►
From YouTube: DEC 9, 2020 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2020.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=820857&GUID=3D41D327-CAB0-402F-A3E2-22CCB2A40F6E
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
We
will
go
ahead
and
get
started
good
evening.
My
name
is
marielle
caballero,
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
planning
commission.
Welcome
to
the
number
9th
meeting
of
the
planning
commission.
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
cobit
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
may
also
view
and
listen
to
the
meeting
on
live
stream,
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube.
If
you
would
like
to
provide
public
comment,
you
have
two
methods
to
identify
yourself
to
provide
public
comment.
B
Members
of
the
public
will
remain
on
mute
until
the
individual
identifies
they
would
like,
and
you
are
unmuted
following
roll
call.
During
the
summary
of
hearing
procedures,
we
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
public
comment
today
during
during
today's
session.
So
at
this
time
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
roll
call
so
chair
caballero
here
vice
chair
bonilla,
has
informed
me
that
he
will
not
be
here
today.
Casey
yeah,
commissioner
garcia
here,
commissioner
lardinois
here,
commissioner
olivario
and
commissioner
torrence.
B
B
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
clicking
star
9
on
your
phone,
or
you
may
call
408,
535-3505
or
email
planning,
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
items
you
would
like
to
speak
on,
as
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
B
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speaker's
response
to
commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
planning
commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
planning
commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public
testimony
ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
B
If
you
challenge
these
land
use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
this
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing.
The
planning
commission's
actions
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
B
B
E
F
B
F
F
And
they
want
to
want
to
call
us
all
racist
just
for
wanting
to
have
parking
space
and
electricity.
So
you
know
I
hope
we
can
take
a
take,
a
healing
approach
to
these
issues.
You
know
our
electricity
is
already
dropping
out
on
summer
nights,
and
so,
when
we
add
units,
I
think
we
need
to
improve
infrastructure
and
we
can't
ignore
parking
because
we
don't
have
mass
transit
and
we
shouldn't
stop
start
calling
each
other
races,
because
we
want
to
keep
what
we
have.
B
Is
deferrals
and
removals
from
the
calendar
and
we
have
no
items
item
number
four
is
the
consent
calendar
and
we
have
no
items
on
the
regular
consent.
Calendar
item
number.
Five
is
the
public
hearings.
We
have
no
items
under
that
item,
so
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
six,
which
is
to
continue
the
general
plan
here
hearing-
and
this
is
the
third
cycle
from
december
2nd
2020.
H
Caballero,
if
I
may
interrupt
for
a
moment,
I
wanted
to
make
an
addition
to
item
7b,
a
verbal
correction
of
the
staff
report.
This
is
just
at
the
a1
from
the
planning
division.
I
wanted
to
mention
that
I
added
a
senate
bill,
330
compliance
discussion
and
wanted
to
mention
that
this
project
is
compliant
with
sb330,
because
it
does
not
result
in
a
loss
of
residential
capacity.
B
I
B
I
D
H
I
I
want
to
clarify
that
this
is
just
a
land
use,
designation
change
from
mixed
use,
commercial
to
urban
residential,
no
actual
project
has
been
there's
no
application
for
an
actual
project
on
the
site,
and
so
you
know,
there's
no
information.
Currently
it
may
come
later
on
and
then
that'll
go
through
a
separate
planning
process
and
you'll
know
about
that.
E
Cohen,
oh
haley
hi
there.
I
just
want
to
understand
the
process.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
attended
a
meeting
like
this,
and
I
know
I've
voiced
a
lot
of
concerns
regarding
the
project
jessica.
I
think
2003,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
anymore,
the
one
on
cambrianna,
so
I
just
want
to
understand
what
the
expectation
is
for
tonight.
So
if,
if
someone
doesn't
make
a
comment
like
myself,
is
that
just
something
someone
help
me
understand.
B
B
D
A
E
B
B
I
B
B
A
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
the
demolition
of
existing
structures
and
the
construction
of
mixed-use
six-story
building,
including
a
190-bed
commercial
residential
care
facility
with
116,
assisted
living,
guest
rooms
and
49
memory
care,
guest
rooms
for
multi-unit
family
residential
units
and
a
backup
generator,
including
the
development
exception,
to
allow
a
reduced
12-foot
height
for
the
required
on-site
loading
space
and
a
tentative
map
to
allow
consolidation
of
seven
lots
into
one
lot.
Located
at
on
the
west
side
of
gifford
avenue
approximately
150
feet
southerly
of
west
san
carlos
street.
B
K
K
K
A
martial
arts
school
to
the
west
and
commercial
and
light
industrial
uses
to
the
south,
including
a
painting
company
and
a
warehouse
this
site,
is
within
the
downtown
general
plan,
land
use,
designation
and
the
dc
downtown
primary
commercial
zoning
district
subject
to
the
concurrent
general
plan.
Amendment
and
conforming
rezone
applications
previously
referenced,
multi-family
residential
units
and
backup
generators
are
allowed
at
this
site
and
residential
care
facilities
are
allowed
with
a
conditional
use
permit.
K
The
project
is
consistent
with
all
relevant
general
plan
policies,
duradon
station
area
plan
policies,
the
development
standards
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
council
development
policies,
an
addendum
to
the
downtown
strategy.
2040
final
environmental
impact
report
has
been
prepared
for
the
project
and
concludes
that
the
project
will
not
result
in
any
significant
impacts
to
applicable
resources
such
as
transportation,
noise
or
biological
resources.
K
Additionally,
a
letter
from
the
delmos
park,
neighborhood
association,
was
received
on
december
7th
2020
and
staff
provided
written
responses
to
the
commissioners.
Prior
to
this
hearing
staff
would
like
to
provide
a
verbal
correction
to
one
of
their
responses
regarding
the
referenced
environmental
impact
report,
I
would
like
to
now
introduce
tai
chao
lee
to
to
address
this
correction
and
to
provide
information
on
the
environmental
review
of
this
project.
D
Thank
you
laurel.
This
is
tai
chao
lee
good
evening,
planet,
commissioners,
I
know
you've
all
had
a
long
day,
so
this
is
tai
cha
lee
supervising
environmental
planner,
with
the
planning
division
staff
indicated
in
the
first
respond
to
the
letter
that
the
environmental
document
for
the
durodawn
station
area
plan
or
dsab.
The
amendment
to
this
that
is
currently
being
prepared
by
the
city
is
going
to
be
a
new
eir
and
it's
not
connected
to
the
downtown
strategy.
2040
eir
that
was
approved
in
2018..
D
K
Thanks,
therefore,
staff
recommends
that
the
commissioners
find
that
the
project
is,
in
conformance
with
the
california
environmental
quality
act
and
recommend
approval
of
the
general
plan
amendment
conforming
rezone
conditional
use,
permit
and
investing
tentative
map
on
the
subject
site
to
the
city
council.
This
concludes
staff's
presentation.
L
M
Yes,
all
right,
okay,
good
evening,
thank
you
laura
for
the
introduction
and
all
the
work
you've
put
in
the
process
good
evening,
commissioners.
I'm
paul
ring
as
to
mention
I'm
a
partner
at
urban
catalyst,
we're
a
local
development
company
comprised
of
a
team
with
decades
of
experience,
working
and
investing
specifically
in
downtown
san
jose's
neighborhoods.
We're
excited
to
be
here
before
you
this
evening.
L
L
L
L
Okay:
okay,
okay,
here
we
go
well
hey!
Thank
you!
So
much
for
having
us
tonight
we're
very
excited.
I'm
tim
willochen,
I'm
the
director
of
development
for
urban
catalyst,
we'd
like
to
thank
staff
of
the
various
departments
for
all
their
hard
work,
as
we
made
our
first
submittal
in
october
of
2019
and
and
I'll
just
run
very
briefly
through
some
of
that
history.
L
Here,
we've
we've
had
a
chance
to
to
do
three
community
meetings
since
the
the
early
or
the
late
part
of
2019,
and
I'd
like
to
start
by
emphasizing
the
importance
of
the
need
for
this
type
of
project.
California,
department
of
finance
has
found
that
in
the
year
2015
12
of
the
population
of
santa
clara
county
was
over
the
age
of
65..
By
2030
it
will
be
20
by
2060.
It
will
grow
to
25.
L
So
there's
a
long-term
need
for
this
type
of
use,
and
these
solutions
are
best
handled
at
the
local
level.
Our
operator
has
found
that
about
90
of
their
residents
come
from
three
miles
within
the
the
area
of
their
community.
We've
partnered
with
with
a
very
experienced
operator
and
we'll
have
a
chance
to
to
hear
from
him
and
respond
to
any
questions
that
may
come
up
tonight.
Jason
reyes
is
the
the
chief
executive
for
calson
management
and
he's
been
involved
in
this
process
from
the
beginning,
including
participating
at
our
community
meetings.
L
One
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
just
really
focus
on
is
is
that
we
have
found
a
lot
of
common
ground
and
we
have
responded
directly
to
the
neighborhoods
community.
The
the
neighborhoods
concerns
most
important,
I
think,
is
that
we
have
is
that
we
reduced
the
height
of
this
project.
Our
very
first
configuration
for
the
site
went
from
about
85
feet
at
the
corner,
down
to
and
we've
reduced
that
to
65
feet.
L
We've
also
moved
all
of
our
loading
from
gifford
avenue
out
to
west
san
carlos
directly
in
response
to
neighborhood
concerns
about
commercial
traffic
on
gifford
avenue,
which
is
rather
narrow.
We
also
modified
the
architecture
as
it
stepped
down
gifford
in
order
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
folded
into
the
neighborhood.
A
lot
of
ground
to
cover
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
do
want
to
introduce
the
project
architect
thang
doe,
to
go
over
some
of
the
the
the
design
features
as
well.
N
Indian
commissioners,
my
name
is
heindel
with
80s
architects
as
the
architect
and
co-owner
of
this
project.
This
is
an
opportunity
that
we
very
much
cherish.
We
wanted
to
create
a
special
place
for
a
special
segment
of
our
community
seniors
who
enjoy
the
culture
of
an
urban
environment
while
highly
urban.
This
project
pays
a
lot
of
attention.
Natural
lighting
view
access
to
the
outdoors
architecturally.
The
building
has
a
strong
anchoring
presence
along
western
carlos,
while
stepping
down
gradually
as
it
reaches
into
different
avenue
estimates
described
I'm
going
to
go
very
quickly
through
the
slides.
N
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
time
so
tim
if
you
could
just
advance
to
the
next
slide,
please,
okay,
so
so
this
is
the
ground
floor
of
the
project.
Just
four
key
points
is
that
we
put
all
put
the
activated
spaces,
public
spaces
activity
rooms
and
things
like
that
along
western
carlos,
to
help
to
connect
with
the
pedestrians
on
the
sidewalk.
N
This
we
emphasize
the
indoor
outdoor
connection
with
a
central
courtyard
and
a
lot
of
transparency
between
the
indoor
and
that
courtyard
and
the
project
has
very
limited
vehicle
of
needs.
So
this
there's
ground
floor,
ground
level,
parking
on
this
floor,
and
then
there
are
the
four
housing
units
for
the
buildings
workers,
essential
workers
along
there.
Next,
please
going
up
to
the
second
floor.
This
is
a
memory
care
floor
and
the
key
point
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
we
have
decks
on
almost
every
floor
to
allow
the
residents
to
enjoy
the
outdoors.
N
F
Hello
good
evening,
commissioners,
thank
you
for
having
this
meeting
and
looking
at
this
project.
I'm
bert
weaver,
I'm
a
resident
of
del
moss
park
neighborhood,
and
I
want
to
also
thank
you
for
reviewing
the
letter
that
our
leaders
sent
to
you
about
this
assisted
living
project.
That's
being
considered
here.
I
urge
you
to
defer
your
decision
to
whether
to
approve
this
project
or
not
until
after
the
deer
down
stationary
plan
is
formally
approved.
The
other
plan
amendment
is
for
and
formally
approved
in
about
six
months
from
now.
F
The
project
as
proposed
meets
many
of
the
guidelines
of
the
2014
dsap,
which
is
the
current
late
ruling
document,
but
it
fails
to
meet
the
spirit
of
that
plan.
The
proposed
project
places
this
commercial
entity
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
replacing
14
residences
with
four
and
creating
only
60
jobs.
F
It
encroaches
on
the
neighborhood
usurping
about
half
of
the
block
residential
block
of
gifford
avenue
between
san
carlos
and
australia's
avenue.
The
spirit
of
the
2014
dsat
is
that
development
will
respect
the
existing
neighborhood
following
the
guidelines
defined
in
the
delmas
park.
Sni
plan
of
2002.
F
F
The
neighborhood
has
been
an
active
discussion
with
the
planning
department
for
over
a
year
regarding
the
dsap
amendment,
and
we
believe
it
is
counterproductive
to
these
discussions
to
approve
this
project
prior
to
approval
of
the
amended
plan
which
is
targeted
for
june.
We're
not
asking
for
a
moratorium,
just
a
slight
delay
to
let
the
new
guidelines
be
formalized.
O
Yes,
dear
madam
chair
and
planning
commissioners,
my
name
is
gabriela
chavez-lopez
and
I'm
a
resident
of
dalmas
park
neighborhood.
My
home
is
actually
a
few
lots
down
from
the
proposed
project,
and
I
just
want
to
first
acknowledge
that
this
is.
This
has
been
a
challenging
time
for
our
neighborhood,
as
so
much
development
has
been
coming
along
and
and
we're
transitioning
into
really
an
extension
of
downtown
and
in
many
ways
I've
had
the
advantage
in
some
respects,
of
knowing
what
I
was
getting
myself
into
moving
into
a
growing
urban
core.
O
O
I
was
involved
over
16
months
ago
in
community
meetings
after
community
meetings
on
this
project,
I
feel
like
the
developers
have
been
very
transparent
through
this
process
and
there
has
been
significant
considerations
and
updates
made
to
date.
I
really
truly
believe
in
being
inclusive
and
welcoming,
and
and
not
to
always,
delay
delay
delay
every
project
that
doesn't
align
with
my
own
personal
values
and
and
if
it's
you
know
it's
something
that
is
a
priority
to
me,
then
I
I
move
on
it.
O
O
Let
perfection
be
the
enemy
of
good
here,
I'm
very
much
looking
forward
to
the
future
of
our
neighborhood
for
my
son's
future
here
growing
up
and
you
know
we
are
an
aging
society
and
we
need
to
dedicate
critical
resources
to
allow
people
to
live
centrally
in
a
place
that
can
be
accessible
by
transit
for
their
families
and
for
others
to
visit
it's
tremendously
important
and
so
as
a
community
leader
and
advocate.
I'm
asking
the
planning
commission
to
recommend
approval
of
this
project
to
the
city
council.
Thank
you.
So
much.
P
P
P
It
an
eight
foot
setback
from
the
curb
there's,
no
way
that
a
street
tree
is
going
to
grow
in
there.
Despite
what
public
works
is
saying,
and
then
you
know,
they're
saying
it's
in
compliance
with
the
downtown
residential
design
guidelines.
Well,
if
the
residential
design
guidelines
downtown
do
not
provide
for
a
proper
interface
with
an
existing
neighborhood,
then
that
should
not
be
the
right
document
to
use
to
evaluate
this
project.
This
is
an
existing
residential
neighborhood.
P
G
Thank
you,
commissioners.
I
speak
to
you
as
a
resident
of
gifford
avenue
and
a
member
of
the
dang
to
be
completely
honest
with
you.
I
cannot
understand
how
planning
staff
can
recommend
you
support
this
project.
This
site
is
almost
one
acre
and
will
pro
will
reduce
the
number
of
housing
units
from
14
to
four
create
only
60
jobs
and
zero
transit
riders.
G
All
of
this
is
within
dolmas
park
or
within
the
durden
station
area.
At
the
same
time,
planning
staff
is
asking
you
to
support
this
project
with
only
four
housing
units.
They
are
publicly
and
intentionally
dismissive
of
requests
of
the
day
to
reduce
development
heights.
In
this
exact
same
location,
they
claim
the
dang
requests
will
add
to
the
housing
crisis.
Approval
of
this
project
is
guaranteed
to
add
to
the
housing
crisis
as
soon
as
the
three
existing
homes
are
demolished.
G
To
the
dang
ask
the
planning
department
to
show
how
they
reach
that
number.
The
response
from
the
planning
director
was
that
they
spoke
prematurely
and
they
didn't
provide
any
concrete
information
about
how
that
number
was
reached.
There's
no
way
to
pull
back
that
public
statement,
and
there
is
no
justifiable
reason
for
a
professional
planner
to
say
it
in
public
unless
it
is
to
discredit
the
day.
The
planning
department
actually
proposes
heights
of
up
to
295
feet,
adjacent
to
single
family
homes
with
a
75
degree
view
plane
and
no
setback
from
the
lot
line.
G
This
timing
and
process
is
a
mess.
If
this
project
moves
forward,
it
will
set
the
bar
for
development
in
the
duroden
area
and
it
will
be
a
black
hole
for
housing,
jobs
and
transit
riders.
I
ask
that
you
defer
this
project,
so
it
can
be
held
against
the
standards
of
the
2018
downtown
eir
amendment
in
june,
and
according
to
that,
okay.
G
Good
evening
my
name
is
dina,
and
I
have
four
comments
to
make.
I'm
requesting
that
the
current
setbacks
be
maintained
with
adjacent
gifford
properties
to
the
proposed
development,
consistent
with
what
would
have
been
required
under
r2
zoning
number
two.
I
have
a
concern
about
the
proposed
structures
affecting
the
visibility
of
exiting
the
driveway
from
the
adjacent
property
on
gifford.
G
The
plans
show
that
the
walls
and
buildings
are
very
high
and
would
block
visibility
on
uncommon,
oncoming
pedestrian
vehicle
traffic
number
two
residents
of
the
memory,
care
and
assisted
living
are
dependent
on
visitors
coming
to
them,
and
those
visitors
need
parking.
My
concern
is
that
adequate
parking
has
not
been
factored
in
to
accommodate
the
resident's
request:
the
resident's
guests.
G
Finally,
during
the
construction
and
continued
maintenance
of
the
delmis
senior
project,
construction
impacts
to
gifford
avenue
should
be
minimized,
including
no
construction,
trucks,
traffic
or
staging
trucks
on
gifford.
Please
also
require
that
all
such
construction
related
traffic
to
enter
on
san
carlos
street.
G
F
Yeah,
I'm
sarah
springer.
I
live
in
delmas
park.
Actually
I
live
at
parkside
condominiums
and
one
of
my
problems
with
the
project
is
that,
as
on
delmos,
where
I
live,
we
have
light
poles
and
people
cannot
get
around
them
with
wheelchairs
or
baby
strollers.
That
kind
of
thing,
so
this
bothers
me
about
the
project
that
the
sidewalk
along
gifford,
with
the
trees
that
would
be
nice.
It
still
will
not
allow
enough
room
for
either
these
residents
or
or
other
residents
of
the
neighborhood
to
get
by
adequately.
F
So
I'd
like
to
have
that
rethought,
and
hopefully
they
could
redesign
that
also.
I
would
like
to
say
that,
although
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
that
this
is
housing
for
seniors,
let's
be
perfectly
clear-
this
is
for-profit
housing.
These
are
people
are
going
to
pay.
You
know
top
dollar
to
live
there.
This
is
not
affordable
living
for
seniors,
and
I
I
just
want
people
to
be
really
clear
about
that.
F
E
Hi,
my
name
is
laila
jamelos
and
I
live
directly
across
from
this
project.
I
think
once
resident
concerns
are
met,
that
this
is
an
opportunity
for
our
neighborhood
to
move
forward.
I
think
my
greatest
concern
and
what's
going
to
impact
the
most
is,
is
parking
and
we
have
to
put
an
emphasis
on
public
transit.
E
E
B
L
Okay,
I
I
I'm
gonna
I'll
start
speaking
and
hopefully
paul
can
can
also
get
involved
as
well,
but
we
appreciate
these
comments.
What
I
heard
I
mean
there
were
a
variety
of
comments,
but
the
height
of
the
building
is
is
was
mentioned
by
some.
As
far
as
meeting
the
neighborhood
requirements,
the
height
of
the
building
is
65
feet.
The
current
dsap
height
limit,
the
current
dsap
height
limit
today,
is
65
feet.
The
dsap
is
propos
increase
the
height
to
100
feet.
L
We,
we
have
tried
very
hard
to
work
with
the
neighbors
concerns
by
meeting
the
existing
height
limits.
We
are
not
coming
in
with
an
85
or
a
95
foot
building.
Here
we
are
coming
in
with
the
existing
height
limits.
We
are
also
meeting
all
of
the
existing
setback
requirements.
I
think
it's
it's
important
to
note
that
on
the
south
side
of
the
project
is,
is,
is
an
auto
repair
facility?
It's
a
commercial
use.
L
We
are
not
directly
adjacent
to
or
contiguous
to
a
single-family
homes
directly
across
the
street.
Are
our
other
parcels
again
directly
across
not
necessarily
kitty
corner
but
directly
across
the
street,
are
other
parcels
that
are
within
the
dsap
as
well,
and
they
are
proposed
to
increase
their
height
to
well
over
200
feet.
L
I
also
want
to
talk
about
the
sidewalk
good
comments.
We,
we
have
increased
the
sidewalk
with
consistent
with
exactly
what
public
works
has
asked
us
to
do.
We
are
going
from
eight
feet
to
ten
feet.
Those
are
the
design
standards
that
public
works
has
has
provided
to
us
from
the
very
beginning
of
this.
This
project
there
is
room
for
landscaping.
L
In
there
we
have
provided
a
landscaping
plan
and,
ultimately,
the
city
will
decide
on
which
trees
it
wants
to
use
to
populate
the
the
the
landscaping
opportunities
along
gifford
avenue.
I
want
to
talk
about
parking
and
traffic
as
well.
We
understand
the
importance
and
again
it's
in
that's
the
reason
why
we
moved
all
commercial
loading
to
west
san
carlos.
L
Now,
of
course,
there
will
be
employees
and
visitors
who
who
come
and
visit
the
property
and
they
will
drive
their
cars,
but
senior
housing
is
a
fairly
low,
generating
type
of
land
use,
much
less
so
than
than
than
multi-family
or
particularly
office
or
other
commercial
or
retail.
In
many
ways
this
this
that
that
is
that
that
could
be
a
benefit
to
the
community
by
by
having
this
type
of
a
use
in
order
to
keep
the
the
the
traffic
minimized.
L
M
M
As
tim
mentioned,
we've
been
following
public
works
plans,
we've
been
influencing
public
works
plans
towards
the
benefit
of
what
we
heard
from
the
neighborhood
and,
and
so
we
we
think
it's
it's
it's
time
to
to
have
this
move
forward,
that
the
concept
was
just
presented
to
us
in
this
letter
for
the
first
time
that
we
should
have
it
delayed.
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
that
wasn't
brought
up
14
months
ago,
when
we
were
originally
proposing.
N
Can
I
chime
in
on
just
two
small
items:
number
one
is
the
sidewalk
worth
along.
Gifford
is
10
feet
wide
and
it's
more
than
enough
room
for
both
landscaping
and
wheelchair
access
along
there
by
code.
The
parking
follows
the
city
regulations
for
this
type
of
facility,
which
does
take
into
account
visitor
parking.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
sure
that
those
two
points
are
clear.
B
I
Thank
you
chair
for
the
applicant
and
maybe
staff,
or
I
think
the
applicant.
If
you're
still
there,
I,
I
guess,
I'm
concerned
you
know
professional
planning
staff
laid
out
that
this
project
fit
all
the
criteria
for
approval,
but
you
reduced
the
height
20
feet
and
potentially
this
project
could
have
been
taller
than
originally
proposed.
M
We
actually
had
an
original
concept
here
of
doing
a
a
higher
intensity
use
on
the
corner
with
a
multi-family
project
and
we
we
so
that
was
a
much
higher
parking
ratio
and
number
of
units.
So
we
don't
have
a
you
know,
a
senior
units
to
senior
units
comparison,
but
we
moved
that
entire
model
to
it
to
another
location.
I
J
Sure
I
have
several
questions,
I'm
just
going
to
ask
one
and
if
I
see
another
hands
up
I'll,
let
someone
else
go,
but
so
first
off
I
wanted
to
just
get
some
clarification
on
the
height
issue.
So
the
initial
presentation
from
the
applicant
made
it
sound
like
the
height,
had
been
lowered
over
the
course
of
the
project
process.
But
then,
in
the
second
presentation,
the
applicant,
I
believe
they
said
that
the
maximum
allowed
right
now
is
65
feet
and
that's
what
they
are
proposing.
L
J
J
So
I
you
know,
as
it's
been
said
in
the
presentation,
this
is
building
out
to
the
maximum.
What's
currently
allowed
so
I'm
curious.
Are
there
any
criticisms
or
feedback
from
the
community
that
you
as
a
developer,
thought
was
reasonable
and
that
you
responded
to,
and
you
know,
addressed
and
changed
the
project
because
of
them
just
curious.
J
L
L
Absolutely
yeah
yeah
well
again,
the
height
the
height
reduction
of
the
of
the
85
to
65
is
one
another.
One
is
the
the
moving
of
the
commercial
loading
from
delma.
Excuse
me
from
gifford
avenue
out
to
west
san
carlos,
and
we
actually
had
to
work
very
closely
with
department
of
public
works
staff
on
that
and
planning
staff
to
find
a
solution
to
find
a
way
to
make
that
work,
but
it
was.
J
Thank
you
and
then
just
one
more,
I
guess
an
observation
and
then
a
question
for
staff.
So
to
some
extent,
this
process
kind
of
reminds
me
of
when
we
had
the
project
in
the
tropicana
shopping
center.
A
few
months
back-
and
I
definitely
we
heard
some
resident
frustration
back
then
about
the
project,
but
also
about
the
policy
itself
and
what
the
city
was
allowing
for
that
kind
of
development.
J
J
Hi
jared
jared
hart
division
manager
for
citywide
planning.
Yes,
the
the
dsap
amendment
will
be
coming
to
the
planning
commission
for
consideration
or
recommendation
to
city
council
to
involve
general
plan
amendments.
So
you
will
be
considering
that
and
and
providing
a
recommendation
to
city
council.
The
timing-
I'm
not
is,
I
don't-
have
an
exact
date
on
that,
but
it
I
would
say
you
know
around
spring
of
2021-
is
what
we'd
be
looking
at.
C
N
B
I
Yes,
commissioners,
this
is
not
an
uncommon
item
coming
before
us.
We
encounter
this
all
the
time
and
it's
not
always
in
the
downtown
it's
on
other
streets
throughout
the
city,
where
we
regularly
are
approving
a
much
needed
knee
use
of
assisted
living
memory
care
and
often
in
the
same
level
of
height
and
and
higher.
Actually
that
we've
done
so,
as
we
has
been
covered,
there's
a
huge
demand
for
this.
We
know
that
san
carlos
from
downtown
santana
row
is
going
to
be
built
up
and
matured
over
time.
I
A
delay
of
this
length
could
potentially
kill
a
project
when
we
don't
actually
have
a.
I
feel
any
fair
reason
to
delay,
and
I
know
one
comment
someone
made
that
this
was
a
for-profit
venture
and,
yes,
it
is,
but
people
that
come
into
these
facilities
are
some
pay
market
rate
and
some
are
utilizing
government
health
care
to
be
there
at
a
certain
point
in
time
in
a
project's
history.
I
B
B
A
B
Thank
you
that
is
unanimous
with
vice
chair,
bonilla
being
absent.
So
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
item
number
eight
b,
which
is
gp,
20-001
and
c20-007,
which
is
a
privately
initiated.
General
plan
amendment
to
change
the
general
plan,
land
using
designation
from
transportation
and
utilities
to
residential
neighborhood
and
a
competing
rezoning
from
agriculture
and
unknown
district
to
r-1-5
single-family
resident
sony
district
on
a
8.6
site
located
by
located
and
bounded
by
brook
tree
railway
bret
hart
drive
queen's
woodway
and
hamp's
woodway
a
portion
of
hampshire
away.
C
With
the
planning
division,
gp2001
is
a
privately
initiated
general
plan
amendment
to
change
a
division
in
san
jose
2040
general
plan.
Land
use,
designation
from
transportation
utilities
to
residential
neighborhood
and
c2007
is
a
conforming
rezoning
from
the
a
agriculture
zoning
district
and
properties
that
do
not
have
an
established
zoning
district
to
the
r15
single-family
residence
zoning
district
on
approximately
8.6
gross
acres
site.
The
project
site
does
not
contain
any
existing
buildings
and
is
generally
undeveloped,
except
for
pg
e
electrical
utility
structures.
C
C
The
residential
neighborhood
line
use
destination
is
primarily
intended
for
single-family
residential
uses
at
a
density
of
up
to
eight
dwelling
units
per
acre
or
the
prevailing
neighborhood
density.
Whichever
is
lower.
Currently,
there
is
no
site
development.
Permit
application
on
file
with
the
city
and
additional
design
review
would
occur
through
the
site
development
process
in
the
future.
C
The
applicant's
proposal
to
change
the
land
use
designation
from
transportation
utilities
to
residential
neighborhood
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan
policy,
supporting
compatibility,
infield
development
and
vibrant
neighborhoods.
Future
development
would
be
required
to
develop
at
the
prevailing
neighborhood
density
of
approximately
5
billion
units
per
acre
and
further.
Any
future
development
would
need
to
comply
with
existing
title
19,
subdivision
ordinance
and
the
city's
municipal
code,
which
would
also
limit
the
maximum
number
of
residential
homes.
C
Gp2001
would
increase
the
residential
capacity
by
69
units.
The
proposed
general
plan
amendment
is
therefore
in
compliance
with
sb
330.
further.
The
proposed
amendment,
if
approved
concurrently
with
the
other
proposed
general
plan
amendments
heard
tonight,
would
offset
reduced
intensity
of
residential
capacity
for
the
proposed
project
file
number
gp20-003,
resulting
in
no
net
loss
of
residential
capacity.
C
Regarding
outreach
on
august
25th,
2020
planning
staff
hosted
a
virtual
community
meeting
to
provide
information
and
receive
input
on
the
proposed
journal
upon
amendment
and
resulting
of
the
subject
site.
Approximately
52
community
members
attended
the
meeting
residents
and
stakeholders
expressed
their
opinions
and
concerns.
C
Community
members
asked
questions
about
the
future
feasibility,
the
feasible
development
of
the
site
and
asked
the
applicant
if
multi-family
housing
would
be
developed,
staff
responded
that
multi-family
housing
is
not
permitted
within
the
r15
single
family,
residence.
Zoning
district
and
no
application
for
development
has
been
submitted
to
the
city.
C
C
With
regards
to
the
environmental
analysis
under
the
california
environmental
quality
act,
an
initial
study
and
negative
declaration
were
prepared
for
the
subject,
general
plan
amendment
and
conforming
rezoning.
The
documents
were
circulated
to
public
for
public
review
on
october
30th
2020
and
ended
on
november
19
2020..
C
The
analysis
concluded
that
the
proposed
general
plan
amendment
and
rezoning
would
not
result
in
any
significant
impacts
to
the
environment.
Staff
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
to
find
the
proposal
in
conformance
with
cqa
and
approve
the
proposed
general
plan
amendment
and
re-zoning.
C
F
A
A
A
We
provide
a
diversity
of
homes
specializing
in
infill
development,
primarily
in
the
bay
area,
and
this
property
is
ideal
for
small
residential
infill,
we're
currently
in
contract
with
pg
e
to
process
the
general
plan,
amendment
and
zone
change,
and
once
this
process
is
completed,
we'll
look
at
proceeding
with
design
level
work
to
this
date.
Summerhill
has
engaged
the
community
on
four
occasions.
A
We
had
two
meetings
with
the
neighbors,
probably
a
little
over
a
year
ago
in
person,
and
we
also
participated
in
the
city,
outreach
for
the
general
plan,
amendment
and
zone
change
and
had
a
follow-up
zoom
meeting
with
the
neighbors.
After
that,
we
are
listening
to
the
community
and
actually
absolutely
will
take
into
account
their
their
comments.
Once
the
design
level
work
begins
and
we'll
be
sure
to
schedule,
another
neighborhood
meeting
should
pg
e
and
summerhall
move
forward
with
development.
F
Right
around
the
corner
from
the
pg
e
easement
that
it
ends
at
cagan.
I
was
part
of
those
earlier
meetings
that
denise
mentioned
and
twice
to
my
count.
There
was
an
attempt
to
change
the
r15
rezoning
to
include
multi-family
or
condos
or
townhouses,
and
I
believe
it
was
taken
out,
but
I'm
just
not
very
trusting
because
rivera
just
mentioned
69
units
in
that
same
area
now,
are
we
going
to
have
eight
homes
with
three
or
we're
going
to
have?
F
D
E
Hi
thanks
for
letting
me
talk,
my
name
is
michelle
curley.
I
live
on
the
north
end
of
the
property
near
bret,
hart
drive,
so
there's
the
long,
narrow
part
on
the
opposite
end
of
where
buford
lives,
and
I
just
wanted
to
say.
In
our
opinion,
I've
talked
to
the
neighbors
a
lot,
but
in
my
opinion,
even
though
the
environmental
study
says,
there's
no
significant
impact
to
the
environment.
I
just
want
to
point
out.
There
are
hundreds
of
trees.
E
E
E
A
No
thank
you
for
for
the
comments
and
and
I'll
just
make
a
couple
of
clarifications.
There
was.
There
was
a
note
in
one
of
the
staff
reports
online
that
mentioned
multi-family.
I
think
that
was
an
error.
There's
never
been
any
attempt
by
summerhill
to
to
propose
or
view
this
site
as
anything
but
single-family
development
and
in
addition,
you
know,
density
and
the
narrow
with
the
narrowness
of
the
site.
A
A
A
I
Yeah,
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
lower
it,
but
I
think
staff.
Ultimately,
this
is
an
empty
piece
of
land
that
probably
no
one
thought
would
ever
be
built
on
right
because
of
this
pg
e
easement,
and
so
really
the
question
before
the
city
is:
should
there
be
the
allowance
of
like,
like
structures
on
this
parcel?
That's
vacant?
That's
an
easement
for
pg
e.
C
E
C
Services
in
higher
density
areas
may
be
what's
generating
the
demand
for
the
the
utilities
they
might
have
envisioned
that
this
area
would
become
more
dense
over
time,
but
the
surrounding
neighborhood
is
still
mostly
single-family
at
a
lower
density
than
what
is
predominant
around
the
city
at
a
density
of
five
billion
units
per
hour
per
acre.
So
it
isn't
as
as
dense
and
serving
as
many
people.
It
may
be
just
a
lack
of
density
in
the
area
for
the
the
need
for
the
substation.
B
Sorry,
let
me
put
close
the
public
hearing
and
ensure
that
there
are
no
more
commissioner
questions,
seeing
no
hands
up,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing,
and
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
staff
recommendation
from
commissioner
lardinwa
and
the
second
from
commissioner
olivario
would
either
of
the
commissioners
like
to
speak
to
their
motion.
Yes,
commissioner,
olivario.
I
You
know,
for
example,
I'm
assuming
based
on
the
way
the
land's
configured
they
might
be
able
to
do
by
right
like,
for
example,
seven
homes,
but
they
may
submit
their
application
and
ask
for
for
discretion
from
the
council,
planning,
commission
and
ultimately
obtain
somewhere
closer
to
the
number
they
stated.
20..
Is
that
correct
staff.
C
By
right
they
would
be
able
to
develop
based
on
the
number
of
parcels
because
they
need
to
come
in
with
a
subdivision
for
those
other
units.
I
think
by
right,
they'd
be
allowed
to
based
on
the
site
now
and
the
parcels.
I
think
it
would
be
three
or
four
units,
but
then
they
would
need
to
come
in
with
a
major
subdivision
to
obtain
the
20
units
that
they're
they're
seeking.
I
B
Great,
so
I
also
just
wanna
I
I
see
that
mr
buford
has
his
mr
b
for
bar
has
his
hand
up
and
just
for
folks
who
are
new
to
this
once
you've
spoken
on
a
particular
item,
you
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
again.
However,
if
your
hand
is
up
for
the
next
item,
please
leave
it
up.
So
at
this
time
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor.
B
P
B
Vote
great
so
that
passes
and
we
will
move
on
to
item
8c,
which
is
gp20-003,
which
is
a
privately
initiated.
General
plan
amendment
to
change
the
land,
use
transportation,
diagram
from
public
quasi
public
to
residential
neighborhood,
on
an
approximately
2.7
gross
acre
site
located
on
the
north
of
cambriana,
drive
approximately
100
feet,
easterly
of
taper
avenue
and
cambrian
school
district
is
the
owner
so
jessica.
You
are
the
project
manager,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
you
for
the
staff
presentation.
H
Caballero
good
evening
planning
commissioners,
my
name
is
jessica.
Stephen,
with
the
planning
division
presenting
you
today,
gp
20-003,
gp
20-03
is
an
amendment
to
the
envisioned
san
jose
2040
general
plan.
Land
use
transportation,
diagram
change
from
public
quasi
public
to
a
residential
neighborhood
on
an
approximately
2.7
gross
acre
site
located
at
1975
cambriana
drive,
the
subject.
2.7
gross
acre
site
occupies
the
eastern
portion
of
the
former
metzler
elementary
school
parcel
and
it's
currently
open
space.
H
It's
a
grass
field
used
by
the
community
for
recreational
activities
and
the
site
is
surrounded
by
single-family
residences
to
the
north,
to
the
east,
to
the
south
and
the
former
school
site.
That's
currently
used
by
california
sports
center
and
the
seven
magic
flowers
and
a
tyson,
loving
care
preschools
to
the
west.
The
proposed
gp
designation
of
residential
neighborhood
is
applied
broadly
throughout
the
city
and
encompasses
most
of
the
established
and
single-family
residential
neighborhoods.
H
So
it's
consistent
with
compatibility
policy.
Cd
4.4.
The
project
is
also
consistent
with
education
policy.
Es
1.14,
which
encourages
collaboration
with
school
districts,
to
ensure
availability
of
resources
to
meet
student
needs
with
additional
revenue
that
this
project
could
bring
the
school
district.
H
However,
the
project
site
is
located
in
a
non-growth
area,
approximately
a
thousand
feet
from
the
nearest
urban
village,
the
camden
avenue
hillsdale
avenue
urban
village
and
is
not
located
near
a
transit
station.
The
proposed
general
plan
amendment
would
thus
allow
new
residential
growth
on
a
site.
That's
located
outside
of
an
identified
growth
area
and
not
currently
designed
for
residential
development,
which
makes
this
project
inconsistent
with
general
plan.
Major
strategy
number
three
focus:
growth,
growth
area
policy,
lu
2.3
and
high
quality
living
environments
policy
lu917.
H
Additionally,
the
project's
also
inconsistent
with
general
land
use
policy,
le
1.9,
le
1.1
and
fiscally
sustainable
land
use
framework
policy,
fs
3.3,
which
encourages
the
preservation
of
public
quasi-public
lands
and
to
reduce
the
potential
conversion
of
employment
lands
to
non-employment
uses
in
terms
of
state
law
conformance.
The
proposed
project
is
also
inconsistent
with
senate
bill
330
that
prohibits
a
net
loss
of
potential
residential
capacity
in
a
jurisdiction.
H
The
public,
quasi-public
land
use
designation,
allows
permanent
supportive
housing
for
the
homeless,
which
are
built
at
medium
to
higher
densities
and
staff
has
determined
that
the
maximum
density
for
permanent,
supportive
housing
on
public
quasi-public
land
to
be
100
units
per
acre.
This
maximum
density
is
not
listed
in
the
general
plan,
but
it
was
determined
through
reviewing
the
densities
of
existing
existing
permanent
supportive
housing
developments
in
the
city.
H
So
therefore,
concurrent
changes
in
the
general
plan.
Land
use
designations
must
be
made
elsewhere
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
residential
capacity
to
be
consistent
with
sb
330.,
so
in
conformance
with
sp
330.
This
project
is
being
considered
concurrently
with
the
three
general
plan
amendments
projects
that
you've
heard
earlier
tonight,
so
gp,
2001,
gp
20-002
as
well
as
gp
19-0-12,
so
that
there
would
be
no
net
loss
of
residentially
designated
land.
Should
city
council
decide
to
approve
the
project?
H
Note
that
this
is
slightly
different
from
the
staff
report
that
we
that
we
published
as
we're
substituting
gpt
18-009
wheelworks
for
gp,
19-0-12
gifford.
The
projects
must
be
approved
by
city
council
at
the
same
hearing
to
be
considered
a
no
net
loss
in
terms
of
outreach.
A
community
meeting
occurred
on
september,
10
2020
with
52
attendees
and
a
presentation
from
the
school
district
and
a
developer
on
a
conceptual
project
for
the
site.
H
A
total
of
515
comment,
letters
and
one
petition
were
submitted
for
this
project
with
508
expressing
support
and
seven
letters
and
one
petition
expressing
concern
or
opposition
against
the
project.
Those
in
support
expressed
the
importance
of
funding
for
the
underfunded
school
district
for
students
and
additional
programs,
especially
on
an
underutilized
site
with
the
proposed
land
use
designation.
That
would
be
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood
during
a
time
where
additional
housing
is
needed.
H
Those
concerned
with
or
in
opposition
of
the
project
expressed
concerns
primarily
regarding
exacerbating
existing
parking
and
traffic
issues,
especially
with
existing
nearby
projects,
noise
and
air
quality
and
pollution
impacts
during
constructions
were
noted
as
well,
and
preservation
of
open
space
for
recreation
and
privacy
of
adjacent
homes
were
also
noted
in
terms
of
zikla.
The
initial
study
negative
declaration
was
circulated
from
october
30
2020
through
november
19th,
and
received
no
public
comments.
H
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
recommends
the
denial
of
the
proposed
general
plan
amendment
as
it's
inconsistent
with
the
focus
growth,
major
strategy
and
associate
policies
of
the
general
plan.
Furthermore,
the
project
would
result
in
a
conversion
of
public
quasi-public
land,
which
is
directly
inconsistent
with
land
use
policy,
lu
1.9.
H
B
F
R
Q
All
right,
thank
you,
jessica
for
that
overview,
ongoing
work
and
encouragement
of
our
project,
even
with
the
the
recommendations
as
they
stand
good
evening.
Madam
president
and
members
of
the
planning
commission,
I
am
janet
borison,
a
trustee
of
the
cambrian
school
board,
I'm
here
as
a
representative
of
the
cambrian
school
district,
to
talk
to
you
about
our
district's
initiative.
We
call
support
our
students
that
will
help
generate
much
needed
ongoing
revenue
for
the
students
of
the
six
schools
of
our
district
slide.
Q
Two
yep
our
plan
is
to
create
a
new
ongoing
source
of
revenue
by
repurposing,
a
small
portion
of
one
of
our
school
district
properties
that
has
not
been
operating
as
a
district
school
site
for
over
20
years.
Although
we
do
have
some
portions
leased
to
local
community
organizations,
these
will
not
be.
These
will
go
unchanged
in
this
proposal.
Q
As
you
can
see
on
this
city,
zoning
map,
the
portion
of
our
property
we
would
like
rezoned,
is
currently
surrounded
on
three
sides
by
residential
zoning.
So
our
proposal
would
fit
right
in
this
is
an
appropriate
land
use
for
this
portion
of
our
property,
as
higher
density
would
not
fit
into
this
plan.
That's
already
in
existence.
Q
Q
School
district
staff
and
the
cambrian
school
board
have
been
diligently
working
to
keep
our
community
informed
and
included
throughout
the
steps
of
this
project.
The
district
has
participated
in
community
meetings,
met
many
times
with
our
schools
and
neighborhood
groups,
as
well
as
held
meetings
and
discussions
with
individual
neighbors
near
our
site.
Q
Q
F
E
E
P
P
It
is
now
in
these
significant
funding
challenges
that
we've
created
an
opportunity
to
improve
and
protect
the
outstanding
educational
programs
and
need
you
to
recognize
the
opportunity
and
partnership
we
are
looking
to
build
upon
again.
The
district
has
collected
over
500
letters
of
support.
Our
community
supports
this
initiative.
P
The
district's
concept
to
build
homes
on
the
land
complies
with
the
current
zoning
of
all
surrounding
land,
and
the
initiative
would
preserve
jobs
at
the
school
district
and
create
construction
jobs.
Please
support
the
cambrian
students
and
our
community
and
recommend
to
the
city,
the
san
jose
city
council,
members,
to
approve
the
district's
application.
E
Thank
you
for
thank
you.
My
name
is
aletta
and
I
am
a
former
cameron
school
board
member
current
cambrian
parent
and
I
also
serve
in
our
community
as
a
member
of
the
cambrian
gowanus,
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
ask
you
to
please
support
our
cambrian
students
and
recommend
to
the
san
jose
city
council
to
approve
the
district's
application.
E
E
It
will
be
stable,
ongoing
revenue
sources
for
the
districts
and
studies
have
shown
that
stable
school
funding
is
a
critic,
is
critical
to
student
success,
relying
on
the
state
tax
revenues.
Our
education
funding
has
been
exposed
to
volatilities
associated
with
economic
fluctuations.
We
felt
the
impact
of
the
great
recession
and
now
with
covet
before
covet.
E
E
D
D
E
Hi
there,
yes,
can
you
all
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
again
planning
commissioners
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
speak
here
tonight.
I
did
send
emails
to
all
the
commissioners
probably
several
months
ago
and
been
very
actively
working
with
our
community.
We
do
have
a
petition
with
over
100
signatures.
E
We
could
get
more
signatures,
but
we
were
having
issues
with
covid.
So
I
do
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
our
community
and
I
do
want
to
share
that.
The
cambrian
school
district
did
very
little
to
communicate
with
the
surrounding
community
as
to
this
project
and
how
they
were
going
to
move
forward.
It
was
very,
I
don't
know
they
didn't,
do
a
very
good
job,
communicating
with
us,
and
we
were
left
to
really
kind
of
pull
and
find
out
what
was
going
on.
E
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
parents
on
this
call
who
really
want
the
commissioners
to
support
this
project,
and
I
do
understand
and
feel
for
them.
But
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
I
speak
on
behalf
of
our
community
to
let
the
commissioners
know
that
we
really
enjoy
the
open
space
that
we've
had
for
over
20
plus
years.
Our
community
utilizes
that
space
daily
in
the
evenings.
E
R
Good
evening,
members
of
the
planning
commission,
my
name,
is
dr
carrie,
anders
I'm
the
superintendent
of
cambrian
school
district.
I
would
like
to
begin
by
thanking
you
for
your
time.
Cambrian
school
district
is
a
small
preschool
through
8th
grade
school
district
that
serves
roughly
3
200
students.
We
take
pride
in
our
exemplary
award-winning
programs
and
welcoming
environment.
R
We
strongly
believe
in
family
and
community
engagement
that
are
vital
to
our
students
lives
both
in
and
out
of
the
classroom.
I
am
before
you
tonight
because
of
a
challenging
economy
that
exists
and
the
need
to
sustain
ongoing
source
of
revenue,
to
support
and
preserve
cambrian's
basic
educational
services
for
our
students
and
our
programs.
R
We
are
asking
you,
the
commission,
to
approve
the
general
plan,
amendment
application
to
convert
2.7
acres
of
10
acres
schools
to
sites
to
residential
residential
neighborhood
by
converting
a
small
portion
of
the
site
for
residential
use.
We
are
able
to
create
a
new
ongoing
source
of
revenue
and
keeping
intact
a
significant
portion
of
the
land
for
pqp.
R
R
B
O
Okay,
great,
my
name
is
beth
erickson
and
I
am
a
former
president
of
farnam
home
and
school
club,
as
well
as
an
active
community
member
with
both
my
school
and
also
the
district.
I
would
like
to
ask
the
planning
commission
to
approve
the
district's
plan
to
move
forward,
as
many
of
the
speakers
ahead
of
me
have
commented.
O
N
N
20
years
highest
and
best
use,
that
was
an
answer
to
a
question
on
my
real
estate
licensee
exam
over
two
decades
ago.
I
am
very
comfortable
saying
this
initiative
is
the
highest
and
best
use
of
the
land
under
normal
circumstances.
That
would
be
my
opinion
and
my
main
argument,
but
considering
our
current
pandemic
situation,
our
schools
now
face
safety
requirements
and
significant
upfront
and
recurring
expenditures.
N
D
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
a
couple
of
other
points
that
I'd
like
to
raise
that
have
not
been
mentioned
here.
Is
we
just
passed
measure
r,
which
raises
88
million
dollars
in
bonds
for
the
school
district?
So
I'd
like
for
the
parents
in
the
school
to
be
upfront
about
the
you
know
the
fact
that
they
have
additional
money
coming
that
this
is
not
their
only
source
of
raising
the
money
that
they
need.
E
What
they
call
section
a
which
is
the
other
side
or
lot
a
is
the
other
side
of
this
parcel
is
still
pqp
and
there
is
still
an
plan
of
some
sort
to
put
in
whether
it's
a
medical
offices
or
some
other
facility,
even
a
care
facility
up
front
there
as
well.
So
there's
a
lot
of
construction,
a
whole
lot
of
development
going
on
in
a
very,
very
small
radius.
So
I'd
like
you
to
please
consider
that
as
well
as
you
make
your
decision
on
this.
Thank.
D
D
B
J
This
proposal,
before
you
provides
housing
which
the
city
certainly
could
always
use
and
jobs,
but
not
to
be
disingenuous.
I
I
am.
The
only
reason
that
I'm
speaking
tonight
is
is
for
this.
The
ongoing
revenue
to
to
help
support
the
education
of
our
kids.
The
bond
measure
that
was
just
passed
is
wonderful,
but
that
that
revenue
is
very,
very
specific
and
it
only
goes
toward
technology
and
some
facility
upgrades
versus
the
unrestricted
revenue
that
this
would
provide
for
us.
J
S
E
H
E
H
E
E
E
S
S
D
D
S
Maybe
members
of
the
commission
jessica:
can
you
put
that
site
plan
back
up
sure
and
hold
the
clock
all
right?
The
school
district
wants
to
be
a
good
neighbor
and
respect
the
existing
land
use
patterns.
What
does
that
mean
on
this
10
acres
site?
It
means
putting
you
know,
single-family
homes
next
to
single-family
homes,
and
you
can
see
the
plan
that
we
have
highlighted
next
to
single
family
homes
and
the
balance
of
the
site,
which
is
seven
acres,
would
remain.
S
S
And
this
is
the
same
strategy
that
we
use
on
the
campbell
union
high
school
site
across
the
south
across
the
street.
Both
sites
are
the
total
site
for
planned
pqp
and
was
only
the
rear
portions
that
were
converted
to
residential
and
the
front
portions
along
union
avenue
would
remain
pqp,
and
I
think
that
makes
the
the
most
sense.
There
is
a
an
exception
with
sb
330,
and
I
ask
that
you
use
the
excess
capacity
from
the
general
plan
amendments
that
were
approved
this
evening
and
used
for
this
site.
S
Because,
then,
I
think
the
purpose
of
sb940
was
to
allow
that
so
that
projects
like
this
would,
you
know,
be
able
to
move
forward
because
it
makes
sense
to
put
the
lower
density
here.
The
school
district
needs
funds
now
more
than
ever,
and
you
know
to
support
their
kids
and
support
their
their
school,
and
you
know
I
ask
that
you
support
this,
that
you
not
did
not
delay
the
approval,
because
delayed
housing
is
denied
housing
and
the
school
district
needs
the
support.
S
S
T
T
T
F
Madam
credit
chairman,
this
is
scott
sheldon
with
terror,
realty
advisors.
So,
just
to
sum
up
and
finish
up
what
mr
robeson
just
said,
you
know
I
I
think
that
the
project
merits
stand
on
their
own.
The
it
is
very
compatible
and
very
similar
to
the
project
that
was
approved
two
years
ago
for
the
adjoining
school
district
and
from
a
land
use
perspective.
F
We
feel
it's
a
very
good
land
use
very
compatible
and
it
meets
the
needs
not
only
of
the
city
of
san
jose
and
the
community,
but
also
the
needs
of
the
school
district.
So
with
that,
we've
also
been
working
diligently
with
the
neighbors
to
address
their
concerns
to
the
best
of
our
ability.
So
I'd
like
to
mention
that
also
but
other
than
that,
I'm
available
for
any
questions,
as
is
ms
morrison,
with
the
board.
T
Okay,
great,
thank
you
so
much
so
danielle,
I'm
I'm
seeing
one
more
hand
up,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
person
is
for
the
current
item,
but
we
moved
to
the
applicant's
response
so
before
we
move
back
to
commissioner
questions,
why
don't
we
let
this
applica?
This
person
go
ahead
and
make
their
public
comment
and
then
we'll
move
to
the
commissioner
questions
and
comments.
N
Hello,
thank
you,
everybody
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
This
is
just
just
wanted
to
say
that
we're
my
name
is
sergey
manyuk
we're
a
family
of
war
living
in
the
community
for
16
years,
and
our
children
went
through
the
district
and
we
see
see
schools
as
one
of
the
most
valuable
assets.
That's
for
our
children,
their
education,
but
as
well.
You
know
it's
also
for
the
for
the
property
values
and
the
general
kind
of
the
growth
of
the
of
our
community.
N
P
Thank
you
chair.
This
question
is
for
staff
just
trying
to
reconcile
this
project
or
item
with
the
previous
one,
I'm
fairly
certain
the
amaden
project
wasn't
in
a
focused
growth
area,
yet
we
approved
the
residential
developments
there.
Is
it
simply
a
fact
that
this
is
an
amendment
to
the
general
plan
that
this
issue
of
it
being
inconsistent
with
focus?
Growth
has
come
to
four.
H
E
J
I'm
sorry,
given
the
the
public,
quasi-public
designation,
right,
your
question
yeah,
so
with
the
pqp
designation,
permanent,
supportive
housing,
it
would
be
allowed,
but
we
don't
have
any
any
development
project
moving
forward.
We
would
we
would
look
at
compatibility
and
and
analyze
that
project
against
our
our
design,
standards
and
guidelines.
J
F
J
I
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
a
question
for
the
superintendent
of
the
cambrian
school
district,
and
my
question
is
that
with
I
understand,
this
site
has
had
not
been
used
for
20
years,
but
there
is
a
development
coming
forward
at
the
cambrian
plaza,
which
will
have
residential
and
your
school
district
will
be
asked
to
comment
on
the
project
and
I'm
curious.
If
what
level
of
housing
growth
would
make
it
that
a
school
site,
that's
not
being
used,
a
property
would
need
to
open
again.
Q
T
R
I
I
R
I
R
I
I
understand
your
question
now.
It
would
be
a
land
exchange,
so
we
would
exchange
the
land
for
a
another
piece
of
property
equal
in
equal
in
comparisons,
and
it
does
in
my
understanding,
it
does
not
have
to
me
within
the
cambrian
school
district,
in
addition
to
revenue
that
would
be
ongoing
for
with
the
exchange.
I
O
I
I
O
I
Okay,
that's
that's
why
we
get
to
two
bikes
right
here
in
city
council.
So
let
me
see
here
just
wanted
to
go
through
any
other
notes
here.
So
I
understand
that
staff
has
said:
council
must
consider
both
gps
at
the
same
time
to
not
lose
the
the
rev,
the
housing
units
we
we
have
no
clarity
on
the
those
other
two
questions,
but
I
assume
they'll
have
them
no
still
has
excess
capacity.
I
T
J
N
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant
and
forgive
me
if
this
was
already
addressed,
but
what
consideration,
if
any,
was
given
to
the
to
the
lot?
That's
on
the
union
side
of
the
parcel,
and
is
that
already
slotted
for
another
use,
or
why
are
you
not
using
that
because
it
seems
like
you'd,
receive
a
lot
less
resistance
from
the
community
and
it's
fronting
union?
Yes,
you
might
get
a
few
less
units,
but
what
consideration,
if
any,.
N
R
I
can
I
can
answer
that
and
then
scott
can
also
jump
in
on
this.
We
started
an
investigation
over,
I
would
say,
over
a
year
and
a
half
ago
to
land
across
the
district
and
the
front
and
the
back
side
were
options
of
consideration
in
terms
of
the
front
we
are
looking
at
moving
forward,
if
possible,
with
some
sort
of
memory
care
and
not
housing
on
on
the
front.
R
J
F
Our
planner
has
mentioned
is
really
geared
more
towards
either
a
very
high
density,
supportive
type
housing
which,
in
our
opinion,
would
not
be
good
land
uses
and
or
employment
uses,
and
one
of
the
employment
uses
that
is
an
allowable
use
going
through
the
process
would
be
something
like
a
memory
care
facility
which
would
be
housing.
It
would
be
support,
staff
would
be
medical
uses
and
things
like
that,
and
because
of
the
the
the
various
impacts
that
any
kind
of
use
like
that
would
have.
F
T
O
I
thought
I
was
unmuted
sorry
about
that
we're
going
to
respond
a
little
bit
to
commissioner
olivario's
questions.
I
just
took
a
look
at
the
department
of
housing
and
community
development
website
hcd
having
to
do
with
aab1486
and
they're
asking
ques.
You
know
the
answering
questions
about
the
assembly
bill
which
modifies
a
number
of
sections
of
the
government
code,
probably
about
a
ten
of
them,
and
it
clearly
applies
to
school
districts,
and
this
is
the
sale
of
surplus
property.
O
O
So
that's
up
in
the
air,
but
in
the
event
that
the
school
district
is
required
to
comply
with
this
law,
they
need
to
submit
a
plan,
they
need
to
submit
forms
to
hcd
and
have
them
approved,
and
so
as
well
as
offering,
I
believe,
availability
for
lower
income,
housing
for
affordable
housing.
But
anyway
I
I'm
just
taking
a
look
at
it
very,
very
quickly.
Right
now.
So
perhaps
that's
something
that
you
know
if
the
school
district
has
an
opinion
related
to
that
or
whatever
that
they
can
share
with
us.
E
E
I
felt
a
bit
more
confused
about
the
project,
but
I
would
like
to
say
that
I'm
very
impressed
with
the
communities
cohesiveness
in
supporting
this
project
and
the
the
the
organization
that
I've
seen
here
and-
and
that
shows
you
know
care
for
these
public
schools,
and
I
totally
get
that,
but
I'm
confused
about
how
this
is
a
ongoing
revenue.
I
don't
understand
that.
E
I
don't
understand
the
land,
swap
that's
new
to
me
and
I
think,
with
these
questions
swirling
around,
it
feels
like
it's
an
underbaked
proposal
in
my
opinion,
and
so
I
am
leaning
toward
following
the
staff
recommendations
to
with
pending
study
of
land
uses
happening.
I
think
I
would
be
likely
to
follow
their
recommendation
tonight
and
and
let
this
let
these
questions
get
settled
before
making
such
a
big
decision.
E
T
I
T
J
I
I
If
it
wasn't
for
sb
330.
I
think
that
certainly
throws
a
level
of
complexity
in
there.
So
sorry
for
this
long,
rambling
request
to
amend
the
motion,
but
I
would
just
like
to
for
staff
to
have
those
questions
to
to
gain
the
informa
to
obtain
the
information
to
answer
those
legal
questions
which
were
asked.
I
think
that
would
be
important,
so
would
that
be?
Okay
for
the
maker
of
the
motion.
E
I
On
the
on
the
proposed
project
itself,
I
mean
the
quality
of
the
the
housing
I've
seen
from
the
the
mr
robeson
is
quite
impressive,
and
I
have
no
worry
at
all.
It
would
fit
and
be
you
know
as
good
as
what's
in
the
neighborhood
today,
but
as
a
commissioner
with
these
questions
of
legality,
I
think
I
it
needs
to
be
addressed
and
it
needs
to
be
ultimately
at
the
city
council.
I
think
I
could
have
come.
You
know
had
a
more
certain
vote
on
this
tonight.
I
T
H
Sorry
one
second,
I
was
pulling
it
up
as
well.
Okay,
so
okay
got
a
staff
recommendation.
That
planning
commission
recommends
that
the
city
council
take
all
of
the
following
actions:
one
to
consider
the
negative
declaration,
in
accordance
with
sql
two
adopt
a
resolution
to
deny
the
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan,
land
use
transportation,
diagram
amendment
to
change
land
use,
designation
from
public
quasi
public
to
residential
neighborhood,
on
an
approximately
2.7
gross
acre
site
located
at
1975,
cambriana,
drive
and
third
add
an
item
to
the
housing
crisis.
M
S
M
O
M
O
Oh
okay,
yeah,
so
both
I
think
the
three
laws
that
you
mentioned,
commissioner
olivario,
were
naylor
where
the
nailer
act.
If
the
nailer
rights,
the
school
district,
is
positioned
land
we
spoke
about
ab1486,
also,
which
is
the
surplus
lands
act
applicable
to
school
districts
and
other
agencies
and
sb
330,
and
you
also
ask
that
staff
obtain
the
information
from
the
school
district
as
far
as
why
or
why
not.
They
have
complied
with
those
laws
and
whether
they're
applicable.
I
T
T
T
O
P
A
T
M
M
Environmental
and
other
quality
of
life
impacts
for
the
cities
so
and
then,
and
then
councilmember
davis
asked
that
we
provide
some
additional
sort
of
information
on
urban
villages
in
terms
of
what
plans
we're
doing
what
plans
we're
planning
to
do
and
how.
How
successfully
are
achieving
and
knocking
out
urban
village
plans,
as
well
as
documenting.
L
T
T
T
Commissioner
torrence,
I
commissioner
olivario
hi
and
commissioner
cavallo
is
an
I
commissioner
of
biet
puny
and
not
present
that
passion
most
motion
passes.
I
apologize,
I'm
really
tired
and
my
back
hurts.
I
pulled
the
muscle
yesterday,
so
I'm
struggling
through
the
last
little
bit
of
this
okay
subcommittee
formation
reports
an
outstanding
business.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
commissioner
calendar
and
study
sessions.
M
T
Okay,
not
seeing
any
other
items.
I
just
want
to
wish
everyone
a
happy
holidays,
and
I
know
that
we're
in
extremely
difficult
times
in
our
community.
We
had
over
1700
cases
of
covet
positive
today
and
we're
at
10
capacity
in
the
icu,
so
just
really
encouraging
folks
to
stay
home
and
be
safe,
wear
your
masks
and
but
if
you
can
shop
local,
so
thank
you
so
much
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
in
the
new
year
meetings.