San Jose council denies early consideration to rezone 3630 Ketman Road over hillside, traffic and hazard concerns

San Jose City Council voted 10–1 on June 9 to deny early consideration of a privately initiated general‑plan amendment that would have changed the land‑use designation for 3630 Ketman Road (District 8) from Lower Hillside to Rural Residential, a reclassification that applicants said could allow subdivision and construction of up to 13 single‑family homes.

The council’s decision follows a staff presentation that emphasized geologic and transportation inconsistencies with the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan and more than an hour of public comment from supporters and opponents. Councilmember Peter Kondelas moved to adopt the staff recommendation to deny early consideration; Councilmember Kamay seconded the motion. The motion passed 10–1, with Councilmember Dwan recorded as the sole dissent.

City planning staff told the council the 8.29‑gross‑acre site at 3630 Ketman Road is largely above the 15% slope line, is within a geologic/seismic/landslide hazard area with a previously recorded landslide, and is currently designated Lower Hillside (one dwelling unit per five acres). Ruth Cueto, the principal planner on the project, said the applicant’s request to change the designation to Rural Residential (up to two dwelling units per acre) would “facilitate the demolition of the existing single family residence and the subdivision to construct 13 single family residences with 1 new private street off of Casey Way.” Staff noted an informal alternative submitted by the applicant that would preserve the existing home and create six new lots; that alternative had not been formally evaluated.

Staff identified four primary inconsistencies between the amendment and the general plan: the city’s focused‑growth strategy (which concentrates new housing in designated growth areas), policies limiting hillside density and new public improvements in geohazard areas, and transportation policies aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Staff said the subject parcel is in a high‑VMT area and that new development there would likely be automobile dependent. The planning commission had unanimously recommended denial.

Van Tee Hoon, speaking for the applicant, urged the council to allow the application to proceed to full review. “This is a housing project,” Van Tee Hoon said, noting the city’s shortfall against regional housing needs and asking the council to permit the applicant to continue technical studies and community outreach. He added the proposal could qualify as a small infill project for VMT purposes and stressed that any building would require geohazard clearance before new lots could be created: “No geohazard clearance, no project.”

Neighbors and technical experts who opposed the amendment cited flooding, observed fissures, prior landslide activity, steep slopes, soil stability and traffic. A resident who identified herself as living directly behind the site told the council the open land functions as an informal walking area and that flooding occurs at the Ketman/Casey Way corner after rain. A structural engineer, Aktem Almanasir, said the area is in “seismic design category D with slope” and described potential hazards and traffic impacts. Several speakers displayed petitions and said dozens to hundreds of immediate neighbors opposed the rezoning; one speaker presented a petition of more than 80 signatures from people living within roughly 1,000 feet of the site.

Supporters said the parcel is underused, that the project would add modest for‑sale housing and local jobs, and that the owner should be allowed to pursue more housing. Contractors, local business owners and union representatives said the project would create construction jobs and economic activity. Jerry DeYoung, a land‑use consultant working with the applicant, told council that many technical issues raised by staff are typically resolved during rezoning and site‑design review and urged the council to let the process proceed.

Council debate focused on competing priorities: housing supply and job creation versus long‑term public safety, infrastructure and fidelity to the city’s focused‑growth blueprint. Kondelas, who grew up near the site, said he had received petitions both for and against the project and that the “main concern … is the precedent or the bad precedent that we’d be setting for development that goes counter to our city's blueprint for growth and development.” Staff confirmed that if the council adopted the motion to deny early consideration, the applicant would have to withdraw the application; continuing the application would allow the applicant to proceed to the rezoning and tentative map stages.

The council’s denial stops the applicant’s current path to a general‑plan amendment. Staff noted that state law options like SB 9 could remain available to a property owner (for example allowing up to two units per lot under certain conditions), and staff also referenced the applicant’s informal six‑unit alternative that had not been evaluated. The planning commission’s unanimous denial and the council vote conclude the early‑consideration step; the applicant may choose to revise and resubmit or pursue other statutory avenues.

The council’s action was specific to the early‑consideration request for a general‑plan amendment at 3630 Ketman Road; no zoning change or building permits were approved at the meeting. The planning department retains technical records and will be the point of contact for any future filings related to the property.

Sources: staff presentation by Chris Burton and Ruth Cueto; applicant statement by Van Tee Hoon; public comments; City Council motion and vote record.