Good morning.

We are calling to order the planning director hearing of November 5th, 2025.

My name is David Keon 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 can participate by following 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 9 on their phone.

Remember to keep your raise hand feature on until planning support staff identifies your turn to speak.

During the meeting, you can also call 408 535-8517 or email planning support staff, all one word at San Jose CAA.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, phone number that you'll be calling into the 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 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 you can provide comment for the allocated time allocated time.

If you exceed your allocated time, you will 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.

First, I will identify each project as described on the agenda.

Then, 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 will 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 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 actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the municipal code under 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 the specific agenda item only.

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 that you 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.

Thank you.

So for the first order is the item of deferrals.

Any items scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting date is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter of deferral.

I will identify any items to be deferred and ask for comments from the audience.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring these or any other items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine to raise a hand and speak.

I will now open the public hearing.

Currently, no items are scheduled for deferral.

However, I do think there is potentially one item that's being requested for deferral.

Hi, good morning, hearing officer.

We are requesting the deferral item 3C.

This is file number SP 24041 for the project at um 1210 Aviation Avenue.

We request a deferral of this item to the November 19th director's hearing.

Okay.

Thank you, new.

So I will move item 3C to deferrals.

So this is file again, file number SB24041 and ER24274.

This is a special use permit to allow an approximately 28,235 square foot addition to an existing aircraft hangar and office facility on an approximately 7.09 gross acre site.

The project includes minor site improvements, including the removal of four non-ordinate sized trees, new landscaping, and construction of a new trash enclosure located at 1210 Aviation Avenue.

So this item is being requested for deferral to November 19th.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak on the matter of deferral?

Please raise your hand now.

Support staff, have you been contacted by anybody who wishes to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Seeing there's no one who requests wants to speak on deferral.

I am going to defer item number 3C, file number SB24041 and ER24-274 to the November 19th director's hearing.

Thank you.

There are no other items intended for deferral.

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

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items if they're considered to be routine and will be considered a 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 counter by the hearing officer.

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

So the first item on the consent counter is item number 3A.

This is file number PD 25009 and ER25109.

This is the planned development permit to allow the construction of a four-story multifamily residential building, including 65 units and being all ground parking and the removal of 16 trees for ordinance size, 12 non-ordinate size, and 54 replacement trees on an approximately 1.24 gross acre vacant site located at 1325 Mick Avenue.

The CEQA is a determination consistency with a taming in place residential development project.

Initial study mitigated negative declaration.

And the staff recommendation is to consider the determination consistency with the mitigated negative declaration for the taming place residential project development initial study mitigated negative declaration in accordance with SQL and approve the plan development permit.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this item to request that this be removed and to and placed onto the public hearing portion of the agenda?

If there's anybody who wishes to have this move to the public hearing portion of the agenda, please raise your hand.

And support staff.

Has anybody contacted you about item number 3A?

No, we have not.

Okay.

Seeing that, item number 3A will remain on the consent calendar.

I'm now going to move on to item 3B.

This is file number SP 24015, T22024, and ER22033.

This is a special use permit to allow the construction of a six-story approximately 87,750 square foot mixed use building consisting of approximately 7,708 gross square feet of retail space on the ground floor, approximately 6,982 gross square feet of office space on the first and second floors, 50 residential units on the second floor to the sixth floor, and a one level of underground parking, the demolition of an existing 13,669 square foot commercial building, and allow up to seven commercial condominium units on an approximate 0.41 gross acre site.

Also includes a vesting tenant of map to merge three existing lots into one lot with up to seven commercial condominium units and up to 50 residential condominium units on an approximately 0.41 gross acre site located at 610 to 650 East Santa Clara Street.

The sequel is a mitigated negative declaration for the 650 East Santa Clara Street Urban Residential Project.

Staff's recommendation is to consider the mitigated negative declaration for 650 East Santa Clara Street Urban Residential Project in accordance with SQL and approve a special use permit and a vesting tenant.

No.

Angela, the project manager of heard there has been a request to remove this item from the consent and place it on public hearing.

So Angela, can you speak?

Yes, staff have received public comments on the project and would like to request to move the project to public hearing.

Okay.

So with that, I am going to move.

And that is file number SP24015 and T22024 and ER22033 to the public hearing portion of the agenda.

So that this concludes the consent calendar.

I am going to approve the consent calendar, which is item number and number 3A, was now approved.

Item number 3B is moved to public hearing, and item number 3C has already been deferred to November 19.

Okay.

So item number 3B.

This is the again file number SB24015 and T22024 and ER22033.

This is the project at 610 650 East Santa Clara, which I've you know already read out earlier.

Do we have a staff report?

Yes, we do.

Thank you, hearing officer.

And this is Angela Wang, the planning project manager with planning division for the special use permit file number SP24-015, a vesting tenant file number T22-024.

This special use permit is to allow the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a six-story mixed use building consisting of approximately 7,700 square feet of retail space on the ground floor, approximately 6,980 square feet of office space on the ground floor, and the second floor, and 50 residential units on the upper floors, and one level of underground parking on the approximately 0.41 gross acre site.

This special use permit would also allow up to 7 commercial condominiums.

The vesting tenant map is to merge three existing lots to one lot for up to 50 multifamily residential units and up to seven commercial condominium units on the subject site.

The site is within the East Santa Carla Street Urban Village Plan and is designated urban village on the land use map.

The urban village land use designation is to support mixed use development and allows a density from 55 to 175 dwelling units per acre in this urban village.

The minimum commercial floor area ratio is required to be 0.2 and at least an equal amount of the existing commercial area on site.

The project includes the development of 50 multifamily residential units at a density of 122 units per acre and a commercial floor area ratio of 0.2.82, and which meets the density and commercial floor area ratio requirements and also exceeds the floor area of the existing commercial building to be demolished.

The project is therefore consistent with the density requirement with uh under the urban village and use designation.

The project also meets the urban design standards in this urban village plan, including height setback, step back, and minimum ground floor height requirements along the retail space.

Um the project places ground floor retail space along East Santa Clara Street and the street corner of South 14th Street, which is also consistent with the urban village plan use policies.

The site is along the northern edge of the Natalie Park conservation area.

To the south of the site are one to two-story residential buildings in this conservation area, where along East and Carl Street are a mix of one to ten story commercial and mixed use buildings.

Although the proposed project is six stories high, the building design provides a height transition from six stories to two to three stories towards the south to reduce the massive impact on the existing residential neighborhood to the south.

On the East Santa Carla Street side, the project is designed for compatibility in scale and massing with the commercial corridor.

The building's top two floors step back from the street for south, and the ground at the pedestrian level continues its storefront character, which uh with materials and ground floor height compatible with the adjacent historic buildings along the East Santa Claus Street.

Although the site is within the commercial general zoning district, the urban village zoning district regulations apply to the project pursuant to the state assembly bill AB 3194 for housing projects.

The project meets the open space and outdoor lighting requirements under the urban village zoning industry.

The project also meets the bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements and is required to implement a transportation demand management plan to comply with the parking ordinance.

The proposed commercial condominium unit size exceeds the zoning code requirements.

The project is also consistent with all the applicable citywide design standards and guidelines.

An initial study is prepared for the project, and I'm going to turn it over to the environmental project manager, Newman to provide a brief report on the environmental review.

Thank you, Angela.

Hi everyone again.

As Angela said, the city did prepare an initial study supporting a mitigated negative declaration for the project, which is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act entitled 650 East Santa Clara Urban Residential Project.

This was publicly circulated from April 25th, 2025 to May 15, 2025.

The initial study concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The mitigated negative declaration identified potential impacts to nesting birds, undiscovered cultural resources, and construction vibration.

The project does include a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to lessen the identified impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, an environmental impact report was not required, and the mitigated negative decoration is the appropriate level of SQL clearance for the project.

Staff received five comments during the 20-day review period for the project, which comprised comments from public agencies and private parties.

The comments include concerns on how project construction required permits from PGE in coordination with VTA Spark Development, potential impacts of travel resources and noise and parking issues, and also textual changes to the initial study.

Staff responded to those comments in a formal responses to comments document, which was also posted on the city's environmental review page on October 24th, 2025.

In addition, staff received comments from Julie Engelbert on Monday.

Staff had reviewed those comments and wanted to provide a verbal response to the main points that were raised for the record.

There were first concerns about vibration impacts from the project's construction.

And the City of San Jose's General Plan Policy EC 2.3 does set a construction vibration standard of 0.2 inches second per second PPV to adjacent properties.

The ISMID did identify that construction activities associated with the project could result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration that exceeds the city's threshold.

Therefore, as a mitigation measure, the project applicant is required to prepare and implement a construction vibration reduction and monitoring plan with measures that would reduce vibration to the threshold or lower.

There was also concerns about the project's garage door noise, and we wanted to clarify that the project's garage or garage door is actually set back from the property line on South 14th Street, and it is down the garage ramp to the basement parking as shown on the updated project plans, which is updated from the rendering that was shown in the ISM and D.

It is not anticipated or typical that the operation of a garage door setback would exceed the noise level standards for operational noise compatibility.

Next, there was also concerns about sorry, lastly, there was also concerns about noise from residents using the outdoor common areas in the future and the noise and vibration section of the ISMND did discuss that noise would be generated from use of the project's common outdoor areas from the rooftop and from the outdoor amenity spaces by future residents.

It was analyzed that noise from the use of the common outdoor areas from activities such as people talking and playing music would be minimal and intermittent and would not result in a three DBA increase in DML, which is the city's threshold for a significant noise increase uh noise impact.

Um furthermore, assembly bill 1307, which was passed in 2023, does specify that the effects of a noise of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA.

That concludes staff report, and staff does recommend the director to adopt the mitigated negative decoration for the project, the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, and also approve the special use permit and the vesting tentative map.

Thank you.

Thank you, Angela.

Is there a project project applicant or representative who wishes to speak?

Yeah, five minutes.

Angela, is this Alfonso the project applicant?

Yes, yes.

Alfonso, you are unmuted and also Bob, you are also admitted.

Oh, okay, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, five minutes.

Um I have some um some um drawings, but um, I guess I could just talk because I think your staff presented um quite well the project.

Um we've been working with planning for quite a while to make sure that the design met the setback requirements, um, particularly in the rear to mitigate the height of our of the six-story building um effects would have on with the uh neighboring two-story um residential area.

We've also been working with staff diligently to come up with a materials palette and a um design vocabulary um for the particularly for the retail spaces that would uh be um compatible with the existing neighborhood uh retail environment, particularly historic resources.

Um we're very happy with uh the result to date.

And we also have a good uh mix of units with the 50 units will provide 22 bedrooms, 22 one bedrooms, and eight studios, which we feel is a great mix of units, particularly to provide some affordable options at a time when affordable housing is um hard to find.

And we're providing um uh parking in the 62 automobile spaces, 21 motorcycle spaces, and 24 bike spaces.

So, you know, we've we're meeting a lot of all these um requirements.

Um we are available here for uh questions.

And to we've also, oh, particularly with the the neighbor, we have met with her, uh Julie, and we have added some landscaping to our amenity area on the third floor to uh block direct viewing down into her yard from that space.

We've also added planters to the railings to some of the upper balconies so that they would not have direct visual access into her rear yard.

So uh we feel we've uh gone um quite far in trying to meet her concerns.

We've also made arrangements to keep her CMU wall, six-foot wall that she wanted us to keep.

We've agreed to keep that.

Um, so I think we've we've done quite a bit to um outreach and work with uh that particular neighbor.

And again, I'm here to answer any questions if needed.

Okay, thank you.

So next I'll move on to public comment.

So if you want to speak on this item, please raise your hand and we'll call you in order.

Support staff will call you in order.

Um, everyone has two minutes to speak.

So, first speaker we have is Julie.

Yeah, two minutes.

Morning.

Um, Alfonso, thank you for that um quick explanation.

Um I my my first question, and I guess I'll finish my two minutes and then you can try to answer.

But um, it sounds like the garage roll-up door is recessed.

Um, and that doesn't seem clear on the plans.

Maybe that's what those um bars are that were airy.

I put some of these items into a quick email, um, only because I want to make sure they end up um on public record because I know you can't bring things up later, but I do want to thank you very much because you guys have been very cooperative.

You have done a lot of things to talk with the neighbors, talk especially with me.

And I just wanted to make sure that some of the little um details, because the devil's in the details, uh, particularly when it comes to like privacy and the noise of the door going up all the time, um, the balconies having glass railings and what looked like really low green planting material when we had talked about some sort of architectural screening or taller planting materials that would help be a sound absorption as well as a visual barrier.

Um, so that was where some of my questions were coming from because it didn't seem like what I saw online was really any different than what we talked about the last time.

But it sounds like what you just mentioned um actually does have the actual roll-up part of it down deeper into the um sub-level.

Um, that those bars are probably just air rather than inside the actual garage section.

Um, and I'm not sure I've seen the details that you're talking about in terms of the new plantings that are added there, but um, most neighbors are uh very excited about getting something going in the urban village.

Um, and I I really do appreciate the time that you guys have taken.

Um I'm not sure that this was I thought this was a planning commission meeting, so um it's obviously sequa, but I just want to make sure that all those little details um get noted so that we can keep working on them cooperatively, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Julian.

The next person we have with a hand raise is Les.

Liz, you have two minutes.

Yeah, good morning.

Um I am a neighbor, the north boundary of our property is about 50 feet from the uh development site.

Our house is 120 years old.

Um, I submitted comments back in May, and I just want to reiterate today, you touched upon this.

Our concern about what happens during construction.

This is our priority concern, uh, particularly mechanical vibration.

I understand that there will be some plan associated with this and monitoring this, but again, realize just common sense says that when you have a project with underground parking, constructed 50 feet from 120-year-old house that has a stone facade and a basement, there's potentially some serious impact.

And you know, we would like to see this plan in detail before an approval is uh is uh moves forward on on this project.

Uh and the other construction impact, which uh I have yet to hear a clear answer on is how will the project how will the building be constructed and will a crane be used?

Um, it's unacceptable to us to have a crane at any point over our property.

Those are the main things.

Just uh understanding, you know, in coordination with the developer, uh, how to mitigate any impact during construction.

That's uh that's it for me.

Okay, thank you, Ice.

So is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item, speak on this project?

Please raise your hand now.

We have Brian.

Right?

Okay.

Yes, hi.

Uh good morning.

Thank you for uh uh my uh listening to my concerns.

I'm really glad that this got moved uh to a public hearing.

Uh I I am a uh resident of Dagley Park for over 20 years.

I have participated in the urban village planning and uh am in uh agreement with it.

I'm uh also about a neighbor about three blocks away from the project, and I am uh within three blocks of eight fraternities, also another uh uh low rise uh project that was intended for fraternity dorms at the corner of 11th in Santa Clara.

I have deep concerns about uh fraternity parties that are disruptive.

Uh lately, the fraternity parties, especially last weekend during Halloween, uh have started using their decks on the second and third floor.

I find this incredibly disruptive.

I can hear the parties uh as far as three blocks away.

I believe that the the deck on the fourth floor uh uh should be uh uh should mitigate noise.

It should observe the noise ordinance.

I also believe that the management company should be a responsible party for noise, alcohol, garbage, and parking.

I would also uh suggest that the management company and or the construction company uh be willing to undergo structural changes to the to the building for parking and also for noise uh uh for the uh warranty period of uh after the building is put into construction.

Um the concerns that I have are raised simply because the uh code enforcement does not enforce noise.

That's what they have told me.

Uh the police refer noise complaints to code enforcement and parking compliance doesn't enforce parking on the streets.

So thank you for uh uh allowing me to have my concerns.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand or press star nine on your phone.

Support staff.

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

No, we have not.

You have not okay.

If anybody wants to speak, please raise your hand.

See no further hands.

I am going to close the public comment period and return it first back to the applicant.

Yeah, five additional minutes to respond to any of the concerns raised uh before we will close the public hearing portion.

Uh I don't have anything to say.

Bob, do you want to say anything?

Sure.

So this is Bob Stedler, Subwellice Synergy.

Um, so this project is proposed to be a condominium.

So I believe rats aren't going to be buying condos.

Um, we'll continue to work with the neighbors and we'll put together a construction impact mitigation plan.

And I think we'll um follow all normal standard operating procedures.

And I think uh staff uh address the crane issue in the uh response.

So we'll continue on with uh trying to be a good neighbor and move forward.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

With that, I will close the public comment period.

Staff, do you have any of the items you'd want to respond to, particularly regarding construction management and noise and consistency of the plans, the changes of the plans.

So I can confirm that the drawing does show the garage door is recessed from the property line by 50 feet.

It's shown on the basement basement plan.

I'm not sure why Julie didn't see that, but just want to confirm that it the joint does show that.

And the joint does show that there is a low wall alone that roof deck.

I mean, instead of the um glazing materials on some private uh balconies, but for that roof deck, uh it shows there is a uh low wall and with a planter box.

And lastly, for the construction concerned and according to public works department, uh construction management plan will need to be submitted to them for review before the applicant can before the developer can start the construction, and the construct um the city also regulates the construction hours, um, like that only allows the construction from 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

from Monday to Friday only.

And I'm not sure if New has some um response to the noise.

I um I yeah, I just wanted to clarify.

I think Trulie might have seen the um the renderings that were in the ISM and D that weren't updated, showing that the garage was directly adjacent to the street.

But um, as I said earlier, that has been um clarified that the plans are the updated ones that shows the garage going down um into the basement.

I think that's where Julie might have gotten that from.

Um, I can speak to some of the measures that the construction vibration plan might include.

Um, as part of the mitigation measure, they are um uh the plan shall include um uh the prohibition of impact sonic or vibratory um drive pile driving methods um and other measures that would reduce vibration to adjacent neighbors that um at the city's threshold um or lower.

Um that's all I have to say for the home.

Thank you, and there's a quick question about cranes.

I don't recall if that was actually answered if the cranes are you know, the applicant or um Angela or do know that there are cranes proposed.

Uh, officer, it's not a typical for cranes to be used, but that typically does not look at the specific regulations because we do not have the building drawings, but I don't think we can specifically prohibit cranes unless it's in conflict with the airport um air path.

So, but I would also like to further add that you know um we have tons of historic buildings in downtown built with other high rises built adjacent to them that typically does not have vibration or other concerns that are typically in our normal regulations.

Thank you, John.

And so seeing that, so thank you, staff.

Thank you for the clarification in the report.

Um, so considering um this project, um the special use permit, um the tenant of map and the mitigated native declaration.

This project is consistent with the urban village plan and is also a housing development project.

As a housing development project, we are limited by the state into what we can consider.

We have to consider based on objective standards.

Therefore, you know, there's we have you know very limited window of discretion as a city, but also I want to say this is actually consistent with the East Santa Clara Urban Village Plan and with the city's goals to concentrate housing and commercial development along major corridors like East Santa Clara Street.

Um with that though, there, you know, obviously, you know, there are concerns.

Um there are especially concerns in regards to vibration.

That is why there was a noise and vibration analysis done as part of the mitigating declaration and our mitigation measures identified.

Um, those mitigation measures will require the vibration monitoring plan to be submitted prior to issuance of any grading permits.

Um, therefore, um if you are interested, any neighbors wish to see, please contact new um and those can be provided prior to issuance of any grading permits.

So we do have a gatekeeper to make sure that these items are satisfied prior to um proceeding with construction.

Um this and this project uh meets, you know, as I said, the East Santa Clara Urban Village Plan and our zoning code and other general plan policies.

Therefore, as the hearing officer, I am going to consider the mitigated negative declaration for the 650 East Santa Clara Street Urban Residential Project in accordance with CEQA, and also approve the special use permit and the best intended of that.

Thank you.

So this concludes the director's hearing of November 5th, 2025.

Um the hearing is now adjourned.

Yeah, go on.

Sorry, um, I don't think that we went over the consent calendar if it was approved or not.

Oh, yeah, the consent calendar was approved.

Okay.

Well let me just show it on the screen for everyone.

Okay, oh, we didn't okay.

Yeah, the consent was a there was one item on consent that was approved on that.

That was item 3A.

Item 3B was moved to public hearing, and yeah, 3C was deferred to November 19.

Okay, thank you.

With that, um, I am going to adjourn this meeting at 9:38 a.m.

Thank you.