San Jose — The Planning Commission on Monday adopted staff recommendations that seven active development agreements (DAs) are in compliance for the review period and approved the individual DAs for Cisco, Apple and Google after recusals removed several commissioners from those votes.

John Tu, division manager in the Development Review Team for the city’s Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) department, told the commission this was "a compliance review hearing for the seven active development agreements in the city," and that staff’s assessment covered the period between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025. Tu said the item did not involve consideration of new or modified DA terms and that, where amendments are needed, those would return through the appropriate process.

The staff presentation listed seven DAs subject to the review, including the Jackson Taylor Japantown DA, Museum Place, several North and South San Jose projects (including Apple, Hitachi and Western Digital references), Vista Montez Home Equity and the Downtown West/Google agreement. Tu asked the commission to adopt resolutions of compliance if members agreed with staff’s findings.

On one detailed item, staff proposed amending Exhibit F of the Jackson Taylor Japantown DA to clarify construction timing for the Center for the Creative Arts. Staff said the amended language would set a seven‑year term tied to the construction deadline and would state that the center "must be completed no later than Nov. 1, 2032."

Recusals and separate votes

Several commissioners recused themselves from votes on DAs where they had financial conflicts. The city attorney and staff reviewed the recusal rules and noted the $2,000 stock‑ownership threshold and an exception for mutual‑fund holdings. The commission agreed to take a combined vote on the items that did not involve Cisco, Apple or Google and then to vote on each of those three companies’ agreements individually once conflicted commissioners left the dais.

The commission approved the non‑conflicted items in a single roll call vote, carried 11–0. The commission later voted to approve the Cisco DA with a 10–0 tally and one recusal/absence. The Apple DA carried with nine in favor and two recusals. The Google Downtown West DA passed after a roll call that produced six yes votes, one no and four recusals.

Community benefits, committee questions

Commissioners pressed staff for details about community benefit funding tied to the Google Downtown West DA. A commissioner asked which benefits remain active and when funds will be paid; staff said the DA established a committee and that about "$5 million set aside" was part of the DA’s funding for community benefits. "The dispersal of the fund is up to the committee," staff said, and staff offered to follow up with the committee and provide an update to the commission.

Commissioner Cantrell raised a concern about how some funds had been used, saying, "There was a million dollars allocated to the Gardner community ... those funds have been commandeered by PRNs." Staff replied that the DA established the committee to determine dispersal and that staff would reach out to the committee and relevant departments for a status update.

Other actions and procedural items

Earlier in the meeting, the commission approved a staff request to defer CP 25001 / ER 25 007; a motion to defer (moved by Commissioner Bondahl and seconded by Commissioner Casey) passed with nine in favor and two absences, and staff said the deferral will be revised to Jan. 28, 2026. The consent calendar was approved (eight yes, two absences, one abstention — Commissioner Amy Escobar).

What’s next

Staff said it will provide the requested updates on the Downtown West/Google committee disbursements and can return with further detail about community benefits and committee activity. The City Council will continue to handle any DA amendments or entitlements that exceed the scope of this compliance hearing. The commission adjourned at 7:19 p.m. and noted it will not meet again until after the holiday period.

Quotes used in this article are drawn from the Planning Commission meeting transcript and attributed to speakers who appeared during the public hearing and votes.