Want to know? We're going to take care of this. All right. Good evening. My name is Carlos Rosario and I'm the chair of the Planning Commission. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The parking validation machine is in the garage underneath. City Hall is located near the entrance or in the back of the top. At this time, if you are able, please join me in saluting the flag. Pledge allegiance to the. flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for. Hey, on to roll call. Vice Chair. Bickford here. Commissioner Barocio here. Here. Commissioner Cantrell here. Commissioner Cao, here. Commissioner Kasey here. Commissioner Escobar here. Commissioner Nguyen here. Commissioner Oliverio. Commissioner young here, myself is here. That makes nine. And we have quorum. To join by. Virtually. Did you check? All right. Here's a summary of the hearing procedures. If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audiovisual technician and deposit the card in the plexiglass basket. There. Speaker cards in the back of the chambers and also at the side entrance. Procedure for this hearing is as follows. After staff's presentation, applicants and or appellant's may make up to a five minute presentation. During the public comment, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards in the order received for those members of the public who attend in person, as your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber. Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator may have up to four minutes at the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors. Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted after public testimony. The applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes. Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speaker's 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 public testimony, ask staff questions and discuss the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues. You or someone else at this public hearing or in written com raised 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, rezoning, General Plan amendments and Code amendments is advisory is only advisory to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings on these items. Section 21 2400 of the Municipal Code provides the procedures for legal protests. The City Council on rezoning and rezoning the Planning Commission's action on conditional use permits is appealable to the City Council. In accordance with section 2102 20 of the Municipal Code agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed on the city's website. Call to the. And now we will see before we begin our. Before this meeting, we begin this meeting, I would like to remind members of the public to follow our code of Conduct. This includes commenting on a specific agenda item only and addressing the full body. Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff. All members of the Planning Commission, staff and public are expected to refrain from abusive language, repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct which will disturb, disrupt or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting of the Planning Commission will now come to order. Is Commissioner Olivero available? And I see that Commissioner Cao is here. Yes chair. Good evening. Manira Sandhir Deputy Director of Planning. I do see him on Zoom, so I'm requesting our technician to please update the panelists. Thank you. He is present now. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Next we will move on to public comment. Public comments to the Planning Commission on non agendized items. Please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. The Commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on agenda. In response to public comment, the Planning Commission is limited to the following options. Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. Staff do we have any speakers for public comment? We do not have any speaker cards for public comment. Okay. On to agenda item number three. Deferrals and removals from calendar. Any items scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal, staff will provide an update on the items for which deferral or removal is being requested. If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak on the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at this time, is there any do we have any items to defer today? We do have an item that we would like to drop from the agenda. So this was the item that was before the commission at the last meeting and was requested for deferral due to some late information. My understanding is that we are still waiting on some technical analysis from the applicants to determine how best to move forward. And we have the project manager, Alex Hughes, present. If the commission has any questions about the request to drop this item until we have further information. And can we notice this project for a hearing. Motion to defer? Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Go to. Do we have a date certain to return? No, we do not have a date. Certain. Therefore, we would like it to be to be dropped from the agenda. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Go to a roll call. Vote. Vice chair Bickford. Yes Commissioner. Barocio. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner. Escobar. Yes. Commissioner. Nguyen. Yes. Commissioner. Olivero. Yes. Commissioner. Young. Yes. Myself. Is. Yes. That is 11. Yes. With zero. No's. All right. And are there any other items to defer today? No other items. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now move on to agenda item number four. The consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion. A member of the commission requests debate separate vote or recusal on a particular item. That item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately. The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed for the Consent Calendar by the chair. Staff will provide an update on the Consent Calendar. If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come down to the podium. At this time. I see no speakers. Commissioners, are there anything that you would like to remove from the consent calendar? Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion to approve. In a second, we'll go to a. Unless there's any comment, we'll go to a roll call, vote. Vice Chair Bickford. Yes. Commissioner. Barocio. Yes Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner. Escobar. Yes. Commissioner. Nguyen. Yes. Commissioner. Oliverio. Yes. Commissioner. Young. Yes. And myself is. Yes. Making that 11 yeses. All right. Now on to agenda item number five, public hearing. Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the Planning Commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda. However, please be advised that the Commission may take these items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony or may defer to discussions for later later agendas for public hearing and time management purposes. So staff. Moving on to five a three, two, three story buildings in Up on Camden Avenue. Staff, do we have a presentation or do we have an applicant? We do have a presentation. One staff is bringing that up. I'd just like to introduce the team that is here on this project. So we have Jason Hughes, the project manager, and we'll be doing most of the presentation. And he's joined by David Qian and Kurt Hitchins, who worked on the CEQA analysis and the EIR for this project. The Environmental Impact Report. And Alex Atienza, who is the supervising planner in the box in the rear, we have John Tu division manager and Florin from Department of Transportation Manjeet from Public Works Traffic, and Michelle also from public Works. And we have the deputy Director of Housing Department as well. So we have the full team here. And the reason for that is this is a builder's remedy project. A staff will walk through in a minute, and this is the first builder's remedy project that has an environmental impact report with significant and unavoidable impacts. That is before the Planning Commission for making a recommendation to council. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jason to walk through the project. All right. Thank you. Manira. Good evening, chair. Good evening, commissioners and everybody here tonight. My name is Jason Lee, planning project manager with the city's planning division. Manira introduced our staff here tonight and my fellow presenters tonight will be caught. Hitchins the project environmental project manager, and Benoit, senior transportation specialist from the Department of Public Works traffic team. The application before you tonight is located at the northeast corner of Camden Avenue and Single Tree Drive or Single Tree Way, formerly the Cinnabar Elementary School in the city's Council. District ten. The application includes the construction of 108 residential condos and 32 three story buildings with eight units, 7.4% of the total reserved for extremely low income households. site and associated buildings. The removal of 41 trees, including 23 ordinance sized trees, and it includes a state dnsity bonus law waiver for the rear setback requirement. The project also includes a vesting tentative map for the subdivision of the former elementary school into two parcels. The school buildings and the corporation yard to remain on one parcel, and the rest of the site. As you can see in the inset to be developed into 108 residential condos. The project requires an Environmental impact report, including a statement of overriding considerations for greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts regarding VMT vehicle miles traveled. Statement of overriding considerations requires planning Commission recommendation and city Council approval, which is why we are here tonight. And Court and Manjeet will cover the SoC further later in the presentation. This application was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act, also known as Builder's Remedy, and we will get into that. Here. All right. So for context on the application, the application was submitted under the builder's remedy. I think the builder's remedy is now defined under section H 11 of the Housing Accountability Act as a project that provides a certain amount of affordable housing to extremely low, very low, low or moderate income households. In this case, the project provides at least 7% of units for extremely low income households, which is one of the options that a builder's remedy applicant can choose from. The project must have submitted an application while a city did not have a substantially compliant housing element as certified by the state Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD is within the minimum and maximum density provisions as defined by the definition of a builder's remedy project. For this site, the maximum allowed density is 80 dwelling units per acre and the project is 16.2 dwelling units per acre, and the project does not abut a heavy industrial or tidal five industrial use as the proposed project qualifies under the definition of a builder's remedy project. The city cannot deny the project based on inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Housing Accountability Act also prohibits cities from denying a qualifying builder's remedy project, unless the city can demonstrate that a project will cause a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety. Oops. Wrong way. All right. So for this project, specifically. Sorry, the SB 330 preliminary application, which locks in the zoning ordinance fees, etc. at the time of submittal, including builder's remedy, was submitted on May 22nd, 2023. They have 180 days to put in a formal project application, and the formal project application was submitted in time on October 21st 2023. The city's housing element was certified and found in substantial compliance. After that, on January 29th, 2024 and the project invoked Assembly Bill 1893 on March 7th, 2025. AB 1893, more or less put to rest a lot of legal issues and that were in question prior to its passing and allowed changes to builders remedy projects compliant with H11 on the previous slide, including changes to the affordable percentage and the income level of the affordable housing. So in this case, they changed to the 7% extremely low income threshold under Builder's Remedy 2.0, which is colloquial for after 1893, as opposed to the original proposal, which was 20% low income under the original builder's remedy. So what does this mean for project review? land use designation and requirements of the zoning district, regardless of whether it does or not. The project also does not require approval of the General Plan amendment. Rezoning or rezoning, and shall be deemed consistent with all applicable plans programs policies ordinances standards requirements redevelopment plans, implementing instruments, or other similar provisions for all purposes. The city basically must evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards. So despite the fact that does not necessarily need to comply, staff did review the project for consistency with the following. Inconsistency with certain requirements, especially the General Plan, are highlighted in the draft permit for the project or draft resolution for the project. So just a few notes on this. With regard to the General Plan designation. The project is not consistent as the designation only allows permanent supportive housing, but the project must be reviewed as if the project is consistent under the builder's remedy for the zoning. The project was reviewed under the R m Multiple Residence Zoning District, which was the zoning district at the time of SB 330. Preliminary application. The project is consistent with. Except for one density bonus waiver for the rear setback, the project is consistent with relative or sorry, relevant portions of the subdivision ordinance and relevant city wide design standards. And then with regard to council policy. 630 for public outreach, on site signs have been posted on the project frontage, a virtual committee meeting was held on August 12th, 2024 via Zoom and was attended by approximately 56 people, and there was an in-person follow up meeting on August 19th, 2024 at the Vineland Library, attended by approximately 30 people. This hearing and the subsequent City Council hearing were noticed at 1000 foot radius, and all interested parties were also notified of this hearing via email. I'm going to toss it over to court to go over the environmental review. Thank you, Jason, and good evening everybody. My name is Court Hitchens and I am the environmental project manager for this project. With regard to environmental Review and Environmental Impact Report, or EIR was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA. The EIR was circulated for public review for 45 days and 21. Formal comments. Comment letters were received from public agencies and from members of the public. All of the comments were addressed in the final EIR and those responses were posted online prior to today's hearing. Minor revisions were made to the EIR as a result of comments received, but no comments raised. New substantive issues that were not addressed in the draft EIR and no comments received. Identified issues that would require recirculation of the draft EIR. The EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources to lessen significant levels. The MRP also includes mitigation measures to reduce the project's impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation, but not to less than significant levels. The EIR found that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation from air from VMT. Due to the project's location in an area of Immitigable VMT, requiring a statement of overriding considerations that we will discuss in more detail in a few slides later in staff's presentation. I will pass it to Manjeet. Weight with the Department of Public Works overseeing the transportation analysis for the project. So the project is subject to Council policy. 5-1 transportation analysis to determine its transportation impacts under CEQA. The results of the analysis indicate that the project is located in an area of inimitable medical vehicle miles traveled per capita and therefore results in significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA. This project must meet the requirements for market rate or mixed income residential projects without a General Plan amendment. As builder's remedy projects do not require a General Plan amendment. The three requirements are as follows. First, consistency with the General Plan designation. While the project is not consistent, builders are. Many projects are deemed consistent, so the project meets this requirement. The overriding benefits contributed by the project are for transportation and housing and will be discussed on the following slides, and there are no applicable area plans for the subject project. Next slide. As mentioned on the previous slide, Council Policy 5-1 offers a pathway to achieve overriding community benefits for projects located in immutable VMT areas for project approval per policy, the project must mitigate to the maximum extent feasible first and then provide either an override payment or construct transportation system. Improvements in that value for unmitigated VMT per capita, the project is reducing its VMT by first providing pedestrian and transit network improvements at the Camden and Blossom Hill intersection. The project will be removing the free right turns at the intersection which will help to slow down vehicular turning movements and shortened pedestrian and bicycle crossing distances through the intersection. Working with VTA, the existing bus stop at the intersection will also be relocated to the far side, along with a new concrete bus, pads, bus shelter and a bench which will encourage existing and future residents to utilize transit as an alternative to driving. After these improvements, the project's VMT override obligation is still a little over $2 million, and this is in $2,025 and is subject to escalation per the engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. To ensure that the value remains consistent over time. In lieu of payment, the project will be constructing a new new traffic signal at the intersection of Camden Avenue and Singletree Way, including Ada ramps and yellow crosswalks along Camden Avenue. These improvements will enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, slow down vehicular turning movements through the intersection, and will provide more pedestrian visibility to drivers. Thank you. Okay, so to get back to the SQL review for this project, as I previously mentioned, the EIR found that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation from VMT. So the proposed project would not be consistent with the VMT design element outlined in the Bay Area Air District's GHG threshold. Under criterion A. Additionally, the proposed project's VMT impacts would conflict with the state's scoping plan and the Bay Area Air District's Bay Area Plan, which are applicable. State and regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The project's significant VMT impacts would not be consistent with the state and regional climate goals, and no additional mitigation measures were identified to reduce that impact to less than significant level and therefore, the project's incremental contribution to GHG, g g emissions would be cumulatively considerable. And finally, the project's VMT would remain. The project's mitigated. VMT would remain above the city's threshold of 11.9 VMT per capita. Even with the mitigation. project require a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA guidelines. Section section 15093. In order for the project's EIR to be adopted, this section of the CEQA guidelines 15093, provides that the decision making agency, the city of San José in this case, must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal social technological and other benefits of the project, including region wide or statewide environmental benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks. When determining whether to approve the project. If those benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable for approval of the proposed project. In this case, the overriding benefits provided by the project by the proposed project include diverse housing options, including the restriction of eight homes priced for extremely low income households. The project would provide 108 residential units in total, helping the city to increase housing supply in an already developed area. The project would also provide transportation improvements in the form of benefits from the construction of a new signal at the Camden and Single tree intersection in lieu of paying the VMT offset value. In addition to the maximum feasible extent of VMT mitigation, including the pedestrian network improvements, traffic calming, bicycle network improvements and transit system improvements that are needed in this area. And lastly, the project would be a 100% electric project meeting the requirements of the city's reach code. Back to you, Jason. All right. Thank you. Court and Manjeet. So to this sorry, the staff recommendation for this project would be because staff did not identify any specific adverse impacts to the public health and safety for the project. In this review, staff's recommendation is that Planning Commission recommend the City Council take all of the following actions, which is adopt an EIR, including an SoC. Adopt a resolution to approve the vesting tentative map and adopt a resolution to approve the site development permit. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicants are or will power and Scott Murray and they are here. All right. Thank you very much. At this time, we will do public comment. Each speaker. Oh, I'm sorry, is there an applicant presentation? That's two weeks in. A row. Do you want me to take it from here? I have the presentation. Can you hear me? Hi. So my my objective here was to have a really quick presentation for you, but I just wasted most of my time trying to get the slideshow up, so I'll keep it brief. My name is Orvel Power. I'm the developer here and I'm here to kind of take you through. I guess, the history from our side of the side of the story. So we're excited about this project and start with the first slide. So just a bit of a history here. In August of 22, there was a RFP that was put out by the Union School District to develop the site, and we put in an offer. There was a previous applicant that came through and was looking to develop self storage and affordable housing on the site, and that wasn't feasible. So they called us back. The school district called us back, and we stepped in and looked at the site. The first thing we noticed was that the site had the zoning for housing. It had WM zoning, zoning, which we felt was was interesting. Second thing, we noticed that the General Plan designation was. So the initial the initial thought was, okay, you know, this clearly was planned for housing at one point in time. City is had a General Plan that had a different designation. And during that process, the concept of builders remedy came along. And ultimately we made the decision of builder's remedy or General Plan amendment, and we ended up going with the General Plan designation the builders remedy process. So benefits of this project ultimately is is going to produce income for the Union School District. So what we're doing is an exchange where we buy the property. We we trade them for our property. The funds that are used, they use then go and buy income production. So at the end of the day, there'll be 108 townhomes which are needed. And as well as income production for the school district. School district is here as well. If you have any questions of them. Next slide. So, as staff pointed out in their presentation, which was great and way more detailed than than I planned to be, we are carving out about 6.7 acres. The existing school is going to remain. Next slide please. So this was kind of our our timeline for our application process. And you'll see that we held a total of three community outreach meetings. Each of those outreach meetings we sent out just under 700 letters to the neighborhood. And we really had kind of three main issues that we that we found. And we did our best to address. Next slide. Next slide. So kind of the first concern that was out there was the Little League. So what happens with with the Little League and the school district and the Little League had an agreement in place prior to us stepping in. Whereas the school district is ultimately rebuilding new baseball fields. So next slide please. You'll see the baseball fields are going in at the Dartmouth School, which is about a six of a mile away. So there's new baseball fields going in. Our company will be attending, donating some funds to the Little League to help them with their their new snack shack. Next slide please. The other big concern that was out there was just, you know, traffic safety, both from a from a, from a vehicle and pedestrian perspective. And that seemed to be kind of the biggest concern with the neighborhood. We worked with staff. And I think we're, I think we're improving the streets pretty substantially. Next slide. So you'll see there's kind of two main intersections of concern. The first is Camden and single tree, and the second is Blossom Hill and the Camden intersection. So we're doing about 2.4 million of public improvements. It's essentially rebuilding both of those intersections. One already has a stoplight in place, and that's going to be replaced as well as bulb outs and pedestrian improvements. And then another new signal is going in at Camden and single tree. So from a public improvement. I knew my presentation wasn't that great, but geez. We're going to. Have to. Proceeds in the stairwell. Connections do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the Ministry Assembly area. And the Fifth Street subway. To stairwell for access. Did not. Evacuated to the Ministry Assembly area. And. And a lot of it on or near your floor on the proceeds in your stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators, to evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your. And a losses mounted on or near your floor. Proceeds with stairwell connected. Do not use the elevators evacuating to the fifth Street assembly area. And along the stuff is on or near your floor. Commonly precedes the nearest stairwell. For exits, do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And a lot of the stuff is on or near your floor. Proceeds with stairwell connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And a on or near your floor commonly precedes the near stairwell connections. Do not use the elevators, please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And along was founded on or near your floor. Proceeds with your stairwell connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, and along the founded on or near your floor. Proceed to the nearest stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. I have your attention. Please. And the loss is founded on or near your floor. Proceed to the nearest stairwell. Connector. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. I have your attention, please. And a lot has now on or near your floor. Proceed to the nearest stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And a lot is on or near your floor. Copy. Proceed to the nearest stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And founded on or near your floor. Body perceives the your stairwell conditions. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. May I have your attention, please? And a lot is founded on or near your floor. Commonly. Proceed to the nearest stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street assembly area. And have your attention, and along the. South is on or near your floor. On. Proceeds to the nearest stairwell. Connections. Do not use the elevators. Please evacuate to the fifth Street Assembly area. Presence of mind to. Yeah, they went that way. I guess technical staff. Please let me know when we're ready to resume. Let everybody know we're okay. We're okay. Everything's safe. Are you ready? Yes. Okay. I'm glad everybody's safe. I'm sorry. I apologize for the interruption. The fire alarm. Truly do. Please proceed. Yeah. Thanks. Okay, so baseball fields are moving in sixth of a mile away. Two intersections are being substantially improved, both for pedestrians and vehicles. Next slide. Here's some details. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts. There's a lot bigger brains over here in the city of San José staff that can help you, but we're the one right in the Czech. Next slide. Okay, another issue that came up was parking. Where will people park. So just wanted to point out we feel there is sufficient parking. There's 243 parking spaces, 40 bike spots. So each of these townhomes will have two car garage, oversize garage, and next slide. And that is it for my presentation. I want to thank staff for all their help. It's been three year process, a lot of very smart people with the city of San José, and that's all. Thank you. We're here. At this time we will do public comment. Each speaker will have two minutes. And if I call your name, please come down to the microphone and you can line up on the stairs. So we'll start with Richard Bennett, Lillian Koenig, and Susan Suffel. Yeah, that's right. Hello. I'm Richard Bennett. I'm a landlord of a Blossom Hill Road property adjacent to the proposed site. I oppose the development. My tenants will not like the noise and dust created by the construction. For the 1 to 3 years. Furthermore, the tenants views of the Santa Cruz Mountains will be blocked by the three story structures. We do not need more housing in the area, but the children of the area need the baseball field and batting cage that now occupies the site. I wrote this before tonight. There is a significant amount of housing recently completed in the area and is in the construction process. 170 units have just been completed at 1001 Blossom Hill Road, next to Oak Ridge Mall, with an additional 120 units coming out of the ground just down Blossom Hill Road at Kooser on Stanwood Drive. Another 190 units are coming out of the ground. That will add 480 housing overbuilt. So let the children keep their baseball field and batting cage, or they can go to Dartmouth School. Thank you. Lillian Koenig and Susan Suffel. And then we'll have Thomas Hislop. And Thomas go first. Sure. Thank you. Council. Thank you for hearing me. My name is Thomas James Hislop. I'm a longtime resident of Park Almaden neighborhood. Before you guys, before you all certify this final IRR, I want to talk to you about the current EIR environmentally superior alternative, which is 87 units, not 108. the larger project. I placed in front of you. A two minute quick review of what I have, along with the CEQA numbers and along with the environmental impacts by number, all listed out for you with where the deficiencies land. First, this is all being built as you saw, right on top of students and faculty of the Union School District, who's going to let all of this dust fall on these students right across from that, right across from that is open space where there are hawks, there's turtles, there's egrets, there's migrating. It's all in there. The fish and game have called that out on the IR report. That that soil is also going to be moved right in front of a small neighborhood. And then it's going to exit right in front of another Union school district, Dartmouth. So this dirt's going from one to the other there also claim that they're going to move these fields to Dartmouth. Dartmouth already has fields. They have soccer fields and baseball fields on them. So I don't know what we're moving. The sole contractor, manna, is going to do these fields. Sole contractor, no price. There's no plans. The baseball field, the snack shack. He talks about nothing's nothing's been developed. In fact, that land is part of this whole project and that land has not been checked by any environmental report. It has been left out of the entire project. And the scene of this. Lastly, public safety. Thank you sir. That's been your two minutes. That's been two minutes. So what's happening is. So we can we need to move on to the next speaker. No problem. It's all I got you and it's all documented. So anything. Thank you so much. I appreciate you all. I'll be able to sleep tonight. Thank you. Hello. I'm Susan Suffel. I am also a longtime resident of the Park Almaden neighborhood. And we are here to bring to light a lot of deficiencies in the EIR based on the Ceqa requirements that we don't feel have been addressed fully and have been glossed over, shall I say, very general statements. Oh, well, we say these bad things, but there's so many more good things that we can ignore the bad things and we just don't feel that's appropriate. And in my submittal, which follows along with a lot of the deep references that Tom has also provided, we have requested formal responses to our questions and our some of the issues that we see in the process that came with the EIR complete and the draft that's. We do not think that the E.R. should proceed until all those issues have been addressed. And like that. So thank you very much. Zoila Rollin's and Mr. X. I want to thank you for allowing us to come over here and speak to you about our concerns about this project. This project is a safety concern for our neighborhood. The plan showed the streets project single lane. It didn't show you the big, huge PG&E plant right across the street from that. So that is a huge impact. It's a safety issue for our neighborhood and to be able to if there's a fire, we have two ways in. We have a entrance and egress in a egress and egress. Sorry, the infrastructure is a huge impact to our neighborhood. I don't know if you guys have taken a trip down to our neighborhood, but this is going to really be a really health concern. It's going to be a safety concern. There's a lot of kids in our neighborhood, and we need to take into consideration that if any child again dies on in our neighborhood remember this is going to be something that's going to be a burden upon you guys. If you guys approve this project, we mentioned it to all the other meetings that we've been involved to from Mana. So I don't know if you guys are familiar with that, but and then we just had a child hit down the street on Blossom Hill from us walking to school. So these are concerns that really impact me and my neighborhood. So we would really take into consideration with the also the dirt that's going to be flying around the ballpark is there. It is nice for the kids to come and play baseball. I love hearing the bat swing and the balls hit off of it. It's we welcome these parents to come in, but driving down the street with the construction that's going on right now, there is literally only one way in. There's cars that are parked from the baseball field, and then there's big cars that are working on our streets right now, upgrading our infrastructure. So if there's an emergency, there's one way out and one lane to get out of that. Those need to be taken into consideration. I don't think you could put a sidewalk where the PG&E plant is today because it's going to impact that. So you have PG&E tracks. If there's a fire there, you have fire trucks. If there's a fire there, there's no way for us to exit and be safe. So thank you for this consideration. Thank you. Is there anybody else at this time that would like to come down? Please, please come on down. I believe I called all the names, but yes, please come in line. Please state your name for the record. Yeah. Give me a second. Good evening. I'm Doug Benton, commissioners. Live on singles Park Ridge. Actually, I'm concerned about single tree Park rest the streets in the area. Really? It's traffic safety, right? San José needs housing. There's. There's no doubt. I work with young people that can't afford to live here. There's not enough housing in the area. They leave the area, right? There's there's impacts. The economic growth of the Silicon Valley. But the air EIR acknowledges the impact on traffic and the the way that both single tree park crest and the intersections of Blossom Hill and Camden are going to be affected. Dartmouth Middle School, which is less than 1000ft away at Park Crest and Blossom Hill, there's been children hit at that intersection. This is one of two ingress egress points out of that neighborhood. So I would expect the city would address it appropriately. My understanding, and I'm not an expert city code 2100 must provide safe and adequate vehicle circulation. If it does not address that one particular intersection, which is part of the vehicle circulation, it's insufficient. There were studies done, but the impact is during peak school hours at that intersection. So I believe there's a significant incomplete section as far as three of the intersections, one of the three that really hasn't been addressed. I hope you hold the developer accountable to high standards. It costs money to do intersections, but also it has to be accounted for with the existing people, plus the increase in people that will be in the neighborhood. So thank you very much. All right. My name is Donna Smith. And my main concern is and this is probably more for to the developers is single tree. Single tree is this little lane that goes like this. You've got cars parked on this side because of the condos, and you've got cars parked on this side because of the baseball fields or whoever's parking along there, the condo people park there. There's barely enough room for one car to literally pass. Now, in the morning when I leave, I've got kids coming down single tree that live over on the other side. Cut down to go to Dartmouth. I fully understand, but there's this little blind intersection that when you drive, it's a little curve like this. And if you don't know, those kids are coming, somebody's going to get hit automatically. I can tell you right now, I see it all the time. I love these kids dearly, but they right in the middle of the road. That's what kids do. And if these buildings go up and they're going to come out on single tree, it's a blind intersection. I don't even know how they're going to pull out. If you've got a car coming this way and they're going to pull out this way, and then you've got kids and I don't think you can do no parking because you've got those houses that live there. So they have a right to park on the street. So that is my main concern. Are those cars, those kids coming on their bikes and 108 units people pulling out and I who live in the neighborhood also is pulling out on this one little lane. And if they put a stoplight there, which is fine, but it backs up traffic and something happens. I don't even know how those police or fire trucks are even going to go like this. If we're all at a standstill and you can't widen the road, there's just no way to widen that road. It's just not a good road with kids coming, cars going, cars coming this way, it's going to be a disaster. Thank you. All right. At this time, do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? All right. If not, we'll conclude public comment and provide an additional five minutes to the applicant if you would like to use. It. All right. With that, we'll turn it over to the commission. We'll start with Commissioner. Commissioner Olivares. We lost Commissioner Olivero, so he's not here yet. I've texted him to see if he can rejoin. Okay, then we'll start with Commissioner Bhandal, followed by Commissioner Kasey. Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you for the developer for his presentation. He caused the fire alarm. So thank you for that. Just kidding. Thank you for all the members who came out and spoke today. I know this project is a builder's remedy project with significant CEQA opportunities, so I'd just like to take a quick second to kind of piggyback, piggyback off of some of the comments that the public made. And Mr. Thomas and Susan, for the record, Mr. Thomas held the door for us and made sure everybody evacuated safely. So thank you for doing that. So I'd like to start off with, you know. A lot of the public mentioned that the emergency egress and ingress. Is that a would that be a problem for this project? And if you guys can just share your thoughts on on. That. I do want to say that in terms of emergency access, the Department of Transportation has implemented in the last, I think about three years ago, emergency vehicle preemption, cloud based. So now all of our fire trucks in the city of San José have preemption at signalized intersections. So in terms of the local major nodes of the intersections at Camden and Blossom Hill and the new signalized intersection, that's going to go in with the project, that single tree and Camden, the fire department will have a preemption that will allow them to make turns in SS. It will also dissipate any queues for their path of travel. And it's really awesome program. Our director and the fire department have tested it in the field when it was implemented, and we've had good results, so, okay, I understand that. The fire department will have a problem coming in, going, will the public have problems coming and going during an emergency situation? And if these new residents were to come, will this be a factor in the emergency evacuation routes for the ingress and egress? So. as per my understanding of the of the site plan, I think they're in the site, plans are studied and they're actually reviewed by the fire department. And it was deemed that there was enough there were enough access points for emergency situations for people to ingress and egress. Okay. Thank you for that. Also, a member of the public mentioned that 87 units make more sense versus 108. Is that true or is 108 feasible? Or you could just kind of quickly touch base on that. I can address that just from a, from a CEQA standpoint. So if I can pull my notes, but I can start talking. So yes, under in the EIR we studied alternatives and the mention of 87 units is One of the the alternatives. Sorry. Trying to pull it up here. So the project, given its location in an area of Immitigable VMT. That the. That alternative for reduced 87 unit project would still result in significant and unavoidable VMT and greenhouse gas emission impacts and the mitigation measures for those resource areas that were able to be brought to less than significant levels. Biological resources, cultural resources hazards air quality and and tribal cultural resources. I believe those impacts would still remain. They would be lessened, but not to less than significant levels, meaning that those mitigation measures identified for those resource areas would still apply. So it was an alternative analyzed, but the mitigation measures and significant and unavoidable impacts would still exist under that situation. So when all is said and done, 108 units is the applicant's legally able to move forward with that? Right? With 108. You've already had your opportunity to talk, sir. Through the chair. If I can address Commissioner Bundle's question. So the project that is currently on the table and under consideration is the proposed the applicant proposed project and yes, the environmental review is required to study alternatives just for full disclosure purposes. And you know, how potential impacts may be lessened because, you know, with fewer units, the physical footprint of the project may be a little bit lower. But as our planner, Kurt Hitchins mentioned, there would still be impacts with a smaller project and the override would still be necessary. So the project under consideration is the applicant proposed 108 unit project. Okay, so from my understanding, the applicant can go with 108 units. Should the Planning Commission and council approve it? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then I do have one question for the is somebody here from the school school board? Would you mind coming down? I can ask you just one quick question. Thank you, superintendent, for being here tonight. So. The the where we're moving the Little League from this property to Dartmouth Middle School. So somebody mentioned that Dartmouth already has soccer, baseball and other activities. Does it have space for Little League? And will there be an issue? Will there be a problem moving it there? So it's actually ideal time because we are currently renovating the entire outdoor area space at Dartmouth with a new track and field and the fields at the same time. So we're doing that through our bond funds because the condition is not optimal compared to our other schools. And so it's a, it's an ideal time. And we've been working with the Little League because we prioritize sports during the day and after school. So it works out very well. Okay, that's it for my question. Okay. Okay. So I. Yeah. Superintendent, thank you for being here. Proud district proud resident of district nine. My kids all went through Union School district schools. They went to Oster and Union Middle School. So first of all, I want to say thank you for your service that you and your staff and your teachers do. It's really important. We really appreciate it. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the financial challenges that are facing the district right now and how this project will be helpful in addressing those. I appreciate that. So Union School District is the lowest funded school district in Santa Clara County. We get funding per pupil, and so we get about $12,000 per student where some of our neighbors are getting up to 28,000 with declining enrollment as well. It plays a huge factor. We are a destination location, so people want to come to our schools. So that's wonderful. And so thank you for the compliment. But there are fiscal challenges with being the lowest funded. And in terms of opportunities to bring in revenue that will support our programs and our staff. That's what we have to do because of the low funding we receive from the state and the federal government. So thank you. Do you have do you have a projection of how much this project might help on an annual basis for you. On an annual basis? Well, when all is said and done, we have another project. So in terms of a combination of two projects, it's about 1.6 million ongoing annually. That is due to getting revenue from the exchange process, because right now this parcel doesn't bring in funds. And so that that funds will be another added value ongoing. And it's also a legacy project in that it adds housing to our community and access for, for those who like to live in the area, some of our staff, as well as increasing enrollment opportunities for us as well. So there's added value for housing for, for the community and the income to the revenue. Thank you. So is it fair to say this project's quite important to the budget of the school district at this time? Yes, very much so. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. Those are some great questions. I'll I'll wait to make my. I like to hear more from the commission, so I'd like to give it up. Thank you. Commissioner Kasey. Thank you, chair, for disclosure. I drive down Camden. And turn left on Blossom Hill four days a week, taking my daughter from home to West Valley College. So I'm quite familiar with the area and live through the recent construction of the other six homes just slightly south of there. So yes, quite familiar with with that particular area. I have a few questions for the traffic department on slide nine. You mentioned transit system improvements, but the details seem to be that it's just consists of relocating a bus stop. Is there additional transit improvements besides the relocation of a bus stop included? No. So in general, when. These are comments that do come from VTA. So we do have VTA review the site plans and work in coordination in terms of what kind of improvements they would like to see for their bus stops. And currently the the bus stop is located on the near side of the the intersection. And that's like right before the signal. And so it actually makes it tougher for them to pick up passengers, pull over, pick up passengers, and then get back into traffic and to proceed down. And so they've requested that bus stop to be moved to the far side across the the signal. So it's easier for them to pull over and then get back into traffic. And so these type of improvements do help prioritize transit and the mobility of them within traffic flow. And then the added bus shelter and benches also also help promote transit usage. Okay, so no increase in frequency or routes or anything like that. It's the relocation that will hopefully make it a little smoother. Right? And then over time, obviously with, you know, as, as we do get more, you know, residents, we're hoping, you know, that people do shift over and use transit. Okay. On slide eight, there was a discussion about traffic calming at Blossom Hill in Camden. So I mean, obviously in the evening commute, the car is coming east on Blossom Hill and turning right onto Camden to go south on Camden is the proposal to remove that dedicated right turn lane and make it a bulb out, where you have to wait for the light to turn green for cars to turn. My concern there is as much as we see at Los Gatos, Hamilton Road and Union. The traffic backs up, I mean almost to the cemetery on that street at night. Now because of the bulb put there. So I understand that a bit more because I think that will have a negative impact on the neighborhood traffic. Yes. Thank you for that question. We did look at the when we designed the intersection, we looked at the safety measures that we could do at that particular corner because it is currently a free right turn, meaning it's not controlled by Signalization, even though it is within the boundaries of the signalized intersection. So typically the standard complete street practice in the transportation world is to remove that kind of a conflict and essentially what we're going to do is we're going to tighten that corner. We're going to remove the conflict in terms of having the vehicle movement not have a uncontrolled right turn. But we're going to keep the right turn pocket because we did look at the volumes and they're pretty heavy. So we are keeping the right turn pocket. But we're tightening the corner. So that movement will now not happen at a fast rate of speed. It will happen at a slower rate of speed. So vehicles can see pedestrians and bicyclists. More akin to the Camden and Almaden Expressway turns. Sorry, can you say that again? So it'll be. It'll be like what you what was done at Camden and Almaden Expressway where you no longer have a free right turn. You have a dedicated right turn lane, but you need to stop on complete stop on red and go. Yeah okay okay. In terms of I mean, we heard a lot of comments obviously about single tree way and I've driven down that road. And as they note, if there's cars on both sides, it's kind of it feels like a mountain road. You're taking turns for cars to come each way. And as I mentioned, you have the school maintenance yard there, and then you have the condos as well. What assessment have we done in terms of the traffic volumes on that street, and what improvements are we looking to make on that street besides the stoplight, which I think is a great idea that will also get people to slow down on Camden, myself included. What improvements are we looking at on single tree way? We did take a look at the average daily traffic volumes for the project along single tree to see if we could do additional improvements on single tree, but the volumes of added with the project trips are still well within the range of what. What single tree is classified. So as a street like single tree can handle up to 3000 vehicles per day for the way we. We classify them. And then the total volume with the project trips will be around 1100 trips. And so per hour traffic calming policy that we have with that we have it doesn't warrant any additional traffic calming measures along single tree. So the assessment said that the single tree way should be able to handle 3000 car trips a day. And your estimate is there'll be 1100. So well within the tolerance. Yes. And how many do we do? We have a listing or I mean a measurement of how many are done today on the street. The existing ADT is around 800, 805 are the counts that we received. So we're expecting 300 more car trips. That's correct. So it's an increase of about. 108 units. So we're saying three three trips and trip is one way. So three per house per day right. Okay. Let's see. Oh sorry. And then BMT number for this one. Trying to understand. Yes, it's a bit over, but I'm trying to understand how that fits in the realm of other recent developments and people mentioned as well. Obviously Boston Hill and Blossom Hill where the fish market used to be. Do we have what. BMT those were much more high density and they're not necessarily any closer to highway than this particular development. Do we have BMT numbers for either of those? Yes, for blossom we do for Blossom Hill. Todd, which was the VTA site. That site is very it though more dense. We applied the policy in the same exact way as we did for this project. We're very consistent in that. So that project is also providing both. Well, that project's providing transportation and physical improvements as well as some transportation demand management programs. The override for that one in today's dollars would be roughly about 1.6 million. And that project will also be constructing similar improvements at the intersection of. I can pull that up real quick. Sorry. So the BMT for this particular one is 13.5. What was the BMT for either of those Blossom Hill that were added either Khuzhir where Chuck E cheese was or where the fish market was closer to Winfield. The cruiser project was actually exempt under CEQA. That one didn't have significant unavoidable impacts. The one I'm thinking of, of that that we have approved is again the one at 605 Blossom Hill Road, and that's that VTA site. That's down by Blossom Ave and Blossom Hill. Okay. And what's the BMT for that? So BMT for that one was. And in fairness, that is right on top of a highway exit and entrance. So I assume BMT is going to be lower. Right. So it's still it is still a, a high BMT area. Again, we didn't need council override on that project as well. The project BMT for that site was 13.37 per capita. The residential threshold during that time in 2022 when we did the analysis was 10.12. We were able to reduce their BMT using trail improvements and similar transit improvements, and we reduced it to about 12.62. And then the remaining override payment again in today's dollars would be roughly 1.6 million. And we conditioned the project to to provide physical improvements which include again, similar improvements like blossom and Camden at Blossom and Snell. So very similar, same exact type of improvements in terms of tightening up the, the curve radius grade I and doing transit improvements. And then also, again, that that project will be doing some trail extensions at Canoas Creek Trail. Okay. Thank you. And one, I guess for planning department in general, there's a number of comments that were concerns around the dirt at the location, dirt being kicked up. Is there something unique to is there a contamination or something at this site, or is it just the typical construction dirt and impact that we have? Or is there something specific that I missed in the report? Thanks for that question, Commissioner. So I can speak to that. So the project did the project applicant did prepare a phase one site assessment to study soils. And so maybe I'll answer it in two ways. So first we would be applying the city standard permit condition for construction related air quality. Basically best management practices to keep dust and other things suppressed during construction. The phase one environmental site assessment did have a recommendation for a limited phase two site assessment, I believe I don't have it prior to issuance of grading permits, and that is a mitigation measure as part part of the MRP for this project in relation to the location of dirt, I'm not sure that that is is any any different. Good evening, Commissioner David Keene principal planner, City's environmental review team. So pretty much across the valley was once used as the valley was once used as agriculture. So there's residual pesticides and agricultural contamination that exists in soils throughout the entire city. And so it's just common practice to have these mitigations. Tour phase one and phase two, and going through a process of remediation. This is standard pretty much across the entire development within the city. And also the, you know, this is pretty much any sort of urban infill development development within the city would have to do this. In addition, the dust we do have dust control measures that are based upon the Bay Area Air Quality District, actually, Bay Area Air District, now they have best management practices and those are conditions of approval. And those apply to pretty much all medium and larger development projects in the city. Thank you. No further questions at this time. Next, we'll have Commissioner Cao and then Vice Chair Bickford. All right. Thank you very much. I want to recognize a comment made by one of our commenters sitting on the far side when you were referencing, you know, the younger generation not being able to afford a home out here. I'm one of those individuals recently married, probably have no shot at buying a home out here in San José. So I deeply understand what you mentioned earlier. So I just wanted to recognize that. My comment is around the staff memo on page eight of nine. And in particular, there's a section about concerns about the sale of Union School District land. This brings me back to my very first meeting on this Planning Commission. It was last September. It was a joint meeting with our commission and city council. I do not remember who made the following comment, but it hit home and at the time I was extremely sleep deprived with a one month newborn. But I remembered this very comment and it was somebody who said. The issue of, I guess, spoke to the issue of developing on school land, because we don't get that land back. That hit home for me in the hustle and bustle of that very first meeting, not knowing any commissioners and the city council members being kind of frazzled at, oh my gosh, this is a huge joint meeting. That was literally one of the very few things I pulled away from that meeting. And little did I know that was going to be extremely relevant for this conversation because we are now considering to build on school property. With that, I initially had a question for school district staff but superintendent, thank you so much for answering the question from Commissioner Young, and I think that addressed my question on the motivation to build on school property. But I wanted to extend that question to. City staff, and I don't know if there are any particular department. This question would be great for, but just to kind of piggyback off of the motivation for wanting to build on school property, do we see any concern, generally speaking, about developing on school property? Thank you. I'll take it. Thanks for the question, Commissioner. Cao, I, I would. Say that we have laid out our concerns of this in the General Plan section of the permit. This goes against multiple General Plan policies, which, you know, in the vein of your initial comment, if it is, land, public quasi public land it's you know, supposed to be retained for public, quasi public uses. Having said that, this is a builder's remedy project. And therefore, you know, we need to per the government code section for per the Ha, the project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with all applicable plans, programs, policies. So even though, you know, on its face, this doesn't meet the policy the the the state law basically says despite that it is consistent. I think I will add that we are getting other applications on this. There are other state laws, not just builder's remedy, that allow school districts to build housing on their land. Many of these projects are not likely to come to Planning Commission. I believe they have a ministerial process as well for some of them. So these are projects undertaken by the school district or in this case, the school district, in conjunction with the developer. So the city does have policies that say that, you know, we should retain public quasi public land for public, quasi public purposes. But state law in this case and in other cases is able to override. That. Yeah. Thank you very much for those comments. And that's very much appreciated. My second and last question will be related to safety for children, especially with two schools in the area. Do we have crossing guards at either of those intersections being discussed in this project, or will there be any crossing guards installed? Yeah, I think that would be more a question for the school district regarding school operations than for city staff. Got it. Can you please come to the microphone? I can't hear you. She comes down. Could we get clarity on who's jurisdiction is it to supply crossing guards? My my understanding is the city's. So that's. I was trying to advocate for more crossing guards. Yes. We're always in need of crossing guards. We never have enough. There are many, many signs up from the city which I appreciate. So we will always advocate for safety, and we do that with our council members and our. But we do have it in front of Dartmouth Middle School, the city. We work with them. But if there's. I know that's not a decision here, but I will advocate for more because safety around schools at all schools is needed. Thank you. Superintendent. And I also agree with Commissioner Barroso's question about the jurisdiction on crossing guards. I. I too thought it was a city within city jurisdiction that could be completely wrong. Commissioner, may I ask a question? The superintendent. Thank you. Superintendent, isn't it true that this site, the condos are not going on the school site itself? Correct. The school site is going to remain. Correct. We're retaining the facilities. So if we were ever to grow, we could open the school back up. We do have quite a few schools that are being leased out, and the property that is we are not using, it's not an active school site. It's not an active, it's leased out. So but in the future, we could open it back up if we needed to. And you also have leads in our and Lonehill all empty right now right? We had we once were 50,000 students, so we are now at 5500. So we do lease out facilities that are no longer active as a way to bring in revenue. But we also have the opportunity to reopen them at any time. Did you say 50,000. At one time? Yeah. Down to what. A long, long time ago. Yes. 10%. Yeah. Yeah. So is it safe to say that you you folks plan for enrollments that increase in enrollments that decrease because we've all seen that. I'm sure you plan for that. Yes. So Santa Clara County is declining significantly. And so we are projected to lose 500 students in the next five years. So we are going down just like all of our neighbors. But if it did increase in the future, you have school sites that are leased currently that you could. Yes. And we could retain the same this facility as well. Great. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. Kim. If I may, just to clarify, Commissioner Barroso's question, bring it up again. So the crossing guard comes out of Who's budget, the school's budget or the city's budget. Sorry, I can actually speak to that. Doing a quick search here. It's actually under San José PD. So they have a school safety and education program. And so the crossing guards are hired through them and retained and recruited through them. Thank you. Commissioner. Just to clarify about safety, that's why you kind of see this dual BMT and like balance the traffic, goes into pork chops, adding those seem like section slowing down traffic so that it's safe, not necessarily impede or make people longer. It's kind of a balance of doing both of those things. So this project is doing improvements that we think can actually improve. The overall safety may come at the cost, a little bit of time for cars, how fast they can go on the road, but that's kind of the balance we have to do in these projects. Got it. Thank you very much. Next, go to Vice Chair. Bickford and then Commissioner Escobar. First, I want to say thank you to my fellow commissioners for asking most of the questions that were on my list. I think focusing on health and safety considerations are what we are supposed to be doing. The last two questions that I don't feel we've answered sufficiently. One of them is the single tree density of traffic. I want to call into question the traffic numbers 243 parking spaces, two points of egress. You said 300 more. I think it's going to be closer to 500, but it's still well below your threshold. I'm just wondering if that really is a narrow two way street. And there is parking on both sides. Should we do something about that? Can we do something about that as a condition to enable that street to actually have two way traffic, like one side of the street becomes no parking? Is that was that in any consideration? How that also I'll start. We did take a look at that. I mean, in some areas we will have to install red curbs to remove some of that parking just for visibility at the at the driveway points. In general, parking does help a street to slow down vehicles because you know when when the street feels a little more congested, you are likely to slow down. If we. If we expand and. And remove more parking than people tend to speed. So it's a fine balancing act when it comes to when it comes to parking. And then. Right. And then also just to add to Manjeet's remark, here is also that single tree, the existing curb to curb width is right at the minimum for our complete streets But but again, it's to to a Manira saying it's the fact that with the curb to curb being at that width and with on street parking, it induces folks to not speed on a residential street, which is our major concern for the Department of Transportation, because when you have speeding issues, then your collisions, there's an exponential factor in terms of collisions being fatal. So per our Vision Zero policy at the city, we are concerned and we want to reduce speeds the 85th percentile. That actually brings me to my second question here. One of the things that the that the applicant said was there are also. 443 bicycle parking spaces. So my other question is, I didn't actually see bike lanes going in or how we're supporting kids often ride their bike. And some of these people, they may ride their bike to at least some local things, although with the VMT, probably not to a grocery store or something in the neighborhood, but I didn't see in the layout anything that we're doing to support other than pedestrian traffic, the bicycles and other wheeled thing, two wheeled things. So the project is providing a contribution per linear footage of its frontage towards class for bike lanes that will be later talk more about timing on that. Exactly. I just wanted to mention that our department has Camden Avenue in that stretch as part of our pavement maintenance program. I do believe it's actually in 2027, which will resurface the street but will also add the striping infrastructure for a class two bike lanes. So and we actually coordinated internally our geometrics striping group with our private development group to make sure that the improvements that the applicant will build a single tree in Camden, the civil improvements as well, they're going to match what Dot is going to come through and do with the pavement maintenance. Thank you. And my last question is kind of a I'm not sure how important it is, but we're talking about space that is currently a ball field that presumably kids have been playing on since the school has been there. I know that there was a comment from one of the requesters today about the fact that we're moving a significant amount of soil, that there could have been pesticides in it feels like that concern has existed all along. And I'm just wondering if the superintendent has any commentary about issues with playing on the field or construction at the site that might give us pause from a safety or health standpoint, but the land itself. Tell us your name, though we haven't met, you. I think the Little League has been around since 1969. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is Scott Sheldon with Terra Realty Advisors, with the real estate advisor for the Union School District. So I want to make sure I understand your question. It was about the transportation of dirt or the plane. I want to make sure I was clear. It was about the land itself and the fact that it was, as everything in San José Orchard or some other food producing site. And now it's been a ball field since 1969. 60s. Yeah. So what concern, if any, does the school district have about the disruption of that, that land? Well, the the I mean, they've been playing ball on the field for quite some time. And you know, whether it's been when the school was in place or with the Little League. And again, we did a phase one report environmental assessment, and they said there was really no issues with it. One of the things that comes in, again, we've seen this a lot. We see it here. We see a lot of other places where pesticides were done, but we did a title search all the way back, and we found that there was very, very little stuff that was going on agriculturally on the property. When we went through the phase one process. So what's gone on now, you know, since the school was constructed, is basically the fields were improved. There were obviously fertilizers and things like that that were put on the grass, and that would be in any school or anybody's house for that matter, or lawn. So I think everything has been managed, you know, Dtsc controls a lot of the things that schools do and what they can and can't do in terms of the there won't be a mix of people playing on that area during construction, because the whole area is basically being taken for the new house. The new housing development. And I don't know. And that would be the applicant. If there's any dirt that's being taken off of that site. I have no no knowledge about that. That would be through the grading plan. But that would be the applicant would have to address that. And again, it would be subject to any kind of a phase two report that came in. If there were any kind of pesticides, what kind of remediation would there be? Do you have to take it somewhere else? And it would have to be through a process. Again, fairly typical, but it would have to be through a process that was very regulated. Thank. Thank you very much. You actually Segwayed to my very last question, the phase two that was referenced by staff. At what point in this process does that phase two. Happen? Is it pre grading, post grading? Yes. So the there is a mitigation measure under hazards and hazardous materials that limited phase two subsurface investigation would be required prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and or building permits, whichever occurs earliest. Thank. Thank you both very much. If I could add one more thing at the at the discretion of the chair, one of one of the questions that's come up and this comes up a lot with school districts and, and entitling bodies such as planning commissions and city councils, is the disposition of school district property. And again, you've heard you've seen it in the newspaper. The superintendent Andrews has said this. And we see this statewide that there's declining enrollment. One of the things that we tell all of our clients, and we do work for 35 school districts in all of these kinds of specialized aspects, is don't ever sell your assets. One of the things that many school districts have done over a very long period of time is during declining enrollment. They sell an asset because we don't need it. And and then they typically will go into a program. And those programs then have a lifecycle where you burn through that money, and then there's nothing really there. At some point in time, the Union School District, which has been very fiscally sound in terms of keeping their schools and all of that, but our suggestion was the board has gone along with is we're not selling the property, we're exchanging it for another piece of property, and that piece of property will generate income on an interim basis for the district. And and if the school district ever does need to do something, they will at least have the money because they can take the asset that was required and use that to either purchase another piece of property or build on an existing piece of property. So it's an asset that will always be there. And that's really important for everybody to know. But am I correct in saying the land exchange that occurred is not part of this discussion? Right? Right. I mean I'll take that from the staff side. This is an application from the city side. This is an application for a site development permit and a tentative map. So we are considering the splitting of the lot into two lots. And we are considering the construction of the 108 units on the lot to the east of the original lot. So then help me understand how that exchange, because I understand that happened back in December or something, or it will happen as a condition of this split. The exchange will happen once the developer is in a position to, to be able to do what they would like to do at that time, then they will they will say, okay, here's the money and we will find a piece of property that we can exchange into. So again, it's the asset that stays intact. It's not part of this enrollment. Schools are doing these kinds of things. What is the the correct way to look at that and the correct way to look at it from our perspective is don't ever get rid of the asset. Just have another asset. Thank you for humoring me, chair. Commissioner Escobar. My question slash comment speaks to the construction management plan. Noting that it addresses various things such as hazardous transport tribal culture of that nature. What I don't see is a contingency plan for addressing the impacts to students and the school. Should they activate the school site during the construction period. And they feel that that's pretty relevant, given that we just also heard that at any given time, if they wanted to activate the school site, they could. And should that occur during the construction period, I don't see anything there as a contingency of that activation. So it is something that I would prefer to see added to the construction management plan. Should they activate the site. And I'm not sure which side wants to speak to this or all three. So in terms of coordination with schools and neighboring schools in the neighborhoods during the implementation phase of the project, the project is required to submit all route permits as well as traffic control plans to to the city to public works and d o t for review and approval prior to the start of the start of construction. And then there will be a designated public works. Sorry, there will be a dedicated public works inspector on the project. And so you know, the inspector as well as city staff will ensure that the contractor does coordinate construction activities, activities should it occur with the school. And so the contractor will be required to coordinate those efforts with the school's. Okay. I just want to make sure that not only are they going to work on the the traffic aspect of it, the streets, but I'm also speaking to airborne things of that nature that could get into the school's filtration system that now your children are breathing in to heating and cooling things of that nature. And I recognize it takes it a step further, but it's extremely relevant given some of what is written in this report, that that somehow make it into the documents that we don't lose sight of it. Because I don't want to read years from now that somebody contracted some horrible something because we didn't do that part. Chair, can I clarify one thing or ask a question? Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Escobar, I just wanted to ask you. Ask. You ask. The school is when you say activated, you mean if there's an incident or the school is actually being used because the school is being used today, not by Union school district, but by a private school. I think it's relevant in both cases, given that the liability would ultimately fall back to the school, whether it's their actual students or a contracted entity utilizing the, the, the, the actual site, the liability still will always go back to the owner at the end of the day and ultimately could also fall back here as a city, knowing that we have certain items within this document that call out things in the air and environment. And we did not address the possibilities of needing to include this in that management plan. Yeah, I agree completely. I just wanted to clarify that why it's not an active union school. District school is a private school, Correct? Commissioner David Keene, principal planner, Environmental Review I just want to mention that. So there was a health risk assessment, construction, air quality health risk assessment repair for this project. There is a private school or private is currently being used by students. The health risk assessment evaluates impacts on sensitive receptors, which include residents and schools, especially children. It's very conservative. We evaluate based on based on thresholds for children, which are separate than those for adults. And we did anticipate there would be sensitive receptors on this site and the surrounding areas. And that's what the evaluation for the health risk assessment was based on. And that's what this mitigation measure intends. It doesn't matter if the kids are of the school union, school district or if they're a private school. They are sensitive receptors and we have to evaluate them under CEQA as such. So therefore this this condition this mitigation already addresses that there would be sensitive receptors surrounding the site during construction, and it must be addressed. All right. Next we have Commissioner. Cantrell and then Commissioner Young. Actually, my question is for the city's attorney. So this being a. So the spoon. A site that was not expected to be. But due to state law, it is what it is. So it's challenging, right? If we. What are the. How does the state law influence our decision today? So if we say today, no, this should not move forward. What's next? Thank you for that very broad question. So in order to since this is a housing development project as defined under the Housing Accountability Act, and that means that there's a certain level of affordability in that project. There's six different ways that you can deny the project. Right. Here are the six different ways that you can disapprove a a housing development project. And one of those, which is where the builder's remedy comes from, is inconsistency with the General Plan, land use designation and inconsistency with the zoning code. So those are taken off the table as one of the one of the six that you can use to disapprove. So then you look to the others that are left. What are what are there to disapprove? And I think one of the only ones that we've looked at for any of these projects is if there's an adverse impact to public health or safety. In order to do that, you have to make specific findings based on standards that are written. And and those are not. I think we've discussed this before in the past about making those findings. And we have felt unable to make those findings for this particular project, because we're mitigating a lot of the significant impacts associated with CEQA. So in order to. That doesn't. So that's just the builder's remedy portion So and I think staff has kind of pointed out that this in so many words that this would not have come to this body or would not have been considered had it not been for the builder's remedy. I believe the developer pointed out that they tried to have a General Plan amendment in the past, and that was unsuccessful. So this is not something where we actively wanted to change public quasi public land into residential. However, given the builder's remedy, this is where we are with this project. The wrinkle with this project is because this is in a high VMT area which requires a statement of overriding consideration. So really, what the crux of this conversation should be focused on in addition to safety and all the other conversations that we're having, is do the benefits, do the community benefits of this project outweigh the significant impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and of high VMT? So that's where we are. And really, the recommendation is, yes, this project, given all of the community benefits that the developer has provided for this project, do outweigh the significant impacts, because you're not going to mitigate the VMT impacts to a less than significant level, which is why you need the statement of overriding considerations with CEQA. So if you were to say it doesn't meet those community, there's not enough community benefit. We don't want we don't think that the the benefits proposed are going to counterbalance the. The high VMT and the GHG emissions. You're going to also say we're. So I guess I should back up. You're going to say that we're not going to recommend a statement of overriding considerations, because we don't believe this is met. Those benefits. In addition, under the Housing Accountability Act, that is a disapproval. So you'd have to find one of the six reasons and provide findings as to why we're going to disapprove this project, if that makes sense. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, I appreciate it. And it's nice to have you on the spot occasionally. Thanks. Sorry I missed that part. It's nice to have you on the spot occasionally. Okay, good. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. This doesn't appear like a, what I would call a naturally occurring project, right? Because normally this would not happen. So it makes it difficult for staff to bring this forward because normally this would never come forward. So it's a difficult position, I think, for everyone to be in, including the school system who seems to be, by the way, planning appropriately for this type of swap. I think I was the guy that said, when you get rid of a school, you get rid of a school and that will never come back. And we all know that populations are there trends, right? We've been on a downward trend for a while. The reason I think we're on this downward trend is really interestingly, because of a lack of housing. And I think that's why we are really here today is because that lack of housing has impacted our growth so severely that there's school land available that shouldn't be. The community has gotten used to patterns of traffic and other things that in other locations wouldn't be, quite frankly, there would have already been enough development in the community that they would be used to this type of change. I do have one concern. It's a safety issue about a small street where people park their cars and through traffic on that street. I am. I am wondering why that is not an issue. How why is why is that that safety issue? There not something to overrule this project on because I don't know how you you're not going to move those houses. Those are standard sidewalks. You're not going to take them out. Emergency vehicles will not be able to cross when congestion happens. There. Why is that not a situation here? Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I did want to say that I just looked up our transportation pavement maintenance program in the future. So I did mention that Camden Avenue is on the major streets list to be repaved in 2027, and Single Tree Way is on the 2028 list. It's a local street, so it will be repaved in 2028. With that effort and starting now, I'll make sure that we will assess single tree in terms of any possible changes to the existing operations currently. But again, typically for the purposes of having residential streets with. Safer speeds. We typically recommend curb to curb. What of what we see out there currently today, the 34 curb to curb is the minimum. It is tight, of course, but I think it's also the existing geometry of single tree way. It's horizontal alignment has some obscurities we can say. So perhaps or more than perhaps. I will talk to my colleagues to see where on street parking might have to be omitted so that we can have a better transitions for the vehicle paths. Yeah, I, I want to jump in here. Sorry. I think something that both. Daniel and I, I think there's one word that we missed. It's an immitigable specific adverse impact that needs basically the impact needs to be Immitigable. So if the concern is, for example, there's not enough space or firetruck can't get through because the street is too narrow. Then as Warren was just saying, that can be mitigated by, you know, red curbing on one side and omitting the street parking, then that is what the city needs to do. Then it is mitigated and it is no longer a safety impact. If you know that a fire truck can't get through. So. So I don't I don't live there, but I don't know about you. I mean, if you tell me my parking spots are going away. I would have been at this meeting. I, I don't, I don't understand if that's an option, why people don't know that, why it's not clearly on the table. In terms of the on street parking going away. Yeah. It's not a it's an element that Dot has to assess our department. So we don't do it lightly when we, if we have to take on street parking away on the street like this, it would have to be through a community effort as well. So it would be assessed by our traffic safety team in our neighborhood traffic management group, and with outreach to the community, to the council member. It would it would have to be studied and implemented if portions of the street need off on street parking to be removed. But again, that effort, that study will happen with the pavement maintenance program that will come up on that on single tree in 2028. Typically, that study is done a year before, so we'll definitely be assessing that street in 2027 for sure. So the cart and the horse in the right order. I mean, if we approve this today and this moves forward, then that study happens later, which would have an additional adverse impact, not just for safety. for people's homes and where they park. I don't understand how we how do we get how do we get here today when. The curb, the curb is not going to change, regardless if this project is approved or not approved. So. But the pavement maintenance of the street brings to the opportunity for the city to assess any inefficient operations on residential street. That's what I'm trying to. Say through the chair. If I could perhaps add to what I just said. So typically like d o t will assess each street individually, right? Like it's not just related to a project, but has an ongoing maintenance program and always is looking at opportunities to improve safety and identify areas where that red curve would be appropriate or other improvements would be appropriate. In this instance, the project itself does not have a direct impact to that street. Yes there is, you know, community concern regarding that, but based on what the analysis shows, it's not increasing the probability of crashes like the yes, it's adding 300 cars per day, but I'm not sure if you have data on how many cars would be added in the peak hours, for example. And you know how that compares with the existing traffic. And to to Florence Point, when the study is conducted next year, like this project, even if it was to be approved by council in the coming months, is unlikely to get built fully built out until at least 3 to 4 years down the line. And I don't know if, Lauren, if you have information on when the pavement analysis is done in advance of the improvements, does Dot take into account projects that are approved on that frontage that might help inform Dot's decision on what other improvements may be done to that street? So I'm curious if you have that analysis. Yeah, we do take that into account. We coordinate with our pavement maintenance group to make sure that the we coordinate also with the developer and the contractor to make sure that the. There's no throwaway work. Essentially, we try to line up the pavement program to come in right after. Public improvements are constructed by private developers. So there'll be alignment between the two, between the project perhaps getting constructed and the pavement. Yes. So that the streets are not repaved over and over. So. So I think Dot will be taking all those factors into consideration. One last question. How far away is I forget the small treats, the streets name. What was the name of the single tree? How far away from the development project is it? It didn't look very far to me. Or is it? An access point from single tree onto the development? But there's also an access point on Camden, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. So this seems like zero chance that it wouldn't impact traffic. There. Well, depends on how you define impact. So based on the analysis, there is no significant impact. Yes there is addition of cars and traffic on that street, but it hasn't risen to the level where it causes a safety impact that needs immediate improvements on single tree way. There are improvements proposed on Camden and some of the intersections on Camden and Blossom Hill and Camden, and Single tree for. Again, the pedestrian safety and the traffic safety. But there aren't any identified in the report that are directly related to this project proposal. Hey, Commissioner young, and then I'd like to make a comment also. Thank you, chair. I'd like to thank all the commissioners and all the folks that were here tonight. Really good discussion. And thank you again to the superintendent from the school district and gentleman from the real estate company. Appreciate that very much. I want to provide some context on this. I was actually at this site today. I live quite near here. My two of my kids played Little League here. And so the discussion we're having about the street, it's a typical San José city street, right? So like the street I live on, we have people parked on each side, depending on what size vehicles they park. Sometimes my neighbors and I have to kind of wait a little bit to get past, but it's. It's not a huge issue and not really different from many other neighborhoods in the city. There's been a lot of discussion about the fire department here. And that's the one area of the EIR I do have expertise in being a retired fire chief. The fire department reviews these site plans in great detail. I know that because I used to do that, the last thing the fire department will do is approve a project that is not safe, accessible and workable in an emergency. That is their mission and believe me, they will not sign off on anything. And I know that because I wouldn't sign off on things and I'd have planners and developers and residents angry about that. So I'm quite sure the San José Fire Department has reviewed this thoroughly. They will also get another chance to review it when when the the building permit is actually applied for. So wanted to make that point. You know, we received these two objections. They were dropped on our desk, you know, like ten minutes before the meeting. That's very unfortunate. It's hard for us as commissioners to digest this kind of information in that in that short period of time, I it's really clear to me that both of these were prepared by an attorney. So I. Sir, you've had your chance to speak. Now it's my turn. Okay. You've had your chance. So it's very clear to me that these were prepared by an attorney, and he's. Excuse me, sir. And he's setting the city up for a CEQA lawsuit. It's very obvious to me. Shame on you. If that's what's happening. This is a win, win win project. Let me tell you why I feel that way. Number one, the kids are going to get better. Little League fields. These fields are okay, but they're not great. Dartmouth Middle School is a beautiful facility. I'm convinced that there will be really nice little league fields there. I'm glad to see that. Number two, putting a traffic signal on Camden Avenue and single tree is the most important safety issue for this area. The traffic on Camden Avenue, east of Blossom Hill, is running at 45 to 50 miles an hour, if not more. So putting a traffic signal there will slow down the traffic significantly. Speeding is the number one hazard to kids walking to school or on bikes. So that's a win. Number three it helps the school district. You know the Union school district again I lived there. My kids went to school there. It's a wonderful school district. That's one of the reasons we moved where we did. But there they are financially challenged as a superintendent said, they're one of the lowest provided income in the county. And there's a lot of different reasons for that, which we don't need to get into. But I guess what I'm saying is this will really help the school district. It will bring in much needed revenue. It there seems to be a lot of confusion in this discussion about the school site being closed. It's not being closed. The school will still be there. This is land behind the school itself, and the school district has as chair, Rosario said, numerous school sites that are being leased right now that could be reopened and probably number four, and the most important is we need housing in this city. San José is the single most expensive. Hardest to purchase, a single family home of any major city in the United States. So this is going to be an opportunity for 108 folks and their families to buy a nice condominium in a very beautiful part of San José. So with all that said, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the staff recommendations for this project. Go forward. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second on the floor. If I could say really quickly, I think this is a terrific project. I actually am a graduate of Dartmouth Middle School. My brother is a graduate of Dartmouth Middle School. I coach wrestling at Dartmouth Middle School. My kids go to nod in elementary school. Aaron Gordon, right outside NBA champion, is from Union School District, and my mother in law retired from the Union School District in 22. Anyhow, my house that I grew up in is on Vista Loop in Camden, so every day when I would take my bike to Dartmouth Middle School, I would go up Camden, make a right onto a single tree, and then a left onto Blossom Hill. So I'm very much very familiar with the the street there. And I've gone up and down this street thousands, thousands of times. And I think you guys are all very, very lucky to live in this area, but there's no affordable housing in that area, no affordable housing at all. On my block, when I grew up, there were 11 kids. There are now, of those 11, there are four. Three of them live with their parents and the other one inherited their parents house on the block where my wife grew up. All the kids are gone. Also, I think her best friend lives in Tennessee right now. I think we can either do what we've been doing in San José and see, you know, people not afford, not be able to afford houses, not be able to live in areas like this, and then the kids just disappear in areas like this. Like you said, 50,000 to 5500 and or we can make efforts to allow future generations to live in these neighborhoods right? I think there's an inherent issue with all of these meetings because you folks live in the neighborhood. My parents live in that neighborhood. I think you don't want to see your neighborhood get, you know, worse or have more housing or have more traffic, but the folks that aren't able to speak at this meeting are the people that want to live there, would live there in the future. I hope my kids who go to Nardin are able to live in that neighborhood and don't have to move to Tennessee. And like everybody up here said, we're in a gigantic housing crisis right now. Nobody's able to live here. It's the most expensive city in the country. And I want to see my kids live, you know, around here. And I would love for their kids to be able to go to school in that school district. And for those reasons, I'm certainly voting yes. I think it's a terrific project. I'm really glad to see it come across this commission's desk. And for what it's worth, I think Union School District has the best of the best crossing guards in particular, Mr. Tanner over at Norton Elementary. Right. Commissioner or vice chair? Bickford thank you, chair. These are hard topics for us to address in our city, and it takes all of us to arrive at good decisions. I'm supportive of this project because of everything that Chair Rosario said. I also have some reservations, just like several people in this room do, and I think it is the responsibility and obligation of our planning department, and they know it very well to make sure that these projects go through responsibly. It's also the responsibility of the developer who is is bringing something to the community and is going to have a community relationship for the course of construction, and then is going to bring people, hopefully with families and kids into your community, our community. And I just want to make sure that everybody understands this is not a decision that we take lightly, and we don't overlook. While we were meeting, I read all of this stuff and I completely agree that there are some risks, there are some responsibilities that the developer has. There are responsibilities that the city has. And I'm very confident that together we can work through those and create the housing that San José actually needs. Commissioner Cantrell and Commissioner Bhandal. You know, being a planning commissioner is kind of difficult because, you know, we're making decisions on projects and things that change a number of people's lives and all sorts of ways. But one thing that makes it easier is that we are a group of people with diverse experiences and backgrounds, and there's one person on this commission, one commissioner, who has a background that can't be duplicated. And I want to thank Commissioner Young once again for providing the necessary insight, clarity and understanding on that. The issue with that street that actually helped me, quite frankly, because I was looking at this a little differently. I was looking at this thinking, there's a reason reason why we have builders remedy. And that's generally due to the failure of communities to pass developments to get them through the process and get housing built. It's an unfortunate thing. Who didn't quite get it even in the end. But it's kind of an awesome responsibility for us because we want to see our city. Somebody asked me earlier, why do you live here? You know why. You seem very vested. I'm from Saint Louis. That's where I grew up. That's my from story. It's very different from here. But this city means so much to me because it offers so much promise to so many people from different parts of the world who come here to make a place for themselves. We are so unique, but this won't sustain itself if we don't start making really significant change in how we build housing here. I understand the relative pain that people who live in the community might go through, I really do. I really respect and appreciate you taking the time out of your lives to come here and try to impress upon us how you feel, how you think, and how it might impact your lives. And you can bet we are listening. We heard every word and you can tell by our questions. We examined with our city staff who are great professionals who know these things. We examined the details, we looked, we evaluated. But now we have to come to a decision. My decision is that I think this is something our our city needs. This is something your community actually needs. Whether you rationalize that currently or not. I'm definitely going to vote for this. Commissioner, Bhandal. Thank you. Chair. I'd just like to come back to mentioning that, you know, these decisions are not easy. This is a project that's a p q p in zoning, which will not happen. I think it's a big, big hurdle to cross. Had it not been under builder's remedy. And because of builder's remedy is why we're here today. Even the lawyer mentioned earlier that that they try doing it before, but changing the General Plan. But it didn't work that way. So we're here because many will say builder's remedy is here because we haven't done enough. And others will say that builder's remedy actually power away from local government. Take it whichever, whichever way we want. But there's only we tried asking questions and we try making sure how this would not be possible, but all roads lead back to this. This can be possible and legally it is possible. So I wish that there was more we could ask and do. But I'll have to support this project as well. Thank you. All right. Are there any more comments from the commissioners? I have a quick question, Mr. Hyslop. Is it are you related to the Athan hours? Are you by chance related to the Athan hours or landowners near that area? Okay, just a question. In any case. All right. I know there's a connection. Okay. You're telling me. You're telling me. All right, we have a second. We have a motion and a second on the floor. We'll go to a roll call. Vote now. Commissioner Bickford. Yes. Commissioner. Barocio. I need to abstain. My wife works for the district. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Cantrell. Yes, Commissioner. Kent. Yes. Commissioner. Kasey. Yes. Commissioner Escobar. Yes. Commissioner Nguyen. Yes. Commissioner. Olivero. Commissioner. Young. Yes. Myself. Is. Yes. That is nine yeses, one abstain and one absent. The motion carries. All right. With that, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Referrals from city council boards, commissions or other agencies. No reports. Thank you. All right. Then we'll move on to the good and welfare. Yes. A quick report from City Council. So the SB 79 ordinance to implement SB 79, but also to exempt the industrial lands that had come before the Planning Commission was approved by council and has been sent to CED for review. So we will keep you posted on how that plays out. In addition to that, yesterday at Council, the Housing Catalyst Work Plan and the Housing Element Annual Progress Report that was also considered by the Planning Commission was approved by council. So that will also be sent to the state by April 1st. The other thing that happened yesterday, which is noteworthy, is that the council approved three major projects under the incentive program that allows for more than 1000 units of housing to hopefully move forward with the achieving financing and getting built in the city. So that was exciting news. Moving down the list under good and welfare. So no subcommittee formation reports or outstanding business. But on the commission calendar and study sessions. So our next General Plan for year review task force meeting will be next week. So coming Wednesday, April 1st. So April Fools Day, but we @proml be focused on returning to the conversation around residential capacity because we now have more information around SB 79 and the conversation around missing middle housing has occurred. We will come back with some additional recommendations on that topic, and then we will touch a new topic, which will be the jobs to employ resident ratio. So that will also be covered at this next task force meeting. Can you say anything more about the three projects that were approved? Yes, those were the gateway project. The Bank of Italy conversion project. So they're keeping the historic shell and putting units within that. And a project, Saratoga Avenue, I think it was 1777 Saratoga. Thank you. Sure. And the staff reports for those in the presentation is available online. And then finally, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be on April 8th. We do have two items lining up, one for a mini storage facility on road. And the second item is an indoor warehouse, I think for electric vehicles on Junction Avenue. So those two items will be coming before you then. All right. Anything for the public record. Would you mind if I could just quickly ask a question? Two questions actually. Yeah. About that project that keeps getting deferred every week. I know you said something about that earlier. Do we know do we know why it's getting is there something that's missing or why it keeps getting deferred? Yes. There is technical information that is needed from the consultants and the applicant, and that's why it's not no longer being deferred. We're just going to pause on it altogether until we have that information, and we will notice it for a hearing when we're ready. Okay. So how to brush up on it again when it comes back? So one more question. So this whole weekend slash week, we've gotten several emails for a project that's on 1295 Kerner Avenue, which was on the, which is on the planning directors agenda this morning. Would you mind being able to share the outcome was because we had a lot of concerned neighborhoods, neighbors that reached out and just just kind of curious about it. Yeah, yeah. My understanding is that was approved.