►
From YouTube: DEC 4, 2019 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José
Planning Commission
View agenda at https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=746627&GUID=5F0C5265-06FD-4A4F-8594-C6F51A4D6900
A
B
Welcome
to
a
meeting
of
the
San
Jose
Planning
Commission,
the
following
is
a
summary
of
the
Planning
Commission's
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
completed
card
in
the
basket.
There
are
also
speaker
cards
in
the
back
of
the
chambers
and
at
the
side
entrance.
The
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows.
After
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
appellant
smae
make
a
five-minute
presentation.
B
The
chair
will
call
out
names
on
the
submitted
speaker
cards
in
the
order
received,
as
your
name
is
called.
Please
line
up
in
front
of
the
microphone
at
the
front
of
the
chamber.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony.
The
applicant
and
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
speakers
time
allowance.
B
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
Planning
Commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
Planning
Commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public.
Testimony.
Ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land-use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
this
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing
the
Planning
Commission's
action
on
reasonings
pries,
awnings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
City
Council.
B
The
City
Council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
twenty
point:
one:
twenty
point:
400
of
the
Municipal
Code,
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protest,
so
the
City
Council
on
reasonings
and
pries
awnings,
the
Planning
Commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
to
the
City
Council.
In
accordance
with
section
20
point
100
point:
220
of
the
Municipal
Code
agendas
and
a
binder
of
all
staff
reports
have
been
placed
on
the
table
near
the
door
for
your
convenience.
Thank
You.
A
Great
so
again,
welcome
and
I
wanted
to
reiterate
one
point,
and
that
is
for
those
of
you
who
have
driven
here
today.
There
is
a
parking
validation
machine
at
the
top
of
the
stairs
in
the
back.
If
it
is
after
8
o'clock,
the
machine
probably
won't
be
there
anymore,
but
that's
okay,
because
after
8
the
gate
will
go
up
and
you
don't
need
your
parking
validated
at
that
point.
So
don't
be
afraid
if
you
go
up
there
and
there's
no
validation
machine.
A
I
also
excuse
me
wanted
to
note
that
Commissioner
Allen
has
arrived
and
we're
going
to
move
into
agenda
item
number
2,
which
is
public
comment.
This
is
the
agenda
item,
we're
if
you'd
like
to
speak
about
items
that
are
not
actually
agendized.
This
is
the
time
to
do
that
and
I
have
one
speaker
request
for
that,
and
that
is
Brian
Darby.
So
could
Brian
come
up.
C
We
all
need
a
home
and,
as
our
city
grows
and
you're
making
land-use
decisions
remember
that
there
are
people
and
I'm
sure
you
do
remember
that
there
are
people
in
those
decisions
that
are
affected
positively
and
negatively
or
and
I
would
really
ask
you
to
listen
and
I'm
sure
you
do
laughs,
listen
strongly
and
carefully
to
the
concerns
and
to
the
all
the
people
involved
on
your
decisions.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
service.
It's
not
easy.
You're
not
paid
to
be
here
and
I'm
sure
you
get
a
lot
of
grief
over
emails.
C
D
D
Staff
does
not
have
any
additional
comments
regarding
the
consent
calendar,
but
did
want
to
acknowledge
a
handout
that
we
provided
prior
to
the
hearing
for
item
4b.
It's
a
correspondence
between
Commissioner
Esme
and
staff
regarding
the
city's
overall
tree
placement
ratios
in
relation
to
the
general
plan
policy.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
F
Yes,
Thank
You
commissioners,
my
name
is
Rhonda
bus
with
the
Planning
Division.
The
project
before
you
for
consideration
is
to
adopt
a
resolution
approving
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
the
demolition
of
all
buildings
and
structures,
including
a
single-family
house,
truck
wash
print
shop,
tire
shop
shed
and
structures,
including
billboards,
fencing,
canopies
tank
and
wall,
except
the
wall
along
the
westerly
property
line
of
the
site.
F
The
removal
of
eight
ordinance
sized
trees
for
the
construction
of
an
approximately
64,000
735
square
foot,
116
room
hotel
and
in
approximately
two
thousand
eight
hundred
and
eighty
square
foot
car
wash
on
an
approximately
two
point:
six
six
gross
acre
site.
The
project
has
an
environment,
envision,
San,
Jose,
2040,
general
plan
designation
of
combined
industrial,
flash
commercial,
and
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
combined
industrial.
Commercial
designation,
as
the
hotel
and
car
wash
are
commercial
in
nature
and
provide
a
buffer
between
the
residential
uses
and
Oakland
Road.
F
This
project
is
also
within
the
combined
industrial
commercial
zoning
district.
The
project
is
located
on
the
southwest
corner
of
Oakland
Road
and
Horning
Street.
The
site
consists
of
four
Lots.
A
parcel
of
that
is
to
combine
all
for
Lots
and
reconfigure.
The
site
into
two
Lots
is
a
project
condition
of
approval.
The
subject
site
is
currently
developed
with
a
number
of
existing
uses
that
were
cited
earlier
and
a
six-foot
tall,
concrete
masonry
wall
along
the
western
perimeter
of
the
site.
F
F
Construction
of
the
hotel
and
Karla
car
wash
would
enhance
the
area
as
the
project
would
create
new
jobs
provide
area
residents
with
a
convenient
service,
and
it
is
anticipated
that
the
new
businesses
would
provide
the
city
more
revenue
than
the
existing
businesses.
New
customers
would
be
attracted
to
the
site
and
the
more
modern
building
designs
would
enhance
the
neighborhood.
F
The
existing
truck
wash
occurs
in
the
open
and
the
new
car
wash
occurs
within
an
enclosed
building,
except
for
the
vacuuming
stations
which
are
located
outside
the
concrete
masonry
unit
wall
at
the
westerly
portion
of
the
site
would
help
with
separation
of
use
and
noise,
and
a
12-foot
landscape
buffer
would
be
provided
at
the
residential
property
line.
Additionally,
the
car
wash
blowers
would
be
required
to
include
foam
and
baffling
through
measures
in
in
the
resolution,
which
would
reduce
the
noise
below
the
city
of
San
Jose
standards.
F
Additionally,
the
project
includes
a
landscaping
which
enhances
neighborhood
livability,
as
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
The
project
conforms
to
several
general
plan
policies
related
to
jet
to
commercial
lands,
as
well
as
those
regarding
business,
growth
and
retention.
It
also
conforms
to
the
city's
Municipal,
Code
and
residential
guidelines.
A
community
meeting
was
held
on
February
21st
2019.
Three
people
were
in
attendance,
two
people
were
in
favor
of
the
project
and
the
third
person
was
there
to
find
out
what
the
project
proposed.
F
F
F
For
members
of
the
public,
not
necessarily
industrial
uses
to
address
the
traffic
concerns,
a
local
transportation
analysis
was
reviewed
by
the
city's
traffic
team
and
measures
such
as
lengthening
the
left
turn
pocket,
providing
a
new
signal
and
traffic
impact
fees
are
to
be
paid
as
project
conditions,
and
a
determination
of
negative
declaration
can
be
made
with
respect
to
transportation
impact.
This
concludes
the
staff
report.
E
E
G
G
A
E
You
guys
have
a
quick
question
for
staff
and
it
relates
to
the
City
Council
policy
regarding
drive-thru
uses,
so
I'm,
referring
to
page
11
I,
want
to
say
of
the
PDF
of
the
staff
report,
11
of
19
I'm.
So
sorry
I'll,
be
speaking
up.
I
apologize
item,
11
or
number
11,
underneath
that
policy
is
location
and
items
see
under
that
is,
buildings
which
I
first
drive
through
fiscally
shall
be
located
within
a
minimum
separation
of
with
a
minimum
separation
of
500
feet
from
any
structure
containing
a
drive-through
facility.
E
So
for
a
little
context-
and
you
can
probably
help
me
out
here
and
clarifying
this
no
less
than
maybe
two
years
ago,
we
did
recommend
and
I
believe
the
council
approved
a
project
on
basically
across
the
street,
from
the
hotel
portion
of
this
project
that
includes
two
drive-thru
uses
in
the
same
Messiah,
granted
that
site
I'm
guessing
made.
Perhaps
we
hadn't
approved
it
or
it
had
been
approved
by
the
council.
E
Yet
the
entitlements
hadn't
been
approved
at
the
time
that
this
application
came
in
so
I'm
guessing
it
doesn't
apply,
but
I've
walked
that
neighborhood,
physically
and
I've
checked
it
out
on
Google,
Maps
and
I.
Don't
know
if
it's
501
feet,
but
the
drive-thru
use
here
and
the
car
wash
drive-thru
use
here
is
pretty
darn
close
to
five
from
those
other
uses,
so
I'm
just
guessing
that
it
was
only
approved
and
that
that's
not
referenced
in
the
analysis
below
as
to
how
this
meets
that
specification.
E
I'm
guessing
it's,
because
the
project
across
the
street
had
not
been
entitled
at
the
time
that
this
project
came
to
the
city
or
it
was
reviewed.
But
if
you
could
give
some
clarity
certification
there,
because
there's
nothing
in
the
analysis
that
says
how
it
meets
that
standard.
So
maybe
there's
maybe
it
exists
somewhere
else
and
I'd.
It
was
very
late
and
I
was
reading
a
very
long
packet
and
I
missed
it.
F
Right
Thank
You,
commissioner,
so
the
policy
indicates
that
there
should
be
a
a
500-foot
radius
kind
of
around
the
drive-thru
uses
and
that
there
should
be
separation
there,
and
that
is
acknowledged.
However,
the
intent
of
the
drive-thru
policy
we
felt
was
met
in
that
the
design
around
the
hotel
and
car
wash
helped
to
provide
a
buffer
between
the
residential
uses.
F
Additionally,
the
project
across
the
street
that
was
mentioned
file
number
PD
16-0
to
7,
was
approved
on
5
8
18
and
that
there
were
two
car
washes
on
that
site.
So
because
this
because
there
were
two
car
washes
approved
there
and
because
this
project
was
directly
across
the
street,
it
was
felt
that
there
would
be
reasonable.
E
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
is
there
some
sort
of
concern
that
the
city
has
that
there's
a
market
inefficiency
for
car
washes
in
this
neighborhood
because
I'm
not
seeing
it
so
I'm,
just
curious
how
that
how
that
rationale
is
used
and
how
we,
how
we
can
make
overriding
considerations
based
on
the
fact
that
there's
not
going
to
be
three
or
three
drive,
throughs
or
three
car
washes,
whichever
you
want
to
call
them
in
the
same
500-foot
radius.
Basically,
a
block
radius
in
a
neighborhood,
that's
already
pretty
impacted
and
could
use
you
know.
Other
services.
D
D
Yes,
while
this
project
is
within
500
feet
of
approved
and
entitled,
other
drive-thru
uses
staff
was
balancing
again
the
intent
of
the
drive-thru
policy
and
felt
that
given
site
constraints
and
other
site
design
measures
to
address
those
potentially
nuisance
or
incompatible
issues,
we
felt
like
those
issues
have
been
addressed
again
through
a
site
design
or
operationally
through
permit
conditions.
So,
therefore,
that
is
why
well,
it
doesn't
meet
the
literal
number
outlined
in
the
policy
staff
is
still
comfortable
and
recommending
approval
of
the
proposed
car
wash
okay.
E
And
thank
you.
I
do
appreciate
the
analysis
there.
It
would
have
been
great
to
see
that
in
the
staff
report
it's
it's
there's
nothing
at
all
that
addresses
that
particular
item
and
that
might
have
clarified
things.
I'm
still
not
comfortable
supporting
the
motion,
but
I
do
really
respect
your
take
and
thank
you
for
giving
it
to
us
tonight
and
I
apologize
to
everyone
who's
here
for
the
later
item.
E
A
G
I
Thank
You
chair
Apennine,
coma
from
the
policy
and
ordinance
team
planning
department.
The
item
before
you
is
a
proposed
amendment
to
title
20
of
the
San
Jose
Municipal
Code,
specifically
aligned
with
new
California
state
law
requirements
for
ad
use
that
required
local
jurisdictions
to
conform
to
the
four
bills
that
was
signed
in
October
2000
19.
I
A
local
agency
cannot
establish
a
maximum
square
footage
that
is
less
than
850
square
feet
for
a
one
bedroom
and
thousand
square
feet
for
two
bedrooms,
and
a
detached
unit
cannot
exceed
1,200
square
feet
per
the
state
mandate.
Junior
ad,
you
shall
be
allowed
on
single
family
lots
and
may
include
an
additional
detached.
I
I
I
Staff
also
recommends,
including
smaller
junior
accessory
dwelling
units
up
to
a
maximum
size
of
500
square
feet
situated
within
single-family
dwellings,
but
which
will
require
owner
occupancy
and
deed
restrictions,
as
mandated
by
state
law.
It
may
be
allowed
in
conjunction
with
a
detached
ad,
you
limited
to
800
square
feet
with
a
maximum
height
of
16
feet.
I
I
This
ordinance
would
further
eliminate
replacement
parking
for
a
garage
or
carport
that
is
converted
or
demolished
as
part
of
an
ad
you
to
further
align
with
state
law.
It
would
amend
the
definition
of
ad
use
and
also
add
new
definition
for
junior
ad.
You
staff
would
like
to
note
a
correction
on
revised
page
number,
16
and
25
of
the
draft
ordinance
in
front
of
you
this
evening
that
relate
to
additional
changes
for
zoning
district
and
Junior
edu
sections.
J
J
J
Staff
at
HCD,
who
are
the
staff
who
are
working
on
drafting
guidelines
for
cities,
advised
us
that
cities
could
still
adopt
local
ordinances
that
applied
additional
development
standards
as
long
as
they
weren't
in
conflict
with
section
e,
which
allows
which
says
that
cities
must
allow
at
least
800
square
foot
ad
use
that
are
16
feet
tall
and
this
letter
you
know
the
interpretation
in
this
letter
is
otherwise.
At
this
point,
staff
is
recommending
going
with
the
direction
we
received
from
Housing
and
Community
Development.
On
this
issue.
J
We
will
be
fully
transparent
that
everybody,
including
Housing
and
Community
Development,
is
working
to
understand
how
to
apply
some
of
the
provisions
of
this
state
law.
It
was
three
different
bills
that
came
together
in
one
and
so
there's
still
some
areas
where
you
know
everyone's
essentially
trying
to
figure
it
out,
and
so
we
do
expect
it
is
likely
that
we
are
going
to
have
to
come
back
later
to
make
some
changes
as
we
get
more
guidance
from
the
state,
particularly
as
it
pertains
to
multifamily
to
use
on
multifamily.
J
Their
next
comment
is
that
section
zoning
ordinance
section
twenty
thirty
four
sixty
eighty
purports
to
apply
additional
development
standards
for
a
to
use
in
certain
residential
zones,
which
would
be
in
reference
to
the
section
that
says,
80
use
in
plan
development
zones
need
to
meet
the
development
standards
of
the
planned
development.
Zoning
district.
J
So
we
are
recommending
a
change
to
the
zoning
language
to
just
state
that
if
a
property
is
owned
plan
development
that
authorizes
single-family
residences,
they
may
build
an
ad
you
under
the
ad
you
provisions
within
this
chapter
and
then
the
third
point
raised
by
this
letter
is
that
they
mentioned
that
junior
ad
use
under
the
new
state
law
will
no
longer
be
required
to
have
an
interior
connection
to
the
primary
dwelling.
That
is
correct.
That
is
something
we
missed
in
the
change
to
state
law.
J
A
G
B
B
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
why
I'm
never
gonna
be
an
early
adapter
of
anything,
but
I
do
have
two
minor
questions.
The
reduction
in
the
time
which
the
city
has
to
act
on
an
Adu
is
being
reduced
from
120
to
60
days
until
they
do
what,
since
we're
getting
rid
of
the
ministerial
requirements,
what
is
acting
on
building.
J
J
H
Have
a
number
of
questions
about
the
language
and
I
apologize
I
should
have
emailed
earlier,
but
I
just
did
not
have
time
this
week
to
do
so
so,
but
I
have
been
looking
at
Adu
language
very
carefully,
because
I
was
considering
one
and
have
realized,
there's
a
bunch
of
different
things
in
our
ordinance.
That
I
think
make
it
quite
difficult
to
actually
construct
one
of
these
things.
H
J
Note
that
the
requirement
that
the
city
cannot
require
additional
setbacks
for
an
edu,
that's
converted
from
a
detached
garage
is
that's
actually
a
state
law
requirement,
so
we
don't
have
an
option
to
not
adopt
that
it
in
a
short,
does
not
really
meet
its
fire
code.
Fire
wants
three
feet
from
the
nearest
point
of
the
structure,
so
that
would
include
eaves
and
so
the
process
for
that
would
be
to
apply
for
a
variance
through
the
fire
department
to
show
that
you
are
achieving
the
same
level
of
fire.
H
I
I
J
If
someone
did
not
want
to
do
an
Yvonne,
their
house
under
80,
you
sure
yeah
three
feet
would
be
consistent.
The
reason
we're
recommending
4
is
because
it's
very
typical
for
eaves
to
be
an
exception,
and
so
people
always
assume
when
read
the
three
feet
that
then
eaves
go
into
it
causes
a
lot
of
you
know
consternation
when
people
design
something
and
find
out
that
they
can't
do
it
and
frankly,
the
fire
department's
perspective
is
kind
of
more
space.
They
had
to
get
around
the
unit
the
better.
So
that
is
our
recommendation.
J
So
detached
garages
are
actually
typically
have
less
because
they're
not
occupied
structures.
They
are
not
required
to
have
the
same
level
of
fire
protection
and
so
very
often,
when
you're
converting
a
detached
garage
to
an
Adu
you're,
starting
at
a
less
than
three
foot
setback.
It's
actually
not
very
common
in
older
neighborhoods
to
have
even
a
three
foot
setback
to
your
garage.
I.
Also
note.
J
What
we
found
in
practice
is
that
you
know
if
you
have
a
detached
garage
chances,
are
it's
an
older
structure
and
it's
not
actually
designed
to
be
used
as
a
dwelling
structure,
and
when
you
start
looking
at
the
foundation
and
the
structural
and
whatnot
generally,
we
find
those
to
be
rebuilds,
not
quite
so
much
conversions,
which
is
in
no
way
a
city
requirement.
It's
just
when
people
pencil
it
out.
They
realize
that
it's
cheaper
to
rebuild
it.
So
we
see
that
a
lot
more
often
than
we
see
actual
just
flat.
Conversions
of
structures.
H
So,
on
the
point
about
the
garages
and
and
additions
to
sort
of
non-conforming
setbacks,
and
so
many
Lots
in
San
Jose
are
so
narrow
and
so
the
side
setbacks
in
particular
are
difficult
to
work
with,
and
especially
when
you
have
garages
at
the
back
and
and
you're
having
to
jog
your
driveway
in
or
maybe
if
you're
I
guess
converting
a
garage.
You
don't
need
to
jog
your
driveway
in,
but
the
150
foot
it
that
you
can
add
to
I.
Think
it's
under
Section.
H
J
So
how
that
section
actually
works
is.
It
is
only
in
reference
to
the
side
setback
for
older
lots
that
are
narrower
and
it's
a
hundred
and
fifty
square
feet
that
encroaches
within
that
side
setback
and
so
typically,
when
you
have
an
encroachment
into
the
side,
setback
you're
only
encroaching
a
foot
or
two
to
match
the
existing
encroachment.
So
it's
a
foot
or
two,
you
know
times
the
length
of
the
encroachment,
usually
so
it's
very
hard
to
actually
exceed
that
150
square
foot
limitation
for
what
is
allowed
to
encroach
into
the
side
setback.
J
H
The
other
question
I
had
was
about
the
historic
resource,
design,
standards
and
and
I
was
trying
to
look
up
the
statute
to
look
at
the
notwithstanding
language.
I
just
got
the
letter
and
pulled
up
the
statute,
but
the
statute
seems
pretty
clear
and
that
it's
notwithstanding
the
design
standards
or
whatever
that
you
could
whatever
constraints
the
city
put
forward,
and
so
we
have
to
look
at
the
actual
language
of
the
statute
as
our
guide.
Not
what
HCD
is
I
might
tell
us
that
how
they're
interpreting
it.
H
But
if
the
statute
says
notwithstanding,
then
it
seems
that
that's
an
issue
for
the
ordinance,
but
whether
we,
the
Commission,
decides
to
take
that
issue
up
or
not
on
the
historic
resource
design
standards.
I
was
concerned
about
the
requirement
that
the
building
materials
and
design
has
to
be
different
than
the
historic
building,
no
matter
how
small
the
addition
could
be,
because
that
seems
like
you're
imposing
a
what
could
look
really
odd
in
some
circumstances.
Okay,
I
understand
that
we
don't
want
to
be
creating
a
false
sense
of
history,
but
maybe
that
would
speak
to
that.
J
Yeah,
so
that
was
a
recommendation
of
our
historic
preservation,
officer
and
kind
of
one
of
the
concerns
is
that,
given
our
limitations
and
what
we
can
apply,
we
need
to
kind
of
have
standards
that
are
catch-all
so
yeah.
If
you
have
recommended
language
on
kind
of
how
to
parse
that,
for
maybe
a
small
addition
that
could
match,
but
definitely
you're
right,
the
concern
is
creating
a
false
sense
of
history
with.
In
addition,
that
kind
of
is
really
match
easy.
H
I
might
suggest
saying
that,
there's
a
recommendation
that
it
shall
be
different
and
then
that
way
it's
something
that
that
at
least
it
can
be
discussed.
But
if
it
you
have
to
create
a
bright-line
rule,
I
think
that
you're
gonna
have
more
things
that
are
that
look
really
odd
and
a
neighborhood
as
opposed
to
maybe
compliment
the
structure.
I
J
The
problem
with
maeÃn
strongly
encourage
for
something
that's
ministerial
is
that
we
can't
apply
that
it
is
entirely
meaningless
to
just
say
maybe
cuz
if
someone
says
well
I
choose
not
to
then
there's
may
means
absolutely
nothing
in
this
context
of
a
building
permit.
That
has
to
either
meet
the
criteria
or
not.
So
we
did
err
on
the
side
of
I
guess
being
stricter,
in
conformance
with
the
Secretary
of
Interior
standards
and
historic
preservation
standards.
J
So
perhaps
we
could
work
with
the
language
in
that
way
to
kind
of
more
parse
out
what
different
means,
but
yeah.
That
would
be
my
recommendation
on
how
to
address
that
is
that
I
definitely
know
I
see
the
point.
Someone
could
do
something
completely
bizarre
based
on
this
language.
The
other
thing
I
will
note,
is
practically
speaking
again.
We've
found
that
people
who
are
building
these
on
historic
homes
tend
to
be
very
sensitive
to
the
character
of
the
historic
homes.
J
So
we're
not
horribly
concerned
that
someone
would
do
something
awful,
but
yeah
it
does,
leave
it
open,
I,
think
it
leaves
it
open
either
way,
though
you
know
either
you
require
it
and
there's
instances
where
it
doesn't
necessarily.
Look
that
great
or
you
don't
require
it
in
there's
instances
where
people
kind
of
do
something
that
they
shouldn't
do.
I.
H
H
Actually,
I'm
sorry,
it's
page
20
that,
let's
see
that's
not
the
right,
one
is
ke5.
Yes,
k5
a
second-story
balcony,
Zhun,
enclosed
entry,
landings
and
decks
shall
be
a
minimum
of
15
feet
away
from
the
rear
and
side
property
line
and
I'm
wondering
how
a
person
would
construct
an
entrance
and
outside
entrance
to
a
second-story
balcony
where
that
would
go.
If
you
have
to
be
15
feet
from
the
property
line,
how
do
you
get
a
staircase
going
up
to
that
unit
anywhere
outside
of
the
building?
So.
H
I
H
I
This
also
from
the
privacy
concerns
so
the
other
two
sites
which
are
nearest
to
the
property
lines.
They
do
have
a
sill
height
of
5
feet
on
two
of
the
sites,
so
the
remaining
side,
which
is
sort
of
facing
towards
the
interior
of
the
rear
yard.
We
were
trying
to
eliminate
any
potential
privacy
concerns
and
therefore
we
move
the
entry
landing
towards
the
interior
of
the
site.
I
H
I
These
items
only
refer
to
which
are
unenclosed,
so
if
it
is
an
enclosed
face,
then
there
is
really
no
concern.
They
could
be
closer
than
the
15
feet,
but
if
it's
an
unenclosed
entry
landing,
then
they
would
have
to
set
it
back,
but
they
could
always
provide
a
face.
She
out
of
projection
along
that
side
and
and
enclose
that
area
too
yeah.
So
they
have
a
choice
to
move
it
closer.
At
that
point,.
J
H
G
I'm
happy
to
take
any
of
your
suggestions,
not
in
the
motion,
but
to
make
it
as
part
of
the
staffs
report
to
City
Council,
so
they
can
decide
because
I
think
there's
two
things
to
weigh
really
getting
into
the
level
of
detail
and
be.
The
city
has
to
approve
this
ordinance
based
on
the
state
legislation
that
has
passed
so
I'd
like
planning
staff
to
take
in
all
those
comments.
You've
said
you
know,
produce
their
comments,
maybe
to
the
City
Council
and
then
have
a
city
council
decide.
G
J
Apologize
I
forgot
to
mention
there
are
certain
areas
where
the
state
mandates
a
four-foot
minimum
setback.
For
example,
a
detached
ad
use
on
multifamily
properties
are
required
to
maintain
a
4-foot
setback
for
the
state
law.
So
four
feet
was
also
in
partial,
partially
to
just
be
consistent
across
the
board.
So
it
wasn't
three
feet
four
feet
five
feet.
Depending
on
what
you're
doing
it's
just
four
feet
across
the
board.
E
Thank
You,
chair
I,
just
had
a
quick
question.
It
was
proposed
by
remember
the
public
via
email
and
made
sense
to
me
to
inquire
about
it
by
my
read
of
the
ordinance
and
the
changes
to
the
the
code
ad
user.
Jr.
a
to
use
would
not
be
allowable
on
any
sort
of
mixed
use
or
commercial
site
unless
there
was,
it
was
owned
for
a
single-family
home
and
just
happened
to
have
or
had
a
general
plan
designation
of
mixed
juice
or
one
of
these
junior.
E
The
question
was
regard
the
remember.
The
public
had
was
in
a
situation
where
there's
a
multi-family,
let's
say:
there's
a
multi-family
residence
and
perhaps
a
convenience
store
of
some
sort
on
the
same
lot.
Would
that
preclude
the
multifamily,
the
you
know,
property
owner
from
building
an
ad
you
and
the
multifamily
property
side
of
the
law?
If
it
was
the
same
line
so.
E
Separate
story
same
mod,
could
the
Canadian
be
built
to
the
in
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
the
multi-family
dwelling
in
any
kind
of
circumstance,
just
curious
I
guess
he
gets
to
a
larger
point.
Who
can
me?
Is
there
a
way
that
you
know
maybe
putting
a
suggestion
forth
to
the
City
Council
for
commissioner
various
suggestion
that
we
might
look
at
allowing
it
use
on
even
yeah
that.
J
That's
a
good,
a
good
point,
I
think
that
goes
in
part
to
the
the
kind
of
some
of
the
areas
where
the
state
law
is
very,
very,
very
unclear
on
how
to
implement
this,
for
a
tea
use
for
multifamily.
That's
a
great
question
you
know
is
thinking
through
all
of
the
scenarios
in
which
a
multi-family
property
might
exist.
This.
J
E
I'm
again,
commissioner,
all
the
various
point
I'm
not
going
to
ask
that
we
make
it
tonight
or
before
that
to
be
council,
but
if
you
could
forward
that
in
the
staff
report
as
a
question,
I
think
that'd
be
really
appropriate
and
I
think
remember
the
public.
He
knows
who
he
is
he's,
probably
watching
for
the
question.
Thank
you
for
the
time
Martina.
D
I
have
a
question
for
you.
So
a
lot
of
times
we
get
these
or
these
state
ordinances
that
pass
and
they're
not
consistent
with
each
other
or
they
can
flu
act
it's
unclear.
If
we
usually
what
ends
up
happening.
Is
they
do
some
kind
of
cleanup
legislation
the
next
year
to
sort
of
make
it
all
clear
or
is
there
have
you
heard
of
they
were
talking
about
doing
that
on
these
three
ITU
bills,
absolutely.
J
Hcd
I've
already
heard
that
the
Assembly
members
office,
who
drafted
the
bulk
of
this
bill,
is
planning
cleanup
items
and
HCD
is
creating
a
list
in
part
from
conversations
from
cities
like
us
on
items,
they're
going
to
suggest,
get
included
in
the
cleanup
items
so
come
next
year.
We
do
expect
I
mean
definitely
to
see
revised
state
law
again,
for
example,
there's
one
area
where
the
state
law
says
may
shall
is
it
mayor,
Shou
great
question?
J
They'll
have
to
fix
that
the
answer
is,
it's
shall
and
that
doesn't
come
into
effect
until
2025,
so
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
it,
but
we
fully
expect
changes
and
then
we're
hoping
we're
expecting
HCD
to
provide
guidance
on
some
of
these
areas
that
are
unclear
for
what
cities
to
do
in
the
coming
year
before
the
official
amendments
are
adopted.
So.
J
A
A
A
N
This
multi-family
residential
development
would
consist
of
687
residential
units,
320
of
which
will
be
condominiums.
The
remaining
600
or
sorry.
The
remaining
367
residential
units
are
rentals.
Some
of
the
flat
units
will
be
made
available
to
current
mobile
home
owners
and
tenants
who
choose
this
option
as
their
replacement
housing
in
order
to
accommodate
a
multi-family
residential
development.
The
project
includes
a
general
plan:
land-use
changed
from
residential
neighborhood
to
urban
residential,
which
allows
for
residential
development
at
a
higher
density.
N
This
change
in
land
use
also
requires
an
update
to
the
Santana
Roe
Valley
Fair
urban
village
plan
for
consistency
and
to
further
accommodate
an
increase
in
density
by
increasing
the
allowable
height
and
the
height
transitions
for
the
area.
Additionally,
updates
included
adding
pedestrian
connections
and
amenities,
as
outlined
in
the
provided
plan,
set
such
as
a
publicly
accessible
paseo
in
a
public
neighborhood
park
in
the
northern
part
of
the
property.
Even
though
the
project
site
is
located
within
the
Santana
Row
valley,
fair
urban
village,
the
project
does
not
include
commercial
space.
For
a
number
of
reasons.
N
The
site
is
an
odd
shape,
with
the
limited
with
limited,
viable
street
frontage
along
Winchester
Boulevard,
and
is
further
limited
by
the
proximity
of
the
historic
Winchester
Mystery
House.
Furthermore,
most
of
the
site
is
behind
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
the
future
development
of
the
Santana
West
office
project.
N
The
main
access
of
the
site
is
off
of
Olsen
Drive,
which
terminates
at
the
project
site
and
the
site
is
adjacent
to
an
established
single-family
neighborhood
with
established
disconnected
streets
based
off
of
these
reasons,
staff
is
an
agreement
that
the
site
is
too
isolated
and
does
not
make
the
best
sense
for
a
mixed-use
or
commercial
project
to
proceed
forward.
Community
outreach
was
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
city
council
policy,
on
public
outreach
and
noticing,
and
the
mobile
home
conversion
ordinance
to
community
meetings
were
held
by
city
staff.
N
Staff
has
developed
a
website
hosting
up-to-date
project
details
and
has
mailed
individual
packets
to
each
resident
on
site.
That
includes
the
staff
report
and
the
draft
relocation
impact
report.
For
several
years,
the
applicant
has
met
monthly
with
the
mobile
home
park
residents.
In
addition,
as
well,
staff
has
received
letters
of
concern
from
the
adjacent
single-family
neighborhood
about
the
possibility,
opening
up
the
neighborhood
streets,
known
as
Kirkwood
Olson,
rosewood
and
Maplewood,
with
statements
to
keep
these
streets
closed.
N
In
summary
of
the
community
meetings
that
staff
held
comments
consisted
of
park,
programming,
enquiries,
park,
lighting
and
security
issues,
tree
preservation,
proposed
density
traffic
and
parking
concerns
and
inquiries
about
replacement
housing
at
the
time
the
replacement
housing
inquiry,
the
agreement
was
not
signed
yet,
and
the
planning
development
permit
was
not
on
file
yet
for
review.
Now
the
project
has
incorporated
a
plan
for
relocation
and
purchase
assistance
as
described
later
in
this
report.
N
This
the
agreement
also
features
details
on
the
requirement
of
each
replacement.
Housing
units
such
as
each
unit
must
have
two
bedrooms
and
be
at
least
1200
square
feet
with
elevators
and
accessible
parking.
Things
like
that,
as
proposed.
The
project
does
not
include
the
opening
of
the
previously
mentioned
neighborhood
streets.
Additionally,
the
development
standards
include
a
statement
that
development
shall
remain
closed
to
vehicle
access.
The
proposed
Park
is
approximately
two
acres
and
will
feature
lighting
consistent
with
city
policies.
The
applicant
will
continue
to
work
with
the
parks
department
to
fully
develop
the
neighborhood
park.
N
Staff
has
provided
an
updated
correspondence
with
hard
copies
available
about
the
number
of
trees
to
be
removed
and
the
number
of
planting
to
be
provided
to
provide
clarity
from
the
staff
report
and
the
environmental
impact
report.
The
project
will
would
remove
a
total
of
550
trees.
The
trees
proposed
to
be
removed
are
located
either
within
the
proposed
building
footprint
within
the
park
area
or
within
necessary
driveways
staff
notes
that
the
project
will
be
preserving
11.
N
Large
trees
only
was
several
of
them
being
located
close
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House,
including
one
large
cork
oak
tree
close
to
Winchester
Boulevard,
and
the
ER
identifies
that
1022
trees
at
the
size
of
15
gallon
is
required
to
be
replanted.
Pursuant
to
the
project
landscaping
plan,
a
total
of
439
trees
at
the
size
of
15,
gallon
and
426
trees
at
the
size
of
at
least
24
inch
box
trees
for
a
grand
total
of
600
or
sorry
865
trees
will
be
plant
replanted
on
site
standard
city.
N
The
project
complies
with
the
proposed
density
requirements
of
the
urban
village
plan.
In
addition
to
the
development
standards
related
to
height,
the
impact
of
the
building
scale
relating
to
the
adjacent
Winchester
Mystery
House
was
recently
reduced
to
cater
to
the
setting
of
the
historic
landmark.
The
project
meets
and
exceeds
the
parking
requirements
for
a
multi-family
development
and,
as
described
further
in
the
ER
for
the
project,
traffic
impacts
were
determined
to
be
less
than
significant
level.
David
key
on
principal
environmental
planner
will
provide
a
brief
update
on
the
environmental
impact
report.
O
Good
evening
chair
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
David
cannon
principal
planner,
so
there
were
so
this
project
prepared
a
draft
environmental
impact
report
which
was
circulated
for
public
review
from
August
30th
to
October
15
2019.
The
city
received
18
written
comment.
Letters
during
the
public
comment
period.
Comments
were
submitted
by
12
individuals
and
agencies,
including
the
San
Jose
Historic
Landmarks
Commission,
the
California
Department
of
Transportation
Cal
for
Department
of
Toxic
Substances
Control
Santa,
Clara,
Valley,
Transportation
Authority,
the
city
of
Santa
Clara,
and
the
Stevens
Creek
advisory
group,
/
Winchester
neighborhood
Action
Coalition.
O
A
1st
amendment
to
the
draft
environmental
report
was
prepared.
This
provided
responses
to
public
comments
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
and
revisions
to
the
text
of
the
draft
dir.
This
first
amendment,
together
with
the
the
draft
dir,
constitute
the
final
environment
for
the
project.
Minh
is
included
with
your
packet
David.
O
So
the
EEI
are
found
that
the
project
would
result
in
significant
unavoidable
impacts
due
to
changes
in
the
historic
setting
of
the
Jason
Winchester
house
and
construction
noise
impacts
on
adjacent
residences
due
to
the
length
of
construction.
In
addition,
the
EEI
are
identified
significant
impacts
from
construction,
air
quality,
nesting,
Michael
wears
to
nest,
nesting
migratory
birds,
hazardous
materials,
all
of
which
would
be
reduced
to
unless
a
significant
impact
with
mitigation
measures
identified.
Ea
are
also
evaluated
several
project
alternatives.
O
O
In
addition,
the
e
aÃ
are
evaluated
three
preservation
alternatives
to
reduce
impacts
to
the
winchester
house,
and
these
are
include
the
an
alternative,
the
ring
locates,
the
podium
apartment
building,
which
is
the
seven
storey
building
located
on
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site.
This
alternative
would
reduce
the
height
of
the
buildings
adjacent
to
the
Winchester
House
grounds
and
relocate
the
podium
apartment
building
to
the
west
more
into
the
center
of
the
site.
O
There
is
also
a
relocation,
an
alternative
to
relocate
the
podium
apartment,
building
south
of
its
existing
location,
increasing
the
setback
between
that
building
by
Barah
a
25
feet.
This
would
essentially
be
in
the
same
vocation,
except
for
the
same
location
as
is
accepted.
We
March
the
south.
A
third
preservation
alternative
has
the
reduced
height
of
the
podium
building
that
would
reduce
the
height
of
the
three
easternmost
fingers
for,
but
lack
of
a
better
word
that
are
adjacent
to
the
Winchester
house.
O
The
applicant
actually,
the
applicant
revised
the
project
who
had
designs
similar
to
the
reduce
event,
as
we've
consistent
with
the
reduced
height
of
the
podium
building,
an
alternative
by
reducing
the
heights
of
the
of
the
three
most
easternmost
fingers,
reducing
actually
removing
two
of
them
and
reducing
one
down
to
four
stories
and
increasing
the
height
of
the
westernmost
portion
of
the
podium
building.
In
order
to
remove
the
massing
from
the
location
adjacent
to
the
Winchester
house.
O
This.
This
is
the
redesign
currently
in
the
packet.
This
redesign
was
reviewed
by
the
project,
historic
architect,
archives
in
architecture,
on
November,
6
and,
and
also
the
city's
historic
preservation
officer,
who
found
that
the
redesign
would
be
would
reduce
the
projects
identified,
impacts
to
the
Winchester
house,
setting
to
lessen
significant
level.
I
do
also
want
to
mention
that,
this
evening,
actually
afternoon,
the
city
of
Santa
Clara
submitted
a
letter
in
response
to
our
responses
to
the
comments.
There
are
comments
they
made
on
the
draft
dir.
This
is
included
in
the
packet.
O
These
comments
pertain
primarily
to
the
local
transportation
analysis
and
conformance
this
with
the
Santana
West
settlement
between
the
city
of
Santa,
Clara
and
city
of
San
Jose
Department
of
Public
Works
staff
will
be
here
to
address
that
I'm
gonna,
give
it
back
to
Stephanie
for
the
completion
of
the
staff
report.
Thank.
N
You
the
project,
also
involves
the
first
mobile
home
conversion
to
another
use
for
the
city
of
San
Jose.
So
I
would
first
like
to
highlight
the
agreement
before
discussing
the
details
of
the
conversion.
The
city
has
been
provided
a
copy
of
a
written
agreement,
titled
agreement
regarding
mobile
home
park,
conversion
between
the
applique
and
Winchester
ranch
senior
homeowners
association
dated
June
25th
2019.
N
According
to
the
agreement,
the
association
was
formed
in
2013
to
represent
the
interests
of
the
park
residents
and
has
been
elected
and
authorized
to
represent
the
park
residents
as
a
whole.
In
regard
to
the
proposed
conversion.
After
meeting
with
both
the
applicant
and
the
president
of
this
association,
the
city
was
informed
that
the
agreement
was
reached
and
executed
after
extensive
negotiations
between
the
applicant
and
the
Association
over
a
two
to
three
year
period.
The
association
was
represented
installers
by
the
Law
Foundation
of
Silicon
Valley
throughout
the
negotiation
process.
N
The
city
is
also
informed
that
approximately
80%
of
the
residents
attended
the
Association
meeting
and
unanimously
approved
the
agreement.
Staff
has
met
with
the
president
of
the
Association
and
the
Law
Foundation
of
Silicon
Valley,
and
with
that,
the
staff
is
of
the
understanding
that
they
are
in
support
of
the
agreement
and
for
the
project
to
move
forward,
as
proposed
in
general.
N
Conversions
of
mobile
home
parks
are
regulated
by
both
the
state
of
California
under
the
mobile
home,
residency
law,
state
planning,
law,
state
subdivision
map
Act
and
by
the
city
under
the
general
plan,
chapter
20
point
180
of
the
San
Jose
Municipal
Code,
and
the
City
Council
policy,
6-3
3,
titled,
conversion
of
mobile
home
parks
to
other
uses,
as
described
in
further
detail
within
the
provided
staff
report.
The
project
substantially
conforms
to
the
city
ordinance
and
the
conversion
policy
which
further
refined
state
law
by
providing
specifics
and
clarifications
on
the
requirements
for
a
projects.
N
Program
of
relocation
and
purchase
assistance.
The
mobile
home
ordinance
requires
a
finding
to
be
made
within
the
planning
development
permit
that
a
satisfactory
program
of
relocation
and
purchase
assistance
has
been
provided
for
both
the
purposes
of
this
project.
The
agreement
serves
as
the
framework
for
the
program
of
relocation
to
purchase
assistance,
which
requires
a
relocation
impact
report
consistent
with
stay
and
local
policies.
The
following
are
major
highlights
to
this
program.
As
discussed
in
the
agreement
and
the
relocation
impact
report,
the
program
offers
three
options
for
the
residents
to
choose
from
option.
N
One
could
occur:
pre
entitlement
which
offers
residents
a
lump
sum
payment
option
of
160
to
170
thousand
dollars
for
the
mobile
home
unit
and
then
moving
forward,
and
that
resident
would
then
waive
any
further
relocation
assistance
or
benefits.
The
remaining
two
options
would
occur
after
project
approval,
which
includes
either
off-site
relocation
or
on-site
relocation.
Again,
on-site
relocation
would
occur
within
the
flat
buildings
identified
on
the
site
plan.
Both
options
require
the
assistance
of
a
relocation
specialist
who
has
been
designated
as
Paragon
partners.
N
This
relocation
specialist
will
meet
with
every
resident
to
create
an
individual
assessment
based
on
their
specific
needs
for
those
who
choose
off-site
relocation.
Resident
packages
would
include
replacement
housing,
the
in-place
value
of
the
mobile
home,
a
lump
sum
rent
subsidy
for
24
months,
moving
assistance
and
the
provisions
of
any
necessary
accessibility
improvements.
N
Lastly,
for
those
who
choose
on-site
relocation
resident
packages
would
include
the
in-place
value
of
the
mobile
home
on-site
replacement
housing
for
as
long
as
they
choose
with
protections
under
state
and
local
law,
meaning
that
rent
would
remain
the
same
and
any
increase
would
need
to
be
consistent
with
the
mobile
home,
rent,
ordinance,
moving
assistance
and
the
provisions
of
any
necessary
accessibility.
Improvements
are
also
included.
N
Next
per
the
agreement,
the
residents
would
be
given
60
days
notice
of
park
closure
and
the
commencement
of
demolition
and
construction
moving
forward.
Interim
housing
would
be
available
to
each
resident,
who
have
accepted
the
offer
for
replete
replacement,
housing
on-site,
as
described
in
the
environmental
impact
report.
The
project
will
involve
a
multi-phase
construction
where
the
eastern
side
of
the
project
will
be
developed
first
and
then
the
western
side
of
the
project
will
feature
a
mobile
home
units
for
Reza
to
Occupy,
while
the
flat
buildings
are
being
developed.
N
Therefore,
staff
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
certification
of
the
Winchester
Ranch
residential
project,
environmental,
environmental
impact
report
and
associated
mitigation
monitoring
and
reporting
program.
Adoption
of
the
general
plan
amendment
the
general
plan
text,
amendment
the
plan,
development,
zoning,
the
plan
development
permit
and
the
the
vesting
tentative
map
to
City
Council.
If
staff
has
missed
any
large
ticket
items
for
discussions,
we
have
additional
staff
here
from
the
housing
department,
the
Public
Works
Department
and
the
environmental
planning
team,
along
with
the
applicant
here
tonight,
to
help
answer
any
remaining
clarifications:
Thank
You.
This
concludes
staffs
presentation.
A
P
Good
evening,
chair
ballard
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Eric
Schoen.
Our
and
I
represent
Pulte
Homes
on
this
application.
First
of
all,
we'd
like
to
thank
city
staff,
the
residents
of
the
park,
the
Law
Foundation,
who
represented
the
residents
of
the
park,
as
well
as
the
general
community
for
working
with
us
over
many
years
to
bring
this
project
forward
to
you.
P
The
few
considerations
that
we'd
like
you
to
consider
when
evaluating
the
project.
The
first
and
foremost,
is
that
we've
worked
with
the
residents
of
the
park
and
we
have
an
agreement,
as
staff
has
indicated,
and
the
residents
Association
supports
the
redevelopment
of
the
park
and
a
few
of
the
key
components
of
that
agreement
are
listed
on
the
screen
and
were
summarized
by
the
staff
already
the
most
important
being.
P
That
is
not
required,
but
we
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
we've
worked
closely
with
the
Association
to
work
out
all
the
details
of
how
that
has
to
happen.
In
addition,
we'll
provide
interim
housing
if
there's
a
need
to
move
during
construction,
we've
committed
to
making
the
new
replacement
housing
accessible
for
disabled
residents
above
and
beyond,
what's
required
by
law,
so
we'll
accommodate
the
special
needs
of
residents.
P
The
component
of
that
is
is
phasing
the
project
in
a
manner
so
that
we
can
keep
people
on-site.
So
a
staff
alluded
to
the
first
phase
of
the
project,
which
is
highlighted
in
white,
and
the
green
buildings
will
be
built
first,
and
so,
if
someone's
home
is
in
that
footprint,
we
would
move
them
into
a
vacant
mobile
home
park,
mobile
home
on
the
left,
and
then
when
the
replacement
buildings
are
built,
which
are
the
green
buildings
you
see
in
a
row,
then
they'd
move
from
the
mobile
home
into
the
replacement
buildings.
P
The
other
key
consideration
is
sensitivity
to
the
historic
landmark,
the
Winchester,
Mystery,
House,
and
so
I
want
to
go
through
this
quickly.
This
is
the
original
plan
that
we
submitted
and
you
can
see
the
seven
fingers
of
the
apartment
building
on
the
far
eastern
end
adjacent
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
the
determination.
P
The
e
IR
was
that
there
were
too
many
7-story
components
of
the
building
close
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House,
so
the
design
team
went
back
and
we
adopted
a
revised
site
plan
consistent
with
the
alternative
that
was
proposed
in
the
e
IR,
the
reduced
height
alternatives.
So
you
can
see
this
is
the
new
site
plan
where
most
of
the
large
podium
now
are
I'm.
Sorry,
courtyards,
open
space
courtyards
face
the
Winchester
Mystery
House,
there's
only
one
finger
adjacent
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
it
has
been
reduced
in
height
to
four
storeys.
P
So
this
is
a
simulation
of
how
we
got
there.
Here's
the
original
with
the
full
seven
storey
height.
These
are
the
fingers
that
got
moved,
pulled
off
shift
it
around,
and
then
this
is
the
final
project.
So
you
can
see
all
of
that
bulk
and
mass
that
was
so
close
to
the
Winchester.
Mystery
House
has
been
either
removed
or
reduced
to
the
four
storey
element,
and
this
is
a
close-up
now
of
what
the
apartment
footprint
looks
like.
P
A
Thank
you
and
I,
don't
see
any
questions
from
my
fellow
commissioners
so
they
may
have
some
for
you
when
you
return
we're
gonna
go
ahead
to
public
hearing
I'm
gonna
call
up
as
I
mentioned
three
at
a
time
and
I
will
likely
mispronounce
names.
So
please
forgive
me
in
advance.
It
looks
like
we
have
Mary
Jo,
poke
riots,
Brian
Darby
and
Alex
Shore
up
first,
as
I
mentioned,
each
person
will
have
up
to
two
minutes
I'm.
Since
we
have
quite
a
few
speaker
cards,
I
am
going
to
be
fairly
strict
about
the
two
minutes.
A
K
Good
evening,
chairperson,
ballard
and
planning
commissioners,
I
am
mary,
jo
poker
yacht's
a
42
year
resident
of
the
winchester
ranch
mobile
home
community
and
a
board
member
of
the
Winchester
homeowners
association.
The
Winchester
ranch
project
you
are
discussing
this
evening
is:
there
is
a
section
called
flats.
These
units
are
a
direct
result
of
negotiations
with
polt
a
group
to
provide
replacement
housing
for
the
senior
residents.
K
In
our
part,
this
means
that
residents
living
in
our
park
can
remain
in
the
area
allowing
them
in
some
cases
to
live
out
the
rest
of
their
lives
in
San,
Jose
I
believe
this
was
a
giant
win
for
the
senior
residents
and
polt
a
group.
We
have
the
Callie
area,
auto
LLC,
to
thank
for
their
original
suggestion
of
replacement
housing
for
us
and
polt
a
group.
There
are
very
strong
willingness
to
work
with
us
to
give
a
positive
to
solution
to
a
very
difficult
problem
for
seniors
who
were
going
to
be
permanently
displaced.
K
I
believe
this
type
of
a
partnership
is
unique
to
the
entire
state
of
California.
The
language
for
these
flats,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
is
contained
in
the
agreement
that
the
residents
voted
on
our
homeowner
association
after
the
agreement
with
Polti
a
group
with
a
hundred
percent
vote
of
everyone
that
was
at
that
meeting.
We
strongly
urge
the
commissioners
to
approve
this
project
and
forward
it
to
City
Council.
Thank
you.
C
Would
like
to
thank
everybody
to
when
this
first
happened.
I
was
thinking
if
I'm
gonna
have
to
break
out
the
tent
and
find
a
place
to
stay.
Cuz
I
can't
afford
to
live
anywhere
else,
I'm
a
teacher
here
and
been
a
teacher
for
about
30
or
32
years
now,
and
I
would
really
like
to
thank
everybody
involved.
The
LA
Odo's
Pulte
Homes,
everybody,
the
staff
here
of
the
City
Council
you,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
to
everybody.
Really
it
didn't
seem
that
way.
Seven
seven
years
ago
it
was
a
lot
different
and
mr.
J
C
Appreciate
what
everybody
has
done?
It
I'm
sorry
that
none
of
my
family
other
than
myself
were
still
left,
but
this
is
gonna
honor.
A
lot
of
people
and
I
really
hope
you
to
push
it
forward
and
it's
a
good.
It
goes
to
show
how
people
can
work
together
to
solve
really
complex
problems
and
there's
going
to
be
future
mobile,
home
conversions.
That's
going
to
happen
it
it's
a
it's
sad
and
way,
but
it's
understandable,
given
that
we
have
to
go
up
because
we
can't
go
out
anymore
and
physics
is
physics
and
so
anyways.
A
M
Good
evening,
commissioners
and
staff,
my
name
is
Alex
Shore
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
catalyze
SV.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
organization
day,
you
received
in
your
packet
a
report
from
us
on
a
Kamini
visioning
workshop
that
we
held
in
September
on
this
project,
and
we
just
wanted
to
explain
a
little
bit
of
the
story
of
why
we
got
involved
in
this
project
and
why
we
held
that
workshop.
M
Part
of
our
mission
is
to
engage
the
community
more
in
the
development
process
in
order
to
get
more
sustainable,
equitable
and
vibrant
development
built
in
this
city,
and
we
first
and
foremost
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
seniors
who
live
on-site
were
taken
care
of,
and
so
until
that
legal
agreement
was
signed.
We
stayed
out
of
the
process,
because
that
was
most
important
of
most
importance.
K
So
that
was
one
thing.
The
other
thing
is
that
the
report
also
said
that
there
were
homes
that
were
sold
for
a
hundred
and
thirty
five
thousand
to
one
hundred
and
seventy
thousand.
That's
about
the
amount
of
improvements
that
we
put
in
our
house
that
we
bought
in
2006.
Now
when
they
do
the
appraisal,
are
they
going
to
be
looking
at
those
improvements
and
maybe
looking
at
receipts?
I
have
them
all
and
I
think
that
that
should
be
incorporated
into
the
value
of
the
home
100%
in
place.
K
Value
is
what
I'm
looking
at
you
know
here:
I
have
new
windows,
new
era,
C
furnace
water,
heaters,
remodeled,
kitchen,
bathrooms,
handicapped,
accessible
flooring,
shutters
earthquake,
bracing,
etc,
etc,
etc.
So,
basically,
those
are
the
things
that
that
I
I
wanted
to
precent,
but,
like
I
said
initially
at
the
three
ports,
very
well
done.
K
There's
one
thing
that
the
relocation
impact
by
Paul
T
on
page
13,
six
three.
It
says
that
an
attachment
G
can
be
found
where
there's
been
individual
site.
Appraisals
have
been
performed,
and
there
is
nothing
on
that
page.
The
information
is
totally
missing.
So
when
we
get
reports
like
this,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
security
of
what
is
actually
going
to
be
taking
place
step
by
step
by
step.
Thank.
K
K
Rosewood,
which
we
were
at
the
very
dead
end
that
but
the
Winchester
ranch
development
and
I've
got
two
concerns.
First
of
all,
I'm
not
sure,
there's
adequate
parking,
I'm,
definitely
not
an
expert
in
that
area.
So
I,
don't
want
to
say,
there's
not
adequate
parking,
but
I
have
seen
in
other
developments
recently
where
parking
overflows
into
the
adjoining
neighborhoods
from
developments
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
doesn't
happen
in
our
neighborhood.
K
J
D
Preservation,
Action
Council
and
we've
found
this
developer
to
be
a
very
good
incredible
party
to
talk
to.
They
clearly
respond
to
the
community
very
positively
when
they're
presented
with
challenges,
and
so
hopefully
in
that
context,
these
comments
will
be
considered
important,
584
pages
of
documentation.
You
guys
should
be
commended
for
putting
that
much
together.
D
The
bottom
line
of
this
is
687
residences.
Each
with
accommodation
for
two
cars
are
going
to
be
located
on
15
acres,
right
behind
a
National,
Historic,
Landmark
and
also
a
city
landmark
in
the
century.
21
theater
pack,
San
Jose,
is
very
concerned
about
the
impact
of
that
all
the
logistics
associated
with
that
through
construction
and
beyond,
and
our
concern
is
stated
eloquently
within
the
environmental
impact
reports.
The
various
environmental
impact
reports
were
glass
that
the
developer
listened
to
comments
about
reducing
the
podium
size
of
this,
the
height
of
the
apartment
podium.
D
D
We
are
considerably
concerned
about
the
impact
of
the
operational
viability
of
both
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
God,
willing
the
restart
of
the
century,
21
theater
as
a
theater,
and
actually
consider
the
comments
that
I
made
in
here
that
we're
drawing
right
out
of
the
environmental
impact
report
on
the
historic
fabric
of
this
project.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
D
This
parcel
was
critical
for
the
sent
Santana
Row
val
valley
for
urban
village
and
adjacent
to
the
stevens
creek
urban
village,
so
it
impacts
the
people
in
our
neighborhood
as
well.
A
proposed
cap
on
280,
which
is
moving
along
rather
rapidly
right,
now,
should
also
be
included
in
any
project
for
this,
because
this
project
will
essentially
abut
the
cap
on
280.
So.
D
And
in
addition,
there
are
many
tall
buildings
across
Winchester
and
at
Santana
West.
That
would
be
much
taller
that
were
justified
of
a
much
taller
development
for
here,
giving
much
more
housing
and
would
that
that
tall
development
could
fit
into
the
southeast
portion
very
easily
and
would
still
permit
stepping
down
to
the
residential
areas
to
the
north
and
east,
and
any
development
on
this
site
will
need
to
include
ground-floor,
retailing
and
placemaking
for
that
neighborhood
to
the
west
of
winchester.
Boulevard,
which
is
very
underserved
Santana
Row,
is,
is
a
high-end
drivin
drivin
village.
D
D
A
L
L
They
get
to
stay
at
really
affordable
rents
with
the
same
protections
that
they
would
get
if
they
were
remaining
in
their
mobile
home
and
the
community
remains
intact.
They
get
to
stay
in
the
park
throughout
the
development
and
into
into
the
flats
so
long
as
they
want
to
I
want
to
thank
people
today
for
their
work
coming
together
in
coming
with
the
residents
to
come
up
with
this
agreement,
but
I
also
want
to
recognize
the
work
that
the
residents
have
done
for
six
years.
L
They
got
us
involved
and
that
really
should
be
example,
an
example
for
any
development
that
happens
in
this
city
and
I
hope
that
the
Planning
Commission
in
the
city
really
looks
to
this
as
an
example
of
how
we
can
engage
the
residents
that
are
affected
when
development
happens,
and
so
that
we
can
have
these
type
of
agreements
where
there's
development
without
displacement.
So
again,
I
encourage
you
to
to
approve
this
proposal
and
I'm
happy
again
to
answer
any
questions
about
the
agreement
on
behalf
of
the
residents.
Thank
you.
D
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Curt
Vartan
I
believe
the
Winchester
ranch
redevelopment
application
should
be
denied
the
Santana
Row
Valley
Fair
urban
village
plan
from
the
Winchester
Advisory
Group
spent
over
two
years
and
thousands
of
hours
discussing
the
area
and
not
a
single
meeting
or
discussion
was
had
on
this
one
site
of
the
of
the
urban
village.
I
was
told
multiple
times
personally
and
publicly
that
a
public
discussion
and
visioning
of
the
ranch
would
happen
once
an
agreement
with
the
residents
was
done.
D
Everyone
was
pleased
when
this
legal
agreement
finally
happened
in
August
of
this
year
and
is
a
hundred
percent
independent
of
the
development
at
hand.
Yet
we
have
no
meeting
yet
this
proposal
was
born
a
couple
years
ago
and
only
and
he's
the
only
one
that
was
really
proposed.
There's
it's
been
morphed
a
little
bit,
but
it's
substantially
the
same
with
resident
residential,
only
and
no
affordable
housing.
It
does
not
mean
this.
D
It
does
not
meet
the
spirit
of
what
was
isn't
one
of
the
most
active
and
vibrant
urban
villages
in
the
city
or
even
the
county.
If
any.
If
any
developer
wants
to
change
the
urban
village
general
plan,
we
should
demand
something
bold
and
extraordinary.
This
is
a
regional
destination.
More
than
just
immediate
neighborhood,
I'll
be
it
that's.
A
critical
part
should
be
engaged
like
the
Winchester
and
Weiser
group
did
over
those
couple
years.
This
is
sixteen
acres
in
one
of
the
most
valued
locations
in
Silicon
Valley,
it's
not
mixed
juice,
there's
no
affordable
housing.
D
There
is
no
community
room.
There
is
no
ground-floor
activation,
just
a
parking
podium,
it
is
over
parked
and
it's
not
even
45
units
to
the
acre
and
the
park
is
barely
funded,
as
we
saw
in
one
of
the
community
meetings
so
shouldn't
we
demand
better
from
our
for
our
community.
We
all
want
this
to
be
a
great
project
here.
This
bought
this
body
should
not
be
tempted
to
simply
approve
this,
because
it's
been
too
long
and
we
need
housing.
D
Let's
deny
this
and
embrace
a
project
that
we
really
want
to
be
proud
of,
and
I
and
I'll
also
say
personally.
I
I
have
supported
and
continued
support
and
I'm
glad
that
the
current
residents
have
a
legal
contract
to
be
protected,
because
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
dragging
out
for
many
many
years
and
that
in
itself
was
a
disgrace.
So
I'm
glad
that's
taken
care
of.
Thank
you.
Q
D
I'm
with
the
Winchester
orchard,
Neighborhood
Association,
we
were
formed
as
the
Neighborhood
Association.
When
we
first
heard
of
the
plight
of
the
senior
citizens,
we
formed
basically
for
two
reasons
to
do
what
we
could
to
help
our
senior
neighbors
retain
their
their
housing
and
their
way
of
life,
and
the
second
main
reason
why
we
formed
was
to
keep
our
historically
dead-end
streets
closed.
I've
lived
in
this
neighborhood
all
my
life
when
it
was
a
walnut
orchard.
D
D
All
of
the
objections
that
we've
heard
have
come
from
outside
of
our
neighborhood,
not
within
our
neighborhood
and
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
for
various
different
reasons
about
the
given
proposal.
But
the
neighborhood
feels
that
this
is
a
good
proposal
and
we're
fully
in
support
of
it
and
we
hope
to
see
it
that's
further.
Thank
you.
P
While
he's
putting
the
the
screen
up,
I'll
get
started,
I
think
the
two
most
important
things
that
we
heard
from
public
testimony
is
that
the
residents
that
live
in
the
mobile
home
park
support
the
approval
of
this
project
and
that
the
surrounding
residential
community,
the
Winchester
orchard
neighborhood
associate,
also
supports
the
development
of
this
project
and,
as
you
know,
because
you're
here,
multiple
times
a
month,
it's
rare
to
have
that
level
of
support
from
residential
neighbors
around
a
development.
And
so
I
just
wanted
to
continue
on
a
couple
of.
P
This
gives
you
a
picture
of
the
connectivity,
so,
with
the
site
plan,
we've
deliberately
put
the
neighborhood
park
in
the
Greenway
at
the
perimeter
of
the
development,
the
north
side
and
the
west
side,
to
create
a
good
buffer
to
the
adjacent
single-family
homes,
but
also
to
create
this
pedestrian
and
bike
connection.
So
you
can
see
the
red
lines
and
it
will
allow
that
pedestrian
bike
connection
to
the
park
and
then
down
Olson
to
to
Winchester
and
giving
it
a
broader
view.
P
We
think
this
is
a
another
important
connection.
Is
the
Cyprus
crossover
on
280
exists
in
the
bottom-left
of
this
image,
so
for
people
who
are
biking
greater
distance?
This
is
a
new
path
that
didn't
exist
before,
where
you
can
cross
280
come
down,
Cyprus
come
down
Olson
and
connect
all
the
way
to
Santana
Row
through
a
pleasant
and
safe
environment.
P
The
other
key
asset
to
the
development
is
the
park
itself.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
we
deliberately
put
the
park
on
the
edge
of
the
development
so
that
it
feels
a
part
of
the
entire
community.
It's
adjacent
to
the
existing
neighborhood.
So
it's
available
to
everybody.
The
public
streets
will
dead-end
into
the
park
with
pedestrian
bike
access.
The
park
itself
is
about
two
acres,
which
is
a
good-size
day:
Berhad
Park.
It
will
be
fully
dedicated
and
developed
by
the
developer
and
turned
over
to
the
city
as
a
city-owned
neighborhood
park.
P
This
gives
you
a
little
close-up
picture.
We
still
have
further
community
engagement
to
do
for
the
specific
design
of
the
park.
We've
had
one
park
focused
meeting
we've
had
multiple
community
meetings
where
we've
got
input
on
the
park,
but
we
will
have
additional
meetings
with
the
parks
department
to
come
up
with
the
final
design
that
ultimately
will
have
to
be
approved
by
the
parks,
commission
and
and
the
City
Council.
So
next
I
wanted
to
go
to
responding
to
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
and
highlight
some
of
the
key
points.
P
First
of
all,
with
regard
to
the
replacement
housing,
if
it
wasn't
made
clear
during
the
presentation
the
residents
who
live
in
the
mobile
home
park,
anyone
who
is
a
legitimate
owner,
/
resident
of
the
park,
is
eligible
for
the
replacement
housing,
whether
you've
been
there
42
years
or
forty-two
months
or
as
long
as
you
are
a
legitimate
resident.
The
park
you're
eligible
for
all
of
the
housing
benefits
that
are
being
offered.
P
It
was
mentioned
that
100%
in
place
value
should
be
the
standard
for
appraisal,
and
that
is
in
fact,
what
will
be
done
for
the
for
the
appraisal,
so
the
entire
property
condition
inside
and
out
will
be
considered
by
the
appraisers
to
determine
the
value.
Another
key
component
is
that
the
replacement
housing
a
resident
will
move
from
the
mobile
home
space
to
the
brand-new
condominium
and
they
will
pay
the
exact
same
rent
that
they're
currently
paying
in
the
park
and
based
on
the
relocation
report.
Those
rents
now
range
anywhere
from
900
to
1100
dollars
per
month.
P
So,
if
you
can
imagine,
you're
gonna
move
into
a
brand-new
condo
worth
a
lot
of
money
and
you're.
Only
gonna
pay
900
to
$1,100
a
month
and
you're
gonna
be
protected
for
your
whole
duration
by
the
mobile
home,
rent
control,
ordinance,
which
caps
increase
in
rent
at
3%
and
and
that's
all
voluntarily
agreed
to
by
polti
and
negotiated
with
the
residents.
It's
not
a
requirement,
but
that
creates
a
good
environment
and
a
safe
environment
for
the
long
term
for
the
residents.
P
With
regard
to
our
neighbor
on
Rosewood,
who
mentioned
concerned
about
parking
overflow,
we're
not
asking
for
a
parking
reduction,
this
development
actually
has
a
little
bit
more
parking
beyond
what's
required
and
we
think
that's
important
because
we
don't
want
there
to
be
overflow
in
the
nearby
residential
streets.
We
don't
want
there
to
be
impact
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
their
parking
lot.
So
we
think
it's
a
good
balance
point
with
regard
to
the
Secoya
or
redwood
trees
that
she
alluded
to.
We
are
preserving
those.
P
P
The
Winchester
Mystery
House
we're
lowering
to
four
storeys
instead
of
seven,
which
is
the
reduced
height
alternative
that
was
analyzed
in
the
ER
and
the
staff
and
the
store
consultant
of
the
city
determined,
does
not
have
a
significant
impact
to
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
under
sequa,
and
then
lastly,
there's
some
reference
to
having
taller
buildings
we're
doing
a
balancing
act.
Here
we
have
a
historic
landmark
that
we
don't
want
to
over
build
near.
P
We
have
a
single-family
home
neighborhood
on
two
sides
of
our
development
and
we
think
we're
achieving
a
good
balance
of
of
density
and
efficient
use
of
land.
With
what
we're
proposing
and
once
again
the
density
of
our
project
is,
is
60
units
to
the
net
acre,
which
is
how
San
Jose
calculates
density
is
by
the
net
acre.
So,
on
average,
our
overall
residential
is
60
units
to
the
acre.
We
think
that's
good
productivity,
good
use
of
land.
P
With
that,
we
once
again
thank
the
residents
of
the
mobile
home
park,
the
surrounding
neighborhood
for
working
with
us
for
me
personally,
now
six
years,
Polti
a
little
over
four
years
for
working
together
with
us
cooperatively
to
bring
this
forward,
and
we
would
really
appreciate
having
your
support.
Thank
you.
So.
A
We
have
visions
for
that
being
a
wonderful,
complete,
Street,
but
no
matter.
You
know
if
you're
going
through
the
neighborhood
any
which
way
you're
gonna
get
to
a
street.
That's
pretty
yucky
to
cross.
So
I
appreciate
thinking
about
that
and
trying
to
connect
things
a
little
better.
So
so
all
that
is
leading
up
to
a
question
around
I
assume
you
did
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
do
t
and
in
particular
the
the
bike
folks
that
are
in
do
T
and
of
how
this
fits
into
the
bike
plan.
A
P
Well,
the
project
was
reviewed
by
do
T
and
Public
Works
and
the
parks
department,
and
so
we
had
coordination
meetings
about
you
know:
where
do
we
locate
the
park
and
how
do
we,
the
Greenway,
and
how
do
we
connect
those
streets?
And
everyone
was
supportive
of
the
approach
that
you
see
on
the
on
the
board.
Q
Q
So
we've
really
tried
to
incorporate
a
design
that
has
a
combination,
bike,
pedestrian
walkway
that
goes
through
the
park
that
connects
to
each
of
those
existing
streets
to
provide
a
point
of
contact
so
that
were
maximizing
the
connection
to
those
areas
and,
as
Eric
mentioned
on
Kirkwood,
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
a
different
situation
where
we're
connecting
that
and
trying
to
maintain
as
much
of
the
landscaping
and
much
of
the
character
of
the
existing
street
as
we
can,
while
we're
working
with
the
Park
District
to
design
their
Park.
Ultimately,
their
Park
great.
A
So
I
have
a
follow-up
question.
Thinks
that
that
helps
I'm
wondering.
Can
you
help
I
didn't
I?
You
know
I
passed
by
this
site
all
the
time,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
describe
the
so
currently
there's
this
Road
Charles
Kelly
Drive.
It
spits
out
to
Winchester,
then
across
the
street.
You
know
if
you
do
a
little
jog,
there's
tissue
a
can
you
describe
that
intersection
there
and
the
context
for
me
is
as
a
bicyclist
tsch
way.
Then
is
a
relatively
nice
route.
A
It
connects
to
Monroe,
which
then
goes
up
and
enters
into
Valleyfair
with
there's
there's
some
pretty.
There
have
been
some
investments
in
the
infrastructure
there
to
make
that
more
bike
friendly,
so
part
of
why
I
was
asking
if
you've
chatted
with
dota
is
just
because
I'm
wondering
if
they
thinking
about
gee.
You
know
if
we
think
of
Tish
connecting
to
Monroe
as
being
a
nice
bike
route.
How
can
we
get
the
folks
on
the
other
side
onto
that,
in
addition
to
and/or,
as
opposed
to
Olson
Road?
R
Good
evening,
I'm
jarred
and
planning
commission
made
you've
been
wait.
Public
works.
So
currently
there
are
bike
lanes
along
Winchester
Boulevard,
including
the
segment
along
the
project's
frontage,
between
Stevens,
Creek,
Boulevard
and
280
as
part
of
the
San
Jose
by
plan
2020.
There
are
bike
class,
two
bike
lanes
that
are
planned
for
Tish
way
between
Winchester
Boulevard
and
Monroe
Street,
and
then
we're
also
looking
at
additional
bike
lanes
along
Winchester
Boulevard
with
the
urban
village
planning
and
long-term
planning
for
the
area.
So.
A
If
we
wanted
to,
if
we
use
so
yep,
that's
great
and
so
Tish
is
gonna,
be
great.
It's
going
to
connect
with
Monroe,
which
has
already
investments
in
what
is
that.
How
are
we
getting
people
from
the
opposite
side
on
this
property
to
Tish
like
that
that
crossing
right
there
and
I
don't
know
I,
don't
know
what
that
looks
like
and
why
like
was
it?
Did
you
guys,
look
at
it
and
say
gee?
A
A
Q
Think
that's
a
much
more
complicated.
You
know
traffic
situation
at
that
particular
spot.
In
fact,
we
tried
to
keep
our
driveway
further
away
from
the
entrance
ramp.
There's
there's,
there's
there's
more
happening
there
and
we.
It
was
sort
of
outside
of
the
scope
of
what
we
were
really
able
to
do
and.
P
S
I
have
several
questions,
but
I
will
start
with
the
couple
that
are
most
pressing
to
me.
I
think
that
I
first
off
I
applaud
that
the
and
that
Polti
and
has
come
to
this
agreement
with
the
with
the
residents
who
live
in
the
mobile
home
park.
I.
Think
it's
a
wonderful
agreement.
My
question
has
to
do
with
what
happens
once
those
residents
leave
and
are
those
homes
permanently
affordable,
because
at
this
point
you
know
well
I
think
the
density
is
great,
going
from
111
to
over
almost
700
homes
and
it's
definitely
what
we
need.
S
I
am
concerned
that
in
the
long
term,
there
will
be
a
loss
of
affordable
housing
to
the
tune
of
approximately
15%
of
the
new
development,
and
so
once
the
residents
for
those
ones
that
choose
to
move
into
the
new
flats
once
they
choose
to
leave
or
no
longer
live
in
the
flats.
What
happens
to
those
do
those
convert
to
market
rate?
Do
they?
What
what?
What's
the
plan.
P
P
The
project
will
be
complying
with
the
city's
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
by
paying
the
full
in
lieu
fees,
so
there'll
be
no
credit
for
paying
for
all
this
replacement
housing
that
is
above
and
beyond
so
the
project
we'll
be
paying
is
full
inclusionary
in
lieu
fee,
which
in
this
case,
is
over
21
million
dollars
to
the
city.
In
order
for
the
city
to
induce
the
creation
of
affordable
housing
in
another
project
and.
Q
Well,
I
think
that
we've
demonstrated,
to
a
certain
extent
a
number
of
units
that
we're
providing
those
those
aren't
counting
as
affordable
housing
units,
but
they're,
certainly
impacting
the
development
of
the
project
and
the
economic
viability
of
the
project.
I
think
the
other
thing
that's
really
important
to
understand
is
the
phasing
of
the
project
which,
by
going
through
the
process
of
relocation
and
interim
housing,
were
delaying
the
the
development
of
the
market
rate
units
for
some
period
of
time.
D
S
You
and
then
actually
one
of
my
questions
had
to
do
with
phasing,
because
it
did
seem
to
have
a
significant
impact
in
the
AI.
Are
the
phasing
versus
kind
of
building
all
at
once
and
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
why
you
would
do
phase
versus
building
all
at
once?
But
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
kind
of
what
made
you
come
to
that
decision?
Well,.
S
Thank
you,
I
have
some
questions
related
to
the
ingress
and
egress
and
kind
of
the
one
way,
not
the
one
way,
but
the
one
entrance
I
recognize
that
the
residents
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
want
to
maintain
the
kind
of
culture
of
their
neighborhood
and
and
didn't
want
to
have
those
be
drivable,
but
you
know
a
thousand
seventy
two
cars
potentially
going
in
and
out
of
Olson
Drive.
This
may
be
a
joint
question
not
only
for
the
developer,
but
also
for
staff.
But
what
are
the
safety
concerns?
What's
the
impact
to
traffic?
S
P
Q
S
R
So
so,
with
the
with
the
second
access
on
Cali
Drive
during
the
AM
and
PM
peak
hours
along
Olson,
Drive
we're
seeing
roughly
35
trips
in
the
a.m.
and
115
trips
in
the
pan
and
then
Olson
sorry
and
then
along
Winchester
Boulevard
at
Cali
Drive.
The
trips
are
roughly
nineteen
trips
in
the
a.m.
and
52
trips
in
the
p.m.
so
during
those
peak
hours,
the
both
of
the
driveway
entrances
and
exits
re
and
the
access
points
are
adequate
for
the
project
and.
S
You
can't:
can
you
speak
to
any
potential
or
planned
public
transportation
improvements
related
to
this,
because
you
know,
while
I
72
parking
spaces,
and
you
know
if
we're
moving
towards
the
city,
that's
trying
to
get
away
from
cars.
What
are
we
doing
to
with
a
development
like
this
to
really
encourage
that?
We
actually
do
that
move
away
from
cars,
so.
R
A
H
Q
Our
agreement
is
for
60
of
the
units
to
be
made
available
to
residents
that
elect
to
stay
on
site.
There
is
a
process
that
has
has
begun
with
the
relocation
housing
agreement.
You
guys
have
the
draft
or
the
first.
You
know
step
of
that
process.
It's
an
ongoing
process
to
work
with
the
residents
to
see
how
many
want
to
be
housed
in
those
units.
Then.
H
H
H
P
K
N
R
N
O
Good
evening,
Commission
I
just
wanted
to
respond
really
quickly
to
the
letter
from
pac
sa.
Regarding
the
concerns
about
the
protection
of
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
from
physical
damage
and
operational
viability,
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
e
IR
did
identify,
impacts
and
mitigation
measures
to
protect
the
Winchester,
Mystery,
House
and
grounds
from
damage
during
construction,
in
order
to
make
sure
that
that
treasured
resource
of
the
city
of
San
Jose
is
protected.
I
do
also
want
to
mention
that
you
know
this.
O
There
is
a
redesigned
sense
circulation
of
the
IR
again
what's
presented
now
the
redesigned
to
be
basically
a
modified
reduced
height,
a
podium
ability,
an
alternative
that
would
reduce
the
impacts
of
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
on
this
is
this
again.
This
was
evaluated
by
this,
the
archives
and
architecture
of
the
store
consultant
and
the
city's
historic
preservation
officer,
specifically
looking
at
to
addressing
these
concerns
that
were
addressed,
and
it
was
returned
to
reduce
to
lessen
significant
impact
it.
O
Thank
you
actually
I
just
wanted
to
also
mention
really
quickly
about
the
letter
from
Santa
Clara
related
to
the
local
transportation
analysis.
It
is
focusing
not
on
the
sequin
alysus,
which
is
based
on
vehicle
miles
traveled,
and
that
was
determined
to
be
less
than
significant,
as
this
is
amol
VMT
area,
and
this
project
contributes
to
development
into
the
lower
lower
VMT
area.
So
it
is
for
our
new
council
policy
5-1
this
project
complies
and
as
a
type
of
project
we've
been
looking
to
do
to
have
built
in
the
city.
O
S
Had
a
question
just
kind
of
about
the
Santana
West
properties,
and
if
we
have
any
idea
at
this
point,
what
the
height
of
those
potential
buildings
might
be,
because
they
think
that
these
buildings
could
have
a
max
height
of
120
feet
and
we're
looking
at
maybe
just
70
feet
high
for
the
podium
building
and
I'm
wondering
how
that
relates
to
the
potential
commercial
uses
that
are
going
to
be
just
behind.
And
next
to
Winchester.
Mystery
House.
S
So
why
wouldn't
we
encourage
that?
The
piece
that
'men
the
are
the
changes
to
the
piece
directly
adjacent
to
the
mystery
house?
Why
wouldn't
we
encourage?
Even
you
know
instead
of
seven
storeys
9
stories
or
you
know,
on
those
pieces
that
are
not
so
directly
impacted.
You
know
we
think
it's
the
potential
to
have
even
more
housing
on
this
site.
O
Q
Scott
Hill,
Pulte,
Homes
and
I
and
I
believe
that
the
zoning
for
that
was
150
feet,
but
I
thought
that
there
was
a
project
that
was
approved.
That
was
somewhat
less
than
that
in
the
75
you
know,
but
we,
you
know
we
are
trying
to
do
a
project
for
that
apartment.
That
is,
you
know,
we're
obviously
trying
to
squeeze
something.
You
know
between
the
mystery
house.
It
has
some
height
limitations
and
the
practicalities
of
building
a
cohesive
apartment,
building
I
think
it's
probably
true.
You
might
be
able
to
step
that
area
up,
but
I.
Q
J
A
K
You,
madam
chair,
there
was
a
several
letters,
apparently
from
the
city
of
Santa
Clara
having
to
do
with
the
agreement
between
the
city
of
San,
Jose
and
Santa
Clara
and
there's
another
letter
from
their
attorney,
and
this
stack
of
paperwork
I
just
wanted
somebody.
Perhaps
the
city
attorney,
to
agree
that
there
are
no
issues.
The
Planning
Commission
should
be
aware
of,
or
address
related
to
that
agreement
that
might
affect
the
viability
of
the
project.
B
You
know
the
agreement
was
was
entered
into
prior
to
the
requirement
of
VMT,
and
what
we're
finding
is
that
in
some
of
our
agreements,
the
assumptions
of
both
parties
going
into
those
agreements
have
changed
because
of
requirements
of
state
law,
and
this
is
one
of
those.
So
there
may
be
disagreement
among
the
parties,
but
we
feel
that
we
need
to
move
forward
in
the
manner
that
we
have
and
that
we've
explained
the
responses
to
Santa
Clara's
concerns
on
I
believe
it's
pages
14
through
18
of
the
first
amendment
to
the
e
IR.
B
Well,
if
you
are
looking
at
a
VMT
analysis
in
terms
of
what
you
can
charge
a
developer,
ask
them
to
do
in
relation
to
their
project.
It's
going
to
look
different
than
it
did
and
they're
an
l,
OS
standard,
protected,
intersection
standard
and
whatever.
So
if
there
were
certain
expectations
originally
legislatively,
we
are
required
to
change
our
analysis
and
what
we
are
doing.
So
that
is
why
there
may
be
some
upset
there,
but
we
feel
it's
legally
required
that
we
do.
A
So
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
issue
that
I
raised
with
the
applicant
and
just
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
staffs
perspective
on
this
and
I
understand.
It's
not
the
applicants
duty
to
do
something
at
that
intersection
and
what
I'm
talking
about
is,
if
I'm
a
bicyclist
I'd
much
rather
go
on
tsch
to
Monroe
to
get
through
the
neighborhood
then
go
through
Santana
row
and
that's
not
to
minimize
the
importance
of
the
bike,
amenities
that
are
in
the
project.
A
Have
you
considered
that-
and
you
said
no,
that
intersection
is
too
crazy
because
people
are
getting
on
and
off
of
280,
and
so
we
don't
want
people
crossing
there
and
if
that's
the
decision,
I
understand
that
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it
was
looked
at
and
if
it
wasn't,
then
I
would
simply
put
out
there
that
perhaps
there
is
a
way
that
the
project
can
create,
facilitate
I,
better,
just
exit
from
their
property
onto
that
nice
wide
sidewalk
to
then
ready
them
to
cross
the
street
and
go
on
to
Tish.
Yes,.
R
So
currently,
with
with
the
way
winchester
is
laid
out,
the
safest
route
would
be
to
go
up
to
Olson,
use
the
signal
and
then
cross
Winchester
to
either
get
down
to
Tish
or
continue
down
Olson,
Drive
and
so
I
mean
in
future
planning
with
the
Winchester
Boulevard
Complete
Streets
and
improvements.
That's
something
that
we
can
look
at
working
with
VTA
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
safest
route
is
to
make
that
connection.
R
R
G
You,
chair
I'd
like
him
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
staff
recommendation
and
the
certification
of
the
ER
move
this
on
to
the
City
Council.
This
is
pen
pending
for
a
very,
very
long
time
and
I
want
to
compliment
the
callee
areata
family
for
their
generosity
in
making
it
work
for
all
the
residents.
G
This
is
a
first-time
conversion
in
the
city
of
San,
Jose
and
I.
Think
it's
they've
done
very
well
to
protect
the
residents
in
the
mobile
home
park.
I
do
miss
Warren
Gannon,
who
has
passed
away
and
he
was
a
longtime
resident
at
the
mobile
home
park
and
very
active
in
the
discussions,
and
so
I
wish
him
all
the
best.
He
was
a
quite
a
great
volunteer
that
the
sounds
a
rose,
garden,
I
think
the
density
that's
being
changed
from
the
density
is
now
to
what
it
will
be
is
tremendously
different.
G
I
know
it
doesn't
satisfy
one
member
of
the
audience
who
would
like
to
see
more
density
or
one
member
of
the
Commission.
But
this
is
the
project
before
us
and
I
think
it
is
changed.
Quite
a
bit
playing
staff
I
want
to
compliment
on
the
community
meetings
and
outreach.
I
know
third
parties
like
to
throw
themselves
in
these
processes,
but
I,
don't
trust
it
I
only
trust
professional
planning
staff
leading
those
meetings
because
I
find
things
get
said
that
aren't
necessarily
verified
and
lead
people
potentially
in
the
wrong
direction.
G
So
I
continue
to
support
community
meetings
led
by
professional
planning
staff
with
the
applicant
and
did
want
to
make
one
oh
and
I.
Think
also
what's
to
note
here,
is
that
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
is
not
opposing
this
Santana
Row
is
not
opposing
this
and
has
stated
many
times
that
the
residents
are
supporting
this
and
and
will
go
before
the
council.
So
that's
the
supporting
staff
recommendation
so.
E
Thank
you.
I
realized
that
the
last
minute
that
one
of
my
comments
was
actually
kind
of
more
of
a
question
for
staff,
just
to
clarify
it
for
folks
who
had
asked
regarding
the
Santana
West
development,
particularly
I'm,
guessing
on
the
north
side
of
firm
Southie,
yeah
north
side
of
Olsen,
it's
seven
I
was
I.
Remember
it
was
approved
at
seven
to
eight
stories
like
90
to
100
feet.
Is
that
about
generally
speaking,
right
for
what
that
projects
going?
To
look
like
this,
be
the
thing
that's
in
front
of
my
beloved
Senate
century
21
dome.
N
E
N
I
do
know
that
the
applicant
for
Santa
Ana
West,
does
still
need
to
come
in
for
another
plan
development
amendment
to
actually
approve
what
the
actual
building
looks
like.
So,
while
there
is
an
approved
zoning
on
the
site
or
between
120
150,
there's
still
that
150
foot
zoning
clearance
for
that
and.
E
I'm
also
just
guessing
that
the
site
where
the
century
23
dome
currently
is,
is
not
necessarily
gonna,
be
six
or
seven
storeys,
but
I
mean
that's.
Just
a
guy
forget
on
us.
They
lookin
I've,
looked
at
the
plan
sets
before,
but
I
forget
so
I'm,
guessing
that
that
piece
will
be
a
little
lower
than
the
rest.
Great
okay,
regarding
just
a
couple
things
I
think
to
Commissioner
Ballard's
point
I,
certainly
agree
regarding
the
pedestrian
bike.
E
Access
I,
but
I
also
accept
staffs
rationale
that
we're
gonna
be
looking
at
Winchester
quite
a
bit
over
the
next
few
years.
I
would
suggest
the
simplest
thing
would
be
to
take
a
can
of
white
paint
out
there
draw
a
cross
walk
across
the
northern
side
of
the
intersection
where
there
is
a
signal
and
let
people
who
were
taking
that
bike
lane
instead
of
crossing
over
that
horrible-looking
of
overpass,
which
I
pass
over
quite
a
bit,
go
over
to
Tish
and
take
the
pedestrian
slash
bike
overpass
down
that
way
across
280.
E
E
But
that's
just
me
and
we're
talking
about
multi-million
dollar
developers,
so
who's
crying
for
them
right.
Well,
you
know
it's
really
a
council
issue.
I
understand
the
concern.
I
certainly
understand
the
concern,
but
it's
a
council.
It's
a
policy
issue.
If
you
want
to
get
that
policy
changed
if
you
want
to
beef
up
that
feed,
take
it
to
the
council,
but
I'm
not
going
to
delay
this
project,
because
the
developer
has
done
so
much
to
work
with
this
community
and
I've
personally
been
in
their
homes.
I've
been
in
these
mobile
homes.
E
Talk
to
these
people,
I've
looked
into
their
eyes
and
I'm,
not
gonna,
sit
here
and
delay
this
any
further
they've
waited
long
enough,
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
on
the
floor
and
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
their
time
and
Commissioners
for
their
great
questions
and
staff.
For
your
really
hard
work
on
this
immense
undertaking,
Thank
You.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
my
seconding
of
the
motion.
So
I
was
am
very
impressed
by
this
project
for
a
number
of
reasons.
First
I
think
it's
unusual
to
have
so
many
neighbors
and
the
residents
themselves
who
are
going
to
be
displaced
in
support
of
this
type
of
project.
I
know
it
wasn't
universally
shared,
but
really
given
the
scope.
It
is
something
that
I,
don't
think
happens.
H
I'm
very
often
it
really
speaks
to
you,
the
level
of
outreach,
the
community-based
design
decisions
and
and
the
changes
that
were
made
in
response
to
the
concerns
that
were
raised.
So
another
major
issue
was
the
Winchester
Mystery
House
and
the
design
decisions
and
reducing
the
scale
of
the
development
which
comes
at
a
cost
of
the
bottom
line.
I
think
speaks
to
really
wanting
to
do
right
by
San
Jose.
H
So
I
was
impressed
on
that
front,
but
on
the
affordable,
housing
component,
I
sort
of
have
a
different
perspective
on
this,
and
in
that
I
think
the
developer
is
really
doing
more
than
their
fair
share
in
terms
of
helping
us
out
of
the
affordable
housing
or
just
the
housing
crisis
in
general.
First,
by
supplying
the
number
of
homes
we
are
moving
towards
a
imbalance,
moving
I,
guess
away
from
the
imbalance
of
supply
and
demand.
That
has
gotten
us
into
the
problem
in
the
first
place.
H
But
I
was
thinking
about
really
the
amount
of
subsidy
and
the
impact
of
the
displacement
agreement
on
what
the
developer
is
actually
providing
to
the
residents
and
for
two
and
three-bedroom
units.
I.
Think
the
low-income
am
irate
right
now.
It's
I
think
somewhere
around
2800
to
3100
a
month,
and
so
these
units,
at
a
$900
a
month
or
approximate
monthly
rate,
are
probably
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
30%,
ami
or
20%
ami,
so
well
below
the
very
low
income
levels
that
we
would
want.
H
We
might
have
somebody
provide
and
and
that
difference
and
subsidy,
just
by
my
sort
of
basic
math
here,
I
think
works
out
to
somewhere
between
20
to
$30,000
per
unit
per
year,
and
so
given
the
displacement,
funding
and
the
purchase
of
the
units
and
that's
a
big-ticket
item
and
to
pay
that
amount
plus
the
affordable
housing
impact
fee.
I
think
that
it
is
something
that
I
would
imagine
that
applicants
can
speak
to,
but
that
really
is
coming
off
of
the
bottom
line
and
that
is
helping
the
affordable
housing
issues
in
San
Jose.
A
Thank
you,
I
wanted
to
speak
to
the
motion
as
well.
I
was,
and
just
just
offer
my
own
history
on
this
and
I'm
sure.
Former
councilmember
Oliverio
has
some
good
stories
in
history
to
share
on
this
as
well,
since
he
was
in
office
when
this
project
first
started.
I
was
working
for
the
leadership
group
at
the
time
as
a
housing
advocate
and
I.
Remember
when
this
came
up,
I
thought.
Oh,
my
gosh.
There
is
no
way
that
this
is.
This
is
going
to
have
a
happy
ending
I
thought.
A
You
know
the
Law
Foundation
is
just
fantastic.
The
developer,
for
you
know,
being
willing
to
really
work
with
folks
and
then,
but
mostly
the
residents
of
the
area
who
I
can
remember
when
they
first
came
forward.
A
lot
of
folks
were
I
felt,
had
a
different
mindset
at
that
point
in
time
and
were
very
opposed
to
the
notion
of
high
density
housing.
I
remember
some
derogatory
remarks
about
like
who
would
live
in
that
you
know
sardine
packed
housing
and
to
give
residents
credit
like
I
feel
like
they
started
coming
to
meetings.