OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

San Jose Planning Commission Meeting – March 11, 2026: Builder's Remedy Appeal and SB 79 Zoning Update

Planning Commission — Wednesday, March 11, 2026
BodySan Jose, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateWednesday, March 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:19:30

Transcript — Verbatim
0:17

Good evening.

0:18

My name is Carlos Rosario, and I am the chair of the Planning Commission.

0:21

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting.

0:23

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

0:26

The parking validation machine for the garage is for the garage under city hall is located near the rear entrance.

0:33

At this point in time, if you are able, we will do a salute to the flag.

0:45

And to the Republicans indivisible with liberty and justice.

0:58

All right, now for roll call.

1:01

Vice Chair Bickford.

1:03

Here Commissioner Barroso.

1:07

Here.

1:08

Commissioner Bondal.

1:10

Not here yet.

1:11

Commissioner Cantrell is absent.

1:15

Commissioner Cow.

1:16

Here.

1:18

Commissioner Casey.

1:19

Here.

1:20

Commissioner Escobar.

1:22

Here.

1:23

Commissioner Nguyen.

1:25

Here.

1:26

Commissioner Oliverio.

1:28

I see him on the Zoom.

1:29

He is online.

1:31

All right.

1:33

And Commissioner Young?

1:34

Here.

1:35

And I am here making nine of us, so we have quorum.

1:40

All right.

1:41

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 card in the completed card into the basket.

1:51

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

1:54

The procedure for this hearing is as follows.

1:57

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

2:03

During the comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received for those members of the public who attend in person.

2:09

As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

2:13

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

2:19

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers and other factors.

2:28

Speakers using the translator will have the double double the time allotted.

2:32

After public testimony, the applicant andor appellant making closing remarks may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

2:39

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

2:41

Response to the commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

2:45

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

2:50

The planning commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

2:55

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

3:17

Section 2012 400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and pre-zonings.

3:41

Okay, before we begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

3:47

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

3:52

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

4:16

Public comments of the planning commission on non-agendized items.

4:19

If you'd like, please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

4:23

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

4:35

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public.

4:40

Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

4:47

Staff, do we have any speakers for public comment for the commission for items that are not on the agenda?

4:57

No comments on public comment.

5:00

Okay.

5:00

We'll move on to deferrals and removals from the calendar.

5:04

Any items scheduled for this hearing this evening, which deferral is being requested, will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

5:12

Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use████████████████████████24%
Procedural████████████████16%
Housing█████████████13%
Public Safety███████████11%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████10%
Community Engagement█████5%
Transportation█████5%
Affordable Housing████4%
Parking███3%
Summary of Proceedings

San Jose Planning Commission Meeting – March 11, 2026

This meeting of the San Jose Planning Commission, held on March 11, 2026, from approximately 7:00 PM to 8:49 PM, addressed two primary agenda items: an appeal of a site development permit for a builder's remedy project at 940 Willow Street, and a proposed zoning ordinance update to implement Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), which mandates increased housing density near transit. The commission denied the appeal, upholding the director's approval of the Willow Street project, and approved the SB 79 zoning amendments.

Consent Calendar

  • The consent calendar was approved unanimously (10-0-1, with Commissioner Cantrell absent) without discussion or public comment.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 940 Willow Street Project (Appeal)

    • Several neighbors spoke in opposition, citing concerns about sewer capacity, infrastructure adequacy, narrow streets, flood zones, and emergency vehicle access. One speaker, Jeff Ewell, provided a detailed technical analysis arguing the city's sewer study was flawed, noting a lack of data on a 19-foot connecting pipe and using a smooth-pipe friction coefficient for an 80-year-old clay pipe. He requested a continuance for further study.
    • Supporters, including Alex Shore of Catalyze Silicon Valley, acknowledged the project qualifies under builder's remedy and praised the 30% affordable housing, but criticized community engagement (scored 2 out of 5). Other supporters cited the need for housing investment.
    • Appellant David Fox (former Campbell planning commissioner) requested four practical design changes (landscape buffer, downward-facing lighting, adequate tree soil, flat roofs) but emphasized he did not seek project denial.

  • SB 79 Zoning Update

    • A resident (Robert Werk?) asked the commission to restore 32 acres of housing element land near Santa Teresa Light Rail that had been swapped for industrial use in 2014, claiming the change caused neighborhood harm.
    • Rob Swerk, Principal Planner at VTA, expressed concern that the proposed industrial exemption would prevent mixed-use development at VTA's Santa Teresa and Sirona transit-oriented development sites, and urged the city to continue working with VTA to allow residential on those sites.
    • A speaker (Mike Sodergren) supported staff's recommendation to preserve employment lands, emphasizing the need to protect industrial land for jobs.

Discussion Items

  • Appeal of 940 Willow Street (Builder's Remedy)

    • Staff presented the project: a 7-story mixed-use building with 126 units (15% very low-income, 15% moderate-income), 1,262 sq ft commercial, at 940 Willow Street. The project qualifies under builder's remedy because the application was submitted before the city's housing element was certified (June 2023 vs. January 2024). The city must treat it as consistent with general plan and zoning; denial can only be based on specific adverse impacts to public health and safety.
    • Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the director's December 3, 2025 approval.
    • Applicant's counsel Dan Goleb argued the appeal seeks to impose conditions that would effectively disapprove the project, which state law prohibits. He noted the appeal focuses on design standards, but the project already complies or has waivers under density bonus law.
    • Commissioners questioned staff on sewer capacity (modeling showed adequate capacity), parking (no minimum; TDM plan in place), fire safety (variance granted for fire-rated walls and sprinklers), and community engagement. Developer Chris Breeze stated he was accessible and had received many calls, but the most vocal opponents were immediate neighbors.
    • After discussion, Vice Chair Bickford made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the director's decision. The motion passed 10-0-1 (Commissioner Cantrell absent).

  • SB 79 Zoning Code Update (PP25-006)

    • Staff presented the proposed amendments to implement SB 79, which allows housing on sites zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial within ½ mile of transit stops. The city has 56 qualifying stops. The ordinance exempts certain industrial employment hubs (totaling 2,051 parcels, 4,448 acres) from SB 79 provisions to preserve land for jobs. Exempted areas include North San Jose, Barriessa International Business Park, Lundy Milpitas Bart, East Gish/Maybury, Monterey Business Corridor, and Old Edenville areas.
    • Staff noted the timeline: City Council hearing on March 17, second reading March 24, HCD submission March 25, with SB 79 effective July 1, 2026.
    • Commissioners expressed support for preserving employment lands. Commissioner Bandal highlighted the need to protect industrial land given San Jose's role as a bedroom community for neighboring cities.
    • Commissioner Oliverio moved to approve the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Casey. The motion passed 10-0-1 (Commissioner Cantrell absent).

Key Outcomes

  • 940 Willow Street Appeal: Denied; the director's approval of the site development permit is upheld. The planning commission's decision is final with no further appeal available.
  • SB 79 Ordinance: Approved as recommended by staff. The ordinance will now proceed to City Council for adoption on March 17 and 24, with submission to HCD by March 25.
  • Deferral: Public hearing item 5B (appeal of special use permit for recycling facility SP24-029) was deferred to the March 25, 2026 planning commission meeting upon staff request due to newly received documents.
  • Next Steps: The March 25 meeting will include another builder's remedy project with an EIR and the deferred item. The April 8 meeting also has pending items.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. My name is Carlos Rosario, and I am the chair of the Planning Commission. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The parking validation machine for the garage is for the garage under city hall is located near the rear entrance. At this point in time, if you are able, we will do a salute to the flag. And to the Republicans indivisible with liberty and justice. All right, now for roll call. Vice Chair Bickford. Here Commissioner Barroso. Here. Commissioner Bondal. Not here yet. Commissioner Cantrell is absent. Commissioner Cow. Here. Commissioner Casey. Here. Commissioner Escobar. Here. Commissioner Nguyen. Here. Commissioner Oliverio. I see him on the Zoom. He is online. All right. And Commissioner Young? Here. And I am here making nine of us, so we have quorum. All right. If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located at the table near the audio visual technician and deposit the card in the completed card into the basket. There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance. The procedure for this hearing is as follows. After staff's presentation, applicants and or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation. During the comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received for those members of the public who attend in person. As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber. Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes. At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers and other factors. Speakers using the translator will have the double double the time allotted. After public testimony, the applicant andor appellant making closing remarks may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes. Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers. Response to the commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance. The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item. The planning commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Section 2012 400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and pre-zonings. Okay, before we begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings. This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body. Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff. Public comments of the planning commission on non-agendized items.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com