San Jose Planning Director Hearing - October 23, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Jose Planning Director Hearing - October 23, 2024
On October 23, 2024, Planning Director Hearing Officer Martina Davis convened a Zoom meeting to consider a consent calendar and two public hearing items. The hearing began at 9:00 AM and addressed a parking lot project at Las Plumas Avenue and a residential subdivision at Dry Creek Road. Both projects were approved after public testimony and staff analysis.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3D (SP24019 & ER240130): Approved as part of the consent calendar – special use permit for Creekside School expansion (25 to 60 students) and a new daycare (Autism Lab, up to 16 children) at 5629 Lean Avenue. CEQA exempt under 15301. No public comments on this item.
- Item 3A (H20020 & ER24093): Originally on consent but pulled for separate discussion per public request (see Public Hearing). All other consent items were approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
Item 3A – 1551 & 1601 Las Plumas Avenue (Parking Lot)
- Lillian: Expressed concern about removing eight ordinance-sized trees, questioning tree canopy replacement and climate goals. Asked how the city addresses tree removal when involved with VTA/BART projects.
- Justice: Raised questions about potential discovery of Native American remains, compliance with NAGPRA, tribal engagement, and educational initiatives. Also requested an accommodation for vision impairment.
- Staff (David Keon): Responded that the site is disturbed with low probability of remains; conditions of approval include a process for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission if remains are found. No tribal consultation required due to CEQA exemption.
Item 4A – 2130 Dry Creek Road (7 Single-Family Homes Subdivision)
- Debbie Fernandes (neighbor at 1741 May Kirk Court): Noted that a prior letter from neighbors (Aug 2023) was not addressed in the staff report; asked for response on concerns regarding site design.
- Susan Brenner (neighbor on Dry Creek Road): Opposed project citing inconsistency with zoning, traffic safety on winding road, loss of old oak trees, and lack of feasible mitigation.
- Nell Ayello: Asked if large heritage trees in the center of the property would be preserved, and where 173 replacement trees would be planted.
- Sonja Kais (adjacent property owner): Noted the project does not address affordable housing (houses expected $3–5 million) and impacts on wildlife habitat and neighborhood character.
- Rhonda (1759 May Kirk Court): Requested removal of tree #47 (coastal live oak) on fence line due to fire hazard and insurance concerns; said previous owner did not remove it.
- James Campbell: Asked for more transparency and accommodation for vision; referenced historical and sacred land issues.
- Patty Machado (across Dry Creek Road): Opposed project due to traffic, parking, and loss of two large front oak trees; emphasized the property's beauty and historic value.
- Joe Robino (1747 May Kirk Court): Concerned about fence height, integrity, and privacy; asked for removal of two parking spaces in the court.
- Steve Lee (1753 May Kirk Court): Opposed plan regarding safety and privacy; requested brick fence instead of wood, and noted second-story windows would overlook his backyard.
- Anthony Saroni (2211 Dry Creek Road, resident since 1953): Suggested eliminating the park strip inside the cul-de-sac to gain street width, preserve trees, and avoid pedestrians walking in the street.
- Richard Asinto (1759 May Kirk Court): Asked about soil testing (recalled an above-ground tank), tree/brush removal, fence height (base on highest adjoining property), and worker parking during construction.
Discussion Items
Item 3A – Las Plumas Parking Lot
- Staff (Sean Too): Presented that the parking lot is needed for a BART staging area; the existing corporation yard loses rear parking. Eight ordinance trees removed; 32 replacement trees required (seven 24-inch box trees and 15-gallon trees planted on site). Project is exempt from CEQA (15311B).
- Hearing Officer: After public comment, approved the permit and environmental clearance, noting conformance with zoning, tree replacement policy, and standard archaeological measures.
Item 4A – Dry Creek Road Subdivision
- Staff (Alec Calien): Project includes demolition of existing house, removal of 37 trees (31 ordinance-sized), and planting of 173 replacement trees. Tentative map to subdivide 1.6 acres into seven lots. Density 4.5 du/ac (R1-5 zoning, min lot 8,000 sq ft). CEQA exempt under 15332 (infill). Parking: no minimum requirement since April 2023; project provides at least two garages per home. Traffic: 66 daily trips, 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. peak trips – well below 2,000-3,000 daily trips on a residential street.
- Applicant (Steve Massai, co-developer): Emphasized local team, custom homes by top architect, lower density than allowed, and homes priced at $1,200-$1,300/sq ft. Noted the property was purchased from Mr. Kirk who chose their team for respectful design.
- Environmental Project Manager (Charlotte Newen): Addressed that a Phase I ESA found no recognized environmental conditions; no Phase II needed. Biological resources: site has no value for endangered species. No unusual circumstances for CEQA exemption. Traffic congestion is not a CEQA metric.
- Public Works (Jason Yan): The project will include a park strip and sidewalk per city standards; street parking will be evaluated. Driveway location provides adequate sight distance for ingress/egress.
- Historic Evaluation: The 1935 home was evaluated and found ineligible for historic listing.
- Hearing Officer: Noted that parking requirements when in effect required two covered spaces – project meets that. Stated that CEQA exemption still requires substantial analysis. Approved the site development permit, tentative map, and CEQA exemption.
Key Outcomes
- Item 3A – Las Plumas Parking Lot: Approved (site development permit H24020, environmental clearance ER24093). Conditions include tree replacement (32 trees, with seven 24-inch box trees and 15-gallon trees on site) and standard archaeological discovery protocol.
- Item 4A – Dry Creek Road Subdivision: Approved (site development permit H23006, tentative map T23005, environmental clearance ER23057). Conditions include replacement of 173 trees (15-gallon) on site or in-lieu fee, compliance with standard zoning setbacks and height limits (7-foot max fence), and worker parking plan to be submitted with construction permits.
- Hearing Officer urged applicant to maintain open communication with neighbors on construction, fencing, and lighting to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, it's nine o'clock, so let's get started. Good morning. We're calling to order the planning director hearing of October 23rd, 2024. My name is Martina Davis, and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of 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 by following the instructions listed on page two of the agenda. If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. For participants who joined electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the raised hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak or click star nine on their phone. Remember to keep your raised hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak. The other option is during the meeting, please call 535-3505 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA dot GOV and identify your name that is listed on the Zoom, phone number that you'll call into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies that they would like to speak and they are unmuted. Planning support staff will identify you by name when it is your turn to speak. At that time, you will be unmuted and can provide comment for the allotted time. If you exceed your allotted time, you may be muted, so we can move on to the next speaker. The hearing procedure will an order of input will be as follows. I will identify each project as described on the agenda. For those items on consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the items. If a separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to public hearing portion of the agenda. If a separate discussion is not needed, the item will remain on consent calendar for approval. For those items listed under public hearing, I will ask staff to provide a brief report. The applicant or their 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 their representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item may 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, although that is not required. Follow comments. Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes. I will then close the public hearing and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or public, or further discuss the item. I do spoke. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Is the other one available by me? No, this is anyone. Oh, yeah. Apologies for the reception. I may need to move from. I'll then close a public hearing and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to the comments, maybe the applicant or 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 you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The planning director's actions on agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or environmental clearance determination is appealed. The planning director's actions on permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance. The planning director's action on environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Municipal Code Environmental Clearance Ordinance. Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our codes of conduct at meetings. This includes commenting on specific agenda items only. Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff. The hearing officer or staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with these code of conducts will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting. The meeting direct of the director's hearing will now come to order. Okay, so with that, the first um item of the agenda after order or call to order is uh deferrals. Any item scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting is requested will be removed to this portion of the agenda and considered for the matter of deferral. I will identify any items to be deferred and asked for comments from the audience. If you wish to change uh change any of the deferrals or speak to the question or deferring, please use raise hand.
openpublica.com