San Jose planning commission recommends council approve 108-unit Camden Avenue project despite unavoidable GHG and traffic impacts

The San Jose Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve a 108-unit residential project on the former Cinnabar Elementary site at Camden Avenue and Singletree Way, even after staff said the project's environmental impact report (EIR) identified significant and unavoidable greenhouse-gas and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) impacts that require a CEQA statement of overriding considerations.

Jason Lee, the city planning division project manager, told commissioners the proposal would create 108 condominiums in 32 three‑story buildings, reserve 7.4% of units for extremely low‑income households, remove 41 trees and require demolition of Little League fields on site. “The application before you tonight is located at the northeast corner of Camden Avenue and Singletree Way,” Lee said during staff's presentation.

Court Hitchens, the city's environmental project manager, summarized the EIR findings: “The EIR found that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and to transportation from VMT,” and that, after mitigation, those two categories remain cumulatively considerable. Hitchens said other impacts were reduced to less‑than‑significant levels through mitigation and that responses to 21 formal comment letters were posted prior to the hearing.

Transportation staff said the project is in a high‑VMT area and must either construct system improvements or pay an override. Manjeet Van Waite of the Department of Public Works said the applicant proposes pedestrian and transit improvements and the construction of a new traffic signal at Camden and Singletree in lieu of the project's remaining VMT obligation, which staff estimated as “a little over $2,000,000” in current dollars and subject to escalation.

Developer Orville Power framed the project as a housing and school‑district benefit, saying the developer will exchange property with the Union School District and provide funds to support replacement ball fields. “At the end of the day, there’ll be 108 townhomes which are needed, and as well as income production for the school district,” Power said.

Public commenters urged the commission to delay or reject the project. Richard Bennett, an adjacent landlord, said construction noise and dust would harm tenants and that the neighborhood does not need more housing: “Let the children keep their baseball field and batting cage,” he said. Thomas Hislop and Susan Sefel submitted written critiques of the EIR and argued the environmental review and relocation plans for the ball fields were incomplete. Neighbors repeatedly raised traffic and emergency‑egress concerns on the narrow Single Tree Way and asked for stricter construction‑period protections against dust and relocation plans that are quantified and enforceable.

Commissioners pressed staff on the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, whether a smaller (87‑unit) alternative would avoid significant impacts, and what mitigation and construction‑period conditions would protect nearby schools. Hitchens and staff said the 87‑unit alternative was analyzed but would still produce significant VMT and GHG impacts, and that a limited Phase II soils investigation is required before demolition, grading, or building permits are issued. The Union School District superintendent explained the exchange will provide revenue to a district the superintendent described as one of the lowest‑funded in the county; district advisors estimated approximately $1.6 million in ongoing annual revenue from a combination of projects and exchanges.

After discussion, Commissioner Young moved to approve staff recommendations — adoption of the EIR including a statement of overriding considerations, approval of the vesting tentative map, and approval of the site development permit — citing housing needs and community benefits; the motion was seconded. Commissioner Young summarized his view in the hearing: “This is a win win win project.” The commission voted to carry the motion with nine yeses, one abstention (Commissioner Barocio), and one absence; the commission will forward its recommendation package and the certified EIR to the City Council for final decisions.

Next steps: the City Council will consider the certified EIR and the project entitlements. Because the project was filed under state Housing Accountability Act provisions (builder's remedy), the local review must balance the identified unavoidable environmental impacts against the project's stated housing and public‑benefit measures when deciding whether to adopt the EIR and approve the project.