All right, good evening.

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

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine is in for the garage underneath City Hall is located near the entrance or in the back of the top.

At this time, if you are able, please join me in saluting the flag.

Okay, on to roll call.

Vice Chair Bickbird.

Here.

Commissioner Barossio.

Here.

Commissioner.

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Here.

Commissioner Cow.

Not here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner Wynne.

Here.

Commissioner Olivario.

Commissioner Young.

Here.

Myself is here.

That makes nine.

And we have quorum.

Oliverio is supposed to join by virtually.

Did you check?

Okay.

All right.

Here's a summary of the hearing procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audio visual technician and deposit the card in the plexiglass basket.

There's speaker cards in the back of the chambers and also 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 public period comment, 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 may have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to 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 double the time allotted.

After public testimony, the applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

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

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at this public hearing or in written com 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 advisory is only advisory to the city council.

The City Council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 2012 400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests of the City Council on rezonings and pre-zonings.

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

Before we uh begin our before this meeting, we begin this meeting.

I would like to uh remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct.

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.

All members of the planning commission, staff, and public are expected to refrain from abusive language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

Is Commissioner Oliverio available?

No.

And I see that Commissioner Cow is here.

Yes, um, Chair.

Um good evening, Menu Santio Deputy Director of Planning.

I do see him on Zoom, so I'm requesting our technician to please uh update the panelists.

Thank you.

He is present now.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Next, we will move on to public comment.

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

Please fill out a speaker's card to 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 an agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Staff.

Do we have any speakers for public comment?

We do not have have any speaker cards for public comment.

Okay.

On to agenda item number three, deferrals and removals from calendar.

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

Staff will provide an update on the items for which deferral or removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the referral dates recommended or speak on the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at this time.

Is there any do we have any items to defer today?

We do have an item that we would like to drop from the agenda.

So this was the item that was before the commission at the last meeting and was requested for deferral due to some late information.

My understanding is that we are still waiting on some technical analysis from the applicants to determine how best to move forward.

Um, and we have the project manager Alex Hughes present if the commission has any questions about the request to drop this item until we have further information and can re-notice uh this project for a hearing.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor.

We'll go to a date certain for to return.

No, we do not have a date certain, therefore, we would like it to be to be dropped from the agenda.

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor.

We'll go to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barrosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Olivero.

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Myself is a yes.

That is 11 yes with zero no's.

All right.

And are there any other items to defer today?

No other items, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we will now move on to agenda item number four, the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a member of the commission requests debate, separate vote or recusal on a particular item, that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately.

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

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come down to the podium at this time.

I see no speakers.

Commissioners, are there anything that you would like to remove from the consent calendar?

Motion to approve.

Okay, we have a motion to approve in a second.

We'll go to a unless there's any comment, we will go to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

Myself is a yes, making that 11 yes.

All right.

Now on to agenda item number five, public hearing.

Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

However, please be advised that the commission may take these items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony, or may defer to discussions for later later agendas for public hearing and time management purposes.

So staff moving on to 5A.

32 three-story buildings in Camden Avenue.

Staff, do we have a presentation or do we have an applicant?

We do have a presentation.

While staff is bringing that up, Chair, I'd just like to introduce the team that is here on this project.

So we have uh Jason View's the project manager and will be doing most of the presentation, and he's joined uh by David Keon and Court Hitchens, who worked on the CEQA analysis and the EIR for this project, the environmental impact report, um, and Alec Atianza, who is the supervising planner.

Um, in the box in the rear, we have Sean to Division Manager and Florin Lapustia from uh Department of Transportation, uh Manjit from Public Works Traffic, uh, and Michelle uh also from Public Works, um, and we have the deputy director of uh housing uh department as well.

So we have the full team here, and the reason for that is this is a builder's remedy project as staff will walk through in a minute, and um, this is the first uh builders' remedy project that has an environmental impact report with significant and unavoidable uh impacts that you know that is before the planning commission for making a recommendation to council.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Jason to walk through the project.

All right, thank you, Manera.

Um good evening, Chair, good evening, commissioners and everybody here tonight.

Uh my name is Jason Lee, planning project manager with the city's planning division.

Um introduced our staff here tonight, and uh my fellow presenters tonight will be Court Hitchens, the environmental project manager and Manji Banweight, Senior Transportation Specialist from the Department of Public Works traffic team.

The application before you tonight is located at the northeast corner of Scamden Avenue and single tree drive or single tree way, formerly the Cinnabar Elementary School in the city's council district 10.

The application includes the construction of 108 residential condos and 32 three-story buildings, with eight units, 74.4% of the total reserved for extremely low income households.

Uh the project would require the demolition of little leak fields currently on the site and associated buildings, the removal of 41 trees, including 23 ordinance sized trees, and it includes a state density bonus law waiver for the rear setback requirement.

The project also includes a vesting tentative map for the subdivision of the former elementary school into two parcels.

Um, the school buildings and the corporation yard to remain on one parcel, and the rest of the site as you can see in the inset to be developed into 108 residential condos.

Um the project requires an environmental impact report, including a statement of overriding considerations for greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts regarding VMT, vehicle miles traveled.

Uh the statement of overriding considerations requires planning commission recommendation and city council approval, which is why we are here tonight.

And court and manjit will cover the SOC further later in the presentation.

Um this application was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act, also known as Builders Remedy.

And we will get into that here.

So for context on the application, um the application was submitted under the builders' remedy.

Um I think the builders remedy is now defined under Section H11 of the Housing Accountability Act as a project that provides a certain amount of affordable housing to extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income households.

In this case, the project provides at least 7% of units for extremely low-income households, which is one of the options that a builder's remedy applicant can choose from.

The project must have submitted an application while a city did not have a substantially compliant housing element as certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, is within the minimum and maximum density provisions as defined by the definition of a builders remedy project.

Uh, for this site, the maximum allowed density is 80 dwelling units per acre, and the project is 16.2 dwelling units per acre.

Um, and the project does not abut a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use.

As the proposed project qualifies under the definition of a builder's remedy project, the city cannot deny the project based on inconsistency with the general plan and zoning ordinance.

The housing accountability act also uh prohibits cities from denying a qualifying builder's remedy project unless the city can demonstrate that a project will cause a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety.

Oops, wrong way.

All right, so for this project specifically.

Um sorry.

The SP 330 preliminary application, which locks in the zoning ordinance fees, etc.

at the time of submittal, including builders' remedy, was submitted on May 22nd, 2023.

They have 180 days to uh put in a formal project application, and the formal project application was submitted in time on October 21st, 2023.

The city's housing element was certified and found in substantial compliance after that on January 29th, 2024.

And the project invoked Assembly Bill 1893 on March 7th, 2025.

AB 1893, more or less put to rest a lot of legal issues and uh that were in question prior to its passing, and allowed changes to builders' remedy projects compliant with H11 on the previous slide, including changes to the affordable percentage and the income level of the affordable housing.

So in this case, they changed to the 7% extremely low income threshold under Builders Remedy 2.0, which is colloquial for after 1893, as opposed to the original proposal, which was 20% low income under the original builder's remedy.

So what does this mean for project review?

It means that the city must treat the project as if it meets the general plan land use designation and requirements of the zoning district, regardless of whether it does or not.

The project also does not require approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning or rezoning, and shall be deemed consistent with all applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, redevelopment plans, implementing instruments, or other similar provisions for all purposes.

The city basically must evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards.

So despite the fact that it does not necessarily need to comply.

Staff did review the project for consistency with the following.

So just a few notes on this.

And then with regard to council policy 630 for public outreach on-site signs have been posted on the project frontage.

A virtual committee meeting was held on August 12th, 2024 via Zoom and was attended by approximately 56 people.

And there was an in-person follow-up meeting on August 19th, 2024 at the Vineland Library, attended by approximately 30 people.

This hearing and the subsequent city council hearing were noticed at a 1,000-foot radius, and all interested parties were also notified of this hearing via email.

I'm going to toss it over to court to go over the environmental review.

Thank you, Jason.

And good evening, everybody.

With regard to environmental review, an environmental impact report, or EIR, was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA.

The EIR was circulated for public review for 45 days, and 21 formal comments, uh comment letters were received from public agencies and from members of the public.

All of the comments were addressed in the final EIR and those responses were posted online prior to today's hearing.

Minor revisions were made to the EIR as a result of comments received, but no comments raised new substantive issues that were not addressed in the draft EIR, and no comments received identified issues that would require recirculation of the draft EIR.

The EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

The MMRP also includes mitigation measures to reduce the project's impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation, but not to less than significant levels.

The EIR found that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation from VA from VMT due to the project's location in an area of immitable VMT, requiring a statement of overriding considerations that we will discuss in more detail in a few slides later in staff's presentation.

I will pass it to Manjia.

So the project is subject to Council Policy 5-1 transportation analysis to determine its transportation impacts under CEQA.

The results of the analysis indicate that the project is located in an area of immetable vehicle miles traveled per capita and therefore results in significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA.

This project must meet the requirements for market rate or mixed income residential projects without a general plan amendment, as builders' remedy projects do not require a general plan amendment.

The three requirements are as follows.

First, consistency with the general plan designation.

While the project is not consistent, builders' remedy projects are deemed consistent, so the project meets this requirement.

The overriding benefits contributed by the project are for transportation and housing and will be discussed on the following slides.

And there are no applicable area plans for the subject project.

Next slide.

As mentioned on the previous slide, Council Policy 5-1 offers a pathway to achieve overriding community benefits for projects located in admittable VMT areas for project approval.

Per policy, the project must mitigate to the maximum extent feasible first, and then provide either an override payment or construct transportation system improvements in that value for unmitigated VMT per capita.

The project is reducing its VMT by first providing pedestrian and transit network improvements at the Camden and Bossom Hill intersection.

The project will be removing the free right turns at the intersection, which will help to slow down vehicular training movements and shorten pedestrian bicycle crossing distances through the intersection.

Working with VTA, the existing bus stop at the intersection will also be relocated to the far side, along with a new concrete bus pad, bus shelter, and a bench, which will encourage existing and future residents to utilize transit as an alternative to driving.

After these improvements, the project's VMT override obligation is still a little over $2 million.

And this is in 2025 dollars and is subject to escalation per the engineering news record construction costs index to ensure that the value remains consistent over time.

In lieu of payment, the project will be constructing a new news traffic signal at the intersection of Camden Avenue and Single Tree Way, including new bull bouts, ADA ramps, and yellow crosswalks along Camden Avenue.

These improvements will enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, slow down vehicular turning movements through the intersection, and will provide more pedestrian visible visibility to drivers.

Thank you.

Okay, so to get back to the CEQA review for this project, as I had previously mentioned, the EIR found that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation from VMT.

So the proposed project would not be consistent with the VMT design element outlined in the Bay Area Air District's GHG threshold under criterion A.

Additionally, the proposed project's VMT impacts would conflict with the state's scoping plan and the Bay Area Air District's Bay Area Plan, which are applicable state and regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

The project's significant VMT impacts would not be consistent with the state and regional climate goals, and no additional mitigation measures were identified to reduce that impact to less than significant level, and therefore the project's incremental contribution to GHGH emissions would be cumulatively considerable.

And finally, the project's VMT would remain the project's mitigated VMT would remain above the city's threshold of 11.9 VMT per capita, even with the mitigation.

So therefore, the significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the project require a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA guidelines in section 15093 in order for the project's EIR to be adopted.

This section of the CEQA guidelines one five zero nine three provides that the decision making agency, the City of San Jose in this case, must balance as applicable the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, including region wide or statewide environmental benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.

If those benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable for approval of the proposed project.

In this case, the overriding benefits provided by the project by the proposed project include diverse housing options, including the restriction of eight homes priced for extremely low income households.

The project would provide 108 residential units in total, helping the city to increase housing supply in an already developed area.

The project would also provide transportation improvements in the form of benefits from the construction of a new signal at the Camden and single tree intersection in lieu of paying a the VMT offset value, in addition to the maximum feasible extent of VMT mitigation, including pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming, bicycle network improvements, and transit system improvements that are needed in this area.

And lastly, the project would be a 100% electric project to meeting the requirements of the city's reach code.

Back to you, Jason.

All right, thank you, Court and Manchet.

So to sorry, the staff recommendation for this project would be because staff did not identify any specific adverse impacts to the public health and safety for the project in this review.

Staff's recommendation is that planning commission recommend the city council take all of the following actions, which is adopt an EIR including an SOC, adopt a resolution to approve the vesting tentative map, and adopt a resolution to approve the site development permit.

That concludes staff's presentation.

The applicants are Orville Power and Scott Murray, and they are here.

At this time we will do public comment, each speaker.

Oh, I'm sorry, is there an applicant presentation?

Five minutes.

Do you want me to take it from here?

I have the presentation.

Can you hear me?

Hi.

So my objective here was to have a really quick presentation for you, but I just wasted most of my time uh trying to get the slideshow up.

So I'll keep it brief.

My name is Orville Power.

I'm the developer here.

And here to kind of take you through I guess the history from our side of the side of the story.

So we're excited about this project.

And start with the first slide.

So just a bit of a history here.

In uh August of 22, there was an RFP that was put out by the Union School District to develop the site, and we put in uh an offer.

Um there was a previous applicant that came through and was looking to develop uh self-storage and um uh affordable housing on the site, and uh that wasn't feasible.

Uh so they called us back, the school district called us back, and we stepped in and looked at the site.

Um first thing we noticed was that the site had the zoning for housing, it had RM zoning zoning, which we felt was was interesting.

Um second thing we noticed that the general plan designation was PQP.

So the initial the initial thought was okay, you know, this clearly was planned for housing at one point in time, cities um had a general plan that had a different designation, and um during that process the the concept of builders remedy came along, and um uh ultimately we made the decision of builders remedy or general plan amendment, and we ended up going with the general plan uh design or the builder's remedy process.

So uh benefits of this project ultimately um is uh it's gonna produce income for the union school district.

So what we're doing is an exchange uh where we buy the property, we we trade them for our property.

Uh the funds that are used, they use then go and buy income per production.

So um at the end of the day, there'll be 108 town homes, which are needed, um and as well as income production uh for the school district.

Um school district is here as well if if you have any questions of them.

Uh next slide.

So uh as staff pointed out in their presentation, which was great and uh way more detailed than than I plan to be.

Um we are carving out about six point seven acres existing schools gonna remain.

Uh next slide, please.

Um this was kind of our our timeline for our application process, and you'll see that we held uh a total of three community outreach meetings.

Um each of those outreach meetings we sent out, um, just under 700 letters to the neighborhood.

Um we really had kind of three main um issues that we that we found and I we did our best to address.

Next slide.

Next slide.

So um kind of the first concern that was out there was the little league.

So what happens with with the little league and the school district and the little league had uh agreement in place prior to stepping in, whereas the school district um is ultimately rebuilding new baseball fields.

So next slide, please.

You'll see the baseball fields are going in at the Dartmouth school, which is about uh six of a mile away.

So there's new baseball fields going in.

Um our company will be uh dedicated um donating some funds to the little league to help them with uh their their new snack shack.

Uh next slide, please.

Um the other big concern that was out there was just you know traffic safety, both from a from a from a vehicle and pedestrian uh perspective.

And um that seemed to be kind of the biggest concern with the neighborhood.

We uh worked with the staff, and um I think we're I think we're improving the streets um pretty substantially.

Uh next slide.

So you'll see there's kind of two main intersections of concern.

Uh the first is Camden and Singletree, and the second is Blossom Hill and the Camden intersection.

So we're doing about 2.4 million of public improvements.

Um it's essentially rebuilding both of those intersections.

One already has a stoplight in place, and that's going to be replaced as well as well as bull bals and pedestrian uh improvements, and then another a new um uh signal is going in, uh Camden and Singletree.

So from uh public improvement.

I mean, I knew my presentation wasn't that great, but geez.

We're gonna have to get a lot of mountain on area more being here.

You know when we're ready to resume okay.

Everything's safe.

Are you ready?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm glad everybody's safe.

I'm sorry for the fire alarm.

I apologize for the interruption and fire alarm.

Truly do.

All right, please proceed.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, so baseball fields are moving sixth of a mile away.

Uh, two intersections are being uh substantially improved both for pedestrian vehicles.

Uh next slide.

Here's some details.

Um if you really want to get into the nuts and bolts, there's a lot bigger brains over here in the city of San Jose staff that can help you.

Um, but uh we're the one right in the check.

Next slide.

Okay, another issue that uh came up was parking.

Uh, where will people park?

So just wanted to point out um we feel there is sufficient parking.

There's 243 parking spaces, uh 40 bike spots, so each of these townhomes will have uh two uh car garage, oversized garage.

And next slide.

And that is it for my presentation.

Um want to thank staff for all their help.

It's been a three-year process.

Um a lot of very smart people with the city of San Jose.

And um that's all.

Thank you.

We're here if you have any questions.

All right, thank you so much.

At this time, we will do public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes, and if I call your name, please come down uh to the microphone and uh you can line up on the stairs.

So we'll start with Richard Bennett, Lillian Koenig, and Susan Suffel.

Same folding on that's right.

Hello.

I'm Richard Bennett.

I'm a landlord of a Blossom Hill Road property adjacent to the proposed site.

I oppose the development.

My tenants will not like the noise and dust created by the construction for the one to three years.

Furthermore, the tenants' views of the Santa Cruz Mountains will be blocked by the three-story structures.

We do not need more housing in the area, but the children of the area need the baseball field and batting cage that now occupies the site.

I wrote this before tonight.

170 units have just been completed at 1001 Blossom Hill Road next to Oak Ridge Mall with an additional 120 units coming out of the ground.

Just down Blossom Hill Road, a Coozer on Stanwood Drive, another 190 units are coming out of the ground.

That will add 480 housing units to the local area within the next two to three years.

I think we'll be overbuilt.

So let the children keep their baseball field and batting cage, or they can go to Dartmouth school.

Thank you.

Lillian Coning and Susan Seppel.

And then we'll have Thomas his slot.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you for hearing me.

My name is Thomas James Hislap.

I'm a longtime resident of the Park Almaden neighborhood.

Before you guys, before you all certify this final ERR, I want to talk to you about the current EIR environmentally superior alternative, which is 87 units, not 108.

That means this council must make specific overriding findings to approve the larger project.

I placed it in front of you a two-minute quick uh review of what I have, along with the CEQA numbers and along with the environmental impacts by number, all listed out for you with where the deficiencies land.

First, this is all being built as you saw, right on top of students and faculty of the Union School District, who's going to let all of this dust fall on these students.

Right across from that, right across from that is open space, where there are uh hawks, there's turtles, there's egrets, there's migrating.

It's all in there.

The fish and game have called that out on the EIR report.

Um that soil is also going to be moved right in front of a small neighborhood, and then it's going to exit right in front of another union school district, Dartmouth.

So this dirt's going from one to the other.

They're also claiming that they're going to move these fields to Dartmouth.

Dartmouth already has fields.

They have soccer fields and baseball fields on them.

So I don't know what we're moving.

The sole contractor, Mana is going to do these fields, sole contractor, no price, there's no plans.

The baseball field, the snack shack he talks about, nothing's nothing's been developed.

In fact, that land is part of this whole project.

And that land has not been checked by any environmental report.

It has been left out of the entire project in the scene of this.

Thank you, sir.

That's been your two minutes.

That's been two minutes.

So what's happening is uh So we can we need to move on to the next piece.

No problem.

Um it's all I got you.

And it's all written documented.

So anything I need to get to is on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate you all.

I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Thank you.

Hello.

Um I'm Susan Seffle.

I am also a longtime resident of the Park Al-Madin neighborhood.

And uh we are here to bring to light a lot of deficiencies in the uh EIR based on the CEQA requirements that we don't feel have been addressed fully and have been glossed over, shall I say?

Oh, well, we say these bad things, but there's so many more good things that we can ignore the bad things, and we just don't feel that's appropriate.

And in my uh submittal, which uh follows along with a lot of the deep uh references that Tom has also provided.

Uh we have requested formal responses to our questions and our uh some of the issues that we see in the process that came with the EIR comp uh and the draft.

That's uh we do not think that the ER should proceed until all those uh issues have been addressed.

Um like that.

So thank you very much.

And uh we appreciate too.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Zoila Rollins and Mr.

X.

Oh no, thank you for allowing us to come over here and speak to you about our concerns about this project.

This project is a safety concern for our neighborhood.

Um the plan showed the streets, the project single transit lane.

It didn't show you the big huge PGA plant right across the street from that.

So that is a huge impact.

It's a safety issue for our neighborhood.

And to be able to, if there's a fire, we have two ways in.

We have uh entrance and egress and in a in a uh egress and egress, sorry.

Um the infrastructure is a huge impact to our neighborhood.

Um I don't know if you guys have taken a trip down to our neighborhood, but this is gonna really be a really health concern.

It's gonna be a safety concern.

There's a lot of kids in our neighborhood, and we need to take in consideration that if any child again dies on in our neighborhood.

Remember, this is going to be um something that's gonna be a burden upon you guys if you guys approve this project, and we mentioned it to all the other meetings that we've been involved to um from Mana.

Um so I don't know if you guys are familiar with that, but and then we just had a a child hit down the street on Blossom Hill from us walking to school.

So these are concerns that really impact me and my neighborhood.

So we would really take in considerate what the also the dirt that's gonna be flying around.

The ballpark is there.

It is nice for the kids to come and play baseball.

I love hearing the bats swing and the balls hit off of it.

It's we look welcome these parents to come in.

But driving down the street with the construction that's going on right now, there is literally only one way in.

There's cars that are parked from the baseball field, and then there's big um cars that are working on our streets right now, upgrading our infrastructure.

So if there's an emergency, there's one way out and one lane to get out of that.

Those need to be taken in consideration.

I don't think you could put a sidewalk where the PTE plant is today because it's gonna impact that.

So you have PGE trucks.

If there's a fire there, you have fire trucks if there's a fire there.

There's no way for us to exit and be safe.

So thank you for this consideration.

All right, thank you.

Is there anybody else at this time that would like to come down?

Please come on down.

I believe I called all the names, but yes, please come in line.

Here's the line that's please take your name for the record.

Yeah, give me a second.

Um good evening.

I'm Doug Benton, Commissioners.

Um live on single park ridge, actually.

I'm concerned about single tree, park crest, the streets in the area.

Really, it's traffic safety, right?

San Jose needs housing.

There's there's no doubt.

Um I work with young people that can't afford to live here.

There's not enough housing in the area.

They leave the area, right?

There's there's it impacts the economic growth of the Silicon Valley.

Um but the ER EIR acknowledges the impact on traffic and the way that both single tree, Park Crest, and the intersections of Blossom Hill and uh Camden are going to be affected.

One thing that didn't overly address is how it impacts the traffic leaving Dartmouth Middle School, which is less than a thousand feet away at Park Crest and Blossom Hill.

There's been children.

Hit at that intersection.

This is one of two ingress egress points out of that neighborhood.

So I would expect um the city uh would address it appropriately.

My understanding, and I'm not an expert, City Code 2100 uh must provide safe and adequate vehicle circulation.

If it does not address the one particular intersection, which is part of the vehicle circulation, it's insufficient.

There were studies done, but the impact is during peak school hours at that intersection.

So I believe there's a significant incomplete section as far as three of the intersections, one of the three that really hasn't been addressed.

I hope you hold the developer accountable to high standards.

It costs money to build, it costs money to do intersections, but also it has to be accounted for with the existing people, plus the uh increase in people that'll be in the neighborhood.

So thank you very much.

All right, my name is Donna Smith, and my main concern is, and this is probably more for the to the developers, is singletree.

Singletree is this little lane that goes like this.

You've got cars parked on this side because of the condos, and you've got cars parked on this side because of the baseball fields or whoever's parking along there, the condo people park there.

There's barely enough room for one car to literally pass.

Now in the morning, when I leave, I've got kids coming down singletree that live over on the other side, cut down to go to Dartmouth.

I fully understand.

But there's this little blind intersection that when you drive, it's a little curve like this.

And if you don't know those kids are coming, somebody's gonna get hit automatically.

I can tell you right now, I see it all the time.

I love these kids dearly, but they ride in the middle of the road.

That's what kids do.

And if this these buildings go up and they're gonna come out on singletree, it's a blind intersection.

I don't even know how they're gonna pull out if you've got a car coming this way, and they're gonna pull out this way, and then you've got kids.

And I don't think you can do no parking because you've got those houses that live there, so they have a right to park on the street.

So that is my main concern are those cars, those kids coming on their bikes, and 108 units, people pulling out, and I who live in the neighborhood also is pulling out on this one little lane.

And if they put a stoplight there, which is fine, but it backs up traffic and something happens.

I don't even know how those police or fire trucks are even gonna go like this if we're all at a standstill.

And you can't widen the road.

There's just no way to widen that road.

It's just not a good road with kids coming, cars going, cars coming this way.

It's gonna be a disaster.

Thank you.

All right.

This time do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item?

All right, if not, we'll conclude public comment and uh provide an additional five minutes to the applicant if he would like to use it.

All right, with that, we'll turn it over to the commission.

Uh we'll start with uh Commissioner.

Is Commissioner Oliveira still having a question?

We lost Commissioner Olivario.

Um, so he's in here yet.

I've texted him to see if he can rejoin.

Okay.

Then we'll start with Commissioner Bondaugh, followed by Commissioner Casey.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, thank you for the developer for his presentation.

Uh he caused a fire alarm.

So thank you for that.

Just kidding.

Uh, thank you for all the members who came out and spoke today.

I know this project is uh builder's remedy project with significant CEQA pertainings.

Um, so I'd just like to take a quick second to kind of piggy off piggyback off of some of the comments that the public made and uh Mr.

Thomas and Susan uh for the record, Mr.

Thomas held the door for us and made sure everybody evacuated safely for so thank you for doing that.

So uh I'd like to start off with you know uh a lot of the the the public mentioned that uh the the emergency egress and ingress.

Um is that a would that be a problem for this project?

And if you guys can just share your thoughts on that Florin Lapustia DOT.

Um I do want to say that in terms of emergency access, the Department of Transportation has implemented in the last I think about three years ago, uh, emergency vehicle preemption cloud-based.

So now all of our fire trucks in the city of San Jose have preemption at signalized intersections.

So in terms of the local major nodes of the intersections at Camden and Blossom Hill and the new signalized intersection that's going to go in with the project at Singletree and Camden, the fire department will have uh preemption that will allow them to make churns and SS it will also dissipate any cues for their path of travel.

And it's it's a really awesome program.

Our director and the fire department have tested it in the field when it was implemented, and we've had good results.

So okay, I understand that the fire department will have a problem coming in going.

Will the public have problems coming in going during an emergency situation?

And if these new residents were to come, will this be a factor in the emergency evacuation routes for the ingress and egress?

For my understanding of the of the site plan, I think there are uh the site plans are studied and they're actually reviewed by the fire department, and it was deemed that there was enough there were enough uh access points for emergency situations for people to uh ingress and egress.

Thank you for that.

Um the member of the public mentioned that 87 units make more sense versus 108.

Is that true or is 108 feasible?

Or if you could just kind of quickly touch base on that.

Um I can address that just from uh from a sequence standpoint.

So um if I can pull my notes, but I can start talking.

So um, yes, under uh in the EIR, we studied alternatives and the mention of 87 um units is one of the the alternatives.

Sorry, trying to pull it up here.

Um so uh the project given its location in an area of imitable VMT, um that the that alternative for reduced um 87 unit project would still result in significant and unavoidable VMT and greenhouse gas emission uh impacts and the mitigation measures um for those resource areas that were able to be brought to less than significant levels, um biological resources, cultural resources, um hazards, uh air quality and transfer and um tribal cultural resources, I believe, those impacts would still remain.

Um they would be lessened but not to less than significant levels, uh meaning that those mitigation measures identified for those resource areas would still apply.

Um so it was an alternative um analyzed, but um the mitigation measures and significant and unavoidable impacts would still exist under that situation.

So when all said and done, a hundred and eight units is the the applicants legally able to move forward with that, right?

With 108.

That's why it's not these uh BMG.

You've already had your opportunity to talk, sir.

Through the chair, if I can address Commissioner Bandal's question.

So the project that is currently on the table and under consideration is the proposed the applicant proposed project.

And yes, the environmental review is required to study alternatives just for full disclosure purposes on you know how potential impacts may be lessened because you know, with fewer units, the physical uh footprint of the project may be a little bit lower, but as uh uh our planner, Court Hitchens mentioned, there would still be impacts with a smaller project.

Um and and the override would still be necessary.

Um so the uh the project under consideration is the applicant proposed 108 unit project.

Okay, so uh per my understanding the applicant can go with the 108 units.

Should the planning commission and council approve it, yes.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um and then I do have one question for the school is somebody here from the school, school board would you mind coming down?

I can ask you just one quick question.

Thank you, Superintendent, for being here tonight.

Um the this the where we're moving the little league from this property to Dartmouth uh middle school.

So somebody mentioned that Dartmouth already has soccer, baseball, and other activities.

Does it have space for little league and will there be an issue or there'll be a problem moving it there?

So it's actually ideal time because we are currently um renovating the entire um uh outdoor area space at Dartmouth with a new track and field and the fields at the same time.

So we're um doing that through our bond funds because the condition is um not optimal compared to our other schools, and so it's uh it's uh ideal time.

Uh and we've been working both little league because we prioritize sports um during the day and after school, so it works out very well.

Okay, that's it for my question.

Okay, so I Commissioner Fly has a good question.

Yeah.

Superintendent, thank you for being here.

Um proud district, proud resident of district nine.

My kids all went through union school district schools, they went to Auster and Union Middle School.

So, first of all, I want to say thank you for your service that you and your staff and your teachers do.

It's really important.

We really appreciate it.

I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the financial challenges that are facing the district right now and how this project will be helpful in addressing those.

I appreciate that.

So uh Union School District is the lowest funded school district in Santa Clara County.

Uh per we get um funding per pupil, and so we get about twelve thousand dollars per student, where some of our neighbors are getting up to 28,000.

Uh with declining enrollment as well, it plays a huge factor.

Um we are a destination location, so people want to come to our schools, so that's wonderful, and so thank you for the compliment.

Uh, but there are fiscal challenges with being the lowest funded.

Uh and in terms of um opportunities to bring in revenue um that will support our programs and our staff, that's what we have to do because of the low funding we receive from the state and the federal government.

So thank you.

Do you have do you have a projection of how much uh this project might help on an annual basis for you?

On an annual basis.

Um well, when all said and done, we have another project.

So in terms of a combination of two projects is about 1.6 million ongoing annually.

Um that is due to um getting revenue from the exchange process, because right now um this parcel doesn't bring in funds, and so that one that funds will be another added value ongoing, and it's also a legacy project in that it adds housing to our community and access for um for those who would like to live in the area, some of our staff, as well as um increasing enrollment opportunities for us as well.

So it's there's added value for housing for for the community and the income too, the revenue.

Thank you.

So is that fair to say this project's uh quite important to the budget of the school district at this time?

Yes, very much so.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner.

Those are some great questions.

Um I'll I'll wait to make my uh I'd like to hear more from the commission, so I'll like to give that thank you.

Commissioner Casey.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, for disclosure, I I drive down Camden and turn left on Blossom Hill four days a week, taking my daughter from home to West Valley College.

So I'm I'm quite familiar with uh the area and live through the recent construction of the other six homes just slightly south of there.

Um so yes, quite familiar with with that particular area.

I have a few questions for the traffic um department.

On slide nine, you mentioned um transit system improvements, but the details seem to be that it's just consists of relocating a bus stop.

Is there additional transit improvements besides the relocation of a bus stop included?

Um no, so in general, when um these are comments that do come from VTA, so we do have VTA review the site plans and work in coordination in terms of what kind of improvements they would like to see for their bus stops.

And currently the the bus stop is located on the near side of the the intersection, and that's like right before the signal.

And so it actually makes it tougher for them to uh pick up passengers, the pull over pick up passengers and then get back into traffic and to proceed down.

And so they've requested that bus stop to be moved to the far side across the the signal so it's easier for them to pull over and then get back into traffic.

And so um these type of improvements do help prioritize transit and the mobility of them within traffic flow and then the added bus shelter and benches also help promote uh transit usage.

Okay, so no increase in frequency or routes or anything like that.

It's a relocation that'll hopefully make it a little smoother.

Right.

And then over time, obviously, with you know, as we do get more, you know, residents, um, we're hoping you know that people do shift over and use transit.

Okay.

Uh on slide eight, there was a discussion about um traffic calming at Blossom Hill in Camden.

Uh so I mean, obviously, in the evening commute, the cars coming east on Blossom Hill and turning right onto Camden to go south on Camden.

Is the proposal to remove that dedicated right turn lane and make it uh a bowl out where you have to wait for the light to turn green for cars to turn?

My concern there is much as we see at Las Gatas, um Almaden Road and Union, the traffic backs up, I mean, almost to the cemetery on that street at night now because of the bulb put there.

So I want to understand that a bit more because I think that'll have a negative impact on the neighborhood traffic.

Yes, uh thank thank you for that question.

We did look at the when we designed the intersection, we looked at the safety uh measures that we could do at that particular corner because it is currently a free right turn, meaning it's not controlled by signalization, even though it is within uh the boundaries of the signalized intersection.

So typically the standard uh complete street practice in the transportation world is to remove that kind of a conflict, and essentially uh what we're gonna do is we're gonna tighten that corner.

We're gonna remove the conflict in terms of having the vehicle movement not have a uh uncontrolled right turn, but we're gonna keep the right turn pocket because we did look at the volumes and they're pretty heavy.

We so uh we are keeping the right turn pocket, but we're tightening the corner.

So that movement will now not happen at a fast rate of speed, it will happen at a slower rate of speeds with vehicles can see pedestrians or bicycles.

More akin to the Camden and um Almond and Expressway turns.

Sorry, can you say that again?

So it'll be it'll be like what you what was done at Camden and Almin and Expressway, where you no longer have a free right turn, you have a dedicated right turn lane, which you need to stop on complete stop on red and go.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um, in terms of I mean we heard a lot of comments obviously about um single treeway, and I've driven down that road.

Um, and as they note, if there's cars on both sides, it's kind of it feels like a mountain road.

You're taking turns um for cars to come each way.

Um, and as they mentioned, um, you have the school maintenance yard there, and then you have the condos as well.

Um what uh assessment have we done in terms of the traffic volumes on that street and what improvements are we looking to make on that street besides the stoplight, which I think is a great idea.

Um that'll also get people to slow down on Camden, myself included.

Um what improvements are we looking at on single treeway?

Uh we we did take a look at the average daily traffic volumes for the project along single tree to see if we could do additional improvements on single tree, but um the volumes added with the project trips are still well within the range of what uh what single tree is classified.

So uh as so a street like singletree can handle up to 3,000 vehicles per day for the way we we classify them.

Um and then the total volume with the project trips will be around 1,100 uh trips, and so per our traffic calming policy that we have with the that we have um it doesn't warrant any additional traffic calming measures along single tree.

So the assessment said that the single treeway should be able to handle 3,000 car trips a day in your estimate is there'll be 1100 so well within the tolerance?

Yes.

And how many do we know do we have a listing or I mean a measurement of how many are done today on the street?

The existing ADT is around 800, 805 is are the counts that we received.

So we're expecting 300 more car trips.

That's correct.

So it's an increase of about 108 units, so we're saying three three trips and trip is one way, so three per house per day.

Right.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Oh, sorry, and then VMT um number for this one.

Uh trying to understand, yes, it's a bit over, but I'm trying to understand how that uh fits in the realm of other recent developments, and people mentioned as well, obviously Blossom Hill and Couzier, Blossom Hill where the fish market used to be.

Do we have with VMT?

Those were much more high density.

Um, and they're not necessarily any closer to highway uh than this particular development.

Do we have VMT numbers for either of those?

Uh yes, for Blossom, we do for Blossom Hill TOD that which was the VTA site.

Um that site is very it though more dense.

Um we applied the policy in the same exact way as we did for this project.

We're we're very consistent in that.

So that project is also providing um both well that project's providing trans transportation and physical improvements as well as um transportation demand management programs.

Um the override for that one in today's dollars would be roughly about 1.6 million, and and that project will also be constructing similar improvements um at the intersection of I can pull that up real quick.

Sorry, but so the VMT for this particular one is 13.5.

What was the VMT for either of those on Blossom Hill that were added?

Either Coucher where Chuck E.

Cheese was or where the fish market was closer to Winfield.

The Cooser project was actually uh exempt under CECO.

That one didn't have um significant and avoidable impacts.

The one I'm thinking of of that that we have approved is um again the one at 605 Blossom Hill Road, and that's that VTA site.

That's down by Blossom Av in Blossom Hill.

Okay, and what's the VMT for that?

So the VMT for that one was and in fairness, that is right on top of a highway exit and entrance.

So I assume the VMT is gonna be lower.

Right.

So it's still it is still in a high VMT area again.

We didn't need council override on that project as well.

The project VMT for that site was 13.37 per capita.

Um the residential threshold during that time in 2022 when we did the analysis was 10.12.

We were able to reduce their um VMT using um trail improvements um and similar transit improvements, and we reduced it to about 12.62.

And then um the remaining override payment again in today's dollars would be roughly 1.6 million.

And we conditioned the project um to provide physical improvements, which include um again similar improvements like Blossom and Camden at Blossom and Snell.

So very similar, same exact type of improvements in terms of tightening up the the Kerr radian grade eye and doing um transit improvements, and then also again that that project will be doing some trail extensions at Kanoa's Creek Trail.

Okay, thank you.

Um and one, I guess for playing department in general.

Uh there's a number of comments that were concerns around the dirt at the location, dirt being kicked up.

Is there something unique to is there contamination or something at this site, or is it just a typical construction dirt and um impact that we have?

Or is there something specific that I missed in the report?

Uh thanks for the question, Commissioner.

Um, so I can speak uh to that.

So um the project did uh the project applicant did prepare a phase one site assessment um to study soils.

Um and so maybe I'll answer it in two ways.

So first we would be applying the city standard permit condition for construction related um air quality, basically best management practices to keep dust and other things suppressed during construction.

Um the phase one environmental site assessment did have a recommendation um for a limited phase two site assessment.

Uh I believe I don't have it uh prior to issuance of grading permits.

Um that is a mitigation measure um as part made part of the MMRP for this project.

Uh in relation to the location of dirt, I am not sure um that that is any any different.

Good evening, Commissioner David Key on principal planner cities environmental review team.

So pretty much across the valley was what's used as well, the valley was once used as agriculture, so there's um residual pesticides and you know agricultural um contamination that exists in soils throughout the entire city, and so it's just common practice to have these mitigations to phase one and phase two and going through a process of remediation.

This is standard pretty much across the entire development within the city.

Um and also the um you know, this is this is pretty much any sort of urban and fill development development within the city would have to do this.

Um in addition, the dust, we do have um dust control measures that are uh based upon the Bay Area Air Quality District, um, actually Bay Area Air District now.

Um they have best management practices, and those are conditions of approval, and that was apply to pretty much all medium and larger development projects in the city.

Thank you.

Uh no further questions at this time.

Okay, next we'll have Commissioner Cow and then Vice Chair Bickford.

All right, thank you very much.

I'm one of those individuals.

Recently married, probably have no shot at buying a home out here in San Jose.

So I deeply understand what you mentioned earlier, so I just wanted to recognize that.

And in particular, there's a section about concerns about the sale of union school district land.

This brings me back to my very first meeting on this planning commission.

It was last September.

It was a joint meeting with our commission and city council.

I do not remember who made the following comment, but it hit home.

And at the time I was extremely sleep deprived with a one-month newborn, but I remembered this very comment.

And it was somebody who said the issue of, I guess spoke to the issue of developing on school land because we don't get that land back.

That hit home for me.

In the hustle and bustle of that very first meeting, not knowing any commissioners and the city council members being kind of frazzled at, oh my gosh, this is a huge joint meeting.

That was literally one of the very few things I pulled away from that meeting.

And little did I know that was going to be extremely relevant for this conversation because we are now considering to build on school property.

With that, I initially had a question for school district staff, but um superintendent, thank you so much for answering the question from Commissioner Young, and I think that addressed my question on the motivation to build on school property.

But I wanted to extend that question to city staff, and I don't know if there are any particular department this question would be great for, but just to kind of piggyback off of the motivation for wanting to build on school property.

Do we see any concern generally speaking about developing on school property?

Thanks for the question, Commissioner Cow.

Um I I would say that we have laid out our concerns of this in the general plan section of the permit.

Um this goes against multiple general plan policies, which you know in in the vein of your initial comment.

If it is PQP land, uh public quasi public land, it's you know supposed to be retained for public quasi-public uses.

Having said that, this is a builder's remedy project.

Um therefore, you know, we need to per the government code section uh for per the HAA, the project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with all applicable plans, programs, policies.

So even though you know, on its face, this doesn't meet the policy.

Um the government the the state law basically says despite that it is consistent.

I think I will add that we are getting other applications on this.

There are other state laws, not just builders' remedy that allow school districts to build housing on their land.

Um many of these projects are not likely to come to planning commission.

I believe they have a ministerial process as well for some of them.

Um so these are projects undertaken by the school district, or in this case the school district, in conjunction with the developer.

So the city does have policies that say that you know we should retain public quasi public land for public quasi public purposes.

But state law in this case and in other cases is able to overwrite that.

Yeah, thank you very much for those comments, and that's very much appreciated.

My second and last question will be related to safety for children, especially with two schools in the area.

Um do we have crossing guards at either of those intersections um being discussed in this project, or will there be any crossing guards installed?

Yeah, I think that would be more a question for the school district regarding school operations than for city stuff.

Got it.

Could you please come to the microphone?

Sorry.

I can't hear you.

She comes down.

Could we get clarity on whose jurisdiction is it to supply crossing guards?

My my understanding is the cities.

So that's I was trying to advocate for more crossing guards.

Yes, we're always in need of crossing guards.

We never have enough.

There are many, many signs up from the city, which I appreciate.

So we will always advocate for safety, and we do that with our council members and our um, but we do have it in front of Dartmouth Middle School, the city.

Um we work with them.

Um but if there's I know that's not a uh decision here, but I will advocate for uh more because safety around schools at all schools is is needed.

Thank you, Superintendent.

And I also agree with um Commissioner Barrosio's question about the jurisdiction on crossing guards.

I also I too thought it was a city uh within city jurisdiction, although I could be completely wrong.

Commissioner Kalk.

Um may I ask a question of the superintendent?

So she's up.

Thank you.

Uh Superintendent, um isn't it true that this site uh the condos are not going on the school site itself, correct?

The school sites can remain.

Correct.

We're uh we we were attaining the facilities, so if we were ever to grow, um we could open the school back up.

Uh we do have quite a few schools that are being leased out, and the property that is um we are not using it's not an active school site, it's not of an active, it's leased out.

Um so but in the future we could open it back up if we needed to.

You also have Leeds Athenaur and Lone Hill all empty right now, right?

Uh we had we once were 50,000 students, so we are now at 5,500.

So we do um lease out um facilities that are no longer active as a way to bring in revenue.

Um, but we also have the opportunity to reopen them at any time.

Did you say 50,000?

At one time, yeah.

A long, long time ago, yes.

10%?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So is it safe to say that you um you folks plan for enrollments that increase and enrollments that decrease because we've all seen that?

I'm sure you plan for that.

Yes, so Santa Clara County is declining significantly, and so we are we're projected to lose 500 students in the next five years, so we are going down just like all of our neighbors.

But if it did increase in the future, you have school sites that are leased currently that you could yes, and we could retain the same fit the one this facility as well.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cal.

If I may.

Um just to clarify, Commissioner Burrosio's question bring it up again.

Um, so the crossing guard comes out of whose budget, the school's budget or the city's budget.

Uh sorry, I can actually speak to that.

Doing a quick search here, it's actually under San Jose uh PD.

So they had a school safety and education program, and so the crossing guards are hired through them and retained and recruited through them.

Thank you.

Uh commission to clarify about safety.

That's why you kind of see this dual VMT and like balance of traffic, closing your port shops, adding those signal sections, slowing down traffic so that it's safe, not necessarily impede or make people longer.

It's kind of a balance of doing both of those things.

So this project is doing improvements that we think can actually improve the all-all safety, may come at the cost a little bit of time for cars, how fast they can go on the road, but that's kind of the balance we have to do on these projects.

Got it.

Thank you very much.

Next go to Vice Chair Bickford and then Commissioner Esquar.

Uh first I want to say thank you to my fellow commissioners for asking most of the questions that were on my list.

Um I think uh focusing on health and safety considerations are what we are supposed to be doing.

The last two questions that I don't feel we've answered sufficiently.

One of them is the single tree density of traffic.

I want to call into question um the traffic numbers.

243 parking spaces, two points of egress.

You said 300 more.

I think it's gonna be closer to 500, but it's still well below your threshold.

I'm just wondering if that really is a narrow two-way street and there is parking on both sides.

Should we do something about that?

Can we do something about that as a condition to enable that street to actually have two-way traffic?

Like one side of the street becomes no parking.

Is that was that in any consideration?

I'll let Florence jump in also if I'll start.

We did take a look at that.

I mean, in some areas, we will have to install red curbs to remove some of that parking just for a visibility at the at the driveway points.

In general, parking does help a street to slow down vehicles.

Um because you know, when when the street feels a little more congested, you are likely to slow down if we if we expand and and remove more parking, then people tend to speed.

So that's a fine balancing act uh when it comes to when it comes to parking.

Um then I'll right.

And then also just to add to Manjit's uh remark here is also that single tree, the existing curb the curb width is right at the minimum uh for per our complete streets policy, it's 34.

So that is the minimum width that allows uh on-street parking and two-way operation.

Uh, but but again, it's to uh we're to a manjiwa thing is the fact that with the curb decre being at at that width, and with on-street parking, it induces folks to not speed uh uh on a residential street, which is our major concern for the Department of Transportation, because when you have a speeding issues, then your collisions there's an exponential factor in terms of collisions being fatal.

So per our vision zero's uh policy at the city, we are concerned and we want to reduce uh speeds the 85th percentile.

That actually brings me to my second question here.

One of the things that the uh that the applicant said was there are also four 43 bicycle parking spaces.

So my other question is I didn't actually see bike lanes going in or how we're we're supporting kids often ride their bike, and some of these people they may ride their bike to at least some local things, although with the VMT probably not to a grocery store or something in the neighborhood.

But I didn't see in the layout anything that we're doing to support other than pedestrian traffic, the the bicycles and and other wheeled thing, two-wheeled things.

So uh the project is providing a contribution uh per linear uh footage of its frontage towards class four bike lanes that will be later installed by DOT with pavement programs and that sort of thing, but Lauren can talk more about timing on that.

Exactly.

I just wanted to mention that uh our department has Camden Avenue in that stretch uh as part of our pavement maintenance program.

I do believe it's uh actually in 2027, which will uh resurface the street, but we'll also put the striping infrastructure for uh class two bike lanes.

So and we actually coordinated internally our geometrics uh striping group with our private development group to make sure that the improvements that the applicant will build as single tree in Camden um the those civil improvements as well, they're gonna match what DOT is gonna come through and do with the pavement uh maintenance.

Thank you.

And my last question is kind of an I'm not sure how important it is, but we're talking about space that is currently a ball field and that presumably kids have been playing on since the school has been there.

I know that there was a comment from uh one of the uh requesters today about the fact that we're moving a significant amount of soil that there could have been pesticides in it feels like that concern has existed all along, and I'm just wondering if the superintendent has any commentary about issues with playing on the field or construction at the site that might give us pause from a safety or health standpoint about the land itself.

Please tell us your name though.

We haven't met you.

I think the uh little league has been around since 1969.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Scott Sheldon with Terror Realty Advisors with a real estate advisor for the Union School District.

So I want to make sure I understand your question.

It was about the transportation of dirt or the plane.

I want to make sure it was clear on the other.

It was about the land itself and the fact that it it was as everything in San Jose orchard or some other food producing site, and now it's been a ball field since 1969.

So what concern, if any, does the school district have about the disruption of that land?

Well, the the I mean, they've been playing ball on the field for quite some time.

And you know, whether it's been when the school was in place or with a little league.

And uh again, we did a phase one uh report, environmental assessment, and they said there was really no issues with it.

One of the things that comes in, again, we've seen this a lot, we see it here, we see a lot of other places where pesticides were done, but we did a title search all the way back, and uh we found that there was very very little stuff that was going on agriculturally on the property when we went through the phase one process.

So what's gone on now uh you know, since the school was constructed, is basically the fields were improved.

There were obviously fertilizers and things like that that were put on the grass and that would be in any school or anybody's house for that matter, um, or lawn.

So I think everything has been managed.

Uh, you know, DTSC controls a lot of the things that schools do and what they can and can't do.

And in terms of the um the there won't be a mix of people playing on that area during construction because the the whole area is basically being taken for the new house, the new housing development.

And I don't know, and that would be the applicant if there's any dirt that's being taken off of that site.

I have no no knowledge about that.

That would be through the grading plan.

Um, but it that would be the applicant would have to address that.

And again, it would be subject to uh any kind of a phase two report that came in if there were any kind of pesticides, what kind of remediation would there be?

Do you have to take it somewhere else?

And it would have to be through a process.

Again, it fairly typical, um, but it would have to be through a process that was very regulated.

Thank thank you very much.

You actually segued to my very last question.

The phase two that was referenced um by staff, at what point in this process does that phase two uh happen?

Is it pre-grading, post-grading?

Yes.

So the uh there is a mitigation measure um under hazards and hazardous materials that fate limited phase two subsurface investigation would be required prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and or building permits, whichever occurs earliest.

Thank you.

Thank you both very much.

Thank you.

If I could add one more thing at the at the discretion of the chair.

One of the one of the questions that's come up, and this comes up a lot with school districts and and uh entitling bodies such as planning commissions and city councils, is the disposition of school district property.

And again, you've heard you've seen it in the newspaper, the superintendent Andrews has said this, and we see this statewide um that there's declining enrollment.

One of the things that we tell all of our clients, and we do work for 35 school districts uh in all of these kinds of specialized aspects, is don't ever sell your assets.

One of the things that uh many school districts have done over a very long period of time is during the declining enrollment, they sell an asset because we don't need it, and uh and then they it typically will go into a program, and those programs then have a life cycle where you burn through that money, and uh then there's nothing really there.

At some point in time, the union school district, which has been very fiscally sound in terms of the keeping their schools and all of that.

Um, but our our suggestion, which the board has gone along with, uh, is we're not selling the property.

We're exchanging it for another piece of property.

And that piece of property will generate income on an interim basis for the district, and uh and if the school district ever does need to do something, they will at least have the money because they can take the asset that was required and use that to either purchase another piece of property or build on an existing piece of property.

So it's an asset that will always be there, and that's really important for everybody to know.

But am I correct in saying the land exchange that occurred is not part of this discussion, right?

I mean, I'll I'll take that from the staff side.

This is an application from the city side.

This is an application for a site development permit and a tentative map.

Um so we are considering the splitting of the lot into two lots, and we are considering the construction of the 1008 units on the lot to the east of the original lot.

So then help me understand how that exchange, because I understand that happened back in December or something, or it will happen as a condition of this split.

The exchange will happen once the developer is in a position to be able to do what they would like to do.

At that time, then they will they will say, okay, here's the money, and we will find a piece of property that we can exchange into.

So again, it's the asset that stays intact.

It's not part of this discussion.

I think it was brought up in terms of you know the declining enrollment schools are doing these kinds of things.

What is the the correct way to look at that?

And the correct way to look at it from our perspective is don't ever get rid of the asset, just have another asset.

Thank you for humoring me, Chair.

Commissioner Askelbar speaks to the construction management plan.

Notating that it addresses various things such as hazardous transport, tribal culture of that nature.

Um what I don't see as a contingency plan for addressing the impacts to students and the schools should they activate the school site during the construction period.

And I feel that that's pretty relevant given that we just also heard that at any given time if they wanted to activate the school site, they could.

And should that occur during the construction period, I don't see anything there as a contingency of that activation.

Um it is something that I would prefer to see added to the construction management plan.

Um, should they activate the site?

And I'm not sure which side wants to speak to this, or all three.

Yeah, so in terms of coordination with schools and neighboring schools in the neighborhoods during the implementation phase of the project, the project is required to submit hall route permits as well as traffic control plans to to the city to public works and DOT for review and approval prior to the start of the part of start of construction, and then there will be a designated public works.

Sorry, there will be a dedicated public works inspector on the project.

And so you know, that inspector as well as city staff will ensure that the contractor does coordinate construction activities should it occur with the school, and so the contractor will be required to coordinate those efforts with the schools.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that not only are they going to work on the the traffic aspect of it, the streets, but I'm also speaking to airborne things of that nature that could get into the school's filtration system that now your children are breathing in through heating and cooling, things of that nature.

And I recognize it takes it a step further, but it's an extremely relevant given some of what is written in this report, um, that somehow make it into the documents that we don't lose sight of it.

Um I don't want to read years from now that somebody contracted some horrible something because we didn't do that part.

Uh Chair, can I clarify one thing or ask a question?

Yes, Commissioner Casey.

Commissioner Escobar, I just wanted to uh uh ask you to ask ask you askily the school is when you say activated, you mean there's an incident or the schools actually being used because the school is being used today, not by union school district, but by a private school.

I think it it's relevant in both cases given that the liability would ultimately fall back to the school, whether it's their actual students or a contracted entity utilizing the actual site.

The liability still will always go back to the owner at the end of the day, and ultimately could also fall back here as a city, knowing that we have certain items within this document that call out things in the air and environment, and we did not address the possibilities of needing to include this in that management plan.

Yeah, I agree completely.

I just wanted to clarify that it's why it's not an active union school district school, it is an active school.

Correct.

Commissioner, sorry, David Cowan, principal planner, environmental review.

I just want to mention that.

So there was a health risk assessment, construction air quality health risk assessment repair for this project.

There is a private school or private there's our currently being used by students.

The health risk assessment evaluates impacts on sensitive receptors which include residents and schools especially children.

It's very conservative we evaluate based on um based on thresholds for children which are separate than those for adults and we did anticipate there would be sensitive receptors on the site and then the surrounding areas and that's what the evaluation for the health risk assessment was based on and that's what this mitigation measure intends.

It doesn't matter if the kids are of the school union school district or if they're a private school they are sensitive receptors and we have to evaluate them under SQL as such.

So therefore this are this condition this mitigation already addresses that there would be sensitive receptors surrounding the site during construction and it must be addressed next we have Commissioner Cantrell and then Commissioner Young actually my my question is for the city's attorney So this being a um so this being a um a site that was not expected to be but due to state law it is what it is.

So it's challenging right if we what are the how does the state law influence our decision today?

So if we say today no but this should not move forward what's next thank you for that very broad question.

So in order to since this is a housing development project as defined under the housing accountability act and that means that there's a certain level of affordability in that project there's six different ways that you can deny the project right so that's something in the Housing Accountability Act that is laid out here are the six different ways that you can disapprove a housing development project.

And one of those which is where the builder's remedy comes from is inconsistency with the general plan land use designation and inconsistency with the zoning code.

So those are taking off the table as as uh one of the one of the six that you can use to disapprove so then you look to the others that are left what what are there to disapprove and I think one of the only ones that we've looked at for any of these projects is if there's an adverse impact to public health or safety.

In order to do that you have to make specific findings based on standards that are written and and those are not I think we've discussed this before in the past about making those findings and we have felt unable to make those findings for this particular project because we're mitigating a lot of the significant impacts associated with CEQA.

So in order to that doesn't so that's just the builder's remedy portion of it right so and I think staff has kind of pointed out that this in so many words that this would not have come to this body or would not have been considered had it not been for the builder's remedy.

I believe the developer pointed out that they tried to have a general plan amendment in the past and that was unsuccessful.

So this is not something where we actively wanted to change public quasi public land into residential.

However given the builder's remedy this is where we are with this project the wrinkle with this project is because this is in a high VMT area which requires a statement of overriding consideration.

So really what the crux of this conversation should be focused on addition to safety and all of the other conversations that we're having is do the benefits do the community benefits of this project outweigh the significant impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and of high VMT.

So that's where we are and and really the recommendation is yes this project given all of the community benefits that the developers provided for this project do outweigh the significant impacts because you're not going to mitigate the VMT impacts to a less than significant level which is why you need the statement of overriding considerations with CEQA.

So if you were to say it doesn't meet those community there's not enough community benefit we don't want we don't think that the the benefits proposed are going to um counterbalance the the high VMT and the GHG emissions you're going to also say we're so I guess I should back up you were going to say that we're not going to recommend a statement of overriding considerations because we don't believe this is met those benefits.

In addition under the Housing Accountability Act that is a disapproval so you would have to find one of the six reasons and provide findings as to why we're going to disapprove this project if that makes sense okay thank you I I appreciate it.

If that makes sense.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I I appreciate it.

And it's nice to have you on the spot occasionally.

Thanks.

Sorry, I missed that part.

It's nice to have you on the spot occasionally.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, this doesn't appear like a what I would call a naturally occurring project, right?

Because normally this would not happen.

So it makes it difficult for staff to uh bring this forward because normally this would never come forward.

Um so it it's a difficult position, I think, for everyone to be in, including the school system, uh, who seems to be, by the way, planning appropriately for this type of swap.

I think I was the guy that said when you get rid of a school, you get rid of a school.

And that will never come back.

Um we all know that populations are they're trends, right?

We've been on a downward trend for a while.

Um the reason I think we're on this downward trend is really interestingly, because of a lack of housing.

Um I think that's why we are really here today, is because that lack of housing has impacted our growth so severely that there's school land available that shouldn't be.

Um the community has gotten used to patterns of traffic and other things that in other locations wouldn't be, quite frankly.

There would have already been enough development in a community um that they would be used to this type of change.

Um I do have one concern.

It's a safety issue about a small street where people park their cars and through traffic on that street.

I am I am wondering why that is not an issue.

How why is why is that that safety issue there not something to overrule this project on?

Because I don't know how you you're not going to move those houses.

Um those are standard sidewalks, you're not going to take them out.

Uh emergency vehicles will not be able to cross when congestion happens there.

Um why is that not a situation here?

Um thank you for the question, Commissioner.

Um I did want to say that I just looked up our transportation pavement maintenance program in the future.

So I did mention that Camden Avenue is on the major streets list to be repaved in 2027, and single tree way is on the 2028 list.

It's a local streak uh so it will be repaved in 2028 with that effort and starting now, uh we'll make sure that we'll assess uh single tree in terms of any possible changes to the uh existing operations uh currently.

But again, typically for the purposes of having residential streets with uh safer speeds, uh we typically recommend curb to curbs what of what we see out there currently today, the 34 curve to curb is the minimum.

Uh it is tight, of course, but uh I think it's also the existing geometry of single treeway.

Uh its horizontal alignment uh has some uh obscurities we can say.

So perhaps uh or more than perhaps I will talk to my DOT colleagues to see where on-street parking might have to be omitted so that we can have a better uh um transitions for the uh vehicle uh path.

Yeah, I want to jump in here, sorry.

Um I think something that both Daniel and I, I think there is one word that we missed.

It's an immitigable specific adverse impact that needs basically the impact needs to be immitigable.

So if the concern is, for example, there's not enough space, so a fire truck can't get through because the street is too narrow, then as Florin was just saying, that can be mitigated by you know red curving one side and omitting the street parking, then that is what the city needs to do.

Then it is mitigable and it is no longer a safety impact if you know that a fire truck can't get through.

So I don't I don't live there.

Um but I don't know about you.

I mean if you tell me my parking spots are going away, I would have been at this meeting.

Um I I don't I don't understand if that's an option why people don't know that, why it's not clearly on the table.

Um in terms of the on street parking going away, yeah.

It it's not a it's an element that DOT has to assess our department, so we don't do it lightly.

When we t if we have to take on street parking away on a street like this, it would have to be through a community effort as well.

So it would be assessed by our uh traffic safety team in our neighborhood uh traffic management group and uh with outreach to the community to the council member uh it would it would have to be uh studied and um implemented if portions of the street need off uh on street parking to be removed.

But again, uh that effort that study that will happen uh with the pavement uh maintenance program uh that it will come up on that on single tree in 2028.

Typically that study though is done uh a year before.

So we'll definitely uh be assessing that street in 2027 for sure.

So are the cart and a horse in the right order?

I mean, if we approve this today and this moves forward, then that study happens later, which would have an additional adverse impact, uh, not just for safety for people's homes in their where they park.

I don't I don't understand if how we how do we get how do we get here today when that's a question?

The curb, the curve is not gonna change regardless if this project is approved or not approved.

So but the pavement maintenance of the street brings to uh the opportunity for the city to assess any uh inefficient operations on uh residential street.

That that's what I'm trying to say.

Through the chair, if I could perhaps add to you know what Florin just said.

So um typically like DOT will assess each street individually, right?

Like it's not just uh related to a project, but but has an ongoing maintenance program and always is looking at opportunities to improve safety and identify areas where that red curve would be appropriate or other improvements would be appropriate.

Um in this instance, the project itself does not have a direct impact to that street.

Yes, there is you know um community concern regarding that, but based on what the analysis shows, it's not increasing the probability of crashes, like the yes, it's adding 300 cars per day, but I'm not sure Manjeet, if you have data on how many cars would be added in the peak hours, for example, and you know how that compares with the existing traffic.

Um and to Florence's point when the study is conducted next year, like this project, even if it was to be approved by council in the coming months, is unlikely to get built, fully built out until at least three to four years down the line.

And I don't know, Florin, if you have information on when the pavement analysis is done in advance of the improvements.

Does DOT take into account projects that are approved on that um frontage that might help inform DOD's decision on what other improvements may be done uh to that street?

So I'm curious if you have that analysis.

Yeah, we uh we do take that into account.

We coordinate with our pavement maintenance group to uh make sure that the and we coordinate also with the developer and the contractor to make sure that uh the there's no throwaway work essentially.

Uh we try to line up the payment program to come in uh right after public improvements are constructed by uh private developers.

So there'll be alignment between the two between the project perhaps getting constructed and the pavement so that the streets are not repaved over and over.

So I think DOT will be taking all those factors into consideration.

One one last question.

How how far away is I forget the small tree's the streets name.

What was the name of the single tree?

How far away from the development project is that?

It didn't look very far to me.

There's an access point from singlet onto the development, but there's also an access point on Camden, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes.

So there seems like zero chance that it wouldn't impact traffic there.

Well, depends on how you define impact.

So based on the analysis, there is no significant impact.

Yes, there is addition of cars and you know, traffic on that street, but it hasn't risen to the level where it causes a safety uh impact that needs immediate um improvements uh on single treeway.

There are improvements proposed on Camden and some of the intersections on Camden and Blossom Hill and Camden and Singletree for again the pedestrian safety and the traffic safety, but there aren't any identified in the report that are directly related to this project proposal.

Commissioner Young, and then I'd like to make a comment also.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all the commissioners and uh all the folks that were here tonight.

Uh really good discussion.

And thank you again to the superintendent from Union School District and gentlemen from the real estate company appreciate that very much.

Um I want to provide some context on this.

Uh I was actually at this site today.

Um I I live quite near here.

My two of my kids played uh little league here.

And um so uh the the discussion we're having about the street, it's a typical San Jose City street, right?

So like the street I live on, we have people parked on each side, depending on what size vehicles they park.

Sometimes my neighbors and I have to kind of wait a little bit to get past, but it's uh it's not a huge issue and not really different from many other neighborhoods in the city.

It's been a lot of discussion about the fire department here, and um that's the one area of the IR who do have expertise in being a retired fire chief.

Um the fire department reviews these site plans in great detail.

I know that because I used to do that.

Uh the last thing the fire department will do is approve a project that is not safe, accessible, and workable in an emergency.

That is their mission.

And believe me, they will not sign off on anything, and I know that because I wouldn't sign off on things, and I'd have planners and developers and residents angry about that.

So I'm quite sure the San Jose Fire Department has reviewed this thoroughly.

They will also get another chance to review it when the the building permit is actually applied for.

Um wanted to make that point.

Um, you know, we we received these two objections.

They were dropped on our desk, you know, like 10 minutes before the meeting.

That's very unfortunate.

It's hard for us as commissioners to digest this kind of information in that in that short period of time.

I think it's really clear to me that both of these were prepared by an attorney.

So I um, sir, you've had your chance to speak.

Now it's my turn.

Okay.

You've had your chance.

So it's very clear to me that these were prepared by an attorney.

And he's excuse me, sir.

And he's setting the city up for a sequel lawsuit.

It's very obvious to me.

Shame on you if that's what's happening.

Um this is a win-win-win project.

And let me tell you why I feel that way.

Number one, the kids are going to get better little egg fields.

These fields are okay, but they're not great.

Dartmouth Middle School is a beautiful facility.

I'm convinced that there will be really nice little league fields there.

I'm glad to see that.

Number two, putting a traffic signal on Camden Avenue and Singletree is the most important safety issue for this area.

The traffic on Camden Avenue east of Blossom Hill is running at 45 to 50 miles an hour, if not more.

Um, putting a traffic signal there will slow down the traffic significantly.

Speeding is the number one hazard, two kids walking to school or on bikes.

So that's a win.

Um, it helps the school district.

You know, the union school district.

Again, uh, I live there, my kids went to school there.

It's a wonderful school district.

That's one of the reasons we moved where we did.

But they're they are financially challenged, as the superintendent said, they're one of the lowest um uh provided income in the county.

Um, and there's a lot of different reasons for that, which we don't need to get into, but I guess what I'm saying is this will really help the school district.

It will bring in much needed um revenue.

It um there there seems to be a lot of confusion in this discussion about the school site being closed.

It's not being closed.

The school will still be there.

This is land behind the school itself, and the school district has, as uh Chair Um Rosario said, numerous school sites that are being leased right now that could be reopened.

And probably number four, and the most important is we need housing in this city.

San Jose is the single most expensive, hardest to purchase a single family home of any major city in the United States.

So this is going to be an opportunity for 108 folks and their families to buy a nice condominium in a very beautiful part of San Jose.

So with all that said, I'm going to make a motion that we uh approve the staff recommendations for this project go forward.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second on the floor.

Um if I could say really quickly, I I think this is a terrific project.

Um I actually am a graduate of Dartmouth Middle School.

My brother is a graduate of Dartmouth Middle School.

Uh I coach wrestling at Dartmouth Middle School.

My kids go to Notting elementary school.

Aaron Gordon, right outside MBA Champion is from Union uh school district, and my mother-in-law retired from the union school district in uh 22.

Anyhow, my house that I grew up in is on Vista Loop in Camden, so every day when I would take my bike to Dartmouth Middle School, I would go up Camden and make a right onto a single tree and then a left onto Blossom Hill.

So I'm very much very familiar with the the street there, and I've gone up and down this street thousands, thousands of times.

Um I think you guys are all very, very lucky to live in this area, but there's no affordable housing in that area.

Um affordable housing at all.

Um my block when I grew up there were 11 kids.

There are now of those 11, there are four.

Three of them live with their parents, and the other one inherited their parents' house on the block where my wife grew up, all the kids are gone also.

Uh I think her best friend lives in like Tennessee right now.

I think we can either do what we've been doing in San Jose and see, you know, people not afford not be able to afford houses, not be able to live in areas like this, and then the kids just disappear in areas like this, like you said, 50,000 down to 5500.

And or we can make efforts to allow future generations to live in these neighborhoods, right?

Um, I think there's an inherent issue at all of these meetings because you folks live in the neighborhood.

My parents live in that neighborhood.

And I think you don't want to see your neighborhood get, you know, worse or have more housing or have more traffic.

But the folks that aren't able to speak at this meeting are the people that want to live there would live there in the future.

I hope my kids who go to Notting are able to live in that neighborhood and don't have to move to Tennessee.

Um like everybody up here said, we're in a gigantic uh housing crisis right now.

Nobody's able to live here.

It's the most expensive city in the country, and I want to see my kids live, you know, around here, and I would love for their kids to be able to go to school in uh that school district.

And for those reasons, I'm certainly voting yes.

I think it's a terrific uh project.

I'm really glad to see it come across uh this commission's desk.

And for what it's worth, I think uh Union School District has the best of the best crossing guards, in particular Mr.

Tanner over at Nodden uh elementary.

All right.

Commissioner or Vice Chair Bickford.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I want to thank everybody who came out tonight as well.

These are hard topics for us to address in our city, and it takes all of us to arrive at good decisions.

I'm supportive of this project because of everything that Chair Rosario said.

I also have some reservations, just like several people in this room do.

And I think it is the responsibility and obligation of our planning department, and they know it very well to make sure that these projects go through responsibly.

It's also the responsibility of the developer who is bringing something to the community and is going to have a community relationship for the course of construction, and then is going to bring people, hopefully with families and kids, into your community, our community.

And I I I just want to make sure that everybody understands this is not a decision that we take lightly, and we don't overlook.

While we were meeting, I read all of this stuff.

And I I completely agree that there are some risks.

There are some responsibilities that the developer has.

There are responsibilities that the city has, and I'm very confident that together we can work through those and create the housing that San Jose actually needs.

Commissioner Contrell and then Commissioner Bundle.

Yeah, being a planning commissioner is kind of difficult.

Because you know, we're we're making decisions on projects and things that change a number of people's lives in all sorts of ways.

But one thing that makes it easier is that we we are a group of people with diverse experiences and backgrounds, and there's one person on this commission, one commissioner, who has a background that can't be duplicated.

And I want to thank Commissioner Young once again for providing the necessary insight, clarity, and understanding on that the issue with that street that actually helped me quite frankly.

Because I was looking at this a little differently.

I was looking at this thinking there's a reason reason why we have builders' remedy, and that's generally due to the failure of communities to pass developments to get them through the process and get housing built.

Who didn't quite get it even in the end.

But it's kind of an awesome responsibility for us because we want to see our city.

Somebody asked me earlier why do you live here?

You know, why you seem very vested.

I'm from St.

Louis.

That's where I grew up.

That's my from story.

It's very different from here.

Um this city means so much to me because it offers so much promise to so many people from different parts of the world who come here to make a place for themselves.

We are so unique.

But this won't sustain itself if we don't start making really significant change in how we build housing here.

I I I understand the relative pain that people who live in the community might go through.

I really do.

Um I really respect and appreciate you taking the time out of your lives to come here and try to impress upon us how you feel, how you think, and how it might impact your lives.

And you can bet we are listening.

We heard every word, and you can tell by our questions.

We examined with our city staff who are great professionals who know these things.

We examined the details.

We looked, we evaluated, but now we have to come to a decision.

My decision is that I think um this is something our our city needs.

This is something your community actually needs, whether you rationalize that currently or not.

Um I'm definitely uh gonna vote for this.

Commissioner Bundle.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just like to come back to mentioning that you know these decisions are not easy.

This is a project that's a PQP in zoning, which would not happen.

I think it's a big, big hurdle to cross had it not been under Builder's Remedy.

And because of Builders Remedy is why we're we're here today.

Even the lawyer mentioned earlier that that they tried doing it before, but uh changing the general plan, but it didn't work that way.

So we're here because many will say builder's remedy is here because we haven't done enough, and others will say that builders remedy actually strips power away from local government.

Um take it which other whichever way we want, but there's only we tried asking questions and we try making sure how this would not be possible, but um all roads lead back to that this this can be possible and legally it is uh possible.

So uh I wish that there was more we could ask and do, but we'll all have to support this project as well.

Thank you.

All right, are there any more comments from the commissioners?

I have a quick uh question.

Uh Mr.

Hislov, is it Are you related to the Athen hours?

Are you by chance related to the Athena hours or landowners near that area?

Okay, just a question.

In any case.

All right.

No, I know there's a connection.

And we have just an understanding.

Oh, okay.

You're telling me.

You're telling me.

All right.

We have a second on the we have a motion and a second on the floor.

We'll go to a roll call vote now.

Commissioner Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

I need to abstain.

My wife works for the district.

Commissioner Bondel.

Yes.

Commissioner Kentral.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliveiro.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

Myself is a yes.

That is nine yeses, one abstained, and one absent.

The motion carries.

All right.

With that, we'll move on to the next agenda item, referrals from city council, boards, commissions, or other agencies.

No reports.

Thank you.

All right.

Then we'll move on to the good and welfare.

Yes, uh quick report from City Council.

So uh the SB 79 ordinance to implement uh SP 79, but also to exempt the industrial lands uh that had come before the planning commission was approved by council and has been sent to A C D for review.

Uh so we will keep you posted on how that effort plays out.

Um in addition to that, yesterday at council uh the housing catalyst work plan and the housing element annual progress report.

That was also considered by the planning commission, was approved by council, so that will also be sent to the state uh by April first.

Um the other thing that happened yesterday, which is noteworthy is that the council approved three major projects under the incentive program that allows for more than a thousand units of housing to hopefully move forward uh with uh achieving financing and getting built in the city.

Uh so that was exciting news.

Um moving down the list under good and welfare, so no subcommittee formation reports or outstanding business.

Uh but on the commission calendar and study sessions.

So our next uh general plan four-year review task force meeting uh will be next week, so coming Wednesday, April 1st, so April Fool's Day.

Uh but we promise we'll be there.

Uh and it'll be focused on uh returning to the conversation around residential capacity, because we now have more information around SP 79 and the conversation around the missing middle housing has occurred.

Uh we will come back uh with some additional uh recommendations on that topic.

Um and then we will touch a new topic, which will be the jobs to employ uh resident ratio.

So that will also be covered uh at this next task force meeting.

Can you say anything more about the three projects that were approved?

Uh yes, those were the gateway project, uh the Bank of Italy uh conversion project.

So they're keeping the historic shell and putting units within that.

Um and a project at uh Saratoga Avenue.

I think it was 1777 Saratoga.

Thank you.

Sure.

And the staff reports uh for those in the presentation is available online.

Um and then finally, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission will be on April 8th.

Uh we do have two items lining up, uh, one for a mini storage facility on Gish Road, and the second item is an indoor warehouse, I think, for electric vehicles on Junction Avenue.

So those two items will be coming before you then.

All right.

Anything for the public record?

Uh would you mind if I could just quickly ask a question?

Two questions, actually.

Um that project that keeps getting deferred every week.

Um I know you said something about that earlier.

But do we know do we know why it's getting is there something that's missing or why it keeps getting deferred?

Yes, there is uh technical information that is needed from the consultants uh and the applicant.

Um and that's why it's not no longer being deferred.

We're just going to pause on it altogether until we have that information and we we will re renotize it for a hearing when we are ready.

Okay.

So I'll have to brush up on it again when it comes back.

So uh one more question.

Um so uh this whole weekend slash week, we we've gotten a several emails for a project that's on twelve ninety-five Kerner Avenue, uh, which was on the which is on the planning director's agenda this morning.

Would you mind being able to share what the outcome was?

Because we had a lot of concern neighborhoods for uh neighbors that reached out and just well, just was kind of curious about it.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, my understanding is that was approved.

Jason, was that your project or no, it was uh Jacqueline Garrett is the project manager, but yes, it was approved this morning.

Yeah.

It was it is a project located in the Willow Glen neighborhood.

Um however, the director, officiating, you know, director was able to find that it met all the findings for approval.

We if we get an appeal, I'll let you know.

Thank you.

Anything else?