San Jose Planning Director's Hearing - August 29, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Jose Planning Director's Hearing - August 29, 2024
This hearing, conducted by Hearing Officer John Wu via Zoom, addressed routine consent items and a public hearing on a hotel project. The meeting began with a public comment on transparency, followed by consent calendar approvals and a contested school permit moved to public hearing. The main item was a special use permit for a 176-room hotel at 425 South Winchester Boulevard, which was approved with conditions. Note: The transcript indicates the meeting was called on August 28, 2024, but the dataset specifies August 29, 2024.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3A (SF24-002): Approved a single-family house permit for a 2,770 sq. ft. two-story home with a detached garage at 0 Hester Avenue. No public comments were made, and the item was approved.
- Item 3B (SP24-034, ER24-007): A special use permit for Casa Demir Montessori School to occupy an existing school facility at 1975 Cambriana Drive, serving up to 176 students (preschool–8th grade). Staff requested removal of condition 24.g.4 (a $5,000 in-lieu fee for a camera at Camden and Union). The applicant, represented by Michelle Hightower of Terra Realty Advisors, requested removal of additional conditions (building permit, ADA improvements, off-site improvements, and an $8,000 camera fee at Foxworthy and Union). Public works staff (Joe Provenzano) defended the conditions, citing ADA compliance and traffic safety. The hearing officer noted the change from public to private school use and approved the permit with staff's recommended modifications (removal of the $5,000 fee, but retaining other conditions).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Chris Greco (public): Requested that the meeting video be posted on the planning page and participant names be shown for transparency. Staff confirmed the video would be posted on Granicus.
- On Item 3B: Michelle Hightower (applicant representative) argued that no building permit is needed, and ADA improvements are not required for reoccupancy without physical changes. Joe Provenzano (Public Works) countered that driveway cross slopes exceed ADA standards and that the minor site improvements (bike racks, striping) trigger city policies.
- On Item 4A: Public speakers included:
- Chris Greco (Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association): Opposed the zero-setback allowance approved by city council, calling it retaliatory and misunderstood.
- Daphna Wolf (neighborhood association president): Concerned about extended Saturday construction hours (7 a.m.–7 p.m.), noting that Santana Row did not have such hours. Also raised parking issues and a need for a traffic study.
- Dave Duquette (Spar Avenue resident): Requested a post-traffic study and a full 8-foot wall along the property line, criticizing the developer's $40,000 contribution as insufficient.
- Additional speaker: Opposed Saturday construction, asking for a single Saturday pour only, and noted lack of community engagement.
- Don (Wona neighborhood): Questioned the $40,000 contribution, Saturday construction noise, and parking guarantees (changed from 45 guaranteed to “up to 45”).
Discussion Items
- Item 4A (SP23-005, ER230-031): Special use permit for a 7-story, 176-room hotel at 425 South Winchester Boulevard, replacing a gas station. Staff presentation by Alec Atienza noted the site is within the Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, consistent with general plan and zoning. The project includes a transportation demand management plan, 48 parking spaces, and a $40,000 voluntary contribution for traffic calming. The applicant (Mark Tersini, via phone) requested Saturday construction hours (7 a.m.–7 p.m.) and a one-time 24-hour concrete pour. Public comments raised concerns about zero setback, community outreach, traffic, and parking. Staff from Planning (Court Hitchens, Ray Manjiwani) and Public Works (Manji Biniwale) explained that the zero setback was city council-approved, the $40,000 contribution is to be used with Santana West's traffic mitigation fund, and a post-study would be difficult due to mixed trips. The hearing officer asked for notification of the 24-hour pour to adjacent neighbors; the applicant agreed. Staff added a condition requiring 1,000-foot radius notification for the 24-hour pour. The hearing officer approved the permit with that condition, noting that the city council had removed parking minimums and that the project's traffic impacts were less than those of larger nearby developments.
Key Outcomes
- Item 3A: Approved as on consent calendar.
- Item 3B: Approved with staff's recommended modifications (removal of $5,000 camera fee; all other conditions, including building permit, ADA improvements, and $8,000 camera fee, retained).
- Item 4A: Approved with an additional condition requiring the applicant to notify all property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of any 24-hour concrete pour. The $40,000 contribution for traffic calming was accepted. Saturday construction hours (7 a.m.–7 p.m.) were allowed, with the 24-hour pour limited to one occurrence. The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. We're calling to order the planning director's hearing of August 28th, 2024. My name is John 2, and I'm the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf and delegated by the director of planning, building and code enforcement, Christopher Burton. This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call. Members of the public may participate. But follow the instructions listed on page two of the agenda. If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to identify yourself to provide public comments. Participants who join electronically and have auto input available on your computer or smartphone. You can use a raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine on your phone if you dialed in. To request to speak when your item is being heard on the agenda. Keep your raise hand feature on until staff identifies your turn to speak. During the meeting, you also have the option of calling 408-535-3505 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov. Identify your name. That's listed on Zoom or phone number if you called in. And what items or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until staff identifies your turn to speak. And then you are unmuted. At that time, you'll be unmuted and can provide comments during the allotted time. You exceed your allotted time, you may be muted. So we can move on to the next speaker. Please note the following. The hearing procedure and order operation will be as followed. I'll identify each project as described on the agenda for those items on the consent calendar. I'll ask anyone who wishes to speak on an item. If a separate discussion is warranted, I'll move the item to the public hearing portion of the agenda. If a separate discussion is not needed, the item will remain on the consent calendar for approval. For those items listed under public hearing, I'll ask that to provide a brief report. The applicant or the representative who wishes to speak on the item will have up to five minutes to speak and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record. After the applicant or the representative have spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on item, we provide testimony up to two minutes per speaker, either for or against the project. All members of the public should identify their name for the record. Following the comments from the public, the applicant may make an additional mark for up to five minutes. I will then close public comments and it may ask staff to answer questions, respond to the comments by the applicant or the public or further discuss the item. I will then take action on the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city or prior to the public hearing. The planning director's actions on item on agenda items will be finalized when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or the environmental clearance determination is appealed. The planning director's action on requirements are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the valley code. The planning director's action on the environmental review for the permit under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the meeting code. Before we begin, I'd like to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at the meeting. This includes commenting on the specific agenda items. Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff. The hearing officer staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of the meeting. It results in the removal from the meeting. The meeting of the register hearing will now come to order. The first item, issue deferral. Any item scheduled for the hearing for which the deferral is a future meeting is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda. I'll identify any IB deferred and answer comments from the audience. If you want to change any of the uh deferral dates or speak to the question deferral, those are any items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine on to raise a hand to speak. I'll now open hearing the following item. There are no current items currently listed for the item of deferral.
openpublica.com