►
From YouTube: NOV 6, 2019 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José
Planning Commission
View agenda at https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=735698&GUID=DAFEE246-49B6-4DD9-BD75-6452BF549B5F
A
Go
ahead
and
get
started.
Welcome
to
the
Planning
Commission,
please
remember
to
turn
off
your
cell
phones.
Also,
the
parking
validation
machine
for
the
garage
under
City
Hall
is
located
at
the
rear
of
the
chambers
extra
credit
for
those
of
you
who
took
transit
or
rode
your
bike
or
scooter
here
today.
First
up
we're
going
to
do
the
salute
to
the
flag.
B
Remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes
planning
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers.
Response
to
Commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance.
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
action
on
rezoning,
x',
pries,
owning
x'
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
City
Council.
The
City
Council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
B
Section
twenty
point:
one:
twenty
point:
four
hundred
of
the
Municipal
Code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
of
the
City
Council
on
rezoning
and
pries
awnings.
The
Planning
Commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
to
the
City
Council
in
accordance
with
section
twenty
point.
One
hundred
point:
two:
twenty
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
All
right,
so
moving
on
to
the
substantive
portions
of
this
meeting,
we
will
start
with
public
comment.
This
is
the
portion
of
the
agenda
where,
if
folks
want
to
speak
about
items
that
are
not
on
the
agenda,
they
are
welcome
to
do
so
and
take
up
to
three
minutes.
I,
don't
have
any
speaker
cards
for
folks
who
want
to
speak
in
the
public
comment
section.
A
A
C
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
E
F
Evening
miss
chair
and
commissioners
item
7a
is
general
plan
foul
number
18
0,
1
0
is
an
amendment
to
sorry,
I'm
killin
found
supervising
planner
for
the
general
plan
team
and
the
item.
Gp
18
does
0
1
0
is
an
amendment
to
the
envision
San
Jose
2040
general
plan,
yet
land
use
transportation,
diagram
to
change
the
land,
use
designation
from
rural
residential
to
residential
neighborhood
on
an
approximately
2.6
gross
acre
site,
located
on
the
west
side
of
Diamond
Heights
Drive
a
possible
route
to
her
feet,
south
of
Center
Road.
F
The
site
is
comprised
of
three
parcels
located
on
the
west
side
of
Diamond
Heights
Drive
approximately
200
feet
south
of
Center.
Road
includes
a
fence
maintenance,
storage
area
of
500
5000
fire
feet
square
feet
are
the
southernmost
parcel.
The
site
is
bordered
by
single-family
homes,
north
east
and
south
west,
and
a
recreational
fields
and
tennis
courts
of
the
valley,
christian
high
school
to
the
south
west
and
southwest
across
from
Diamond
Heights
Drive.
The
prevailing
neighborhood
has
an
average
density
of
7.5
dwelling
units
per
acre.
F
The
proposed
residential
neighbourhood
land
use
designation
is
applied
broadly
throughout
the
city
to
encompass
the
most
of
established
single-family
residential
neighborhoods.
The
intent
of
the
designation
is
to
preserve
the
existing
character
of
these
neighborhoods
and
to
strictly
limit
new
development
to
infill
projects
which
closely
conform
to
prevailing
existing
neighborhood
character
and
should
be
integrated
into
the
existing
neighborhood
pattern.
New
info
development
should
conform
to
the
general
plan,
designation
design
guidelines
for
residential
neighborhoods
and
will
be
limited
to
a
density
of
8
dwelling
units
per
acre
or
the
prevailing
neighborhood
density.
F
Whichever
is
lower
the
proposed
interplay
amendments
to
residential
neighborhood,
who
will
be
consistent
with
the
predominant
land
use
designation
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
The
residential
neighborhood
designation,
furthermore,
would
require
a
compatible
new
development
on
a
project
site
to
be
consistent
in
density
and
character
of
the
neighborhood,
which
is
in
alignment
with
a
form-based
major
strategy
in
general
plan.
F
Prior
to
construction
of
a
development,
a
rezoning
and
development
permit
will
be
required
as
part
of
the
entitlement
process.
The
future
development
will
be
assessed
by
multiple
city
departments,
including
Public,
Works
transportation,
housing,
Parks,
Recreation,
neighborhood
services
and
others
to
comply
with
state
and
local
regulations
and
may
also
be
required
to
contribute
fees
and
improvements
that
enhance
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
F
Examples
of
contributions
may
be
upgrades
to
the
water
infrastructure,
feed
towards
maintaining
existing
parks
and
improvement
to
Street
frontages
in
terms
of
public
outreach.
A
community
meeting
occur
on
July
7th
and
receive
no
public
attendance
for
the
sequel
clearance.
The
initial
study
negative
declaration,
who
was
circulated
in
September
2019
and
received
no
public
comments.
F
While
the
general
plan
limits
residential
development
in
neighborhoods
that
are
not
within
growth
areas,
the
proposed
land
use
designation
is
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
and
a
similar
residential
density
and
development
pattern
would
be
achieved
under
the
amendment.
This
concludes
staffs
presentation.
A
G
H
I
Sure
at
heart,
I
mean
building
code
enforcement.
Yes,
the
the
site
was
designated
ntral
based
on
the
current
zoning
and
it's
the
density
that's
allowed
under
the
current
zoning.
So
at
the
time
of
the
last
comprehensive,
updated
the
general
plan
I
think
that
the
rural
residential
was
matched
up
to
the
existing
zoning
on
the
site.
The.
I
G
Then
I
guess,
and
the
second
component
to
this
is
when
we're
looking
at
identifying
a
use
under
a
general
plan
amendment
allowing
more
residential
in
a
non
growth
area.
If
it,
if
conformity
or
consistency
with
the
surrounding
Sur
surrounding
land
uses,
is
what
allows
us
to
do
that,
then.
Wouldn't
that
be
able
to
be
used
in
a
lot
of
different
circumstances
like
where
do
we
draw
the?
Why
and
if
you're,
drawing
lines
where
one
side
is
on
the
lower
density
and
then
the
Saito's
at
a
higher
density.
I
Yeah
primarily
depends
on
on
the
context
of
the
neighborhood
and
what's
being
proposed
in
this
case.
It's
you
know
the
the
the
change
is
relatively
minor
and
that,
while
the
the
the
residential
neighborhood
designation
won't
allow
significantly
more
density
than
then
under,
what's
currently
allowed,
but
would
allow
density
consistent
with
with
what's
surrounding
the
current
site,
I
mean
I.
Think
that
would
hold
true.
You
know
across
the
city.
Is
we
look
at
other
general
plan
amendments
that
are
outside
of
growth
areas,
and
we
would
look
at
the
context
of
the
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and.
G
G
D
D
That's
page
5
of
the
resolution,
Exhibit
A
when
it
refers
to
this
site
located
on
the
west
side
of
Diamond
Heights
Drive
I'm,
not
by
any
means
a
navigational
expert,
but
it's
very
clearly
on
the
east
side
of
Diamond
Heights,
Drive
and
I
visited
dislike
myself
yesterday,
so
I'm
pretty
sure,
so
just
to
clarify
that
if
it's
in
the
staff
report
I
don't
really
care,
but
if
it's
in
the
resolution,
that's
that's
a
bigger
deal.
So
thank
you
for,
for.
D
I
D
Appreciate
that
cool
good
catch,
my
I
was
to
Commissioner
Griswolds
question
I,
can't
I,
wasn't
here:
I,
don't
have
a
crystal
ball
to
go
back
either.
So
I
wasn't
here
at
the
time
when
we
approved
putting
us
on
top
of
this
hill
in
the
first
place.
Personally,
I
would
not
have
supported
that
at
the
time,
but
that
ship
has
sailed,
as
has
much
of
the
development
on
this
hillside.
D
A
K
Thank
You
chair,
you
know,
since
you
know,
this
is
a
school
property
I'll
be
at
private,
not
public
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
land
issue,
issues
that
are
gonna
come
before
this
body
and
the
City
Council
in
the
future
will
be
schools
themselves,
looking
at
trying
to
develop
property
adjacent
to
them
and
potentially
for
their
own
employees.
I
guess
a
question
for
staff
is
the
the
what
they're
asking
for
wouldn't
really
allow
for,
for
example,
the
density
of
a
apartment,
level,
type
of
development
to
house
staff
or
other
people.
I
Yeah,
so
if
the
average
density
of
the
surrounding
homes
is
I
believe
around
seven
and
a
half
or
so
dwelling
units
per
per
acre
and
so
of
a
development
proposal
were
to
come
in,
take
kind
of
a
you
know,
another
cut
another
closer
look
at
that
and
look
at
what
the
density
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
is
and
then
that's
what
we
would
determine
in
terms
of
the
density
allowed
on
the
site.
So,
yes,
I
mean
that
we
would,
with
the
land,
use
designation.
I
K
I
think
for
many
times
that
people
talk
about
infill
development
within
the
city
and
there's
multitudes
of
infill
development
right,
there's,
infill
development,
next
to
transit,
where
you
can
get
significant
density
and
then
there
are
underutilized
parcels
where
a
private
property
owner
wants
to
come
forward
and
put
something
on
there
and
I.
Think
I
haven't
really
heard
city
council
members
discuss
that
they
think
certain
parcels
should
be
passed
on
in
general
that
they
feel
that
infill
development
is
good
because
it's
within
the
existing
city
infrastructure,
so
I'm
inclined
to
not
support
the
motion.
K
I
believe
that
this
is,
albeit
there's
a
slightly
different
geography
here
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
does
allow
we
have
allotted
for
some
of
that
and
I
wanted
to
see
the
applicant
I
know
I
assume
you're
representing
the
valley
Christian.
You
didn't
speak
when
the
proper
tunic
came,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
from
your
from
your
standpoint
as
representing
the
applicant.
Your
perspective
on
the
item.
L
You,
commissioner
I
didn't
speak
in
the
beginning,
because
there
were
no
questions
that
were
asked
of
of
the
applica,
though
Commissioner
Allen
indicated
that
he
had
some
questions,
but
I
didn't
know
how
to
address
any
questions
you
might
have.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
do
that.
One
of
the
things
that's
always
very
difficult
in
general
plan
amendments
is
that
not
all
general
plan
amendments
come
forward
with
specific
proposals.
L
We
entered
into
the
process
in
the
latter
part
of
last
year
and
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
formulate
a
particular
project,
but
I
will
tell
you.
This
is
an
application
by
Valley
Christian
schools.
It
is
their
intention,
although
understanding
and
general
plan
amendment
there's
no
restrictions
that
you
place
on
the
approval,
but
it
isn't
their
intention
to
use
this
property
to
do
teacher
housing
or
housing
and
support
of
their
faculty.
You
know
that
it's
a
critical
issue
these
days.
So
that's
the
intention
here.
L
I
would
let
you
know
that
there
are
provisions
in
the
general
plan
under
this
category
that
the
density
can
rise
above
the
eighth
dwelling
units
per
acre,
we're
not
proposing
that
particularly
yet.
If
we
do
a
plan
development
zoning,
you
may
see
that
the
provisions
generally
relate
to
the
context
of
the
development
and
in
this
particular
context,
if
you've
been
out
at
the
site,
you
know
it
is
detached,
elevated
from
the
property
that
is
to
its
north
and
generally
almost
it's
to
its
east.
L
There
would
be
no
intention
to
take
Riverview
and
extend
it
through
on
to
Diamond
Heights,
so
you
have
somewhat
of
an
isolated
community
whose
only
access
would
be
along
Diamond
Heights
from
Center
Road,
so
there
we
believe
Commissioner
element.
There
are
differences
between
this.
It's
rural,
residential
designation
goes
back
many
years.
The
City
Planning
Department
and
the
city
does
not
do
a
good
job
of
looking
at
individual
land
uses
and
determining
the
more
appropriate
land
uses.
L
As
staff
indicated,
they
simply
took
the
existing
zoning
that
was
done
in
the
early
1990s
by
a
different
property
owner
and
applied
a
rural
residential
designation
I
would
parenthetically
insert
without
any
analysis
of
the
appropriate
land
use
or
the
appropriate
density,
and
so,
when
we
came
forward
this
time
it
was
simply
matching
the
designation
of
residential
neighbourhood.
That
is
now
in
the
general
plan.
As
many
of
you
know
who
have
been
on
the
commission
for
a
while
prior
to
2040,
there
were
multiple
residential
designations
they
began
to
segregate
into.
Are
you
doing
8?
L
Are
you
doing
12
to
25?
Are
you
doing
8
to
16
and
you
collapsed
it
down
this
rural
residential
neighborhood
is
a
designation
that
probably
encompasses
80
to
85%
of
the
residential
land
uses
in
this
site,
and
I
would
suggest
to
you
that
this
site
is
no
different
than
communications
Hill,
which
has
been
approved
for
much
higher
residential
development.
It's
not
a
it's,
not
a
it's,
not
on
the
edge
of
the
city.
L
K
You
for
the
comment
and
I
just
want
to
say:
yeah.
Sometimes
it's
Planning
Commission,
you
know
different
projects
will
come
forward
and
the
densities
been
decided
prior
and
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
up
here
generally
on
the
Planning
Commission
of
upping
the
density
on
every
project.
So
just
because
you
haven't
submitted
yet
I
would
encourage
you
if
this
is
gonna,
be
for
housing
to
support
the
school,
to
go
for
a
higher
density
and
then
so.
Thank
you
and
I
just
won't
be
supporting
the
motion
on
the
floor.
Thank
You,
Commissioner.
A
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
starting
with
the
existing
designation,
rural
residential,
probably
never
should
have
been
approved
on
this
site.
If
you
read
the
definition
of
rural
residential,
it's
an
area
that
is
already
it's
for
an
area,
that's
developed
with
very
low
density,
residential
on
the
fringe
of
the
city.
So
this
was
at
a
point
time
when,
in
the
city
was
staff
was
looking
at
the
entire
city,
this
kind
of
slipped
to
the
radar.
So
if
rural
residential
isn't
the
right
designation,
what
is
what
troubles
me
is
one.
It
is
a
hillside.
C
There
were
endangered
plants,
found
on
the
school
site
and
three
it's
in
a
landslide
zone,
so
this
property,
as
far
as
we
know,
may
not
be
appropriate
for
high
density
residential.
We
don't
really
know
at
this
time.
There
are
policies
built
into
the
general
plan
that
will
require
the
property
owner
and
any
developer,
to
look
at
the
geology,
the
future
grading,
and
that
also
has
to
be
consistent
with
the
surrounding
land
uses
as
well
as
being
safe.
C
Yes,
we
need
infill
housing
for
one
thing
and
we
need
infill
housing
built
safely
on
appropriate
locations
and
I.
Don't
think
at
this
point
with
the
information
available
to
us
that
we
know
what
that's
going
to
be
in
the
long
term.
I
look
on
this
neighborhood
residential,
that's
what's
being
proposed
right
as
a
holding
zone,
it
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate
and
if
it
can't
be
developed
with
nice
little
single-family,
six
thousand
square
foot
Lots
on
public
streets
and
it
probably
can't
they're
gonna
have
to
do
something
else
which
may
involve
clustering.
D
You
I
appreciate
the
comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
also
appreciate
the
comments
from
the
applicant
too.
In
this
particular
case,
I
I
wasn't
actually
expecting
to
make
emotions.
I
figured
I'd
be
an
outlier
on
this
issue.
To
be
honest
with
you
personally
again,
if
I
had
to
go
back
and
I
was
on
the
Commission
at
the
time,
I
wouldn't
have
been
all
that
excited
about
communications
Hill.
D
D
I
just
think
it'd
be
a
good
opportunity
for
us
to
hold
the
line
at
some
point
and
I
do
support
staff
did
note
that
there
are
policies
within
the
general
plan
that
this
is
inconsistent
with
and
I
would
side
more
with
those
than
the
policies
where
it
is
consistent.
So,
while
I
agree
with
Commissioner,
you
guys
knew
that
I
do
think.
I
wouldn't
have
checked
necessary
to
RN,
as
a
placeholder
I
haven't
heard
any
guarantees
tonight
that
that's
going
to
be
the
case.
So
that's
not
going
to
be
what
they
want
eventually
on
this
site.
D
So
at
this
point,
I
would
just
be
inclined
not
to
change
it
at
all
and
ask
the
applicant
to
come
back
when
they
have
something
more
defined
and
I'm
and
again
I
I'm,
fully
supportive
of
employee
housing
for
schools.
My
mother
was
a
public
schoolteacher.
My
brother
was
a
public
school
teacher.
I
was
a
public
school
and
district
employee
myself,
but
I
try
my
very
best
not
to
use
that
as
any
sort
of
justification
pro
or
con
in
these
situations,
it's
strictly
on
the
land
use.
So
thank
you
so.
A
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
ask
some
questions
of
staff,
maybe
question
so
I'm
from
more
of
a
general
perspective,
one
of
the
things
that
struck
me
when
I
was
reading
the
staff
report
on
this.
One
was
like
what,
when
we're
looking
at
general
plan
amendments
I'm,
looking
for
a
reason
why
some
sort
of
compelling
reason
why
we
are
seeking
an
amendment
and
so
on
this
one
I
was
I
mean
a
is
that
kind
of
the
right
way
to
go
about
it?
A
Would
you
say,
and
just
helping
folks
up
here
and
in
the
audience
and
watching
from
home,
understand
you
know
when,
when
someone
submits
a
request
to
you
for
a
general
plan
amendment,
what
is
the
reasoning
and
rationale
that
you
go
through
to
say
gee?
This
is
something
we
should
grant
and
I
know
that
you
compare
it
to
the
policies
in
the
general
plan.
But
for
me
it's
like
why.
What
is
the
compelling
reason?
We
would
entertain
this
No.
You
know
having
been
on
the
general
plan
task
force.
A
Certainly,
we
at
the
general
document
and
mistakes
can
be
made,
and
so
I
can
see
general
plan
amendment
applications
as
being
something
that
clear
up
mistakes
and
also
seek
to
change
something
that
maybe
something
has
changed,
or
there
is
a
really
compelling
reason
why
we
should
do
something
so
long-winded
answer
to
just
kind
of
it
was
just
baffled
like
why?
Why
why
why
see,
could
change
her.
I
Sure
I
mean
I.
Think
with
you
know
any
general
plan
amendment.
We
would
take
a
look
at,
as
you
said,
the
general
plans,
major
strategies,
goals
and
policies
and
then
we'd,
you
know
also
factor
in
any
community
input
we
receive
and
then
use
our
you
know
professional
judgment
to
then
come
to
a
conclusion
on
that
application.
I
Yeah
again
yeah
within
terms
it
also
just
did
you
know,
we
thought
that
the
proposal
met
some
of
our
compatibility
goals
and
policies
so
that
again,
given
that
the
bill
must
an
entire
surrounding
neighborhood.
Besides,
the
school
was
residential
neighborhood
that
it's
contextually
seems
to
make
make
sense
and
that
the
the
land
use
designation
that
was
applied.
The
rural
residential
was
really
as
a
result
of
the
kind
of
lower
density
zoning
from
the
past
that
hasn't
been
effectuated
at
this
point,
so.
A
And
I'll
just
add,
before
I
call
on
the
city
attorney
I
felt
like
there
were
a
few
other
staff
reports
under
the
conclusion,
a
section
that
really
helped
answer
that
question
of
like
helped
me
understand.
Oh
here's,
the
reason
why
we're
considering
this
amendment
and
this
one
I
felt
was
less.
There
was
less
of
that
there
for
me
to
latch
on
to
and
understand
what
what
why
are.
Why
are
we
entertaining
this
in
the
conclusion
section,
city
attorney.
B
The
only
comment
I
wanted
to
make
was
to
remind
everyone
that
there
are
no
findings
required
for
general
plan
amendments.
These
are
purely
legislative
act,
so
you
know
planning
is
giving
you
the
reasons,
but
you
are
not
required
to
make
findings.
You
know
you're
making
a
recommendation
of
the
council
and
give
them
your
reasons
for
that
recommendation,
but
the
council
is
not
required
to
make
findings
on
a
general
plan.
Amendment
purely
legislative.
Thank
you.
E
A
D
Already
had
to
some
extent,
so
thank
you,
I
do
I
will
make
one
final
point
that
the
surrounding
character,
the
neighborhood,
is
not
necessarily
defined
by
the
color.
On
the
general
plan
map.
It
really
does
require
looking
at
the
site,
I
think
in
person.
So
I
can
understand
why,
at
some
point
it
was
rural.
D
Residential
I
would
actually
guess
that
the
entire
hill-hill
site,
including
the
pqp
where
the
school
is,
was
at
one
time,
rural
residential,
because
it
was
on
the
edge
of
the
city
at
one
point,
so
I
can
understand
why
it's
sort
of
a
latent
designation
but
I,
don't
feel
any
reason
to
change
it
at
this
point.
So
thank
you
and.
A
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
Commissioner
Allen
made
as
I
was
reading
the
staff
report.
Again,
I
was
asking
my
question:
why?
Why
are
we
bringing
this
forward?
And
you
know
for
me
answers
to
those
questions.
Are
things
like
affordable
housing?
It's
important
in
particular
homeless.
Housing
is
important.
Maybe
this
is
a
good
site
for
tiny
homes
for
homeless
individuals
and
I
know
that
we
can't
necessarily
say
something
like
that.
A
In
a
general
plan,
amendment
and
I
appreciate
that
the
applicant
is
talking
about
teacher
housing,
but
we
without
something
like
a
development
agreement
or
something
like
that.
I
guess
it's
speculative
or
you
know
we
don't
know
what
ultimately
is
gonna
happen
on
this
site,
and
so
I
am
not
inclined
to
support
the
motion.
I
mean
I
am
inclined,
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion.
Yes,.
A
G
And
when
we
look
at
the
affordability,
crisis
and
affordable
housing
issues
that
we're
facing
it
is
largely
I,
think
a
supply
and
demand
issue
and
that
we
are
just
simply
not
building
enough
housing.
And
it's
with
that
that
we
need
to
think
about
whether
limited
development,
not
major
high
rises
in
residential
neighborhoods
that
are
not
close
to
public
transportation,
but
whether
we
need
to
essentially
almost
earmark
the
site
for
no
development
or
whether
we
can
allow
some
limited
residential
development
in
a
if
I
am
not
mistaken.
Residential
neighborhood
is
the
lowest
density
residential.
I
I
Say
right
right:
there's
I
mean
we
have
agriculture.
I
mean
some
of
the
other
designations
that
are
lower
intensity
than
rural
residential.
Do
allow
some
limited
residential
development,
but
it's
it's
really
low
density.
The
agriculture
is
like
one
dwelling
unit
per
20
acres
or
something
to
that
effect.
So
yeah
rural
residential
is
kind
of
your
lowest
residential
neighborhood
are
residential
designation
that
you
might
see
more
within
the
urban
area
of
the
city.
I'd
say.
G
That
and
the
other,
the
other
aspect
that
I
was
thinking
about
in
keeping
this
as
a
rural
residential
is
that
it
starts
to
feel
like
we
are
prohibiting
development
and
as
opposed
to
fulfilling
a
policy
and,
and
in
that
circumstance,
are
we
imposing
on
the
landowner,
essentially
that
you
have
to
keep
this
as
an
open
space
preserve
or
something
of
that
nature,
and
so
for
that
reason,
I'm
going
to
come
out
against
the
motion
and
support
the
proposed
general
plan.
Amendment
but
I
do
think
it's
a
close
call.
A
And
just
for
fun,
I'm
gonna
chime
in
here,
because
for
me
with
having
been
on
the
general
plan
task
force
like
the
important
values
for
the
city,
are
around
sustainability.
Jobs
clearly
was
the
the
leading
piece
for
the
general
plan,
and
these
days,
affordable
housing
is
really
key
and
you
know
I
think
about
this
site.
I
think
about
it
in
a
couple
ways.
One
is:
where
is
it
best
for
us
to
be
directing
staff
to
be
focusing
their
efforts?
Is
it
on
these
small
sites
where
we're
going
to
get
low-density
development?
A
For
you
know,
maybe
it'll
be
teacher
housing,
but
that's
gonna
be
pretty
expensive
teacher
housing.
I
would
imagine
so
in
my
mind
that
the
affordable
housing
piece
isn't
necessarily
met
by
this
kind
of
designation
unless
we
were
to
really
up
zone
it
and
do
something
high-density
there,
which
is
highly
unlikely
but
could
be
intriguing
and
so
from
a
sustainability
perspective.
You
know
be
nice
to
keep
it
undeveloped.
It
is
able
to
be
developed
as
something
but
when
I
and
there
isn't
really
a
jobs
component
piece
to
this.
A
So
when
I
weigh
those
things
to
me,
it's
like
do.
We
want
to
have
our
staff
here
at
the
city
of
San
Jose
that
are
stretched,
focusing
on
this
kind
of
site
or
focusing
their
resources
and
their
attention
on
really
getting
the
bang
for
the
buck,
where
we
want
to
see
development
happen
and
I.
Just
don't
see
that
this
is
one
of
those
sites.
That's
gonna,
be
helping
us
meet
our
goals.
D
You
manager,
I,
said
a
quick
clarifying
question
for
staff
regarding
the
rural
residential
designation.
According
to
the
staff
report,
I
don't
know
if
I'm
reading
this
correctly
densities
permitted
for
this
land
by
this
land
use,
designation
or
up
to
two
dwelling
units
per
acre
for
residential.
It's
a
two
point:
six
acre
site.
D
So
theoretically,
under
a
residential
could
they
have
five
dwelling
units
on
this
site
if
it
fits
the
geology
and
all
the
other
grading
which
they
would
have
to
do
under
RN
to
right,
they'd
have
to
meet
all
of
the
geology
and
other
requirements
there
so
can
they?
Can
you
confirm
that
they
could
build
up
to
five
residential
units
under
the
our
our
designation.
D
D
I
Probably
would
be
a
little
less
I
mean
I.
Think
with
the
rural
residential
is
probably
applied
because
it's
you
know
about
almost
three
acres
and
so
right
they
had
six.
So
that's
why
it's
the
rural
residential,
but
if
they
you
know
someone
were
to
to
rezone
I
mean
we
could
take
a
look
at
that,
but
because
it's
less
than
three
it
may
be
five.
I
D
Know
I
was
just
just
having
been
there.
I
just
don't
see
how
you
can,
even
if
you
do
develop
it,
how
you
could
fit
more
than
five
or
six
single-family
homes
in
that
space
anyway
and
I
think
it
seems
to
be
greater
for
that
already
because
of
the
previous
PD,
so
I
I,
just
don't
think,
there's
gonna
be
that
much
of
a
change
in
what
they
can
do
with
the
site,
regardless
so
I'm
again,
I'm
inclined
not
to
change
it.
But
I
appreciate
all
the
comments
from
commissioners
and
from
the
applicant.
B
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
address
one
of
the
comments,
which
was
that
staff
shouldn't
be
shouldn't
should
probably
redirect
its
efforts
toward
other
types
of
projects
and
and
whatever,
but
we
are
required
by
law
to
process
applications
as
they
come
in.
So
that
is
not
a
choice
that
staff
can
make
in
this
instance,.
A
E
L
Let
me
I'm
asking
the
chief
financial
officer,
varelli
Christian,
to
come
on
down
I'm
a
land-use
consultant.
By
the
way
my
name
is
Jared
young,
with
Ruth
thing
going.
I
forgot
to
tell
you
that
in
the
beginning,
some
of
you
already
know
me
so
I'll.
Ask
Steve.
Excuse
me
Ravel's
a
time
to
come
down
and
talk
specifically
about
that
because
they
have.
They
have
looked
at
opportunities
for
for
housing
and
they
acquired
this
site
last
year
in
order
to
actually
and
actually
to
try
to
solve
their
own
teacher
housing
problem.
H
E
H
Look
if
I
may,
then
let
me
just
start
with
what
the
idea
was
go
over
started
with,
and
it
was
just
that
we
Lou
at
the
high
school
level
right
now,
which
is
actually
proud.
The
most
difficult
area
to
hire
teachers
is
we're
losing
eighteen
to
twenty
plus
eighteen
percent
plus
per
year
turnover
and
the
main
reason
we're
losing
is
because
they're
there
they're
moving
out
of
the
area
because
they
can't
afford
housing.
H
So
what
we
were
trying
now
I
could
these
are
directional
numbers,
not
accurate
numbers
right,
but
I
mean
I,
could
double
salaries
of
teachers
today
and
take
their
average
Sauerland
double
it,
and
it's
still
below
the
median
in
which
they
can
actually
go
and
afford
a
single-family
home
in
Santa,
Clara
County
right
now.
So
what
we're
looking
to
try
to
do
is
how
do
we
take
a
piece
of
property,
an
asset
that
we
have
and
change
the
designation
to
something
that
conforms
with
I
would
argue.
H
Actually
what
we
have
today,
the
designation
is
is
non-conforming
with
everything
else.
That's
surrounding
so
could
I
get
a
a
designation
that
allows
me
to
put
more
housing
units
on
there.
So
that
I
can
serve
as
many
teachers
as
possible,
which
is
why
we
actually
don't
have
a
specific
zoning
or
a
specific
plan
in
front
of
you
right
now.
It's
because
we
don't
know
what
that
might
be.
We
don't
know
what
a
what
we
can
afford
and
B.
H
E
A
A
A
D
A
A
D
A
F
General
plan,
18
0:04,
is
an
amendment
to
the
vision,
San
Jose
24,
a
general
plan.
Land
use
designation,
I,
mean
transportation
diagram
to
change
the
land,
use
designation
from
neighborhood
community
commercial
to
mixed
use,
neighborhood
on
an
approximately
0.44
gross
acre
site,
located
on
the
east
side
of
North
Capitol
Avenue
approximately
250
feet
north
of
album
Rock
Avenue,
the
sub
sub
site
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
Capitol
Avenue
is
one
parcel,
is
paved
with
asphalt
and
was
previously
previously
used
as
a
park-and-ride
thought
for
Adam
rock
light
rail
station.
F
Currently
the
site
is
vacant
and
has
an
irregular,
long
and
narrow
shape,
limited
accessibility
to
sight
as
via
northbound
North
Capitol
Avenue.
Due
to
the
light
rail
which
runs
down
the
center
of
Capitol
Avenue,
the
site
is
surrounded
by
North
Capitol,
with
a
cemetery
across
the
roadway
to
the
west
single-family
homes
to
the
east
and
south
in
a
one-story
commercial
complex
to
the
south.
Next
to
album
Rock
Avenue,
the
proposed
mixed
use,
neighborhood
designation,
is
applied
to
areas
intended
for
development,
primarily
with
either
townhouse
or
small,
lot
single-family
residences
and
supports
commercial
or
mixed-use
development.
F
The
mixed
use,
neighborhood
land
use
designation,
allows
residential
densities
up
to
30
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
an
F
AR
floor
area
ratio
of
0.5
0.25
to
2.0
the
proposed
land
use.
Amendment
to
mixed
use.
Neighborhood
is
consistent
with
general
plan
compatibility
policies,
CD
4.3
and
4.4
as
the
development
pattern
and
density
will
be
comparable
to
exist.
Ding
land
uses
in
the
surrounding
area.
The
site
is
currently
functioning
as
a
vacant
parking
lot.
It's
constrained
due
to
its
linear
configuration
and
lack
of
lock
depth.
F
The
mixed
use,
neighborhood
designation,
will
allow
for
more
flexibility
for
the
property
to
be
developed
with
uses
that
could
be
consistent
with
and
contributed
to
the
overall
character
of
the
neighborhood.
The
proposed
general
plan
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
vibrant
neighborhoods
policy
V
and
1.7.
F
It
will
would
allow
flexibility
and
types
of
uses
and
support
development
on
a
regular
shape
and
constraint
site
that
will
be
consistent
with
the
overall
character
of
the
neighborhood
redevelopment.
Under
mixed
use,
neighborhood
could
further
advance
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
compared
to
the
existing
vacant.
Parking
lot
in
terms
of
outreach.
A
community
meeting
occur
on
September
12
29
and
approximately
six
community
members
attended
and
expresses
concerns
about
what
could
be
built
on
site
and
emphasized
that
any
future
development
should
preserve
existing
character
of
neighborhood
in
terms
of
sequel
clearance.
F
An
initial
study,
negative
declaration
was
circulated
and
September
27
to
October
17th
2019
and
received
no
public
comments,
while
the
conversion
of
commercial
to
residential,
focused
land
use
is
typically
not
supported
in
the
vision,
San
Jose,
2040
general
plan,
other
goals
and
policies
in
the
general
plan
do
support
consistent
and
compatible
uses
in
the
neighborhood.
Setting
in
this
is
then
the
subject
site
is
not
well-suited
for
commercial
uses
due
to
its
location
off
of
a
LeBrock,
Avenue
and
constraints
characteristics
of
the
site.
F
The
property
is
located
outside
of
the
Allen
Rock
Avenue
east
of
680
urban
village
is
not
visible
from
Al.
Araf
Avenue
and
vehicle
accessibility
to
the
site
is
limited
to
traffic
traveling
northbound
on
North
Capitol
Avenue
planning
staff
has
determined
that
because
of
the
issues
unique
to
the
site,
that
will
be
so
significant
Li
limit
commercial
uses
on
the
property,
the
job
plans,
neighborhood
compatibility,
goes
outweigh
its
goals
relative
to
retaining
commercial
men.
In
this
specific,
instant
staff
recommends
the
approval
of
the
proposed
general
plan,
amendment
of
mixed
use,
neighborhood.
This
concludes
staffs
presentation.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
thought
I
should
speak
first,
this
time,
rather
than
answering
questions
or
wondering
what
your
questions
might
be
so
I
took
the
opportunity
to
just
dive
in
staff,
did
a
wonderful
job
of
describing
some
of
the
issues
here.
I
think.
If
you
look
at
the
aerial
in
front
of
you,
which
I
think
is
in
front
of
you,
this
site
is
problematic
to
say
the
bat.
It's
a
least
it's
problematic,
because
it's
hard
to
get
anything
to
fit
into
the
neighborhood.
As
you
can
see,
it's
single-family
residential
was
zoned.
L
R1
a2
was
annexed
a
number
of
years
ago.
This
was
a
former
VTA
Park
&
Ride
lot,
so
the
the
the
type
of
development
that's
going
to
occur
here,
even
if
it
were
to
be
a
viable
commercial
site,
would
probably
be
the
only
way
to
get
anything
to
occur
here
is
on
a
podium
with
a
podium
second
floor
office.
Retail.
As
many
of
you
know,
retail
probably
doesn't
work
very
up
very
well
on
second
floor.
L
You
can,
you
might
have
an
office
so
once
you
start
to
develop
above
the
first
above
the
ground
level,
you
begin
to
automatically
affect
the
adjacent
residential
neighborhood.
We
looked
at
it
and
thought
if
we're
going
to
affect
the
residential
neighborhood,
we're
better
off
affecting
it
by
residential
uses
than
by
office
or
retail
uses,
and
that's
why
we
have
to.
L
To
the
question
that
got
asked
on
the
last
one,
why
now?
Why
are
you
proposing
this?
That's
the
primary
reason
this
once
again,
the
difficulty
here
was
we
couldn't
bring
forward.
A
kind
of
a
planned
development
is
only
at
the
same
time,
because
we
weren't
sure
that,
given
the
city's
policies
on
conversions
of
job-producing
lands,
we
were
a
little
timid
about
this
one,
although
we
believe
it's
the
right
thing
to
do.
L
I
will
tell
you
that,
given
the
nature
of
the
site
and-
and
you
can
see
just
by
looking
at
it-
that
while
there
is
a
housing
crisis
in
the
city
and
many
many
individuals
in
the
city-
including
many
of
you,
including
the
chair,
who
voiced
an
opinion
earlier
tonight
in
favor
of
affordable
housing,
this
type
of
project
would
be
affordable
by
design.
These
are
going
to
be
very
small
units.
They
could
be
studios,
they
could
be
one
bedrooms,
there
might
be
a
two-bedroom
in
it,
but
it.
L
C
Remember
this
very
vividly
because
councilmember
Albarado
said
that
the
city
had
not
treated
her
district
well
that
they
had
been
the
place
where
quality
buildings
poorly
designed
projects
were
crammed
onto
unsuitable
sites
without
any
regard
for
the
residential
neighborhoods
or
the
residents
themselves,
and
she
asked
me
if
I
would
commit
to
stop
approving
that
kind
of
development.
If
I
would
guarantee
her,
basically
the
Planning
Department,
it
would
require
a
higher
standard
for
the
east
side
and
I
told
her
I
would.
C
Because
I
had
already
gotten
the
same,
had
the
same
discussion
with
the
Director
of
Planning,
who
told
me
he'd
already
made
that
same
commitment.
So
I'm
asking
you
what's
gonna,
go
on
this
site
and
will
it
be
a
quality
development
designed
appropriately
cramming
a
lot
of
one
bedroom
studio
apartments
on
to
this
tiny
site
could
be
a
blight
or
it
could
be
a
great
opportunity
for
affordable
housing
and
it
in
a
city
that
needs
it.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
you
commit
to
this
being
a
high
quality.
L
L
That
was
now
the
city
general
plan.
Envision
2040
has
standards
that
require
high
quality
development
throughout
the
city,
whether
it's
in
the
east
side
of
the
south
side
or
in
my
own
neighborhood
of
Willow
Glen
or
my
own,
wherever
I
live
at
number
one
number
two
is:
we
have
design
guidelines
that
have
been
around
for
a
while,
but
are
being
updated
by
the
Planning
Department
that
are
going
to
require
quality
development
to
occur
on
the
site.
L
I
think
the
question
about
whether
they're
Studios
or
whether
they're
one-bedrooms
is
really
a
question
to
be
asked
and
answered
in
the
future
relative
to
what
is
the
market
again.
If
you
go
back
to
the
issue
of
affordable
housing,
affordable
housing
can
be
done
in
the
ways
like
first
community
housing,
for
example,
I'm
a
board
member
of
first
community
housing.
L
You
can
do
that
type
housing
or
you
can
do
private
sector
housing,
that's
simply
done
by
the
private,
financed
independently
and
privately
and
and
the
units
are
sized
appropriate
to
the
market
conditions
out
there
so
I'm
guessing
that
it
be
a
combination
of
one-bedrooms,
perhaps
a
couple
of
two
bedrooms
and
some
studios.
The
interesting
part
of
that
question
for
me
comes
down
to
how
many
units
can
we
achieve
on
the
site.
If
we
can
achieve
30
units
on
the
site,
then
you
have
flexibility
about
the
mix
of
units.
L
If
you
can
achieve
15
on
the
site,
you
don't
you're,
probably
going
to
have
you
know
fewer
two
bedrooms
and
more
studios,
and
so
that's
the
issue
that
we're
going
to
have
to
try
to
figure
out
as
we
move
forward.
I
assume
that
I
might
be
involved
in
that
as
it
goes
forward,
but
without
this
particular
action
tonight
we
can't
even
move
forward
with
that,
but
I
appreciate
your
question.
Thank
you
and.
C
I
appreciate
your
answer:
the
size
of
the
units
will
be
critical
and
don't
small
units
don't
mean
a
low-quality
project
correct,
but
another
old,
councilmember,
Joe,
head
used
to
say
good
design
doesn't
have
to
be
expensive.
It
just
has
to
be
done
right
so
and
the
residential
design
guidelines
certainly
do
give
us
a
starting
point.
But
yes,.
I
A
E
We
can
figure
that
out.
Let
me
get
to
this
to
the
applicant.
Please.
So
I
walked
your
site
this
morning,
as
I
lived
about
15
minutes
from
the
site
and
I
always
have
to
make
that
right
on
North,
Capitol
and
I
see
it
every
day,
so
I
understand
how
awkward
it
is,
but
I
think
to
piggyback
off
of
what
Commissioner
Yancey
was.
L
Have
we
have
not
engaged
the
community
at
this
point
in
time?
I
will
just
tell
you
personally
typically,
when
we're
talking
about
general
plan
amendments
on
small
sites
where
we're
not
we're
not
making
kind
of
substantial
density
changes.
In
this
particular
case,
we
are,
you
might
define
as
a
sense
of
dance,
will
change
from
commercial
to
residential
right,
but
as
I
described
before
whether
we
have
a
one
level
of
residential
on
a
podium
where
we
have
office
on
a
podium
as
a
practical
matter.
L
There's
not
much
of
a
difference
there,
and
the
other
component
of
that
we're
usually
talking
with
communities
about
is
additional
traffic.
Excess
accessibility
in
this
particular
case,
it's
more
than
likely.
If
something
occurs
on
this
site,
it's
going
to
use
the
first
ground
floor,
as
is
it'll,
be
repaved,
but
the
driveways
will
be
reused,
there'll
be
a
podium
above
it
and
then
structure
above
that.
L
So,
needless
to
say,
once
we
get
into
a
planned
development
zoning,
that's
the
time
when
many
developers
and
their
representatives
are
fully
engaging
the
community
and
how
do
we
design
something
that
doesn't
look
down
on
their
backyards?
We're
always
very
sensitive
to
that.
We've
done
a
little
site
planning
on
that.
We
know
we
can
do
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
but
direct
answers,
your
question
always
have
it
haven't
done
any
outreach?
Yes,
then,.
E
A
G
G
L
No
opportunity
to
do
that
because
you
don't
have
enough
parking
on
the
site.
You
know
if
you
took
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
are
out
right
now
done
the
analysis.
You
could
probably
do
about
six
thousand
square
feet
of.
Let's
use
the
word
office
instead
of
commercial.
That's
about
how
big
you
could
make
it
and
tell
you,
as
the
triangle
gets
to
a
certain
size,
you
wouldn't
develop
a
building
there,
because
it's
no
there's
no
space,
for
you
know
hallways
in
a
room
or
something.
So
it's
about
six
six,
six
thousand
square
feet.
L
If
you
took
that
same
kind
of
six
thousand
square
foot,
first
floor
space
and-
and
you
know
made
it
into
you-
know-
let's
go,
let's
call
it
five
to
six
to
seven
hundred
square
foot
units
you
can
you
can
do
the
math
it
gets,
it
gets
I!
Think
it's
a
little
easier.
The
other
thing
about
it
is
that
we
can
again
we
developed
a
little
plan.
I
can't
show
it
to
you
because
in
reality
the
environmental
review
process
kind
of
almost
prohibits
me
from
doing
that.
L
Prohibits
you
from
considering
it
as
I
showed
it
to
you
so
well,
I'm
kind
of
at
a
I'm
at
a
point
where
I
I
know
what
I've
done
and
looked
at
this
okay,
but
I
can't
I
can
only
describe
it
to
you.
But
when
you
shape
residential
you
can
you
can
move
it
further
away
from
the
residential
to
the.
Let's
call
it
the
east-
and
you
can
do
things
like
put
the
the
walkway
on
the
first
floor
so
that
the
units
aren't
facing
into
the
backyard
of
the
units
that
are
there.
E
A
E
At
that
to
the
applicant
there
you
go,
I
mean
I
gave
you
the
look
that
gave
you
the
look
so
for
my
own
edification
here.
So
the
concern
for
some
is,
you
would
want
to
work
around
the
ability
for
people
living
up
top
to
be
able
to
look
down
the
apartment,
correct
and
then
you've
got
folks
on
the
other
side.
Looking
towards
the
cemetery
feels
like
a
stretch,
I
get
what
you
want
to
do.
I've
seen
that
property.
It
feels
like
a
stretch
to
me.
It
feels
squeezed.
E
It
feels
like
you're
trying
to
do
a
bit
of
gymnastics
here
to
make
it
work
and
I
can
understand
why,
if
I
were
the
property
owner,
I
would
as
well,
but
to
me
for
looking
at
small
units
if
we're
looking
at
it
just
feels
like
a
stretch
to
be
given
the
facts
for
in
front
of
me
right
now,
so
I
guess.
My
question
now
is
to
the
city
attorney,
and
this
is
where
I
can
acknowledge
for
the
record
I'm
sure
if
some
people
will
enjoy
this
as
a
rookie.
E
B
B
Might
also
know
that
this
general
plan
will
not
take
effect
until
the
effective
date
of
a
rezoning
for
the
reason
there's
a
new
state
law
that
requires
consistency
with
of
charter
cities,
the
zoning
with
the
general
plan,
so
that's
new
to
us,
but
that
means
that
every
application
that
you
have
now
will
also
be
required
to
have
the
rezoning
with
it.
These
were
already
in
process,
so
there
were
two
of
them
tonight,
Valley
Christian,
and
this
one
that
have
that
provision.
B
So
they
will
be
back
for
a
rezoning
as
well,
and
you
can
consider
more
detail
at
that
point
as
well.
If
the
rezoning
doesn't
go
through,
the
general
plan
doesn't
take
effect.
John.
Thank
you,
but
but
again
both
of
those
are
recommendations
to
the
City
Council,
because
they're
both
legislative
act,
okay,.
L
We
have
no.
We
have
no
right
to
a
planned
development,
zoning
approval,
it's
a
discretionary
approval
and
you
could
recommend
denial
and
the
City
Council
if
it
agreed
with
the
Commission,
would
recommend
it
and-
and
our
opportunity
then,
would
be
to
come
back,
try
again
with
a
different
project
until
we
got
it
right.
Thank.
E
K
B
Usually
but
I'm
also
not
an
expert
at
eminent
domain
law,
so
you
know
I,
don't
I,
don't
run
that
so
I
don't
know
what
we
have
paid,
for
example
in
the
past
for
Park
you,
you
know
for
parkland
and
for
other
types
of
land
like
that.
It
just
depends,
and
obviously
this
would
be
difficult,
but
you
know
I,
but
a
lot
of
times
its
highest
and
best
use.
But
it's
also
based
upon
general
plan
designation
and
zoning.
It
depends
arguments
be
made
either
way.
I.
L
A
M
No
Landon
is
last
name,
so
I
live
right
there
on
Avenue,
a
looking
at
Avenue
a
on
Paula,
so
that
area
is
very
heavily
impacted
with
a
lot
of,
let's
just
say:
multi
families
living
in
some
of
those
houses,
not
necessarily
legally
so
there's
a
very
high
amount
of
traffic
on
that
roadway,
and
you
know
I've
sent
a
lot
of
stuff
to
Magdalena
Carrasco,
which
is
our
councilmember
for
that
area.
Asking
when
are
they
gonna
fix
this
road?
M
We
report
potholes
all
the
time,
there's
no
curbs
or
gutters
for
the
most
part,
Avenue
B,
which
is
the
next
section
down
all
the
soils
are
exposed,
and
it
just
looks
like
a
big
muddy
mess
when
it
starts
to
rain.
So
the
whole
area
kind
of
needs
a
little
bit
of
revamp,
especially
the
commercial
project
or
the
commercial
property
right
there
at
the
end
of
Paula,
their
parking
extends
into
Paula,
so
I've
actually
been
hit
there
because
people
there
just
start
moving
before
they
even
look
back.
M
That's
kind
of
what
I'm
afraid
is
gonna
happen
if
this
is
developed
at
all.
All
that
Park
is
gonna
impact,
my
street,
because
there's
no
parking
on
Capital,
it's
two-lane
already.
Some
of
the
residents
that
live
a
little
bit
further
down,
have
blocked
the
road
they
just
put
cones
out
and
block
a
lane
when
they're
moving
in
and
out
with
their
vehicles,
because,
like
I
said
some
of
those
houses
have
a
lot
of
families
living
in
them.
M
So
I
don't
want
to
see
any
type
of
residential
or
anything
happening
there
unless
it
is
just
a
parking
lot,
that's
that's
kind
of
what
it
should
be
used
for
a
exhilerating
made
for
that
neighborhood
until
the
housing
stuff
is
figured
out,
but
the
viability
of
putting
anything
there
too,
restricts
it.
Just
to
the
section
next
to
Avenue,
a
people
are
gonna
want
to
park
right
there
when
they're
having
friends
over
it's
gonna
impact
all
that
no
one's
gonna
have
anywhere
to
park.
M
K
M
K
K
M
M
So
yeah
yeah
they
close
that
at
five
o'clock.
So
when
I
get
off
work,
I
have
no
park
to
access
the
school
around
the
corner.
They
lock
all
their
gates
when
schools
closed,
so
there's
no
parks.
You
know
miles
from
this
location,
some
of
the
sidewalks
right
they're,
actually
a
little
bit
beyond
north
of
Avenue
a
aren't,
even
the
new
ad,
a
complaint
yep.
You
know.
M
K
A
We
have
no
other
speaker
cards
and
so
at
this
point,
I
wanted
to
invite
the
applicant
back
up
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
He
is
shaking
his
head
yeah,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
ask
my
fellow
commissioners
if
they
have
any
questions
for
staff
or
would
like
to
put
a
motion
on
the
floor.
A
E
A
F
F
F
E
Thank
you
for
that.
If
I
may
continue,
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
vote
in
support
of
the
motion,
I
think
if
candidly
to
the
applicant,
if
you
can
make
this
project
work,
then
the
city
should
hire
you
to
solve
all
of
our
housing
issues,
because
that
is
truly
truly
gymnastics
to
make
that
work.
On
the
one
hand,
you've
got
residents
that
don't
want
to
be
looked
down
into
there.
You
know
folks,
looking
into
their
yard.
E
On
the
other
hand,
you've
got
residents
who
have
a
beautiful
view
of
a
cemetery
within
a
very
compact
and
clearly
we
all
agree
very
awkwardly
shaped
site
now.
I
do
agree
with
Commissioner
Olivera
that
private
property
rights
something
needs
to
be
there.
I
just
don't
see
how
works
there.
I
live
there
15
minutes
every
day.
I
have
to
make
that
right.
I
see
it
I,
don't
like
that.
E
It's
a
parking
lot,
I'd
love
to
see
something
there
I,
just
don't
see
housing
being
that
there
that
that
item,
given
some
of
the
community
issues
as
well,
that
I
think
you're
absolutely
going
to
run
into
once.
That
project
takes
would
take
that
next
step.
If
this
body
feels
it
needs
to
happen
so
I
for
that
reasonable
vote
against
Commissioner
Allen's
motion.
D
Yeah
I
just
had
a
quick
question
for
staff
Herman.
The
applicant
may
possibly
answer
again
as
far
as
ownership
of
the
property
is
there
something
that
was
VTA's
and
then
was
purchased
by
the
private
property
owners.
Who
was
never
in
the
city
never
considered
Virginia,
so
from
beatbeat
eav
Jennifer
never
offered
it.
There's
no
I
know
there
are
policies
for
schools,
you
know
if
they
have
surplus
land,
that's
been
open
space,
they
are
required
to
offer
it
to
a
public
agency,
but
since
this
wasn't
open
space
before
and
that
doesn't
apply
I'm
guessing.
D
D
Honestly,
that's
two
points
that
have
been
made
already
as
far
as
and
actually
to
Commissioner
bonitas
point
the
gymnastics
that
will
take
to
develop
something
here.
That's
viable
fits
the
neighborhood
and
meets
all
their
concerns,
is
gonna,
be
pretty
significant,
so
I'm
actually
completely
inclined
to
allow
the
the
applicant
to
try
their
best,
but
I
do
think
you
know
if
we
could
go
back
and
in
a
perfect
world
just
claim
this
site.
D
It
would
be
a
perfect
little
spot
for
a
pocket
park,
but
at
this
point,
I
just
like
to
see
something
there
period,
because
it's
right
now
it's
just
taking
up
space
and
it
is
right
on
a
light
rail
line.
This
is
very
much
different
from
the
previous
property.
We
just
examine
under
7a,
so
I
think
that
in
this
case,
while
it
is
also
an
awkward
space,
I
think
that,
though
the
prevailing
policies
that
it
that
it
supports
outweigh
the
negatives.
So
that's
why
I
made
the
motion
and
I
don't
have
any
else
to
say.
D
A
Wanted
to
ask
a
question
of
staff,
and
that
is,
if
you
were
to
put
on
your
your
most
creative
set
of
glasses,
to
look
at
this
sight
through
and
knowing
the
neighborhood
context
and
the
community
our
needs
as
a
city,
the
transportation
context
here,
I
mean
what
would
you
say
we
can
do
and
would
be
good
or
the
city
in
this
community
on
this
site.
I.
I
Mean
I
think
for
the
proposal
again
we
we
had
to
look
and
we
don't
control
what
is
proposed
when
it's
a
private
applicant
like
this.
That
was,
you
know
that
we
we
analyzed
the
proposal
that
was
submitted
so
yeah
the
site
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
difficult
site
and
that
that
obviously
factored
into
our
analysis,
I
mean
I.
Think
you
know,
the
idea
of
a
park
came
up
a
couple
times.
I
think
you
know
that
certainly
could
make
sense
at
this
location.
A
F
So
we
have
the
standard
outreach
with
the
whole.
This
project
was
a
thousand
feet
around
and
we
also
outreach
to
the
council
district
office,
who
are
more
involved
for
the
community
leadership,
and
it's
almost
very
fair
I
represented
reach
out
to
me
understand
what's
going
on,
and
we
explained
it
was
a
general
plan
amendment
and
they
just
left
add
that
they
just
the
community
members
were
more
of
concerning
they
to
understand
what
it
was
versus.
There's
no
actual
development
here
and
the
conversations
thought
there.
Oh.
L
K
Vacant
parcel
in
any
council
district,
regardless
of
zip
code.
There
will
be
individuals
that
live
in
that
community
who
want
nothing
to
change
with
that
piece
of
land,
because
that's
what
they're
used
to
and
the
dilemma
is
to
us
and
the
planning
staff.
You
know
what
is
acceptable.
I
mean.
If
you
look
at
the
lot,
we've
obviously
discussed
it.
It's
an
odd
lot,
very
narrow.
You
know.
Maybe
if
it's
two
houses
I
mean
ultimately
the
value
of
that
property
is
it's
up
to.
You
know
a
formal
approval
on
what
could
actually
go.
K
There
Commissioner
Allen's
comment
when
the
VTA
provided
it,
it
was
provided
to
all
public
agencies
and
somewhere
along
the
line.
The
city
of
San
Jose
chose
to
not
procure
it,
but
times
can
change
and
with
the
applications
that
are
coming
down
the
pipe
on
a
long,
Alan
rock
that
could
potentially
produce
a
generous
amount
of
park
fees.
There
may
be
more
flexibility
for
that,
but
those
are
those
are
unknowns.
K
Ultimately,
for
us
you
know
if
no
one
likes
any
structure
on
there,
then
we're
all
in
trouble
right
I
mean
the
current
zoning
would
allow
you
to
do
something,
but
but
it's
not
possible
because
so
then
it's
to
us
should
they
be
allowed
to
make
a
go
at
it
versus
being
a
surface
parking
lot.
I'd
imagine
being
a
surface
parking
lot
also
comes
with
its
issues
because
you
might
have
potential
loitering
and
those
types
of
things
which
could
happen
in
a
park
or
a
parking
lot
or
in
a
street
corner.
Those
things
happen
anywhere.
K
So
you
know
it's
been
said
often
that
nothing's
getting
approved
unless
it's
good,
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
a
empty
lot
is
a
desirable
thing
for
a
city,
so
I
think
ultimately
I'm
inclined
to
support
them
to
make
a
go
at
it
and
then
see
what
that
is,
but
I
think
you,
the
applicant,
is
heard
from
the
Commission
hesitancy
or
or
caution.
So
you
have
to
go
into
this
with
that
understanding
that
level
of
risk
right,
so
I'll
support
the
motion.
G
So
I
want
to
kind
of
second,
the
comment
of
Krishna
Oliverio
I
feel
like
the
applicant
and
owner
here.
Really
bottom
line
shouldn't
be
saddled
with
a
land
use,
designation,
that's
infeasible
for
development
and
what
I'm
hearing
from
staff
and
the
applicant
is
that
really
neighborhood
community
kershel
is
not
feasible
on
this
property,
and
so
the
question
is
what
is
going?
G
What
can
go
there
because
we
don't
want
to
prohibit
all
development
and,
as
Krishna
Oliverio
expressed
I,
don't
think
that
it
is
and
anyone's
best
interest
to
have
a
vacant
land
unless
it's
a
truly
public
space
like
a
park.
But
it's
not
it's
privately
held
property
at
this
point
in
terms
of
the
concerns
about
what
can
go,
there
I
think
we
focused
on
a
densification,
but
if
we
actually
look
at
the
the
massing
overall
mass
of
the
buildings
allowable
under
neighborhood
community
commercial,
it
allows
a
far
up
to
3.5
under
the
mixed
use.
G
Neighborhood
it
it
has
a
maximum
of
2.0.
So,
under
a
neighborhood
concerns
of
a
giant
Tower,
theoretically
feasibility
of
construction
and
permitting
you
actually
could
have
a
greater
mass
under
the
existing
designation
and
under
the
proposed
designation,
and
the
other
aspect
of
the
proposed
designation
is
that
it
contains
a
provision
that
the
intent
is
to
preserve
existing
character
of
neighborhoods
and
district
limit
new
development
to
infill
projects
which
conform
to
the
existing
neighborhood
character.
G
So
there
are
some
protections
built
into
the
mixed
use,
neighborhood,
along
with
the
flexibility
along
with
a
smaller
overall
mass
that
would
be
allowed
that
really
could
actually
meet
better
meet
the
needs
of
the
neighborhood.
So
for
that
reason,
I
would
be
supporting
the
proposed
general
plan.
Amendment.
A
So,
thank
you.
I
have
another
question
for
staff.
Can
you,
maybe
you
don't
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
can
you
give
a
sense
and
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
comments,
so
this
is
a
weird
oddly
shaped
parcel
in
a
strange
place,
and
so
that's
why
I
was
asking
like
what
in
an
ideal
world.
But
what
could
you
do
here?
A
What
would
how
do
you
see
this
site
developing
in
a
way
that
would
benefit
the
city
in
the
community,
the
immediate
community,
because
I'm
hard
pressed
I'm
looking
at
the
second
I'm
like
what
do
you
do
here
other
than
a
park
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
comment
on
if
we
are
to,
if
we
were
to
support
this
general
plan
amendment?
How
does
that
change
the
value
of
the
land?
Does
it
increase
the
value
of
the
land?
Does
it
decrease
the
value
of
the
land?
I
Guess
it
would
depend
probably
a
better
question
for
a
property
assessor,
but
I
mean
this.
I
could
just
say
that
the
proposed
land
use
designation
would
allow
a
wider
range
of
uses
than
what
currently
could
be
allowed
and
give
just
broadly,
given
that
residential
is
typically
going
to
be
more
valuable
than
commercial,
it
would
seem
that
the
the
value
of
the
property
could
be
greater
than
the
current
designation,
but
but
I
can't,
you
know,
speak
specifically
on
that.
It
would
depend
on
an
assessment
of
the
property
both
with
the
current
and
proposed
I
mean.
A
So
I'm
also
wondering
if
you
can
comment
on
the
so
if
we
were
to
build,
you
know
30
homes,
to
the
acre
on
this
site,
as
was
potentially
suggested,
all
that
that
that's
probably
on
the
high
end
of
something
that
would
be
possible.
Can
you
comment
a
little
bit
and
know
we're
getting
ahead
of
ourselves
but
I?
I
A
It's
a
risk
now
now
now
they're
seeking
a
general
plan
amendment
to
be
able
to
do
something
with
a
sight
and
so
I'm
inclined
to
oppose
the
motion,
given
that
you
know
it
could
potentially
increase
the
value
of
the
land
and
I
just
I.
Guess
I
just
want
to
give
the
council
one
more
opportunity
to
say.
Maybe
we
could
purchase
this
ice
as
a
park.
K
D
A
A
I
B
D
D
A
E
A
J
Okay,
there's
a
lot
on
here.
I
know
they
don't
like
there's
two
historic
landmark
designations
and
and
Mills
act
contracts
were
approved
by
the
City
Council,
including
five
homes
in
Martin,
Avenue
and
Hensley,
historic
district
or
historic
area
neighborhood,
as
well
as
a
house,
the
soozee
soozee
Windsor
and
Susie
Goodenough
house
at
1725,
Dry,
Creek,
Road,
I,
don't
know
anything
about
these
properties,
but
I'm.
Very
intrigued.
I
wanted
research
more.
J
There,
the
council
also
approved
our
quarterly
zoning
code,
ordinance
amendments
which
you
guys
heard
not
that
long
ago,
including
Adu
provisions,
the
council
approved
with
the
memorandum
from
fully
approving
a
memorandum
with
fully
as
well
of
conventional
rezoning
and
conditions
permit
for
a
property
located
on
Union
Avenue.
This
is
the
belmont
Village
project.
J
Yet
passed
and
then
yesterday
was
housing
day.
There
was
five
items
in
the
agenda
I
had
to
leave
after
the
first
two,
there
was
the
cost
of
development
item
and
that
passed
staff
recommendation
passed.
It
was
9,
0
or
11,
assuming
everyone
voted
forward,
except
Perales
10-1
and
the
the
sort
of
takeaway
from
that
was
it's
still.
In
most
cases,
not
the
rents
are
not
high
enough
to
cover
the
cost
of
construction
to
build
and
most
of
San
Jose
except
West
San
Jose.
J
That
staff
recommendation
passed
on
that
there
was
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
proposed
revisions.
That
was
that
was
approved
and
I
won't
get
into
the
details
of
that,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
on
that
one,
as
well
as
the
ellice
tax
and
and
once
again
they
didn't
weren't
approving
changes
to
the
the
inclusionary
impact
ordinance
or
also
the
Ellis
act.
They
were
seeking
direction
and
it
will
be
coming
back
to
council
with
actual
changes
at
a
later
date,
but
staff
proposed
Ellis
Act
changes
in
that.
J
J
J
A
A
A
B
Include
we
can
amend
to
include
these
Corrections
on
item.
Let
me
see
7b,
beginning
on
page
four
of
six
and
continuing
on
to
five
of
six.
There
is
the
motion
included,
a
change
that
was
handed
out
by
staff
at
the
time,
and
it's
not
reflected
here.
I,
don't
have
it
with
me
this
evening,
but
we
need
to
add
that
so,
with
your
permission,
we'll
just
get
what
staff
handed
out
and
added
second
item
7b
on
page
4.
B
Additionally,
if
you
take
a
look
where,
where
the
item
begins,
there
are
two
items.
First,
it
talks
about
the.
Let
me
see
this
the
special
use
permit.
Then
it
has
two
options
under
the
tentative
map
permit.
The
first
option
is
not
reflected
on
the
next
page
in
terms
of
what
was
approved.
It
only
includes
option
two
and
not
option
one.
So
it
needs
to
repeat
the
language
that
option.
B
One
is
one
parcel
to
be
resub
divided
into
no
more
than
295
condominium
units
and
it
should
say
residential
condominium
units
in
both
sections,
including
a
maximum
of
okay,
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
this
means.
Okay,
excuse
me
no
more
than
295
condominium
units,
including
a
maximum
of
290
residential
condominium
units
and
a
maximum
of
five
commercial
condominium
units,
so
that
first
option
needs
to
be
reflected
again
on
page
5
of
6,
where
we
talk
about
the
action
relating
to
the
vesting
tentative
map,
an
added
so
with
those
Corrections.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
A
J
J
The
Planning
Commission
retreat
is
on
the
more
and
of
November
22nd
and
the
main
item
that
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
with
Commission
is
the
plethora
or
laundry
list
of
state
legislation
related
to
housing.
So
Martina
and
Vera
will
be
sharing
that
with
you,
it's
kind
of
rocking
our
world
on
many
different
levels
and
will
it'll
be
a
very
fun
conversation
and
in
a
jaw-dropping
conversation
also,
we
will
be
touring
the
2nd
Street,
2nd
Street
Studios.
J
G
J
B
J
A
D
I'm
just
pointing
out
that
in
the
Planning
Commission
agenda,
page
7,
I'm,
Torri,
page
8
or
12-
it
always
contains
our
schedule
for
the
rest
of
the
year
and
it
notes
that
Planning
Commission
retreat
in
T
332
at
8
a.m.
on
the
22nd.
So
whatever
needs
to
be
updated
or
clarified.
There
should
also
be
reflected
in
that.
Okay.