetings that will that September 18th session.

Sorry, will that September 18th session be recorded?

That is correct.

It will be recorded, and we are hoping to use the materials we generate for that study session in informational videos and other materials that could be used to uh disseminate through the community as well.

And then I have a question for the meeting as well.

What's the time and the location part?

For the September 18th meeting, my understanding is it's in the afternoon.

I see uh the principal planner Ruth has gone.

I believe she's been coordinating uh with our uh planning commission staff as well as the council staff.

Uh we can send you a block on your calendar so you have that information.

Uh in terms of the location, we are looking at the wing rooms to hold that meeting just because that's more conducive to that sort of study session uh in engagement.

Is lunch involved?

I am not sure.

I have it from 1 p.m.

to 4 35 p.m.

Does anybody know if the do they those plan to end on time?

You said 4 35.

Do you have any idea?

That's the number.

That's the number I got from Chris Burton.

I I would expect that.

Yeah.

They would probably not go beyond the 435 timeline.

Um, in terms of the next item, the subcommittee formation reports and outstanding business.

Um I just wanted to commend staff for making wordly and interpretation services happen at this planning commission meeting.

So thank you to Irene, who's here, as well as staff who's online and managing this in the background.

Uh so you may have noticed that our the screen on the left above us actually has interpretation into other languages.

And through this uh application, people can also uh use a QR code on their phone to hear the commission's comments, the public comments in any other language.

Uh I think 50 other languages if they so choose.

So uh we're very proud to have this introduced at the planning commission.

Very nice.

Um uh another outstanding business.

So I did share an information memo with the planning commission on the new state law uh that was passed with the budget cycle that went into effect July 1st.

Uh it's called this Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131.

That provides uh uh a number of uh streamlining opportunities under the California Environmental Quality Act for housing projects, for advanced manufacturing projects, and a number of other kinds of projects.

Um staff looked at the the those bills and provided some general information uh for the community, the council, and the planning commission's benefits.

So if you have any questions, please let us know.

But I did share that out, I believe yesterday.

Um Commission calendar and study sessions.

We covered the September 18th study session already.

Uh quick note that the September 10th meeting will be canceled since our one item that was going to be on it was deferred until September 24th.

Um and so we will um have the September 18th study session and the September 24th uh meeting uh for the commission.

All right, thank you very much.

Then this meeting will adjourn at 831 P.M.