Report 1 of 8 · San José District 7
Rezone HI → CIC · the GPA question · deadlines · costs · the DO-BEFORE-6/24 list · the planner headwind + counter
Is a General Plan Amendment actually required, or can you argue the site already conforms to the "Monterey Business Corridor" employment designation and proceed Rezoning-only? This single decision drives timeline (months vs to-2028), cost, and the whole path. Put it to Andrew at the top of the 6/24 call.
The conformance argument (your best case)
The narrative argues the site already sits within the City's Monterey Business Corridor — an older industrial corridor the City intends to keep employment-serving (warehouse, office, service, storage, recreation, fairgrounds-related). The 2040 GP is a "policy framework" that "should not be interpreted so rigidly as to impede attainment of its objectives." If the site conforms, a GPA may not be required → far faster + cheaper.
Two paths, what each costs
| GPA + Rezoning | Rezoning-only | |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Annual GPA cycle (fall) | Own track, anytime |
| Timeline | tracks to 2028 | months, not years |
| CEQA | full (MND/EIR) | lighter |
| Cost | high, open-ended | lower |
The catch — staff already disagrees
Division Mgr John Tu: a GP change to CIC is needed and staff will find it hard to support under industrial-protection policy FS-4.5. Planner Hughes (4/10/26): "Rezoning not likely to be approved." Your conformance argument is the lever to challenge the "GPA required" half — and the substantive case for why it should be approved even if one is needed.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §2 · Drive zone doc · Gmail 19d07898797ad11a.
HI – Heavy Industrial (current): built for manufacturing with noise/dust/vibration. Under SJMC §20.50.100, private instruction / personal-enrichment / recreation is NOT permitted — the exact basis of the City's violation (outdoor turf, cages, containers, fence, sport lights on HI land).
CIC – Combined Industrial/Commercial (proposed): a mixed district allowing a broad range of commercial uses + light industrial — and critically the instruction/recreation uses HI bars. The City's own enforcement notice points the cure straight at CIC: those uses are "allowed in CIC and TEC, but not in HI."
⚠️ Tension to resolve with Andrew
A separate Oct-2025 memo argues the opposite — that your glove/bat/equipment manufacturing, metalwork, leatherwork genuinely belong in HI, and a lighter zone could restrict those processes. The reconciliation is the integrated mixed-use story: the site does BOTH, which is exactly what "Combined Industrial/Commercial" holds. Confirm CIC preserves the bat lathe / welding side — don't let the rezone outlaw the industrial half.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §3 · Inspection Notice Case #202510357 · SJMC Ch. 20.50 (web) · HI_Zoning_Justification_Full.docx.
Alexandre Hughes (Planner III, 4/10/26): "Rezoning the property is not likely to be approved. I do not see any code violations on the subject APN. Do you have a code case number?" — staff is skeptical, and the City's record links the case to only ONE parcel.
Your counter — the integrated two-parcel employment site
Source: 01_ZONING.md §4 · Gmail 19d07898797ad11a · KALI27_PROPERTY_FULL_REPORT.md.
| City planning fee | Est. |
|---|---|
| GP Amendment | $26,000 |
| Rezoning | $14,000 |
| Conditional Use Permit | $25,000 |
| Mitigated Neg. Declaration | $9,000 |
| Noticing / Outreach | $1,500 |
| Internal Referrals | $8,000 |
| Other | $15,000 |
| City fees subtotal | ≈ $98,500 |
| CEQA consultant (separate) | ≈ $170,000 |
| Engineer / architect | TBD |
All-in pre-construction: ≈ $270K–$350K on the MND path; $450K–$600K+ if an EIR is triggered. Invoiced AFTER filing; full fees due within 14 days — have funds ready.
Cost levers
Source: 01_ZONING.md §7 · Andrew's GPA process & fee memo (1185_General Plan Amendment Process.md).
| Item | Date / rule |
|---|---|
| Code Case #202510357 cure | Jan 9, 2026 — held via active rezoning |
| June 1 soft deadline (2027 cycle) | passed → tracks to 2028 (2027 still possible) |
| May 29 earlier slot | declined (chose 6/24) |
| 6/24 intake | TIME UNCONFIRMED |
| 14-day fee rule | full fees due within 14 days of invoice |
| CEQA | long pole — MND likely, EIR possible |
| City Council | final action, NO appeal |
Three filings required together
GPA + Rezoning + Site Development/Use Permit. Published ladder: Initial GPA + CEQA Scope (Jun 1) → CEQA Initial Study + Rezoning + Site Dev (Jul 31) → comment + revision rounds (Aug 2026–Jul 2027) → CEQA public circulation (Aug 2027) → Planning Commission (~Oct 2027, recommendation) → City Council (late 2027, final).
Slow-roll/exit reality: you can withdraw before the heavy fees, which hit at CEQA circulation. Clean go/no-go gates: after the consultant's CEQA opinion, after the Initial Study draft, right before circulation.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §7 · sanjoseca.gov GP Annual Review (web).
A virtual intake with a Planning Technician to file the application — the start of the process, not a hearing. Andrew is the primary applicant contact. Chose to keep June 24 (declined May 29); filing after June 1 officially tracks to 2028 (2027 still possible).
🔴 Meeting TIME still unconfirmed — no email confirms it. Also unanswered: the 5/23 question to Andrew on whether forms are completed live at intake or submitted before.
Fee mechanics
City invoices AFTER you submit; app is rejected/stalled until fee items are provided and paid; review won't begin until initial fees are paid; full fees due within 14 days. Expect an invoice right after 6/24 with a tight clock.
🎯 Early Consideration (IP-3.11)
Request an EC hearing before City Council without the full development-permit application up front. Council either denies or directs staff to continue. Given Hughes's stance, EC lets you test Council's appetite before the big CEQA/EIR spend. Adds some time + fees but could save tens of thousands. Decide with Scordelis + Andrew.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §6.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §8.
Source: 01_ZONING.md §9.