Good morning.

We are calling to order the planning director hearing of August 13th, 2025.

My name is David Kean, 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 will be held via Zoom conference call.

Members of the conference 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 raise hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak or click star nine on their phone.

Remember to keep your raise hand feature on until planning support staffs identify your turn to speak.

Alternatively, during the meeting, please call 408-535-8517 or email planning support staff, all one word at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that is listed in Zoom, phone number that you'll be calling into Zoom with, and what item or items you'd like to comment on.

All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies 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 allowed time.

If 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 of input will be as follows.

I will identify each project as described on the agenda.

For those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item.

If a separate discussion is warranted, I will 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 staff 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 has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on the 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 it is not required.

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 the public, or further discuss the item.

I will then take an 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 enriched 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 actions on environmental review for permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with requirements of Title 21 of the municipal code, environmental clearance.

Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on specific agenda items only.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation of 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 disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the director hearing will now come to order.

So the first item is the item of deferrals.

So any item scheduled for hearing this morning for deferral meeting to a future date is requested, will be moved to this portion of the agenda considered on a matter of deferral.

So I want to see, are there there are no items listed for deferral?

Staff, do you have any requests to move any items to defer all?

And support staff.

Have you received any calls requesting or anything, any input from the public requesting deferrals?

No, we have not.

Okay.

The matter of deferrals is now closed.

I'm now going to move on to the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine.

It will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for separate discussion by the hearing officer.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the hearing officer.

If you wish to speak on one of these items, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or click star nine to raise a hand to speak.

Actually, we have only one item on the consent calendar, and that is item number three A.

It is file number H23034, T23024, and ER23-240.

This is the site development permit to allow the construction of one 20-unit four-story multifamily building, including two deed restricted units at or below 50% AMI, through the demolition of two existing single-family residences and two accessory buildings and the removal of 11 trees, including nine ordinance size and two non-ordinate size trees on an approximately 0.35 gross acre site.

The project utilizes the state density bonus law to achieve additional units and a state density bonus law provisions are granted, including two concessions regarding balcony width, ground floor unit orientation, and one waiver set back to Wooster Avenue.

Besting tenant of map is also proposed to allow up to 20 residential condominiums and one common area of approximately 0.35 gross acres located on the south southern corner of Wooster Avenue on Parkside Terrace, a private street at 449 and 447 Wooster Avenue.

The environmental is a categorical exemption for section 15332 for info development projects.

Staff recommendation is consider the exemption in accordance with SQL and approve of vesting a site development permit and a besting tentative map.

So as off, it's on the consent counter.

Is there anybody who wants to speak on this item?

anybody in the public that would like to speak on this item and move it from consent to public hearing, please raise your hand.

Okay, I do see one attendee has raised their hand.

Actually, two.

Lord Staff, can you confirm that these that the people with the raised their hands want to speak on item three A?

Um Yes.

Lillian, um, you are unmuted.

Can you confirm that you wanted to leave a comment?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

Um, sorry, we'll wait till um I think it's gonna pull it to public hearing and then you'll have your chance to speak.

All righty.

Yeah.

Since there are members of the public who want to speak on this item, I'm going to move item number 3A to the public hearing calendar.

And since calendar items, okay, it is paused.

Oh.

Everything okay?

Oh.

Sorry.

No problem.

Okay.

So I am moving item number three A to the public hearing calendar.

Um, so public hearing, there are now two items.

So item number three A.

Um, staff, do we have I'll start with item number three A before moving on it on to item number four A, the previously scheduled item of public hearing.

So um, staff, do you have a brief presentation for item number three A?

Yeah, I'll have an oral uh good morning hearing officer.

Uh, my name's Jason Lee, project manager for this uh and also the other project, but uh only an oral presentation for this one.

I do not have a slide deck prepared.

Um good morning again.

Um, my name is Jason Lee, project manager for this project at 447 and 449 Wooster Avenue for the demolition of two existing single family houses and two accessory buildings, the removal of 11 trees, and the construction of a 20-unit four-story multifamily building, uh, as well as a tentative map to make up to 20 condominium units for the new building.

Uh, this project was evaluated with respect to the state density bonus law and other state laws, the general plan, the five wounds urban village plan, the municipal code, the citywide design standards and guidelines, city council policies, and sequel.

Um, specifically, this project uses provisions of state density bonus law in order to increase the density of the project above the maximum allowed 35 dwelling units per acre, as well as concessions to reduce the minimum required width of private open space from 15 feet to 13 feet to allow ground floor residential units to have interior entrances and a waiver to decrease the Wooster size setback, uh minimum setback from 10 feet to six feet.

The site has a general plan designation of mixed-use neighborhood, and therefore as a housing project, it is subject to AB 3194, a state law which allows the entire site to be treated as if it were in the MUN mixed use neighborhood zone.

The project is within the Five Wounds Urban Village Plan Area and meets requirements for Mediterranean architecture, minimal setbacks, public art streetscape elements, and unbundled parking.

The project meets the MUN height requirements and setback requirements, except the Wooster site setback and uses provisions in state law to allow 20 units and a density of 57.1 dwelling units to the acre.

The project meets the private open and common space requirements of the MUN district, and the project is exempt from transportation demand management requirements, as it is less than 26 multifamily units, and it includes seven parking spaces and a surface parking lot accessed from Wooster Avenue.

For CEQA, this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act for infill development.

The site development permit includes standard conditions of approval as well as additional conditions for roosting bats, construction-related vibration, and the use of U.S.

EPA tier 4 construction equipment.

Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30 for public outreach for standard projects.

And on-site sign was posted on the project site frontage on November 30th, 2023.

And this hearing was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.

Staff uh therefore recommends the director consider the exemption and approve the site development permit and the tentative map.

Um the applicant is Kelly Arardi, and he is in the attendees.

Thank you, Jason.

So is there any applicant representative here that would like to speak?

So yeah, um, Kelly, you're the applicant.

So please, you have five minutes.

Uh well, thank you, Jason, for that uh explanation.

I'm really here to answer any questions.

I think he's covered everything, but if anything comes in the public comment that I can help with that staff can't cover, I'm here to help with that.

Otherwise, um, we stand by the staff report and we agree with everything in all the conditions.

Okay, thank you.

So now we move to public comment.

So public comment.

Anybody who would like to speak on this item, please raise their hand and support staff will call you in order.

We have up to two minutes to speak.

I see.

Sorry, Lillian?

Yeah, Lillian, go ahead with your comment.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, oftentimes when these placards are put out and they're supposed to be public comment, like in 2023, uh, people that are interested in preserving our environment and our trees, so to speak, uh, never really understand that this is coming to fruition.

And basically, you know, we are interested, and there's a lot of people interested.

It's just not myself.

It's just that I usually find when you know you guys are meeting, and then I have a chance to speak.

But there's a lot of interest in preserving our natural uh environment, which means trees, basically.

And whenever the city says the CEQA has passed the uh environmental recommendations, and now we're going to uproot 10 trees, 12 trees, nine trees.

I understand that, you know, um, they're going to uh replace them, but it's just the comment I want, and it's a comment I think needs to be put on public record that we should not be uprooting trees.

This goes on continuously.

We are Tree City USA, and it's nice that you're going to plant another three trees per uprooted tree, but it's not the same.

It's not the same, especially, you know, when you take down a redwood or some um tree that's been there for a hundred years.

And so it's just public record that I'm I'm disappointed in the city's um uh take on uprooting trees continuously, ordinance and non-ordinance trees, even though uh it's going to look great when you finish uh building it and it's going to provide all kinds of housing, etc.

etc.

We still need to keep our focus on what we have already and trying to maintain that and building in or around it.

And that's just my public comment.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David, you are now unmuted.

Yeah, I just like to point out that parking is already a premium in these areas to not require, you know, more density of parking per unit seems an oversight.

If you look at the adjoining neighborhood, there's street parking is already at a maximum.

There's dilapidated cars, there's cars that have been here for months without moving, and yet we're going to open up possibility to how many more units with how many more cars without having on-site parking where they're going to take up the city streets.

That's my concern as a resident of this area.

Um, it's an ongoing concern.

I know, you know, permitting's not an option, but as we infill these areas with higher density housing, we're going to continue to be short-sighted and leave ourselves with less space and less sense of, you know, proprietary areas.

It's just all becomes one giant communal parking lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand.

Support staff.

Have you been contacted by anybody who wishes to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay, I am gonna go back to the applicant.

Does the applicant have anything they'd like to respond?

Uh yes.

Um we uh, you know, acknowledge each person's concern calling in on trees and as well as parking.

But I think as you probably already know, we neither exceed the uh the requirements uh for both those items, and uh it's always uh threading the needle type situation with providing more housing.

But um again, I think uh we comply with all of um the ordinance of the city, and if you have any questions of me, I'm happy to answer it.

But uh I think staff can cover the rest if uh any detail is needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I just want to ask you question of the the planner, um, Jason.

So when this was reviewed, there are the several trees are proposed to remove.

Was there, was there an ability to avoid those trees, or was the building development in such a way because of the density that it was not possible to retain the trees, is there was there any way to even consider keeping these trees to develop?

Quite frankly, with the powers that the state has given applicants, especially for housing.

Um, you know, well, first I should say this because of the density of the project, and because of the site design, and because of how much of the site the building is taking up and the requirement for fire lanes and such, really the entire site needs to be redone, all of the trees and the trees on the site are Chinese pistaches or one Chinese piss bash, one holly oak, one bronze low clot, and the remainder are glossy privets and trees of heaven.

Um, and the trees of heaven can actually just be removed right now because they're single-family houses um as unsuitable trees, but they're going through this development process, so so that's why they're included here.

Um quite frankly, it's it's not possible to build the site at this density without um removing the trees.

Uh I will say, you know, we do comment on the trees.

We do um we do try to save the trees, but given the powers given to applicants, especially for housing projects, especially for housing projects that have provide affordable units like this one and also the other item on the agenda today.

They're basically able to say, Well, I can't meet this, however, I I can't build my project as designed under state law, and therefore, I need to remove these trees.

And if the city says no, there are other powers they can use.

Um, we're not having them invoke these powers.

We would like them to replace the trees, as you've mentioned, you know, to be able to have additional trees on property, and also to have, you know, obviously, this is a small property.

There's quite a few trees being removed.

There's quite a few trees being required, and not all trees can fit on the site.

So in addition to the trees, the the 11 trees that they're putting on site to replace um the trees that are being removed, they are required to pay additional in lieu fees to um help with the street tree canopy, um, public tree canopy basically throughout the city, not just um on site, but also in areas surrounding the site.

Thank you, Jason.

And with regard to parking, so can you explain the city's uh the parking requirements?

So beginning in late 2022, the city has abolished parking requirements for all uses citywide.

So there are no parking requirements.

Um as I explained during the presentation, we we switched to a TDM system, but this project is below 26 multifamily units, so there is no TDM uh requirement here.

So they can provide as much or as little parking that they want, and they've chosen to provide seven spaces.

I will add that due to the proximity of the site to the future BART station, I believe there are also state laws that would limit the amount of parking.

Um obviously the city has eliminated parking requirements entirely, so state laws don't really apply.

But even if we had a parking requirement, I believe that um state law would kick in and they would not be required to provide, you know, the parking, like one unit what one parking space per unit or something.

I think I think they would get a lower required parking ratio due to due to their proximity to the future BART station, but but yes, we're going under the city code right now, and the city code says no no parking is required.

Okay, thank you, Jason.

So I'm going to close this portion of the hearing.

So I've considered everything in the record.

Um, this project, you know, is an infill urban housing development project.

And as the planner mentioned, there are specific requirements from the state and limitations and what the city can do in terms of uh in terms of our ability to deny or change housing projects, particularly ones that are putting in the low market rate units that are subject to density bonuses.

Um in addition, the city is very much pro-urban infill housing, and this is a part of our general plan, and this area is a part of the five wounds urban village plan, which is intended as an area of intensification because of the future BART station.

Um it is currently undergoing uh new urban village planning process, but in the meantime, we have um we have standards in place in order to basically allow denser development in this area.

So when the BART does come in, that station will have enough development to support that transit ridership.

And with this, having urban infill housing is a very critical strategy for the city's overall growth, including for reducing vehicle mouse travel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So this is very much in line with what the city's general plan has envisioned for this area.

Now, I do understand some of the concerns with regard to trees.

The community forest is very important to the city, and the city actually city council actually commissioned an audit into looking at how trees are how we look at tree removals and how we require replacement trees.

Part of the primary issue is that in a densifying city, there's an acknowledgement, and this even goes back to the general plan and the original general plan EIR about the removal of trees is going to be a consequence of urban development as we intensify.

And this is in large part because a lot of trees, landscaping trees on lower density buildings or lower density sites, will be have to remove to accommodate higher density buildings.

We do look at ways that we can preserve trees, particularly specimens that are very important and have value if possible.

However, on many small sites, it's often not possible given the amount of grading and development and the amount of lot coverage needed in order to fit the new development, particularly for residential projects.

That is why the city has established particular tree replacement ratios.

And oftentimes, this means that because of the size of the site, replacement trees would have to be planted at other locations, not just on the site.

However, this is part of how the city is urbanizing, and especially in areas close to transit like this site.

With regard to parking, I also understand the parking concerns.

There, this neighborhood is a very difficult area to find parking.

I know because I've looked for parking into this area, and I understand that.

Excuse me, on-site parking requirements for development has been removed as Jason said in 2022.

So the city no longer requires development private development applicants to provide on-site parking.

They can adjust their plans to provide parking as needed, given the proximity to existing bus lines and also the future BART station, the applicant has chosen to provide seven on-site parking spaces.

So I acknowledge that this is a challenge.

However, given our current current code and also state regulations, and you know, especially given the future BART station, we do not have any requirements for on-site parking.

So with this, given this project's location in the Five Wounds urban village and its location next to the future BART station, I'm going to approve item number 3A on file number H23034, T23024, and ER23240.

Thank you.

Now I'm going to move on to item number 4A.

This is the other public hearing item.

So this is file number H2309 and ER23-106.

This is the site development permit to allow the construction of one 60 unit five-story multifamily building, including two deed restricted units, one very low income and one moderate income, with a roof deck through the demolition of a single family house and the removal of three trees.

This includes two ordinance sized trees and one non-ordinate sized tree on an approximately 0.23 gross acre site.

This project utilizes a state density bonus law to increase the allowed density of the project and one concession, the elimination of commercial space.

This concession is granted.

Located on the northwest corner of the intersection of West Virginia Street and Bird Avenue at 579 West Virginia Street.

This project for SEQA is exempt pursuant to SQL Guidance Section 15 through through two for infill development projects.

Staff recommendation is consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve a site development permit.

Staff, do you have a presentation?

I do have a presentation and I would like to share screen, please.

Good morning again.

Uh again, my name is Jason Lee.

I'm project manager for this project as well at 579 West Virginia Street for the demolition of a single-family house, the removal of three trees, and the construction of a 16-unit five-story multifamily building.

To be clear on this one, this project site includes a small sliver of land, currently used as the basically a driveway for the single-family house, which is owned by the city of San Jose, and the applicant must obtain this land before they're able to move forward with the project.

So this little sliver right here.

Um this project was evaluated with respect to state density bonus law and other state laws, the general plan, the municipal code, the citywide design standards and guidelines, city council policies, and CEQA.

So specifically, this project uses provisions of state density bonus law in order to increase the density of the project above the maximum of 50 dwelling units to the acre, as well as a concession to eliminate the required commercial space.

The site has a general plan designation of mixed-use commercial and is in the MUC mixed use commercial zoning district.

The project meets the MUC height and setback requirements as well as the private and common open space requirements and uses provisions and state law to allow 16 units and a density of 69.6 dwelling units per acre.

The project is exempt from transportation demand management requirements as a multifamily project under 26 units and includes 17 parking spaces in a surface uh in a ground floor parking lot accessed from Bird Avenue.

Um, whoops.

The project includes exceptions for three citywide design standards, these allow the project driveway to be placed on Bird Avenue instead of West Virginia Street because of the narrow width of the Virginia frontage and the location of the signal at the Virginia and Bird intersection.

Basically, those would cause access issues for residents and neighbors.

Another exception would allow a 20-foot two-way driveway on Bird Avenue at the request of the Department of Public Works and the Valley Transportation Agency regarding a bus stop on Bird Avenue, and finally a third to waive the minimum distance requirement from trees to buildings.

They're planting Italian cypresses, approximately two feet from the edge of the building to provide for any on-site trees due to fire department access requirements and due to the nature of Italian cypresses and how they grow.

Staff was willing to give them an exception to that standard.

For environmental, this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act for infill development.

The site development permit includes standard conditions as well as additional conditions of approval for the use of US EPA tier 4 construction equipment, nesting birds, worker awareness training, and construction-related vibration.

Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30 for public outreach.

An on-site sign was posted on the project site frontage on March 9th, 2022.

Due to community interest, a formally noticed hybrid community meeting was held at City Hall and via Zoom webinar on May 8th, 2023.

After this community meeting, the project has been reduced from 18 to 16 units, and the garage entrance was moved from West Virginia Street to Bird Avenue.

This hearing and the community meeting was noticed at a radius of 1,000 feet.

Staff therefore recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the site development permit.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jason.

So is there anybody from the applicant's representative that's here that would like to present?

Yeah, the applicant will be Javier Compost or Vince Rivero.

I don't know who is speaking.

Yeah, Vince, you have five minutes as the applicant to present the project.

So thank you, David and Jason have your compost with VER engineers.

And we're here to answer questions that staff might have or any members of the public might might have.

Okay, thank you.

So if there's any member of the public who would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand and support staff will call your name and order.

Alejandra, please um unmute your device.

Um hello, good morning.

So I am um glad to hear that housing is being proposed at this site.

However, as someone who's lived in the neighborhood for almost 20 years and who hopes to be able to age in place here, um I ask that staff and any elected officials or their staff who may be listening that you please take into account the existing character of the Gardner neighborhood and how the proposed development does not address the need for affordable housing.

When this development was first introduced to the community, it was a four-story building, it is now a five-story building that will replace one single family home.

I see that this development was granted a concession of commercial space, and when making this decision, I wish the community would have been able to provide input.

Having commercial space could have been a great amenity and benefit for the neighborhood.

My understanding is also that there will be a traffic study that will begin soon to evaluate traffic patterns during school drop off and pick up at Gardner Elementary School.

I asked staff to consider deferring action on this item until you have more information from that traffic study.

And I also want to be clear that I understand the need for housing in San Jose.

And please note that if this development were for units that were affordable for very low-income and extremely low-income families and households, you would have my full support of this project because they would be more accessible for families who are getting priced out of San Jose.

However, the developer has communic has communicated at neighborhood association meetings that 14 of the units will sell at the market price, which will be far out of reach for families that call this neighborhood home.

And I just ask that you want to just thank you for taking these comments into account as you uh consider this project moving forward.

Um, and if there is time, I do have some question a question about the Italian Cypress tree that was referenced in your staff report.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand, please.

Okay, see then support staff.

Have you received any inquiries or any calls of anybody who wants to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay.

Seeing that, I will then return it to the applicant.

The applicant, do you want to respond to anything during public comment or prior?

Okay.

Thank you, David.

We're um we've um we've been very um uh deliberate in what we presented in terms of what we're gonna develop.

We um believe we're bringing a very very good product to the citizens of San Jose to be able to um purchase and own um uh a home in uh in this community.

Um one of the units is going to be for sale at very low income um levels, and we're very proud of that.

And uh the second DMR unit will be at the moderate uh level as well.

So we're very proud that uh the developer um uh one five one one five three San Rafael LLC um is being able to uh provide affordable units into San Jose when right now they're very hard to find.

Um and so with that, we thank staff for all the work y'all put into this, um, and the team here that has put uh work into this and has committed to the investment into San Jose.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

So I will close the public comment and applicant comment period.

So just want to ask Jason a couple questions as the planner.

Um so for the Italian cypresses, there were some questions or concerns about the Italian cypresses.

Can you just explain this is for screening or just the replacement trees?

Just I guess it's just explaining it would be for both.

Um I think Italian cypresses um placed in the way that they're going to be placed here.

Don't do a great job at screening, but um what's going on here is there's a 10-foot setback to the property lines, and fire is requiring, I believe, a six-foot path of travel.

So therefore, there's only a small area between the building and the fire path of travel to plant.

So the applicant is proposing placing Italian cypresses, um one, two, three, four, five of them on on the uh east side of the lot, and and four on the north side of the lot, as replacement trees just grow, you know, along and just you know, to provide some shading as well to the um to the building.

So that's what the Italian cypresses are um for and and because of the fire path of travel, that's why they need to be next to the building.

Thank you.

And just in terms of neighborhood character that was raised about the character with the existing neighborhood.

This can for this project conforms to the general plan and zoning, correct?

Just verify.

That is that is correct.

It complies with the general plan, except for the concession about commercial space, and it complies with the zoning, I believe, yeah, without any concessions.

Yeah, and there is a density bonus because of it.

There is a density bonus correct to allow additional units that allow additional units and the concession to remove commercial space.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and we have to approve that under state law, so we we don't really get a choice in um saying that you still need commercial space when when an applicant requests a concession, whether it be here or somewhere else in the city.

Thank you.

Um also just and maybe this is also some of the public works is here, but there was a review of operations of ingress-egress um traffic operations, especially with the school nearby.

I know I know that was what are the concerns and the what are the rationale for moving the driveway.

Can you just briefly I guess just explain that you know the analysis was prepared for just to evaluate ingress egress traffic operations?

Yeah, good morning, officer.

Uh I can speak a bit on that.

And then uh I think Florence also here um from DLT who can also speak more on that.

So um originally this project um had the driveway on west of Virginia Street.

Um, that's usually uh what the city wants.

It's a less frequent um uh road with less amount of traffic compared to Bird Avenue.

However, based on that community um meeting that we had, there was um quite a few oppositions from the community, specifically with the school there.

So um we did our internal analysis and confirmed that Bird Avenue would um be uh moving the driveway to Bird Avenue would be okay, and we coordinate coordinated with VTA because there is a like a bus stop pad near uh the project site uh along the frontage along Bird Avenue, and we coordinated with them that the driveway would be um would be uh uh safe uh driveway access point.

Okay.

Thank you.

So those are all my questions.

So considering all the comments made and information in the record, um, just you know, again, this is a housing project that is consistent with the general plan.

It is a part of the plan to have intensification of um development along certain key corridors.

Um I will mention also that in a lot of the city there has been a focus on intensifying higher density housing to our projects such as this near single family neighborhoods, essentially as a goal of focusing development along high high traffic corridors while preserving interiors of single-family neighborhoods, and this is consistent with that strategy.

Um, also as a housing project, again, as Jason mentioned, because the state has put significant limits on what discretion cities have regard to housing projects based on the housing accountability act.

Um, there's also very limited, as I said, limited discretion for denying a housing project.

Um, and in terms of affordability, this does meet the affordable requirements to be granted the requested concessions and density bonuses.

Um there is no health or safety reason to deny such concessions.

Um in terms of those concerns about the gardener school doing a traffic study.

Um this project um did do an evaluation in terms of traffic coming to and from the site.

It is not was not required to prepare a Susie, was not required to prepare transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act because the slight number of units is being low the screening threshold because it would not be sufficient to contribute enough traffic to contribute to vehicle mouse travel.

Vehicle mouse travel is the city's threshold for determining transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, is what this is based on.

This is based upon the distance individual drivers or residents are taking, not traffic congestion.

So this location is a first the size of the project is not significant enough to contribute to significant vehicle miles traveled and therefore has been screened out of requiring a full transportation analysis.

Um, even that said, this is located in a low vehicle mouse traveled area due to its location near downtown um Willow Glen and the Deirdre station.

Um therefore, there are the concerns about the gardener school drop-off traffic.

You know, these are always concerns of any school, having, you know, parents drop off and pick up kids.

Um, however, that is not something that we can't take into consideration for the approval or review of this project.

Um, this is a again a housing development project, and it meets the intent of the general plan and zoning.

So that being said, I'm going to approve item number 4A, file number H23 009 and ER23106.

And with this, I'm going to move on to adjournment.

This concludes the planning director hearing of August 13, 2025.

And the meeting is adjourned at 9 46 a.m.

Thank you.