►
From YouTube: MAR 23, 2022 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2022.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=952382&GUID=73CB8273-C96E-46F7-BE7A-778389832683
A
A
B
All
right
good
evening,
my
name
is
rolando
bonilla
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
san
jose
planning
commission.
Welcome
to
the
planning
commission
meeting.
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
covet
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
may
also
view
and
listen
to
the
meeting
on
live
stream,
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube
following
roll
call.
During
summary
of
hearing
procedure,
we
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
comment
during
today's
session.
B
Torrance
young
here
let
the
record
reflect
that
at
the
moment,
montenegro
and
torrance
are
not
at
the
meeting
that
may
change
as
we
move
forward
summary
of
hearing
procedures.
The
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows:
after
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
applicants
and
appellants
may
make
a
five
minute
presentation.
B
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identify
the
items
they
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
click,
star
9
on
your
phone,
or
you
may
call
408,
535-3505
or
email
planning,
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
item
or
items
you
would
like
to
speak
on,
as
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
B
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony.
The
applicant
and
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
response
to
commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
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
to
have
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land
you
just
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.
B
The
planning
commission's
action
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400
of
the
municipal
code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protest
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
pre-zonings.
B
B
C
Okay,
we
have
one
hand
raised
william
christensen.
You
have
one
minute
to
speak.
D
Hi,
my
name
is
william
christensen
and
I'd
like
to
speak
on
I'd
like
to
speak
regarding
r1
zoning
within
san
jose.
D
I
believe
that
the
current
situation
within
within
san
jose
is
is
appalling,
given
the
fact
that
r1
zoning
is
currently
causing
a
housing
crisis
across
the
us,
and
I
think
that,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
as
as
a
city
hoping
to
be
the
capital
of
of
silicon
valley,
that
we
have
a
responsibility
to
create
a
mixed
use,
walkable
neighborhood,
so
that
those
with
disabilities
can
actually
live
in
san
jose
on
a
reasonable
and
on
a
reasonable
income.
D
If,
if
I
understand,
I
only
have
one
minute
so
I
do
not
I'm
not
able
to
create
my
full,
my
full
my
full
statement
here,
but
I
will
return
during
the
next
meeting
to
give
further
insight
into
this
issue.
If
it
is
not
placed
on
the
docket,
I
hope
it
will
be.
If
there
are
any
questions,
please
let
me
know
if
I
have
any
time
left
I'll
give
it
to
you
guys.
B
E
F
G
H
C
Sorry
to
interrupt
steph
actually
recommended
to
defer
or
re-notice
to
april
27th.
Oh,
it
does
say
on
the
agenda
the
13th,
but
they
had
asked
to
move
it
to
april.
27Th
is.
B
B
C
B
I
Can
I
just
make
a
statement?
I've
been
like
on
pause
waiting
to
be
let
in
for
the
last,
like
five
minutes.
B
Well,
thank
you
for
joining
our
meeting,
commissioner
montana.
Sorry
about
that.
No
that's!
Okay
and.
B
Okay,
I
understand
commissioners:
did
you
want
to
pull
something
from
the
consent
calendar?
Am
I
correct.
A
Yes,
you
are
correct.
I
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
pull
off
the
consent.
Calendar
cp21-018
I'd
like
to
discuss
that
item.
B
A
J
B
It
was
caballero.
E
Okay
and
who
abstains
were
bonilla
and.
B
K
K
This
is
patrick
kelly,
supervising
planner,
overseeing
the
review
of
this
project,
and
the
project
involves
establishment
of
a
delivery
van
storage
facility
which
includes
restriping
and
landscaping
of
the
existing
site,
as
well
as
installation
of
an
on-site
hydrogen
fuel
cell
generator
and
hydrogen
storage
tank
for
the
purpose
of
charging.
The
electric
vehicles
on
the
site.
K
The
generator
and
facilities
will
be
required
to
comply
with
a
fire
code
and
must
be
operated
in
accordance
with
the
national
fire
protection
association
and
fire
code.
Operation
regulations
also
requires
a
hazardous
materials
permit
from
the
fire
department.
The
facility
overall
vehicle
storage
facility
will
operate
from
9
am
to
10
pm
daily.
K
The
project
includes
a
request
for
reduced
12
and
a
half
foot
setback
along
the
shared
residential
property
line
as
measured
to
the
edge
of
the
parking
pavement
and
the
reduced
setback
may
be
approved.
If
the
decision
maker
determines
it
will
have
no
greater
negative
effect
on
the
residential
property
than
the
standard.
K
25-Foot
setback
staff
recommends
the
reduced
setback
be
approved
because
the
project
includes
measures
to
minimize
impacts
that
would
make
it
just
as
effect
as
as
effective
as
a
25-foot
setback,
and
this
includes
a
seven
foot
concrete
block
wall
along
the
boundary
which
will
keep
any
noise
from
the
operation
from
exceeding
the
55
decibel
limit
at
residential
boundaries
and
a
maximum
of
eight
feet
in
height
for
the
adjacent
light
fixtures
adjacent
to
the
boundary.
K
The
reason
for
the
request
is
to
allow
for
the
required
size
for
the
delivery
van
spaces,
as
well
as
an
increased
aisle
width,
which
is
larger
than
typical
for
a
standard
passenger
vehicle
and
without
this
reduced
setback.
The
row
of
parking
along
the
residential
boundary
couldn't
be
included
with
the
project,
and
so
with
this,
the
measures
included
to
reduce
impacts
to
the
same
degree,
25
foot
setback,
wood
staff
is
recommending.
K
K
B
Let
me
go
ahead
and
do
that
let's
allow
the
applicant
actually,
let's
allow
for
any
public
comment
on
this
item.
I
believe
there
wasn't
any
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
ask
again
jen.
Do
we
see
anyone.
C
Yes,
we
do
have
two
hands
raised,
we
have
sandra
cassolino
chair.
Are
we
doing
still
one
minute
or
two
minutes
per
speaker.
B
Let's
keep
it
in
a
minute.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
Hi,
how
are
you
I
was
talking
about
the
trees
that
are
on
the
property
that
you
folks
are
going
to
be
removing,
and
I
was
concerned
about
the
two
eucalyptus
trees
that
are
in
the
center
of
the
property
and
they're
way
over
100
years
old.
Also
they
are
homes
to
a
family
of
red-tailed
shark
cox
and
just
wanted
to
clarify
the
status
on
those
trees
and
regarding
the
list
that
are
living
apart
now,.
C
C
Yeah
I
was
concerned
about
the
trees,
as
I
mentioned.
Did
you
hear
me
about
the
trees
we.
C
Okay
and
the
homeless,
regarding
that
are
on
the
property.
There's
a
hey
sandra
sorry
about
that.
Your
time
is
up.
Next,
we
have
patrick.
C
Okay,
I
am
a
muting,
the
applicant
team
now
so
they
should
be
able
to
emit
their
device
and
begin
to
speak
when
they
want
to
begin.
L
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
to
the
planning
commission
for
for
hearing
our
presentation
this
evening.
We're
talking
about
a
facility
at
1675
monterey
road.
It
is
proposed
as
an
off-site
parking
facility
for
amazon,
specifically
related
to
the
dxc8
delivery
station.
The
site
is
6.45
acres,
zoned,
heavy
industrial,
it's
in
the
heavy
industrial
district
fronts
on
monterey,
road
and
and
pomona
is
currently
a
5300
square
foot
vacant
warehouse
building
on
the
site.
L
That's
planned
for
for
demolition,
the
as
was
mentioned
there.
It
is
going
to
be
a
van
storage
facility.
The
vans
are
typical:
amazon
delivery
vehicles.
They
are
larger
than
you
know:
conventional
vans.
The
parking
stalls
are
dimensioned
at
11
11
feet
by
27
feet.
The
drive
aisles
are,
are
32
feet
wide
to
enable
maneuverability,
you
know
into
the
stalls
and
so
yeah
the
the
larger
vehicles
do
require
a
a
larger
footprint
for
for
parking.
L
We
have
a
total
of
360
parking
stalls
proposed
at
the
site
about
151
vans
will
will
be
utilizing
the
site
operationally.
What
will
happen
is
that
drivers
will
drive
their
personal
vehicles
to
the
site
they'll
park,
their
personal
vehicles
get
out
and
go
to
the
their
assigned
van
for
the
day.
L
Take
the
van
go
to
the
delivery
station,
pick
up
their
packages,
make
deliveries
and
and
then
ultimately
return.
The
van
back
to
the
site
for
and
then
pick
up
their
their
personal
vehicle
and
leave,
as
was
earlier
mentioned.
Hours
of
operation,
will
be
6
p.m.
To
9
p.m.
There
will
be
amazon
is,
is
planning
to
electrify
the
the
site
with
chargers
these
will
be,
there
will
be
74.
L
Electric
vehicles
incorporated
into
the
van
fleet
and
and
to
those
chargers
will
be
hooked
up
to
the
to
the
power
grid.
You
know
that's
in
place
in
san
jose
there,
but
in
addition
to
that,
with
amazon's
commitment
to
lower
carbon
footprint
and
and
commitment
to
green
energy,
they
are
instituting
a
hydrogen
fuel
cell
that
will
convert
hydrogen
that
will
be
brought
into
the
site
and
stored
in
a
tank
and
converted
into
electricity
for
use
charging
the
vehicles.
L
With
regard
to
the
landscaping,
we
saved
all
of
the
of
the
trees
that
were
possible,
given
our
given
our
layout
and
worked
very
hard
with
the
planning
commissions
or
with
the
the
planning
staff
to
to
beautify
the
the
site
with
with
various
new
trees.
There's
the
the
tree
replacement.
That
was
that's
required
due
to
the
the
removals
is
being
exceeded,
so
we
feel
good
about
the
landscape
plan.
L
We
we've
worked
very
diligently
to
to
satisfy
all
of
the
the
requirements
from
from
the
various
planning
commission
representatives
and
have
provided
a
some
renderings
that
I
hope
the
planning
commission
got
a
chance
to
to
view
that
that
identified
really
the
aesthetics
of
the
site
from
monterey
road.
You
know
which
we
hope
will
be
a
an
improvement
to
the
overall
community.
So
with
that
I'll
end,
my
presentation
respectfully
request
approval
of
our
conditional
use
permit.
B
G
Hear
me
we
can
hear
you
patrick,
hey,
good,
good
job,
all
right,
I'm
my
name
is
patrick
boulais.
I
work
for
a
company
called
glencore
recycling,
we're
located
just
to
the
south
of
the
property
where
it's
under
review.
Here
we
look
forward
to
having
somebody
in
there
since
pick
and
pose
last.
We've
had
problems
with
with
just
15
minutes
ago.
I
I
had
a
janitor
get
accosted
right
out
front
of
my
building,
but
some
mentally
challenged
person.
G
But
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
that's
happening
here
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
help
out
in
having
somebody
over
there,
and
I
I
I
sympathize
with
the
guy
who
called
about
the
the
tree
saying
that
this
is
where
the
homeless
people
are
living.
Now
I
I
get
it
but
we're
dealing
with
real
life
issues
here
on
my
end,
okay,
so
I
appreciate
the
wood
scout.
B
A
A
Of
course,
I
wanted
to
know
what
type
of
vehicles
were
being
used
there,
how
loud
the
engines
were
because,
where
I
live,
there's
a
church
right
behind
my
house
and
there's
a
parking
lot
and
it's
over
25
feet
away,
and
it's
still
not
far
enough.
A
So
I
couldn't
help
but
be
concerned
about
the
people
that
live
there,
because
I
I'm
concerned
for
for
the
children
and
for
the
families
that
live
there
and
for
their
safety,
and
so
I
did
review
the
site
plan
and
in
the
site
plan
there
was
an
area
where
I
saw
that
it
went
less
than
than
12.6
foot
distance
at
one
area
was
7.9,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
we
could
actually
pull
up
those
plans,
the
site
plan.
A
It
looked
like
on
the
bend,
there
was
some
areas
that
it
actually
got
reduced
and
I
wanted
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
the
hours
of
operation
looks
from
fro
based
on
the
staff
report.
It
was
from
9
00
a.m,
to
10
p.m,
and
so,
when
I'm
thinking
about
those
hours
of
operation,
for
you
know
the
community
and
people
that
have
children
and
families
that
live
there,
I
really
wanted
to
discuss
it
with
the
the
rest
of
the
commissioners
and
get
your
all
take.
This
is
heavy
industrial.
A
So,
if
anything,
these
are
the
I
mean.
Obviously,
residential
and
heavy
industrial
shouldn't
be
side
by
side,
but
in
this
case
they
are
so
that's
why
their
setbacks
put
in
place
to
preserve
and
protect
the
integrity
of
the
residents,
and
here
you're,
asking
for
a
setback
reduction
so
like?
Is
it
necessary,
see
that
7.9
there
in
the
8.6?
That's
what
I'm
referring
to
that
he
actually
it's
less
than
the
12.6,
and
so
you
know
yeah.
So
those
were
my
biggest
concerns.
A
Another
thing
that
I
noticed
was
that
it
had
order
portable
toilets
and
it
seems
like
there's
obviously
going
to
be
a
lot
of
workers
coming
in
and
out
of
the
facility
and
based
on
my
experience,
working
with
the
department
of
environmental
health,
portable
toilets
could
only
be
at
a
location
consecutively
for
three
days.
I
don't
understand
why
they're
not
putting
a
permanent
rest
restroom
for
the
workers,
because
it's
obviously
going
to
be
a
lot.
A
Another
thing
that
I
was
kind
of
concerned
about,
because
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
cars
coming
in
and
out,
was
there
a
traffic
study
done?
Was
there
any
mitigation
measures
to
mitigate
the
increase
in
traffic
coming
in
and
out
of
of
that
area,
because,
obviously
monterey
road
is
a
major
thorough
way
and
there's
been
some
accidents
there
and
in
fact
some
fatalities
that,
obviously
I
don't
want
to
see
any
more
of
those.
So
those
those
are
some
of
my
concerns.
A
If
there's
any
way
that
we
could
put
some
sort
of
condition
on
the
parking
spaces
that
abut
the
the
the
mobile
home
park
that
no
cars
should
park
there
from
seven,
you
know
p.m.
To
seven
a.m,
no
car
should
be
moved.
A
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what's
a
win-win,
to
allow
them
to
have
as
many
cars
as
possible,
but
yet
not
disturb
the
residents
next
door,
especially
since
you're
asking
for
an
encroachment-
and
you
know
it's
it's
it's-
you
know
much
less
than
the
25
foot
required
and
in
this
specific
area,
because
it's
heavy
industrial
I
mean,
of
course
I
would
prefer
that
it
would.
It
would
maintain
the
25
foot
for
the
integrity
of
those
neighbors.
A
Just
in
that
specific
area,
or
at
least
an
additional
condition
put
in
to
you
know,
so
there
be
less
noise
and
safety.
I
don't
want
no
car
running
close
into
that
area.
So
those
are
those
are
the
concerns
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
B
Thank
you
for
those
comments,
commissioner
staff.
Can
we
begin
to
answer
some
of
the
commissioner
unless
wise's
questions.
K
I'm
happy
to
do
that
with
regard
to
the
traffic
study.
There
was
a
traffic
study
done
and
also
I
may
allow
or
refer
some
of
the
questions
to
our
environmental
review
team,
who
is
also
here,
who
can
probably
best
answer
some
of
the
questions
with
regard
to
to
a
noise
and
potentially
maybe
some
details
about
the
traffic
study,
but
I'll
provide
some
summary
comments
here.
K
K
As
far
as
the
reduced
setback,
I
did
mention
in
the
beginning
of
the
presentation
that
the
it
is.
It
is
staff's
opinion
that
the
reduced
setback
is
compensated
for
by
the
wall
and
the
reduced
footlight
fixture
height
right
now,
there's
just
a
fence
separating
the
the
two
properties,
and
so
this
would
that
would
be
replaced
by
a
solid
seven
foot
block
wall
with
no
light
spillage
on
the
property.
K
Concerning
the
reduced
setback,
this
dimension,
the
eight
foot
dimension,
is
actually
only
a
measurement
to
the
edge
of
the
planter,
and
so
we
measure
the
set
back
to
the
edge
of
the
parking
lot.
So
I'm
not
sure
why
that
dimension
was
placed
there,
but
the
dimension
should
be
12
feet,
6
to
cover
the
whole
distance
between
the
wall
and
the
actual
edge
of
the
parking
lot.
K
With
regard
to
the
trees
that
were
cited,
the
trees
staff
believes
the
commenter
is
referring
to
trees
that
are
on
his
side
of
the
property,
which
is
this
side.
Here.
There
are
a
row.
There
are
some
eucalyptus
trees
that
are
not
on
the
project
site
that
the
project
is
not
removing,
so
those
are
going
to
be
those
aren't
going
to
be
touched
and
with
regard
to
the
portable
toilets,
restrooms
aren't
for
industrial
uses.
Aren't
something
that
are
regulated
by
the
zoning
code?
K
It's
a
building
code
requirement,
if
any,
if
restrooms
are
required
for
the
use,
and
that
would
be
through
the
building
code.
So
it's
just
not
something
that
the
zoning
code
code
covers
so
it.
But
that's
just
that's
just
regulatory
information.
The
applicant
certainly
can
address
any
of
those
concerns
in
ways
that
they
may
like
to
and
I'll
hand
it
off
to
our.
F
Thank
you,
I'm
pat,
I
had
a
question.
You
mentioned
that
the
dimensions
should
be
12
feet.
Six
inches
from
the
wall
to
the
parking
lot
is
that
incorrect
on
the
plan
set,
then.
K
No,
it's
because
the
dimension
here
is
measuring
from
the
wall
to
the
edge
of
the
planter
or
see
like
the
the
dimension
here
right
below
it,
measures
from
the
wall
to
the
edge
of
the
pavement.
So
this
is
correct,
but
it's
just
measuring
the
wrong
distance
or
not
the
distance
that
we
would
use
to
measure
the
setback.
F
K
K
We
can
actually
we
can
ask
the
applicant
to
dimension
that,
but
it's
visually
kind
of
eyeballing
it
it's
virtually
the
same
as
as
this.
It
might
be
a
few
inches
here
and
there
off,
but
not
to
a
point.
That
would
make
a
significant
difference,
but
we
could
certainly
require
that
that
be
added
to
the
plan
to
verify.
F
I
just
wanted
to
make
certain
that
that
distance
is
shown,
because
I'm
not
seeing
it
here
anywhere
and
and
if
that's
the
concern,
if
the
commission's
concern
was
that
I
believe
it
was
originally
only
eight
feet
that
they
thought
it
was
eight
feet.
But
it's
really
twelve
feet.
Six
inches,
that's
a
significant
difference,
so
it
should
be
shown
in
the
plan.
K
Yes,
and
what
I
said
was
that
the
distance
you
see
the
arrow
here,
this
points
to
the
inside
edge
of
the
planter
and
this
arrow
points
to
the
a
line
extending
from
the
wall.
This
measurement
is
measuring
this
distance.
It's
not
measuring
the
distance
from
the
wall
to
the
edge
of
the
parking
lot
like
this
distance
is
so
it's.
B
Thank
you
vera.
Well,
we'll
give
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
answer
some
of
commissioners
wise
questions.
Would
that
be
okay,
commissioner,
okay,
perfect,
we'll
go
ahead
and
have
the
applicant
answer
some
of
these
questions.
L
I'm
I'm
sorry,
I
was
muted
yeah,
I'm
back
so
yeah
with
regard
to
the
setback
you're
exactly
right.
The
the
the
dimension
from
the
edge
of
pavement
to
the
wall
is
the
12
12
and
a
half
feet
minimum,
and
so
we
did
satisfy
that
requirement.
The
the
mitigating
factor
that
patrick
was
speaking
to
the
masonry
wall
will
be
certainly
effective
in
muting.
L
You
know
any
noise
from
the
parking
lot
side
of
the
wall
and
that
certainly
will
be
an
improvement
over
the
current.
You
know
simply
fence
that's
in
place
and
from
a
lighting
perspective,
we,
as
was
mentioned,
we
do
have
a
photometric
plan
that
that
evaluated
the
light
levels
adjacent
to
the
the
residential
use,
and
I
believe
that
was
within
you
know,
10
feet
of
the
property
line.
L
So
hopefully
that
addresses
those
issues
with
regard
to
the
restrooms
I'll
speak
to
that
the,
although
the
site
is,
is
you
know
six
acres
and
and
they'll?
Be
you
know
that
you
know
the
vans,
you
know
drivers
coming
in
and
and
parking
their
vehicles
and
and
occupying
vans
and
leaving
there
really
isn't
any
work
on
site.
L
That's
being
done,
it's
it
simply
is
a
a
vehicle
transfer,
you
know
kind
of
a
use,
and
so
we
we
really
don't
expect
the
the
amazon
drivers
to
be.
You
know,
staying
at
the
site-
and
you
know
needing
to
you
know,
have
facilities
available.
L
There
is
a
a
guard
booth
that
will
be
in
place.
That's
on
the
pomona
side
next
to
the
next
to
the
entrance,
and
I'm
I'm
sorry
it's
on
the
monterey
side.
Next
to
the
entrance
and-
and
we
do
you
know-
are
providing
some
portable
toilets.
L
Just
in
the
event
that
you
know,
somebody
does
need
a
restroom
facility.
We
would
see
that
as
a
as
a
an
infrequent,
you
know
kind
of
an
occurrence,
so
those
those
are
the
two
issues
that
that
seemed
like
like
felt
it
appropriate
to
to
address
the
perhaps
one
more.
I
guess.
L
On
the
operation
side,
the
the
the
operations
of
this
site
is
definitely
tied
to
the
delivery
station
and
it's
it's
just
just
a
short
ways:
away
from
the
site
and
the
operation
that
delivery
station
requires
the
the
availability
of
these
vans
and
yes,
and
so
that
that's
really
what's
dictating
the
hours
of
use
and-
and
you
know
you
know-
to
maintain
amazon's,
you
know
operations.
B
F
B
Okay,
perfect,
it's
gotta
be
gone.
Now,
no,
no,
no
worries,
I'm
sad.
I
won't
be
able
to
see
your
hand
up
moving
forward,
but
thank
you,
commissioners
wise.
Are
your
questions
answered.
A
Yes,
they
are,
you
know
my
concern
was
you
know
when
I
think
of
a
commercial
vehicle.
I
was
thinking
of
like
some
loud
engine,
and
I
you
know
I
just
kept
thinking
of
people
living
there
and
having
this
right
next
door,
especially
at
those
hours.
So
you
know,
of
course
I
I
would.
I
would
really
like
you
know
if
you
know
whatever
vans
park
in
that
area,
to
be
limited,
you
know
after
7
p.m.
A
You
know
I,
I
don't
think
that's
too
much
to
ask.
I
think,
just
for
the
integrity
of
the
people
that
live
there
and
there's
so
many
spaces.
I
think
if,
if,
if
there
was
some
sort
of
condition
that
I
you
know
or
some
sort
of
sign
put
up
that
you
know
no
car
can
move,
you
know
between
7
pm
and
7
00
a.m.
You
know,
then
they
could
use
another
spot
or
something
to
that
effect.
You
know,
that's
that.
That's
what
I'd
really
like,
just
just
for
the
community.
B
Staff
is
there,
is
there
any
way
by
which
to
include
that
in
a
motion?
If
commissioner
nelson
sort
of
make
that
motion,
would
we
be
able
to
do
that.
A
B
Cantrell
with
a
second
commissioner
young,
I
see
that
your
hand
is
up,
so
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
by
ornelas
wise.
Second,
I.
E
Have
a
clarification
just
so
we
understand
here.
So
my
understanding
and
sorry,
I'm
not
that
familiar
with
this
project,
but
as
I'm
just
following
it
as
a
member
of
the
audience
or
secretary
here,
is
that
the
purpose
of
this
lot
is
for
the
vehicles
to
probably
store
them
at
night.
Is
that
correct.
K
No,
that
vehicles
will
be
stored
at
night,
but
they
will
be
operated
between
9
a.m
and
10
p.m.
Daily.
E
L
Could
if
I
could
clarify
so
that
the
operations
will
occur
in
waves,
so
the
the
the
first
wave
of
drivers
will
leave
the
site.
You
know
the
earliest
and
yeah.
So
the
the
you
know
the
6am
or
the
yeah.
The
the
9am
wait,
you
know
is
the
is
the
initial
wave,
so
the
car,
the
vans,
would
be
parked,
including
adjacent
to
the
residential
area,
and
you
know
just
as
a
as
a
car
is
parked
overnight.
No,
no
sound!
H
L
Like
that,
until
9
00
am
when
the
when
the
when
the
first
wave
of
drivers,
then
you
know
heads
over
to
the
delivery
station
so
and
and
again
with,
as
the
electrification
of
the
of
the
lot
continues
really
the
sound
associated
with
those
vans.
You
know,
will
you
know
significantly
decrease?
L
I
mean
the
you
know
the
you
know
the
the
gasoline
engines
are
not
loud
as
it
is,
but
you
know,
as
is
the
as
the
the
as
amazon
starts,
to
implement
the
that
the
ev
you
know
concept
here.
I
think,
there's
even
going
to
be
a
you
know,
diminishing
of
of
overall
noise.
Our
concern
with
limitations
related
to
segments
of
the
of
the
lot
is
that
I
guess
once
the
once.
The
lot
gets
into
operations.
L
It's
going
to
be
just
increasingly
difficult
to
control.
Individual
drivers
to
you
know,
have
them
park
in
certain
places
and
not
in
others.
L
So
we
we
feel
that
operationally
that
I
guess
the
you
know
the
the
impact
to
those
those
resins
is
going
to
be
is
kind
of
designed
to
be.
You
know,
you
know
very,
very
soft.
You
know
impact
as
it
is,
so
we
would
respectfully,
you
know
like
to
not
have
any
further
limitations.
You
know
related
to
just
a
portion
of
the
lot.
J
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
I
I
can't
support
the
amendment,
although
I
commend
you
know,
commissioner,
and
ellis
wise
for
concern
about
the
neighbors.
J
We
would
essentially
be
putting
a
restriction
on
at
the
23rd
hour
here
that
the
applicant
was
not
aware
of
and
the
fact
that
they're
going
to
electrify
the
vehicles
also
is,
I
think,
mitigating.
I
also
think
that
if
this
were
a
store,
for
example,
the
store
could
be
open
until
10
pm.
You
could
have
people
driving
in
and
out.
J
In
addition
to
that,
I
think
it's
important
to
consider
that
the
previous
use
of
this
site
was
a
literally
a
scrap
yard,
a
pick
and
pull
junk
yard.
So
I
think
with
all
that
in
consideration
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
this
project,
but
I
I
cannot
support
the
amendment.
B
G
Yeah
similar
thoughts
to
commissioner
young,
I
mean
I,
I
am
empathize
with
the
concern
I
sure
know
this
was
brought
up
as
well,
but
I
don't
know
if
it
really
makes
sense
for
us
to
just
say
arbitrarily.
You
know
at
this
point
in
the
process:
hey.
We
think
there
should
be
this
restriction
on
this
part
of
the
parking
lot,
these
very
specific
times.
G
G
Yes,
I'm
in
the
same
space,
just
commissioner
young,
you
know
it.
G
I
think
it's
all
fine
until
the
use
changes
when
they
use
changes
to
an
operation
that
goes
into
that
hour
and
you're
sitting
in
your
kitchen.
Listening
to
what's
going
on
across
the
way
that
close
to
distance,
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
request.
G
I
think
the
business
operation
can
sustain
this
request
and
given
the
number
of
vehicles
against
that
wall,
it's
quite
a
bit
of
traffic
and
then,
if
they
were
all
hydrogen
or
electrical
electric
vehicles,
maybe
that
would
mitigate
it
but
they're
not
when
amazon
will
get
to
that
is
not
yet
determined.
D
Thank
you
chair.
I'm
I'm
near
certain.
This
staff
had
reviewed
this
situation
with
the
neighboring
property
in
reference
to
the
type
of
wall,
the
height
of
the
wall,
and
I
believe,
if
this
property
were
to
change
from
this
use,
to
something
that
had
a
you
know,
a
different
industrial
use
that
the
city
would
have
some
say
in
how
that
would
happen.
So
I'm
inclined
to
just
stay
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
would
offer
a
substitute
motion
to
substitute
motion
in
favor
of
the
original
staff
recommendation.
B
A
I
mean
I
think,
that
the
zoning
ordinance
itself
as
it
says
that
anything
next
to
residents
in
anything
in
the
you
know,
heavy
industrial
zone
requires
a
25-foot
setback
and,
in
this
case,
they're
asking
for
an
exception
to
the
rule
and
we're
granting
them
one
so
because
we're
granting
them.
You
know
I'm
just
saying
in
exchange,
you
know
you
know
to
have
a
better
relationship
with
the
community
and
for
the
people
that
live
there
and
for
the
quality
of
life
for
everyone.
A
You
know
and
who
knows
what
kind
of
cars
they
are.
So
I'm
just
well.
That's
just
what
I
have
to
say.
I
mean
I
think
that
that
we,
as
the
commission
have
the
power.
You
know
to
speak
up
for
the
people,
but
you
know
I
I
get
what
everyone
is
saying,
but
I
also
think
that
that
we
are
in
this
position
to
be
able
to
say
what
we
think
is
right.
So
that's
just
yeah,
but
I
still
support
the
project.
B
Perfect
so
well
I'll,
just
ask
you
point
blank,
then,
since
you
still
support
the
project,
I'll
start
with
you
for
vote,
then
will
you
vote
I'll?
Take
the
roll
call
I'll
start
with
ordinance
wise.
A
I
I
was,
I
was
just
wondering:
is
there
a
way
to
put
sunset
claws
on
commissioner
ornamenta's
wise's
motion
where
once
those
vehicles
are
all
ev
that
we
you
know
we
we
just
removed
that
clause.
B
This
would
be
for
our
edification,
because
we
do
have
a
substitute
motion
on
the
floor,
but
vera
did
you
want
to
respond
to
that
question?.
F
I
could-
and
I
want
to
clarify
the
original
motion,
also
just
so
that
I
understand
it
and
the
reason
I'm
doing
that
is
to
just
have
the
context
for
the
response
here.
Commissioners,
wise,
can
you
confirm
that
the
original
motion
was
something
like
that?
There
will
be
that
with
regard
to
the
parking
that
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
residential
area,
that
there
will
be
no
vehicle
movement
or
lights
between
7
pm
and
7?
Am?
Is
that
correct
that.
F
There's
still
the
question
about
the
lighting,
however,
but
because
those
vehicles
may
not
make
much
noise,
but
you
still
have
the
light,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
would
want
to
excuse
that
issue
or
if
you
would
want
to
continue
that
there
will
be
no
lighting
which
would
which
then
they
couldn't
use
those
vehicles.
F
B
F
Actually,
it
could
be
yes,
it
could
be
a
friendly
amendment,
or
it
could
also
be
another
substitute
motion
that
we
take.
First.
E
F
F
A
I
make
a
friendly
amendment
to
limit,
to
approve
the
project
and
to
limit
the
parking
next
to
the
residence
to
be
limited
to
electrical
vehicles.
Only.
F
When
you're
saying
you're
limiting
to
electrical
vehicles,
only
would
that
be
at
the
time
when
they
have
the
electrical
vehicles
to
put
there.
What
would
happen
in
the
interim?
You
would
still
have
that
you
would
still
allow
them
to
park,
but
not
not
operate
the
vehicles
between
seven
and
seven
correct.
K
Thank
you
for
clarifying
staff
is
recommending
something
that
might
achieve
the
the
same
goal
or
suggest
great.
Thank
you.
How
does
if
this
is
acceptable
to
the
commission?
Any
vehicles
parked
in
spaces
along
the
residential
boundary
shall
not
be
operated
between
7
pm
and
well.
Maybe
7
am
9.
A.M
was
the
original
starting
time,
but
we
can
make
7
a.m
unless
the
vehicles
are
electric.
F
B
D
So
so
chair,
so
if
I
understand
the
substitute
motion
is
not
was
originally
stated,
sorry
not
the
amendment,
the
friendly
amendment,
but
it's
actually
what
planning
staff
has
just
stated
that
the
parking
spaces
along
the
that
wall,
that
those
need
to
be
100,
electric
and
or
not
be
moved
prior
to
some
hour
in
the
morning
and
some
hour
of
the
night?
Is
that
a
correct
paraphrase:
that's
correct?
D
Okay,
can
we
ask
the
applicant
how
that
works,
because
I
really
have
no
idea
where
they're
putting
the
infrastructure
to
charge
the
cars
and
that
might
not
make
any
sense,
because
maybe
they
intended
these,
the
these
electrical
vans
to
be
up
front
and
the
employees
to
park
in
the
back.
So
I'd
like
to
know
how
that
works
from
an
applicant
standpoint
on
operationally
and.
B
H
L
That
would
I'm
gonna
have
to
confirm
with
the
amazon
folks
whether
whether
that
can
be
accommodated.
I
I
think
that
there
there
are,
you
know
initially
planned
to
be
some
some
vehicles
that
you
know
parked
at
this
lot
that
that,
perhaps
will
not
be
you
know
in
operation.
You
know
every
day,
so
I
perhaps
that
that
can
work
for
the
for
amazon
operations.
D
D
Otherwise
we
punt
the
item
until
they
can
get
back
to
us.
But
personally,
I'm
comfortable
with
just
supporting
the
current
staff
recommendation,
because
if
we're
going
to
have
a
new
rule
that
says
hey
anytime,
you're
bordering
residential
on
any
type
of
commercial
usage
or
industrial
usage,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
vehicle
parked
there
as
an
electric
vehicle.
That's
one
something
that
needs
to
be
considered
and
two
is
likely
difficult
to
enforce.
D
B
Is
perfect,
thank
you
for
your
comments.
Thank
you
for
entertaining
the
substitute
motion,
commissioner
young
and
then
we
will
call
for
a
vote.
J
So
I
want
to
echo
what
commissioner
oliveiro
said.
I
I
think
this
is
a
bad
way
to
do
planning
frankly
for
us
to
get
into
this
minutia
at
the
23rd
hour,
when
this
applicant
has
worked
with
planning
staff
and
to
put
a
special
requirement
such
as
this,
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate.
B
G
A
B
Yes,
okay,
with
that,
the
motion
passes
with
torrance
absent.
Yes,
this
took
a
little
longer,
but
we
had
the
conversation.
We
went
back
and
forth.
Questions
were
asked
and
answered,
so
this
is
a
great
example
of
the
planning
commission
leading
the
way
for
the
city
of
san
jose
yeah,
just
you
know,
but
we
we
got
along
all
right
with
that.
We
will
now
move
on
to
item
five,
the
public
hearing.
Commissioner
casey.
B
I
apologize
for
dropping
this
on
you
last
minute,
under
advice
of
counsel,
I
am
going
to
have
to
recuse
myself
for
this
vote.
The
reason
is
that
the
property
is
within
the
window,
the
square
footage-
or
I
don't
know
what
it's
called,
but
essentially
I'm
near
the
property
in
question.
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
pull
myself
out
of
the
meeting
commissioner
casey,
you
will
chair
the
meeting
jen.
You
can
call
me
as
soon
as
the
item
is
done
and
then
I
will
come
back
to
chairing
the
meeting.
C
Okay
confirm
cherbonia
has
left
the
meeting.
I
Yes,
is
that
my
cue
sorry,
okay,
good
evening,
planning,
commission
members
of
the
public
city
staff,
myra
blanco,
environmental
and
planning
project
manager
for
cp
18-003.
I
Okay,
could
someone
confirm
that
they
see
cp
18-003-1360
plumbing
avenue.
M
I
I
The
project
was
also
reviewed
against
the
open
hillside,
general
plan,
designation
allowances
and
general
plan
policies
and
determined
to
be
in
conformance
specifically.
The
single
family.
Residence
has
a
floor
area
that
would
comprise
less
than
two
percent
of
the
total
site
area,
which
is
below
the
maximum
allowed
for
area
ratio
or
far
of
0.02.
I
Staff
was
also
able
to
make
all
of
the
findings
for
the
conditional
use
permit.
The
new
residential
development
would
be
serviced
by
existing
wells.
An
existing
sanitary
sewer
and
water
line
infrastructure
and
the
design
would
be
well
integrated
into
the
hillside,
setting
and
combined
with
the
existing
low
impact
agricultural
uses.
I
I
The
city
prepared
an
initial
study
mitigated
negative
declaration
for
the
project
consistent
with
the
california
environmental
quality
act
or
sequa
entitled
1360
fleming
avenue,
which
was
publicly
circulated
from
december
9th
2021
to
january
4th
2022
the
public
notice
of
intent
to
adopt
a
mitigated.
Negative
declaration
was
publicized
by
filing
it
with
the
county
reporter's
office,
publishing
it
on
the
san
jose
post
record,
emailing
it
to
all
interested
parties
on
the
notification
list
and
posting
it
on
the
city's
environmental
review.
Page
significant
project
impacts
were
identified
for
biological
resources,
cultural
resources
and
hazards
and
hazardous
materials.
I
A
mitigation
and
monitoring
reporting
program,
otherwise
known
as
an
mmrp
includes
mitigation
measures
to
lessen
the
project's
impact
to
these
resources
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
A
condition
of
approval
implementing
the
mmrp
is
part
of
this
permit,
as
are
standard
environmental,
permit
conditions
to
lessen
the
environmental
effects
of
the
project
during
construction.
I
I
These
being
that
the
proposed
residential
development
did
not
fit
in
the
area
and
the
project
would
create
an
influx
of
residents
with
and
would
result
in,
unsafe
car
speeds.
The
second
commenter
had
specific
questions
regarding
the
use
of
the
property
development
restrictions
in
the
agricultural
zoning
district
and
the
project's
tentative
hearing
schedule
and
project
decision
maker
staff
also
received
a
third
comment
regarding
the
size
of
the
project
staff
provided
relevant
information
and
added
all
commenters
to
the
mailing
list.
Additionally,
this
afternoon
staff
received
comment.
I
A
comment
identifying
concerns
about
the
project,
not
fitting
into
the
neighborhood,
due
to
its
large
size
staff
has
provided.
This
comment
for
the
commissioners
to
consider.
In
response,
staff
would
like
to
note
that
the
proposed
project
is
a
single-family
residence
for
residential
use,
which
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
single-family
neighborhood
context.
I
Additionally,
construction
is
estimated
to
last
approximately
16
months
and
would
be
subject
to
the
city's
standard.
Permit
conditions
to
limit
noise
and
construction
impacts
on
the
surrounding
neighborhood
staff,
followed
council
policy
6-30
the
public
outreach
policy
in
order
to
inform
the
public
of
the
proposed
project.
I
So,
although
windows
specifications
are
not
part
of
the
current
plan,
set
staff
can
add
a
condition
of
approval
to
ensure
the
windows
are
appropriate
and,
importantly,
are
low
or
non-reflective
materials.
So
on
the
slide
is
preliminary
condition
the
commission
can
consider-
and
the
applicant
is
also
present
and
has
additional
information
on
the
proposed
windows.
I
So
with
this
staff
is
recommending,
the
planning
commission
adopt
a
resolution
adopting
the
1360
fleming
avenue.
Initial
study
mitigated
negative
declaration
and
associated
mitigation
monitoring
and
reporting
program
in
accordance
with
cqa
and
adopt
a
resolution
approving
subject
to
conditions
the
conditional
use
permit
as
described
this
concludes
staff's
presentation.
Thank
you.
N
C
N
We
can
okay.
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
sorry
good
evening.
Vice
chair
casey
and
commissioners,
dina
morisselli
from
hh
on
behalf
of
the
project
applicant
I'll.
Try
to
keep
this
short
go
through
a
couple
of
talking
points
of
what
we've
heard
so
far.
First,
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
all
of
their
hard
work
on
this
four-year
process
that
has
gotten
us
to
the
hearing.
Today.
We
do
agree
with
staff's
recommendation
for
approval
of
the
project.
N
To
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
about
the
applicant
liana
leon
and
teresa.
They
are
long-time
san
jose
residents
and
since
they
have
acquired
the
property
in
2013,
they've
made
it
their
mission
to
be
good
stewards
of
the
land.
You
know
when
they
bought
the
property.
There
was
a
significant
amount
of
trash
and
debris
on
the
site
which
they
have
cleaned
up.
N
They've
planted
over
130
trees
on
site,
the
sheep
and
cattle
on
site
as
part
of
their
existing
agricultural
operations,
provide
natural
fire
protection
for
the
hillside,
and
they
have
no
intention
of
further
developing
or
impacting
the
hillside.
This
project
will
be
their
family
home
and
since
the
project
was
originally
submitted
back
in
2018,
the
project
team
has
worked
extensively
with
staff
to
design
a
project
that
is
in
line
with
the
city's
general
plan
and
zoning
policies.
N
The
floor
area,
as
was
mentioned
by
staff
for
the
proposed
residence,
it's
actually
less
than
half
a
percent
of
the
49
acre
site,
which
is
below
the
maximum
2
allowed,
and
the
visual
impact
study
that
was
done
as
part
of
the
city's
initial
study
determined
that
the
proposed
structures
would
not
be
visible
from
the
valley
floor
regarding
the
daily
trips,
the
site.
I
know
there
was
a
comment
about
that.
N
N
Regarding
the
windows,
the
majority
of
the
windows
facing
the
valley
floor
are
under
significant
roof
and
porch
overhangs,
and
again
to
reiterate
that
the
project
itself
would
not
actually
be
visible.
From
the
valley
floor,
which
I
know
there
was
an
issue
about
claire
from
from
the
valley
floor.
So
the
visual
impact
study
indicated
that
that
would
not
be
an
issue
we're
available
to
any
to
answer
any
other
questions
that
the
commissioners
might
have,
and
we
would
respectfully
request
that
you
approve
the
conditional
use
permit.
J
Yes,
thank
you.
Vice
chair,
I
actually
went
out
to
the
site
yesterday
and
walked
it.
I
walked
along
fleming
avenue,
actually,
which
is
the
only
part
I
could
get
to,
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
the
applicant
said
that
the
site
is
beautiful.
To
give
you
a
sense
of
how
large
this
site
is.
An
acre
is
about
a
football
field,
so
we're
talking
49
football
fields.
This
is
a
huge
huge
piece
of
land
and
the
only
part
that
you
can
really
see
from
flaming
avenue
is
the
slope.
J
I
could
not
even
see
any
of
the
structures
at
the
top
from
fleming
avenue,
but
I
specifically
went
out
to
walk
the
site
because
I
was
concerned
about
the
size
of
the
house,
it's
very
large,
but
having
walked
the
site
having
looked
at
how
beautifully
they
have
the
site,
preserved
and
fenced.
I
saw
some
horses,
some
cattle.
H
A
I
I
Standards
for
the
agricultural
zoning
district,
as
well
as
open
hillside
and
unfortunately
do
the
due
to
the
density
restrictions.
They
would
only
be
able
to
have
one
legally
one
legal
dwelling
unit
on
the
property
to
be
consistent
with
both
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
open
hillside
designation.
I
H
Apologies
folks,
my
internet
kicked
out
for
a
second
there.
That's
why
I
missed
that
exchange.
Commissioner,
your
question
was
answered.
H
H
I'm
seeing
eye
so
I'm
going
to
go
with
it,
but
I
didn't
hear
you
yeah
yeah,
commissioner
cantrell
hi,
commissioner
young
aye,
commissioner
garcia
aye,
commissioner
olivario
aye,
commissioner
montanez
hi
all
right
and
commissioner
torrence
is
absent.
I'm
hoping
I
didn't
miss
anyone.
I
just
tried
to
hit
you
guys.
All.
As
I
see
you
on
my
screen,
you.
H
I
did
no,
I
thought
I
said
something.
I
got
you,
okay,
yes,
yes,
okay,
oh
I
thought
I
did
ask
you.
I
I
did
ask
you,
didn't
I
okay,
my
apologies.
That
should
be
a
wrap.
Do
we
have
the
tally?
B
B
M
M
The
item
before
you
involves
a
series
of
actions
which
include
general
plan
text,
amendments
and
amendments
to
the
north,
san
jose
area,
development
policy
that
will
effectively
retire
the
north
san
jose
policy
moving
forward
by
limiting
into
development
projects
that
have
already
received
an
approved
entitlement
to
date.
M
The
result
would
be
that
the
north
san
jose
area,
development
policy
and
its
associated
traffic
impact
fee
would
no
longer
apply
to
future
development
in
the
policy
area.
Staff
is
also
recommending
a
text
amendment
to
the
general
plan
that
would
boost
the
potential
number
of
housing
units
built
in
north
san
jose.
M
In
addition,
this
proposal
includes
proposed
amendments
to
the
city's
municipal
code
and
two
key
areas
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
the
actions
above
and
to
bring
the
city's
municipal
code
up
to
date
regarding
recent
state
changes
and
housing
and
transportation
law.
M
M
New
development
in
north
san
jose,
which
is
the
city's
employment
center
premier
employment
center,
the
north
san
jose
area
development
policy
is
and
has
always
been
since
2005.,
the
primary
sorry
about
the
premier
employment
center.
Sorry,
the
primary
goal
is
to
encourage
new
industrial
and
office
construction
resulting
in
new
jobs
for
city
residents
and
to
create
great
places
rich
with
amenities,
including
retail
offerings
for
residents
and
workers.
C
M
The
policy
established
a
phasing
plan
that
distributed
development
into
four
roughly
equal
phases,
which
required
the
infrastructure
improvements
to
be
substantially
funded
in
each
phase
prior
to
advancing
development
within
any
category.
To
the
next
phase,
it's
worth
noting
the
phase
one
residential
units
have
been
exhausted
for
some
time
now.
M
So
why
are
the
amendments
necessary?
First,
the
amendments
are
necessary
in
order
to
advance
the
much
needed
housing
development
under
the
city's
housing
crisis.
Work
plan
that
plan
directed
staff
to
facilitate
development
of
15
000
market
rate
and
10
000,
affordable
housing
units
throughout
the
entire
city
by
2023
north
san
jose
is
an
important
part
of
that
work
plan.
M
Second,
there's
a
new
state
transportation
lot
under
senate
bill
743,
which
was
enacted
and
recently
implemented
the
north
san
jose
traffic
impact
fee,
which
was
adopted
concurrently
with
the
development
policy
back
in
2005,
is
based
on
the
evaluation
of
traffic
impacts
using
the
level
of
service
method
that
is
now
considered
obsolete
in
california,
also
known
as
los
starting
in
july.
2020.
State
law
has
required
that
all
transportation
analysis
under
sequo
a
change
to
the
vehicle,
miles,
travel
or
vmt
metric
of
evaluation.
M
Third,
within
the
last
few
years,
the
state
legislature
has
adopted
several
new
housing-related
laws
and
two
that
are
particularly
relevant
to
north
san
jose
and
the
development
policy
senate.
Bill
330
was
enacted
in
2019,
and
this
includes
a
limitation
on
moratoria
or
any
similar
restrictions
that
are
imposed
on
housing,
and
this
includes
a
prohibition
and
includes
a
prohibition
on
any
housing
unit,
caps
or
limitations
on
residential
population
and
housing
permits,
as
well.
M
So
with
a
phasing
plan
that
has
limited
housing
now
from
moving
forward
the
north
san
jose
area,
development
policy
may
have
the
legal
effect
of
being
considered
as
a
cap
on
housing
approvals
and
permits.
Therefore,
eliminating
the
phasing
aspect
of
this
policy
is
also
desirable,
also
with
respect
to
senate
bills,
1333,
which
is
enacted
in
2019.
This
requires
charter
cities
such
as
san
jose
to
make
their
general
plan
and
zoning
consistent.
M
The
city
of
san
jose's,
2011
general
plan
did
establish
the
transit
employment,
residential
overlay
designation
within
north
san
jose,
but
no
changes
have
since
been
made
to
the
zoning
ordinance
or
the
zoning
district
path.
The
proposed
amendment
tonight
includes
a
zoning
ordinance
that
a
change
to
the
voting
wars,
that
as
chapter
2065
regarding
overlay
districts
and
also
establishes
the
transit
employment
residential
overlay
district
as
part
of
the
zoning
map
for
the
city.
M
Finally,
there
is
finally
is
the
city's
upcoming
housing
element
update
and
the
requirement
for
many
more
additional
housing
units
in
this
next
round,
the
planning
of
which
is
the
phase
of
2023
to
2031.
M
M
Also,
the
proposals
to
amend
the
north
san
jose
area
development
policy
to
limit
its
application
to
previously
improved
entitlements,
so
those
text
changes
are
specifically
called
out
also
in
exhibit
b
exhibit
b
includes
actually
to
your
staff,
where
it
includes
a
full
copy
of
the
north
san
jose
policy
with
all
the
strikethrough
and
underlines
that
are
recommended
item
four.
Is
zoning
ordinance,
title
20
of
the
municipal
code
and
the
proposal
is
to
add
overlay
districts
and
establish
the
tarot
district
and
amend
the
zoning
district
map.
M
As
mentioned,
these
additions
to
the
zoning
ordinance
are
included,
in
exhibit
ceo
staff
report
as
discussed,
the
tarot
sites
are
already
included
in
the
general
plan,
but
we're
now
just
making
the
zoning
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
This
work
is
done
in
order
to
comply
with
sp,
1333
and
then
finally,
to
amend
chapter
14.29
of
the
municipal
code
regarding
traffic
impact
fees.
M
Staff
is
recommending
the
adoption
of
this
ordinance
change
to
limit
the
applicability
of
the
traffic
impact
fee
only
to
the
projects
in
north
san
jose
that
have
already
received
an
approved
entitlement
to
date
and
therefore
no
longer
applicable
to
new
development
projects,
and
this
work
is
supported
by
the
updated
traffic
analysis
included
in
your
staff
report.
As
exhibit
e,
also
known
as
the
north.
San
jose
traffic
impact
fee
plan
update.
M
Regarding
community
and
business
engagement,
the
city
has
held
meetings
with
neighborhood
groups,
particularly
the
river
oaks
neighborhood
association.
We've
also
had
several
meetings
with
the
developer
and
construction
roundtable
and
then
also
held
two
virtual
citywide
meetings
on
june
24,
2021
and
june
28
2021.
M
M
These
include
analysis
of
fair
housing
implications
for
potential,
affordable
housing
sites
in
north
san
jose,
and
this
work
is
anticipated
to
be
done
in
june
of
2022
identification
of
additional
housing
sites.
Citywide
june
2022
general
plan
amendments
cycle
site
inventory,
work
to
be
done
in
january
of
2023,
somewhere
to
re-zone
sites
for
affordable
housing,
with
site
proximity
to
amenities,
also
targeted
for
january
2023.
M
M
So,
just
to
sum
everything
up,
staff
recommendation
is
to
item
one.
The
recommendation
is
to
adopt
a
resolution.
M
Let
me
back
home
a
moment,
so
staff
is
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
recommended
city
council
to
adopt
a
resolution
adopting
the
addendum
to
the
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan,
final
program,
eir
and
supplemental
eir
to
to
the
envision
general
plan
final
program,
eir
and
two
andy
addenda.
There
too,
in
conformance
with
sql
item
two
to
accept
the
february
18
2022
in
north
san
jose
traffic
impact
fee
plan.
B
You
did
joe
great
great
job
joe.
I
mean
this
is
a
monumental
task,
big
moment
for
the
city,
so
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
and
before
I
go
to
public
comment,
I
see
commissioner
olivario
has
his
hand
up.
So,
commissioner,
ovaria.
D
Thank
you
chair
some
questions
you
mentioned.
The
impact
fee
is
no
longer
relevant.
Does
that
mean
it's
no
longer
legal.
F
M
F
Because
these
these
projects
were
approved
at
a
time
when
it
was
in
place,
and
that
was
the
mitigation
for
those
projects
moving
forward.
There
is
different
mitigation
now
required
by
state
law.
Yes,
it
is
lawful
to
charge
for
projects
that
have
already
received
entitlements
under
that
under
the
former
policy,
or
I
should
say,
the
current
policy
that
we're
retiring
and
under
the
current
traffic
impact
fee,
ordinance,
which
we
are
also
I'm
going
to
be,
limiting.
D
Got
it
so,
and
then
so
I
understood,
the
traffic
impact
fee
was
a
result
of
litigation
mitigation,
which
also
was
litigation
from
milpitas
and
santa
clara
about
the
amount
of
traffic
north
san
jose
development
was
going
to
create.
Is
that
correct
vera.
F
D
In
part,
yeah
and
and
so
then,
if
there's
these,
if
there's
a
mitigation
for
traffic
impact
and
there's
going
to
be
increased
demand
based
on
development,
then
how
does
the
city
fund
transportation
improvements
without
the
revenue
that
comes
from
the
traffic
impact
fees.
F
Well,
so
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
have
happened
here:
the
new
nexus
study,
what
I'm
calling
the
nexus
study,
which
is
the
item
that
the
second
item
that
you're
being
asked
to
recommend,
which
is
the
february
18
2022
north
san
jose
traffic
impact.
The
plan
update
what
that
does
and
and
what
is
occurring
also
in
the
changes
to
the
area.
F
F
Correct
and
that's
an
essential
component
of
of
all
of
this
is
that
we
are
not
doing
away
with
anything
having
to
do
with
transportation
impact.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
updating
to
what
the
current
law
requires
and
we
are
also
making
those
who
those
projects
that
have
already
been
entitled
continue
with
the
mitigation
that
was
part
of
their
entitlement.
D
Right
so
just
restain
again
vera
any
previously
approved
entitlements
there.
They
must
pay
the
traffic
impact
fee.
There's
no
reversing
that
correct
got
it
and
staff.
Does
this
plan
affect
the
apple
property
that
was
yeah
apple,
has
a
property
which
has
been
undeveloped
in
north
san
jose?
Does
this
policy
change
what
they
can
do
with
the
land.
E
It
does
not.
Actually
there
really
are
no
land
use
changes
in
this
action.
It's
more
about
allowing
ladies
changes,
it's
more
about
allowing
what's
already
allowed
in
north
san
jose
to
occur,
so
the
apple
property
remains
industrial
park.
D
E
Yeah,
I
can't
comment
that
about
specifically
I'm
not
not
as
knowledgeable
about
that,
but
the
the
the
the
property
is
still
zoned
industrial
park.
So
you
know
if
they
want
to
develop
there,
it
would
need
to
be
consistent
with
that
land
use
designation
or
they
sell
the
land,
and
it
would
be
consistent
now
just
be
aware
that
apple
there
is
some
interest
in
developing
affordable
housing
there
on
the
part
of
apple.
So
that's
not
part
of
this
discussion
or
action
tonight.
That
would
be
a
future
conversation.
D
D
Right
but
there's
but
we're
removing
the
incremental
growth
of
housing
with
jobs
and
san
jose
has
historically
pretty
much
only
got
in
the
the
housing.
The
north
original
north
san
jose
plan
was
intended
to
make
sure
that
we
were
also
getting
the
job
growth
that
provides
the
revenue
to
pay
for
city
services
and
I'm
sorry.
E
Actually,
yes,
well,
that
that's
the
framing
that
we
came
to
when
the
great
recession,
but
when
the
plan
was
approved,
that
was
actually
not
the
case.
The
rationale
was
that
we
were
growing
jobs
like
crazy.
If
you
remember
in
the
dot-com
crash-
and
this
plan
was
being
developed
during
that
period-
but
then,
of
course,
I'm
sorry
the
dot-com
boom,
then
it
crashed.
E
D
D
When
I
was
on
the
council,
I
voted
against
many
of
these
projects
because
the
density
was
too
low
and
I
even
think
75
units
to
the
acre
is
too
low.
This
planning
commission
has
heard
projects
with
well
over
100
units
to
the
acre,
surrounded
by
more
sensitive
uses,
and
I'm
curious.
Why
not
have
at
least
100
units
to
the
acre
minimum?
I
mean
it's.
D
You
tell
me
if
there's
a
difference
in
the
I
mean,
if
you
can
explain
the
difference
on
construction
costs
between
75
units
to
100,
because
I
don't
think
there
are
but
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
E
Yeah,
I
mean-
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
jump
into,
but
but
layla
who's
leaving
the
city
on
friday.
E
She
dug
into
this
and
kind
of
what
we
found
is
that
a
lot
of
the
five
over
one
five
over
two
projects,
that
you
know
that
the
podium
projects
that
are
you
know,
one
one
or
two
floors
of
concrete
and
five
floors
of
stick-
would
tend
to
be
roughly
in
the
75-ish
range,
maybe
a
little
more
than
that
at
times,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
we
saw
was
a
good.
E
What
the
mark
is
generally
providing
I'm
not
to
say
that
there
aren't
projects
in
that
type,
that
construction
type
that
are
greater
than
that
maybe
90
or
so
so
we
thought
that
was
a
good
minimum.
Also.
The
idea
is
that
you
know
a
lot
of
these
sites
are
very,
very
large
and
so
that
minimum
applies
to
the
whole
site.
So
there
may
be
it's
an
average
density,
so
you
may
get
part
of
the
site.
E
That's
a
little
bit
lower
density
with
a
different
product
and
another
part
of
the
site
would
therefore
be
have
to
be
much
higher
than
75
million
to
acre.
So
that
was
our
thinking.
It's
kind
of
reflecting
the
kind
of
development
that
that
that
you
know
without
getting
into
higher
higher
rise
buildings
generally.
B
Commissioner,
I
know
you're
you're
in
the
zone.
Do
you
do
you
mind
if
we
just
go
ahead
and
allow
for
public
comment
to
happen,
and
then
we
can
resume
questioning
when
it's
commissioner
question
time
absolutely
chair
all
right,
perfect!
Thank
you
and
jen.
Let's
go
to
public
comment
right
now
and
remember
we're
at
one
minute
per
today.
C
Okay,
great,
we
have
wiliana
I'm
going
to
meet
your
device
and
you
have
one
minute
to
speak
good
evening.
My
name
is
juliana
pendleton
and
I
am
the
environmental
advocacy
assistant
for
santa
clara
valley,
audubon
society.
Scvas
is
generally
concerned
with
light
pollution,
bird
safety
and
the
remaining
green
areas.
These
amendments
to
the
general
plan
and
zoning
policies
could
impact
this
level
of
development,
including
building
heights
and
densification
could
cause
more
bird
collisions
and
loss
of
wildlife
mobility.
We
ask
that
you,
please
do
not
forget
wildlife
and
nature
throughout
this
process.
C
B
H
Commissioners,
vince
rocha
vice
president
of
housing
and
community
development,
with
the
silicon
valley,
leadership
group.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
our
member
companies.
We
believe
that
north
san
jose
is
a
great
place
to
find
a
way
to
create
more
housing
and
jobs,
and
we
believe
the
staff
recommendation
before
you
allows
us
to
move
forward,
recognizing
the
update
in
state
law
and
also
recognizing
the
reality
of
the
times.
H
B
All
right
so
with
that
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
resume.
Commissioner
questions,
although
I
do
see
that
david
keon
has
his
hand
up
so
before
we
go
to
commissioner
olivario
I'll,
let
staff
do
david
state
something.
H
Good
evening,
members
of
the
planning
commission,
david
kian
principal
planner,
on
the
city's
environmental
review
team,
I
do
want
to
just
clarify
some
of
the
questions
raised
about
in
the
initial
study
addendum.
The
impact
statement
regarding
coyote
valley
is
taken
from
the
general
plan
eir
and
that
this
is
an
addendum
to
the
general
plan.
Eir
is
essentially
stating
that
this
project
is
in
compliance
with
the
general
plan
eir,
so
that
is
there's
no
changes
to
coyote
valley.
H
with
regards
to
new
development
coming
into
north
san
jose,
the
same
conditions
apply
to
all
new
development
in
the
city,
and
this
would
include
project
level
review
under
sequa
and
also
compliance
with
with
the
city's
riparian
quarter
and
bird
safe
design
policy
and
also
city-wide
design
guidelines
that
include
bird
safe
design
measures.
So
all
these
will
be
evaluated
on
a
project
level.
This
particular
project
does
not
change
any
of
those
requirements,
and
so
project
at
the
project
project
basis
will
be
evaluated
for
impact
to
the
environment.
Thank
you.
D
Thanks
chair,
we
were
discussing,
density
and
and
michael
brought
up
the
word
height
and
am
I
is
there
any
concern
from
staff
on
tall
residential
buildings
in
north
san
jose.
E
E
Yeah,
I'm
in
my
bunk
or
getting
rented
anyway.
No
we're
not
concerned
about
heightened
north
san
jose.
If
we
got
a
lot
of
height,
that
would
be
awesome.
D
Okay,
great,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
the
case
and
then,
when
I
look
at
the
page
with
the
the
t-e-r-o
overlay
zones
that
are
colored
in
blue,
are
all
those
blue
areas
adjacent
to
a
light
rail
stop,
because
I
think
two
may
not
be,
but
I
just
wanna.
Are
you.
M
Seeing
the
I
don't
know
if
I'm
still
screen
sharing,
I
just
put
up,
I
see
that
one.
D
M
M
Or
not,
I
I
wouldn't
say
they're
all
immediately
adjacent
there's
a
lot
of
transit
stops
up
and
down
north
first
street,
as
we
know
anchor
and,
of
course,
tasman.
There
certainly
were
targeted
originally
to
be
approximate
to
transit.
D
No
sweat,
I
know
definitely
north
first
street
right
light
rail,
but
those
other
ones
are
seem
to
be
more
auto
dependent
was
was
curious.
Were
these
original
trtr
zones
in
the
initial
original
north
san
jose
plan,
or
are
these
new?
They
were.
J
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
I'm
really
in
strong
support
of
this
change.
I
think
it's
really
important
to
do
everything
we
can
to
meet
our
regional
housing
needs
allocation.
It's
quite
ambitious!
If
you
think
about
62
000
units
in
the
next
10
years.
I
did
go
out
and
drive
the
area
today,
it's
beautiful.
To
be
honest.
I
hadn't
been
out
in
north
san
jose
in
a
little
bit
with
with
the
pandemic,
and
it's
really
beautiful.
There's.
J
I
really
want
to
compliment
the
planning
staff
on
the
there's,
a
lot
of
parks
and
green
spaces,
but
the
one
thing
I
did
notice
is
there.
There
is
a
lot
of
two
and
three
story
garden
apartments
and
I,
I
think
the
change
to
75
dwelling
units
an
acre
is
a
really
positive
change,
because
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
get
higher
density
residential
out
there.
I
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
that
the
planning
commission
recommends
the
city
that
the
city
council
will
take
all
of
the
actions
recommended
by
city
staff.
B
Do
we
have
a
second,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor.
Do
we
have
a
second
second
commissioner
cantrell
with
the
second
okay
commissioner,
for
the
motion,
commissioner
cantrell
with
the
second
all
right,
seeing
no
comments
from
my
colleagues
or
I
don't
see
any
hands
up,
commissioner
oliveira
there
you
go!
No,
no!
I
was
looking
no.
D
Thank
you
chair.
You
know
no
worries
but,
as
I
stated
earlier
to
the
commission,
I
voted
against
several
housing
developments
in
north
san
jose
because
the
density
was
too
low
and
I
believe
75
units
to
the
acre
is
still
too
low
in
north
san
jose
and
frankly,
in
a
lot
of
other
places
in
the
city.
D
If
we
really
want
to
get
serious
about
housing
production,
then
we
have
to
have
the
true
high
density
that
other
projects
have
put
forward
and,
I
think,
are
very
attainable
so
based
on
my
background
of
not
supporting
those
projects,
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
motion
on
the
floor
and
I'd
like
staff
to
note
the
reason
is:
is
I
truly
believe
the
minimum
density
should
be
significantly
higher,
but
I
don't
want
to
ask
my
colleagues
to
amend
this
now
and
and
have
that
discussion
at
the
end
of
the
day.
B
G
A
J
B
B
It
was
the
first
by
montagness
and
he's
second
by
kentrell.
B
Got
it
yeah
cut
me
off,
as
I
was
commending,
my
colleagues
for
putting
up
with
my
jokes
or
attempt
at
jokes.
B
There
you
go
all
right
with
that.
We
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
general
plan
hearing
2022
cycle
2..
Do
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
so
moved
was
that
from
casey.
B
H
B
B
B
E
Okay,
so
on
march
15th,
the
city
council
considered
it
an
administrative
appeal
on
the
initial
study
for
a
site
permit
at
1436
state
street
corporation
yard,
and
that
appeal
was
denied
by
the
city
council.
E
There
was
also
an
administrative
appeal
hearing
on
the
initial
study
for
a
project,
an
industrial
project
at
1660
old
bay
shore
highway.
That
appeal
was
denied
on
the
15th.
The
north
1st
street
urban
village
plan
was
supposed
to
go,
but
council
deferred
it
to
the
22nd,
which
was
last
night
last
night.
E
The
council
did
approve
the
north
1st
street
urban
village
plan
with
a
couple
of
of
amendments
in
a
memo
by
perales
and
the
mayor
that
just
added
some
more
clarification,
in
particular
about
the
kind
of
density
of
the
and
uses
that
the
plan
would
support,
adjacent
to
light
rail
on
the
county
properties,
the
civic
center
area,
the
the
council
did
not
approve
the
planning
commission's
recommendation
to
add
the
north
first
street
urban
village
to
the
alum
rock
pilot
program.
E
Staff
did
not
support
this
and
council
agreed
for
the
reason
the
alum
rock
pilot
program
actually
concluded
in
2021.
So
it's
it's
over
and
the
staff
in
the
office
of
economic
development
are
now
focusing
on
a
city-wide
approach
to
address
small
business
displacement,
and
so
the
council
felt
that
was
the
best
approach
to
to
do
that
work.
E
That
being
said,
staff
have
been
doing
outreach
to
small
businesses
and
they
have
a
whole
program
of
doing
outreach
just
to
understand
the
needs
and
concerns
of
small
businesses
see
how
they
can
help
them,
and
north
first
street
was
added
to
that
body
of
work.
So
that
did
happen,
and
that
concludes
report
back
on
council
items.
B
B
Anything
to
discuss
here
either
all
right.
We
will
now
go
to
the
public
record
and
I'd
like
to
begin
on.
The
public
record
since
today
is
vera's
last
meeting
vera.
Thank
you
for
your
service
to
the
city.
Thank
you,
as
I
shared
with
you
privately
for
making
me
always
feel
welcomed
when
I
came
on
always
being
available
in
terms
of
answering
your
questions
and
thank
you
for
always
being
human
and
bringing
humanity
to
this
thing
of
public
service,
you
will
be
missed.
B
I've
shared
that
with
you
privately,
but
now
it's
time
to
say
it
publicly,
you
will
be
missed.
I
wish
you
nothing,
but
joy
and
happiness
in
your
retirement,
and
this
is
not
goodbye.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
catch
up
and
have
lots
of
lunches
down
in
your
neck
of
the
woods.
So
thank
you
for
everything.
Thank
you
for
being
a
friend
a
colleague
mentor.
All
of
the
above.
B
You
will
absolutely
be
missed
in
terms
of
your
service
to
the
commission,
but,
more
importantly,
as
an
awesome
human
being
that
I
had
privileged
serving
with
for
the
last
two
years.
J
Yes,
thank
you.
Chair
definitely
would
like
to
concur
congratulations
vera
and
I
hope
you
have
a
wonderful
retirement
and
thank
you
for
all
the
help.
You've.
Given
me
as
a
new
commissioner.
J
The
item
I
wanted
to
bring
up
actually
is
my
heartfelt
desire
for
our
commission
to
meet
in
person
again
from
a
personal
level.
I've
found
it
really
challenging
myself
and
the
other
new
commissioners
came
on
during
zoom.
I
have
not
had
a
chance
to
meet
or
make
eye
contact
or
talk
to
any
of
you.
I'd
love
to
do
that.
Shake
your
hands,
have
a
cup
of
coffee,
but,
more
importantly,
from
the
resident
side,
I
think
I'd
like
to
get
back
to
in
person.
J
You
know
the
city
council
has
been
meeting
in
person
for
quite
a
long
time.
I
had
a
chance
to
go
to
a
planning
commissioner
at
academy
put
on
by
cal
cities.
Last
week
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
planning
commissioners
from
a
lot
of
cities
about
90
percent
of
them
are
back
in
person,
both
small
and
large
cities.
J
We
no
longer
have
a
mass
mandate,
so
I
would
just-
and
I'm
speaking
only
for
myself,
not
the
other
commissioners,
but
I
would
like
to
see
if
the
planning
director
could
meet
you
know
with
whoever
he
needs
to
meet
with
on
the
city
staff
and
get
us
back
in
person.
Thank
you.
F
Congratulations,
I
would
just
like
to
say
please
thank
you
and
I
would
just
like
to
say
goodbye
and
my
best
wishes
for
health
and
happiness
to
the
entire
commission,
and
I
also
have
a
request
of
robert
and
michael
and
mark,
which
is
when
you
do
begin
meeting
back
in
person.
Invite
me
to
your
first
meeting,
because
I
would
actually
like
to
meet
the
you
know,
eight
out
of
the
11
commissioners
that
I
have
never
met
in
person
and
just
say
hello
for
a
few
minutes
and
then
take
off.
B
C
I
just
want
to
thank
vera
for
her
dedication
to
the
city
and
her
years
of
service
and
also
to
thank
her
for
guiding
me
during
my
year
as
chair.
So
your
advice
was
very
valuable
and
I
appreciated
your
guidance
and
keeping
us
on
track
and
moving
forward,
especially
as
we
navigated
moving
to
zoom
while
I
was
chair,
so
that
was
was
quite
the
challenge
and
something
that
the
city
hadn't
done
before
and
just
really
always
appreciated
everything
that
you
brought
to
our
meeting.
B
G
I
said
some
of
these
things
last
time,
so
I
won't
go
into
too
much
here,
but
you
know
I
also
look
forward
to
when
we
can
be
in
person
and
it's
definitely
been
a
challenge
on
boarding
this
commission
not
having
met
most
of
you
in
person,
but
vera
you've
done
an
amazing
job
of
helping
with
that
process
and
making
our
jobs
easier
here
on
the
commission.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
again
for
everything
and
congratulations
on
your
retirement.