San Jose Planning Commission Meeting on Camden Avenue Builder's Remedy Project - March 25, 2026
San Jose Planning Commission Meeting
This meeting of the San Jose Planning Commission on March 25, 2026, focused primarily on a builder's remedy project proposing 108 residential condos on Camden Avenue, requiring a statement of overriding considerations due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The commission also approved the consent calendar and deferred one item.
Consent Calendar
- The consent calendar, containing routine items, was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 11-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Richard Bennett (landlord of adjacent property) opposed the project, citing noise, dust, loss of views, and overbuilding in the area. He noted that 480 housing units are already under construction nearby.
- Thomas Hislap (longtime resident) argued that the EIR's environmentally superior alternative of 87 units should be chosen, and raised concerns about dust, wildlife impacts, unverified plans for moving baseball fields, and lack of environmental review for the land exchange.
- Susan Seffle (resident) echoed Hislap's concerns, stating that the EIR has deficiencies and that the commission should not proceed until all issues are addressed.
- Zoila Rollins (resident) raised safety concerns about emergency access, infrastructure, and the proximity of a PG&E plant, noting that a child was recently hit on Blossom Hill Road.
- Doug Benton (resident) expressed concern about traffic safety at the intersection of Park Crest and Blossom Hill near Dartmouth Middle School, stating that the City Code requires safe vehicle circulation and that the EIR did not adequately address this intersection.
- Donna Smith (resident) described the narrow two-lane Singletree Way with parking on both sides, warning that increased traffic from 108 units would create a dangerous blind intersection for children and emergency vehicles.
Discussion Items
- Builder's Remedy Project (5A): Staff presented a proposal for 108 residential condos (74.4% extremely low-income) on a former school site, requiring an EIR with a statement of overriding considerations for greenhouse gas and VMT impacts. The project includes a traffic signal at Camden and Singletree, pedestrian and transit improvements, and a land exchange with the Union School District. The applicant, Orville Power, gave a brief presentation highlighting the benefits: new baseball fields at Dartmouth, $2.4 million in traffic improvements, and 243 parking spaces.
- Commissioners questioned staff and the Union School District superintendent about emergency access, traffic analysis, VMT mitigation, school district finances, and construction impacts. The superintendent stated the district is the lowest-funded in Santa Clara County and expects $1.6 million in ongoing annual revenue from this and another project. Staff confirmed that the project meets all objective health and safety standards and that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts.
- Commissioner Young noted that the fire department thoroughly reviews site plans and that the project is a win-win-win for children, traffic safety, the school district, and housing needs. Commissioner Casey expressed support for the project, emphasizing the need for affordable housing in the area. Commissioner Barroso abstained due to a conflict of interest (his wife works for the school district).
Key Outcomes
- Motion to approve staff recommendations (adopt the EIR including the statement of overriding considerations, approve the vesting tentative map, and approve the site development permit) passed with 9 votes in favor, 1 abstention (Commissioner Barroso), and 1 absence (Commissioner Oliverio).
- The item on the consent calendar was approved unanimously.
- One item was dropped from the agenda due to missing technical analysis; no date certain was set for return.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com