San José Planning Director Hearing - December 9, 2025
San José Planning Director Hearing - December 9, 2025
The Planning Director hearing of December 9, 2025, was called to order by Hearing Officer Ruth Gueto, acting on behalf of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The agenda included a consent calendar with four routine items and two public hearing items: a builder's remedy mixed-use project at 940 Willow Street and a warehouse/industrial project at 2334 Lundy Place. After staff presentations, public testimony, and applicant remarks, the hearing officer approved both projects.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3A (H25-025/ER25-145): Site development permit for a 428-square-foot addition to a duplex at 2920-2922 Union Avenue. CEQA exempt. Approved.
- Item 3B (SP23-035/ER23-165): Special use permit for an outdoor dining area at 855 North 13th Street. CEQA exempt. Approved.
- Item 3C (SPA 20-019-04/ER25-219): Amendment to special use permit for construction hours on Saturdays and exterior material change at 498 West San Carlos Street. CEQA addendum. Approved.
- Item 3D (T25-021/ER25-208): Vesting tentative map for six residential condominiums at 967 North Capitol Avenue. CEQA exempt. Approved.
Public Comments & Testimony
Item 4A – 940 Willow Street (Builder's Remedy Mixed-Use)
- Several speakers expressed support: Kate Weber (neighbor) cited increased foot traffic and safety, and the need for housing. Emmanuel (nearby resident) supported repurposing the underutilized liquor store into multifamily housing, noting Willow Glen's obligation to provide fair share of housing. Fred Weber called for infrastructure upgrades.
- Many speakers opposed: Maren Sederquist (adjacent resident) mentioned a petition with over 1,600 signatures and raised concerns about parking, traffic, property values, and quality of life. She requested egress to Willow Street and cited non-compliance with design standards. Larry Kubo (42-year resident) questioned sewer capacity (62 houses on Cotenberg vs. 126 new units) and parking shortfall (100 cars on street). Lori (954 Willow Street) asked about affordability thresholds and sewage study. Neer Ali (Settle Ave) raised sewer, storm drain, and grid capacity concerns. Michelle Balasco (40-year resident on Cotenberg) argued the building is too large (three to four stories would be appropriate) and cited pre-existing sewer issues. Brady Mass (Cotenberg) and others noted narrow streets and traffic. Lillian objected to removal of ordinance-size trees, criticizing city's Tree City USA claim.
- Several opponents also cited fire safety and inadequate street capacity for emergency vehicles.
Item 4B – 2334 Lundy Place (Warehouse/Industrial)
- Supportive speakers included: Rico Gallardo and Jaime Vasquez (Carpenters Union Local 405) praised Overton Moore's commitment to living wages, healthcare, and apprenticeships. Armando Gomez (former Milpitas council member) noted the site's blight and importance of industrial jobs coexisting with residential. Bernadette, Noreen, Vince, Allison, and Larry Suradella (Milpitas residents/former planning commissioner) supported job creation and revitalization.
- Numerous residents from the adjacent Parkside at Tarob Court community spoke in strong opposition, citing: safety risks for children and families, narrow road (Lundy Place) unable to handle large trucks, 24/7 operations causing noise, light, and diesel pollution, impact on property values, and proximity to two elementary schools. Swati called the project "morally reprehensible" and noted it replaces innovation with pollution. Others (Shan Wang, Jungdi, Shunyi, Margaret, Gene, Shubhi, Jessie, Joe, Dan Son, Claire, Xi Yan, Manali, Richard, XT, Arsha, Banu Priya, Jisoo, Sean) echoed concerns about traffic congestion, environmental health, and the incompatibility of heavy industrial use with a residential area. Richard pointed out that the CEQA analysis was immature and that a data center would be less impactful.
Discussion Items
Item 4A – 940 Willow Street (H23-030/ER23-233) Staff (Alec Atienza) presented the project: a seven-story, 126-unit mixed-use building with 1,626 sq ft commercial, 15% very low-income and 15% moderate-income units, submitted under the Housing Accountability Act Builder's Remedy. The site is zoned CN (neighborhood commercial) and does not allow housing unless 100% affordable, but the Builder's Remedy exempts the project from local zoning standards. The project includes a 97% density bonus and three incentives/concessions/waivers for front setback, FAR, and height. CEQA is statutorily exempt under AB 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66). Staff found no specific health and safety impacts. The applicant (Mikhail Williams, Studio Current) presented design features, community benefits (wider sidewalks, park fees, retail). Following public comment, hearing officer noted that under the Housing Accountability Act, the city cannot deny unless there is a specific adverse impact on public health and safety based on objective standards, and none were found. She approved the site development permit and the CEQA exemption.
Item 4B – 2334 Lundy Place (H24-057/ER24-254) Staff (Reena Shah, Charlotte Ewan) presented: a 132,419 sq ft concrete tilt-up industrial building (10,000 sq ft office) on 6.4 acres, replacing a vacant data center. Demolition of 130,300 sq ft building and removal of 152 trees (95 ordinance-size, 57 non-ordinance) with 200 new trees planted. The site is in LI (Light Industrial) district and complies with all development standards. CEQA: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) with mitigation for biological resources, tribal cultural resources, hazards, and noise. Construction noise limited to 7am-7pm weekdays, Saturdays allowed with mitigation. Public comment period: 3 letters received; additional late letter cited noise, traffic, land use, air quality – staff responded in a formal document. Applicant (Jennifer Friedman, Overton Moore) described features: 8-foot sound wall, orientation to shield residences, truck ingress/egress from Trade Zone Blvd, sustainability measures (40% EV chargers, solar-ready roof), intersection upgrades. After public testimony, hearing officer found that the mitigations (sound wall, access design, TDM plan) would address concerns. She noted the project is consistent with Major Strategy 4 (Innovation and Regional Employment Center) and industrial preservation goals. She approved the ISMND and the site development permit.
Key Outcomes
- Item 4A: Approved the statutory exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130) and the Site Development Permit H23-030 for 940 Willow Street.
- Item 4B: Adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Site Development Permit H24-057 for 2334 Lundy Place.
- All consent calendar items were approved without separate discussion.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. We are calling to order the Planning Director hearing of December 3rd, 2025. My name is Ruth Gueto 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 2 of the agenda. If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. One, 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 to or click star 9 on their phone. Remember to keep your raised hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak. The other method is during the meeting, you can call 408-535-8517 or email planningsupportstaff at sanjoseca.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom. the phone number that you'll call in to 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 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. 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 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 their 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 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 the agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or the environmental clearance determination is appealed. The Planning Director's actions on the 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, CEQA, are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Municipal Code, the Environmental Clearance Chapter. 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, 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. We will begin today's meeting with deferrals. Any item 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 raised hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise a hand to speak. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any items proposed for deferral today? No, we do not. Okay. Hearing no items proposed for deferral, the matter of deferrals is now closed, and we will move on to item three of the agenda, which is a consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they're considered to be routine and will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for separate discussion by the hearing officer.
openpublica.com