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.

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

If you wish to speak on any of these items, please use a raised hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise a hand to speak.

There are four items on the consent calendar.

And I will now read each one and see if anyone wishes to move them from the public hearing calendar.

We have item 3AH25-025 and ER25-145 site development permit to allow approximately 428 square foot addition to an existing approximately 1,575 square foot duplex on an approximately 0.18 gross acre site.

located on the east side of Union Avenue, approximately 100 feet north of the intersection of Union Avenue and Cerrone Way, 2920-2922 Union Avenue.

CEQA is an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for additions to existing structures.

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

The next item, item 3B, is SP23-035 and ER23-165, a special use permit to allow the construction and use of an outdoor dining area to an existing public eating establishment within 150 feet of residentially zoned property totaling approximately 2,500 square feet with associated vehicular gate and other minor site improvements.

on an approximately 0.36 gross acre site located at 855 North 13th Street.

CEQA is an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303E for new construction or conversion of small structures.

The staff recommendation is to consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve a special use permit.

Item 3C is SPA 20-019-04 and ER 25-219.

Special use permit amendment, file number SPA 20-019-04, amending a previously approved special use permit file number SP20-019 and associated amendments

to allow construction hours to work on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

and to change the exterior fiber cement board to stucco above the pedestrian level,

located at 498 West San Carlos Street.

The CEQA is an addendum to the Downtown Strategy 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report

adopted by City Council Resolution No. 78942 on December 18, 2018 and addenda thereto.

The staff recommendation is to consider the addendum to the Downtown Strategy 2040 Final

Environmental Impact Report adopted by City Council Resolution No. 78942 on December 18,

2018 and addenda thereto in accordance with CEQA and approve a special use permit amendment.

The last item on the consent calendar is 3D, T25-021 and ER25-208, a vesting tentative map to allow six residential condominiums and one common lot on an approximately .30 gross acre site located at 967 North Capitol Avenue.

The CEQA is an exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303 for new construction

or conversion of small structures.

The staff recommendation is to consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve

a vesting tentative map.

Does staff or anyone from the public wish to speak on any of the items from the consent calendar?

we have one hand raised um swati if i'm pronouncing that correctly did you want to move this to public

hearing or which did you want to move to public hearing actually i joined a little bit late but

i was calling about uh proposed conversion on lundi i don't know if that was in the agenda

today. I wanted to talk about that. Do you know what the project number is? That's in the public

hearing. We haven't gotten to that item yet. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any more hands

raised. Therefore, item numbers 3A H25-025 and ER25-145, item 3B SP23-035 and ER23-165.

I do see one hand raised. I see another hand raised.

Lori, what project did you want to move to public hearing?

Well, I'm also confused because I'm here to hear about the 954 Willow Street H23.

Is that later in the agenda?

Yes, that's in the public hearing.

Right now we're doing the consent calendar.

So there's only four items on the consent calendar.

Once we're done with this section, we'll move on to the public hearing.

As you can see, we have four items under consent, and that's what we're discussing right now.

After the consent calendar, we will move on to the public hearing, which includes a project on Willow Street and the project on Lundy.

Okay, I don't see any more hands raised, so I'll continue with the approval, just reading

through the remainder of the consent calendar items.

Item 3C, SPA 20-019-04 and ER 25-219.

And finally, item 3D T25-021 and ER 25-205 are hereby approved.

The matter of consent is concluded and we will move to the public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we will open the public hearing and we will start with the first item 4A, H23-030 and ER23-233.

This is a site development permit to allow the construction of a seven-story mixed-use building

consisting of 126 multifamily residential units and approximately 1,626 square feet of commercial

retail space on an approximately 0.80 gross acre site. The project includes a demolition of an

approximately 5,500 square foot commercial building and the removal of six trees, five

ordinance size and one non-ordinance size. The project also includes an application

under state density bonus law with a 97% density bonus, three incentives concessions for a reduction

in commercial space depth and reduction in common in private open space, and three waivers for an

increase in maximum allowed floor area ratio, reduction in front setback, and an increase in

maximum height. This application was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act Builders

Remedy and is located on the southeast corner of Willow Street and Cottonburg Avenue, 940 Willow

Street. The CEQA is statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66,

otherwise known as Assembly Bill 130.

The staff recommendation is to consider the statutory exemption pursuant

to the Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, Assembly Bill 130,

in accordance with CEQA, and approve the site development permit.

I will now ask staff to provide a brief report followed by the applicant,

and then we will take public comment.

Thanks, hearing officer Alicotienza from the City of San Jose Planning Division on the development review team.

I have some slides for you. Give me just a second and I'll pull them up.

Can you see that okay?

Okay. Okay.

Morning, everybody. Again, Alec Atienza, Planning Project Manager.

So as you mentioned, the project is located at 940 Willow Street, southeast corner of Willow Street and Cotenberg Avenue in City Council District 6.

This is a site development permit that was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act, also known as Builder's Remedy,

for the construction of a seven-story mixed-use building with 126 residential units and approximately

1,626 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. 15% of the units are reserved for

very low-income households. 15% of the units are also reserved for moderate-income households.

As part of the project, this does include the demolition of the existing approximately 5,500

square foot commercial building on site currently. The project also includes the removal of six trees.

With this application, first site development permit is also an application for a state density

bonus law that includes a 97% density bonus and multiple incentives and concessions and waivers.

So for a little bit of background, I'm going to explain the builder's remedy

as concisely as possible, conscious of everybody's time. So Builders Remedy is defined in Section

H11 of the Housing Accountability Act as a project that provides a certain amount of affordable

housing to very low, low, or moderate income households. So in the case of this project,

the project provides at least 10% of the units for very low income households,

which is one of the options that Builders Remedy applicants can pick from.

Another key point in the Builder's Remedy is that the application was submitted while a city does not have a substantially compliant housing element as certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

I'll actually get to that timeline on the next slide, but that's important to understand.

The project must also be within the minimum and maximum density provisions as provided by the definition in Builder's Remedy.

So for this site, the maximum allowed density is 80 dwelling units per acre.

But understand that that's before the application of a density bonus.

So as I mentioned in the previous slide, this application includes a 97% density bonus or 126 units total.

The project is eligible for a 100% density bonus, which would put them at the absolute limit of 128 units.

And then lastly, the Builder's Remedy project may not abut a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use, and the subject site is not adjacent to any industrial uses.

So as the project qualifies under the definition of Builder's Remedy, the city cannot deny the project based on inconsistency with the general plan and zoning ordinance.

ordinance. And so for reference, this subject site has a general plan land use designation

of neighborhood community commercial and is located in the CN commercial neighborhood zoning

district. So that designation, that zoning district does not allow housing unless it is 100%

affordable pursuant to general plan policy H 2.10. Or if the applicant is proposing to use,

you know, a different state law that might allow commercial uses to be converted to a residential

So furthermore, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits cities from denying a project

that qualifies under the builder's remedy unless the city can demonstrate that the project will

cause a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety. So for this project specifically,

here's the timeline for how this sort of shook out with the city's housing element process.

So the SB 330 preliminary application was submitted on June 12, 2023. So for everyone's knowledge, SB 330 is a separate state law that basically allows applicants to submit a preliminary application that locks in any ordinance policies, fees, standards that are in effect at the time that application is submitted.

And they have 180 days from that preliminary application to actually submit a formal application.

So this applicant did so. They submitted a formal application on October 10th, 2023.

The housing element, the city's housing element, was certified by HCD and found to be in substantial compliance with state law on January 29th, 2024.

So for that reason, this project is eligible under the builder's remedy.

And then the last important date to note is that the applicant invoked Assembly Bill 1893 on April 21st of 2025.

Assembly Bill 1893 essentially clarified the builder's remedy, and that's where that previous slide came into play,

where there are controls on density and requirements for siting and affordability requirements as well.

So what does this mean for our project review as staff?

So the city must treat the project as if it meets the general plan land use designation and requirements of the zoning district, despite not doing so.

And the project does not require a general plan amendment or rezoning and shall be deemed consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, redevelopment plans, implementing instruments or other similar provisions for all purposes.

And then again, that last important point there, that the city must evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards.

So next, I just want to discuss, you know, sort of how we reviewed these projects, given all of that information.

So nevertheless, you know, staff did review this application for consistency with all of the following as you see above.

State density bonus law, the Envision San Jose 2040 general plan.

And I should note that the draft permit does include, you know, analysis for consistency and inconsistency with, you know, any applicable policies of the general plan, as well as the municipal code.

So, again, this project may not meet all the requirements of the zoning code, but the draft permit does still include that analysis stating where it does and does not comply.

Also included in the municipal code is information on tree removals and replacements which this project does actually comply with.

One note on the citywide design standards and guidelines.

Again, this applicant is requesting an exception to one of the citywide standards and that is related to the provision of a flat roof.

This applicant, as you can see, is actually providing sloped roofs and they are requesting an exception from that standard.

With regards to public outreach, an on-site sign has been posted on the project frontage.

A community meeting was held on June 3, 2024 via Zoom and was attended by approximately

186 people.

The hearing was noticed at a radius of 1,000 feet and all interested parties were also

noticed or, excuse me, notified of the hearing via email.

I will talk about the California Environmental Quality Act next.

So this is a relatively new process.

So Public Resources Code Section 21080.66B, that's commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 130.

That was actually just approved and became effective on July 1st of this year.

So as part of this process, you know, the project is statutorily exempt.

However, there is still a tribal consultation process that the city must undertake.

So in this case, one tribe responded, Tamian Nation, the city did consult with them,

and the application and permit includes standard environmental permit conditions for

tribal cultural resources, as well as additional conditions related to cultural awareness training

and Native American monitoring.

So with that, it is important to note that in the review of this project, staff does

not find any of the inconsistencies with any applicable standards would result in specific

health and safety impacts.

So for that reason, staff recommends that the director consider the statutory exemption

pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, Assembly Bill 130, in accordance with CEQA,

and approve the site development permit as listed. So with that, that concludes staff's presentation.

We do have the project applicant here, and I can tell you who to pull over. It's

Studio Current, who is the applicant's representative.

Chris Freese is the applicant.

And then Jenna Yarkin is the applicant's counsel.

Okay, the applicant's representative will have five minutes to speak as well.

I think, yeah, whoever is ready to go on the applicant side.

Yep, I'm ready.

I'm ready.

Oh, we're hearing an echo.

do you want to try again we're not hearing you right now

can you hear me yes it's an echo though

Okay, how about now?

Yes, no echo.

Go ahead.

How about now?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

Well, good morning, everybody.

My name is Mikhail Williams from Studio Current Urban Design and Architecture.

We're based here in San Jose, and with me is Shandra Swamy from our design team.

I just wanted to start by thanking all of the people involved in this process,

from Redco Development, the owner and developer, HK Law, and all of our SJ planners,

San Jose planners, Alec Atienza, Jason Lee.

We've worked with many, many people involved in this process.

So we will begin.

First, I wanted to bring up our design team.

As mentioned, I'm from Studio Current.

We were the architect on the project.

And we worked with SAW, Spiegel-A'Hara Workshop as our landscape architect and HMH civil engineers.

So first, I wanted to zoom in to the vicinity map for our project.

see that we have two lines, a yellow line, Willow Street, which is where our project is located off

of, and Lincoln Ave, not too far away from our project as well. I'm sure many of you are familiar

with the Willow Glen area and how Lincoln Ave is a very public and walkable corridor, commercial

corridor that our project is located on. Our site is about 0.8 acres overall, and you'll see that,

But as mentioned by Alec, that it is currently a somewhat underutilized site with about a 5,000 square foot liquor store on it at the moment.

I just wanted to go through some of our project goals for this project.

Overall, we'll be adding 126 new units on this street.

Hopefully activating our streetscape with our corner retail.

that's about 1,600 square feet.

Our design really, you know, we worked with the owner.

He really wanted to do a quality project using quality materials, elegant colors,

designing in a way that somewhat tries to reflect the context of the Willow Glen neighborhood

and creating a product that, you know, is something that we could all be proud of.

Next, you'll see that I have two floor plans.

One is our level one ground floor plan.

As designers, we did our absolute best to wrap the design with public utilized space for the commercials area.

We have a few townhomes on the first level.

But I know we tried to do our absolute best to provide enough parking and, you know, create a design that is mindful of the corner of Willow Street and Cotenberg Ave.

This project is a podium construction.

So the first two levels are concrete construction,

and the levels above from three to seven are stick frame construction.

Our level three floor plan pretty much shows our overall residential area.

It's a kind of U-shape that's surrounded by or in the center.

It has a courtyard for landscape, and we have a pool on the podium deck.

You know, in terms of the overall architectural expression, as mentioned, we really wanted to create a materiality that was representing quality materials.

We created a design language that tried to break up the overall massing as much as possible by creating a base, a middle, and a top.

you'll see from here another view of just some of the other thoughtful design

processes we went through of trying to create setbacks wherever we could possible

with maintaining density as mentioned you know the owner really wanted to create a thoughtful

design you know we wanted to keep density but we also wanted to try and create something that

created certain daylight planes and opportunities for the project to be something of great worth.

So in terms of community benefits, we actually will be providing a newer and wider sidewalk

from 10 feet to 20 feet, definitely creating a lot more landscape. As mentioned before,

this is currently an underutilized liquor store with surface parking, and this will be a much

more eventful and activated space. You know, creating housing, which is a massive issue in

our state, 126 units, 20 of those units will be affordable. We also paid public park fees for

the availability of new parks in Willow Glen. And as mentioned before, the retail that we'll be

providing, hopefully some type of cafe or tenant that, you know, will service the actual neighborhood.

So that pretty much concludes my presentation.

I just want to thank everybody for coming on the call today and taking the time to be here.

And we can move into any questions and answers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to public comment.

If you are a member of the public who would like to comment on this item, please raise your hand and we will identify you by name.

I am seeing a few hands raised and we will, you will have at least, you will have two minutes to speak.

Kate Weber, go ahead with your comment.

Hi, I live on 1137 Settle Ave. The proposed building is in my direct sight line right now. I'm looking from my desk at the trees that are going to be removed. And I'm calling in this morning to express my approval of this project. I anticipate increased foot traffic creating increased safety. I'm really looking forward to the commercial presence.

But also, as the speaker mentioned, we desperately need more housing in the Bay Area.

And I mean, I couldn't underline desperately more than would be appropriate.

And it's sad to me that there are members of the immediate community that might not be in favor of this.

I am deeply hoping that this comes to be.

I am not concerned about parking.

I'm not actually sure why a person who lives in a single family dwelling in Willow Glen is allowed to tell other people that they can't live in high density housing close to them.

And I'm looking forward to my new neighbors.

Thanks a lot.

Brayden Mass.

Yeah, hi, Brayden Mass.

I actually live on Cotenberg Avenue from my bathroom.

I'm actually looking at the site right now.

You know, we bought our home 10 years ago and at the time recognized that the liquor store was a waste of space,

but didn't think that a seven story building was the right decision in this in this street on this neighborhood.

As it is from Cotenberg Avenue, it is hard to make a left or right hand turn from Cotenberg Avenue onto Willow in the morning and the afternoon.

so I don't know if they're planning on putting in a stoplight.

I think we might have lost the speaker.

Okay, if he comes back, we can bring him back on to finish his time.

I feel like he is back on, actually.

Oh, okay, great.

Is it Maren?

Oh, sorry.

Oh, sorry.

You're also on Coenberg Avenue.

On Coenberg Avenue, two cars are not able to pass at once in the middle of the street.

So adding 120 units with 100 plus cars, I don't know what the Planning Commission has thought about that, just in terms of a traffic aspect.

So, yes, I agree that that space is underutilized, but seven stories, 120 units is probably twice as much as what should go there, in my opinion.

Does that complete your comment?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Maren, I believe you were next.

You are unmuted.

Thank you.

My name is Maren Sederquist, and I live just a few houses away from this development.

First, I would like to invite the developer to visit the site and view the corner, not merely as a parcel to be developed for profit, but as a neighborhood that will be changed irreparably and forever.

If you look around, you will not see any buildings, even half the height you are proposing.

It will have an impact on neighbors as far as parking, property values, view, and quality of life.

I know that doesn't matter to you or to the builder's remedy law, but it matters to the over 1,600 residents who have signed a petition against the development.

Because of these reasons, I ask you to withdraw the application.

Short of that, I request that you force egress from the parking structure toward Willow Street so that Cotenburg does not become more of a thoroughfare than it already will.

To the city, I request that you do not approve the project for the following three reasons.

one the project will have a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact on

public health and safety including but not limited to traffic increases that will

affect among other things the ability to allow fire response to access all residents in the area

this is on a corner of two two-lane streets that as uh brady mentioned already on willow

you are on Cotenberg, you cannot have two cars passing. It's already impacted by traffic heavily

in the morning, afternoon, and evening. Second reason, non-compliance with the citywide

design standards and guidelines, including the removal of beloved mature cedar trees.

Three, inadequate water or sewer. I don't know a neighbor on Cotenberg who has not had sewage

problems and had to install a clean out and do major work on their sewage lines. Thank you.

Larry Kubo.

Morning. I've lived in Willow Glen for 42 years and there are potential issues for services,

parking and traffic. Just as Marin said that this building is going to create for the community.

And I'd like to hear how planning has addressed these, especially as it relates to CEQA.

First, there's the issue of sewer service, which Maren just pointed out.

At the June meeting, people reported prior problems with the six and a half sewage line, which you guys said was no problem.

By my count, there are 62 houses on Cotenberg and 126 new residences will triple the sewage load.

So I don't know how you got to your calculations, but it seems to me it's going to be an issue and it's a health problem.

Second, parking is going to be a mess.

The new building is going to have parking for 126 units.

But if you go over city statistics, there'll still be 100 cars that will need to be parked on the street.

There's only room for 105 cars, counting residents on Cotenberg.

and the two adjacent streets, Curtis and Settle, have parking on only one side of the street.

So what are you going to do about these 100 additional cars?

And what about garbage day?

And finally, adding more than 200 cars to the 4th Street area around Cotenburg,

bookended by Willow in Minnesota, is going to increase morning and afternoon traffic.

just five to ten minutes for the 600 cars from this area is going to add 13,000 to 25,000 hours

of commute time for the residents. So isn't this a CEQA issue? Those are my issues. Thank you.

Neer Ali, please unmute your device.

Hi, thank you for having this meeting and allowing for the public comment.

I would echo a lot of the concerns that people have already brought up.

I do live on settle and yes, it is true that we only have parking on one side of the street.

In addition to that, two cars cannot pass without one car moving over.

And so I echo the same concerns of sewer system, electrical grid capacity, storm drains, which

we don't have enough of, and even water pipelines.

And I have not heard any remedies or even any concerns, and that does relate to public

health and safety.

And so therefore I'm not against the idea of building something there that would have

affordable housing, which I understand that we are in need of.

However, a seven story I don't think is the appropriate fit for this area.

And that would end my comment.

Thank you.

Lori?

Yes, hi.

I've owned my home at 954 Willow Street for 26 years,

which is directly across from the building site.

And I believe I couldn't jot down the names of the last three people

that talked fast enough, but every single thing they said was on my list.

I have just been told that I need to put out a clean out for a new sewage line on my front lawn because of sewage issues that are already here.

So are they doing a study and how soon are they doing it and when do we get to see it, you know, about how the sewage is going to be managed?

Fire safety is a huge issue.

And the other thing is, is what is low income housing?

What is the threshold for the price for that? And is there a promise of that? Because I've seen other places, things have gone in and there's this promise of low income and moderate income. And then I'm seeing, you know, prices of, oh, buy this condo for, you know, 1.3 million. What are the price ranges? That's what I think that people should also be allowed to know.

thank you um mike basso yes yeah i've lived on cotenberg for about 30 plus years and at the end

of cotenberg there's a sign that says no uh trucks over five tons on cotenberg i've had several

sewage issues at my house as well had to install a clean out due to the tree-lined streets the

sewers are weak to say.

So if a five ton truck,

you know,

with all the concrete,

that's going to have to go in on that building.

When a five ton truck goes down,

Cotenberg is the owner slash a builder going to be responsible for fines of

that.

That concludes my statement.

Emmanuel.

Yes. Yes. Hi, my name is Emmanuel. I grew up a couple of blocks from this site, grew up going to that liquor store.

And yeah, I drive by all the time. So personally, I just wanted to express my approval for the project.

I'm really glad that that underutilized liquor store that sometimes I see undesirable activities at, you know, when I drive by in the evening or at night,

is getting repurposed into multifamily housing.

So 126 other individuals or families are able to live in this beautiful neighborhood

that has so many resources and anybody should be able to live in.

All the comments I'm hearing against this project are the same tired comments

I always see when housing is proposed.

It doesn't matter what neighborhood you propose it in.

You could propose it on the east side.

You could propose it anywhere else in the city.

People are going to be against it.

And usually when housing is proposed, multifamily housing at that fact, the burden is shifted into lower resource neighborhoods.

So it's time for Willow Glen to put up its fair share.

you know a lot of people you know when you propose housing on the east side they can't come out

because they're working and but i can i can tell you that it doesn't matter where you propose it

people are going to be against it so i just want to express my approval i can't wait to see this

get built hopefully go to that coffee shop on the ground floor and uh yeah it's time for willow

going to put up its fair share. Thank you. Thank you. Fred Weber.

Thank you. It seems clear that new sewage systems are needed on Cotenberg and Settle and some of the

other streets here. I'd like to encourage us all to talk to our representatives and our mayor

to get our sewage system fixed so we can live in a 21st century city.

It's ridiculous that sewage would be the problem that prevents us from providing more and good housing in our community.

Both Willow and Lincoln are great streets to have all sorts of high density housing on.

We have nearby transportation hubs, and I think this project is a really nice addition.

And hopefully we'll cause a renaissance in our infrastructure around here so we can all have better infrastructure rather than the infrastructure we have now that really needs updating.

Thanks.

Jenny Ellis.

Hi, my name is Jenny.

I live on Chabrant Way. I just want to echo some of the other residents' concerns about parking.

You know, I have a little boy and the streets are already busy.

I have to say I am excited for that site to be renovated and for a multifamily and housing to go in.

But I'm very concerned about all of the cars.

The number of parking spots that you guys have created just does not seem enough.

and our streets are already so, so crowded. I know for a fact that we're going to have,

you know, extra people on our street and there's just no room for parking. So I would,

it's just going to be a safety issue. We want it to be walkable and I get that that's the appeal.

I love it. I love walking in my neighborhood, but with all these extra cars driving around,

that intersection is going to be extra dangerous. So I'm, I am concerned about safety. I already

Jenny, we can't hear you anymore.

It sounds like you were mid-sentence in your comment.

Can you try again?

Jenny, you have one minute left. If you would like to finish, please raise your hand. Otherwise,

we will move on. You are unmuted Jenny. Go ahead. Oh sorry about that. I'm not sure where I left

off but basically I think I'm excited for the site to be renovated but worried about safety from the

from the extra residents in the area. The heavier traffic on our already crowded crowded streets.

You know I want it to be walkable and safe for everyone. I think that intersection between

Cotenberg, Willow, and Chabrant is already very dangerous. I'm already nervous crossing that

street, and so having extra cars and extra traffic there is going to be a safety concern.

So what is the city doing to mitigate that? I'm done. Thank you.

thank you for that um i do not see any more raised hands um

i see um we have one more ernie oh uh well he lowered his hand

okay ernie

my name is michelle balasco do you hear me yes okay good um we've been residents here

on coatenberg for over 40 years and i have to express that we don't have a concern with that

property being developed we don't have a concern with it being apartment housing

what we're concerned with as a neighborhood group and you maryn mentioned that in our petition

is that it's too large of a building.

It should be not exempted from the city code of basically three and a half stories.

It is just too large for a very old neighborhood.

As people mentioned, we've had infrastructure, a lot of infrastructure issues.

I happen to be one of the ones also impacted by the sewer system.

We did have a pop-up in the front.

It was the city side that was a mess.

And when they dug up the street, because the sewer is on the other side of the street,

it was broken in multiple places. And I asked the foreman, well,

this can't just be us. He goes, no, it's not,

but we can't fix it until someone has an issue. So it's like the,

this is a very old neighborhood and we need to realize that that,

that size of that building will dramatically impact the quality of the

sewer system and the health and safety that, that will impact.

And so we just don't feel like the developer has had any ability to compromise, has had any interest in compromising with us.

But that's all we're looking for.

We're not looking to, you know, we don't want this in our neighborhood.

It's just it's too big and it'll overshadow the neighborhood.

Thank you.

iPad 3 has their hand raised.

I don't know what your name is.

Okay, it looks like you're unmuted.

Yes, hello.

Hi, Nico.

This is Ron Orlando.

We own a house on Cotenberg Avenue there, and we have current people renting the house.

And we go there quite often just to check on a home.

And that property, that street is just so loaded with traffic all the time.

It's some of the same concerns that many of the other people have talked about.

We've had the city out twice for sewer problems, issues.

We have a clean out installed, but still it's a problem.

And so, you know, the parking, fire safety is the other thing.

I mean, you get a lot of cars on that street. You couldn't drive a fire truck down that street unless all the cars were moved.

I think that's a big issue and a big concern for most of the residents in that area.

A lower building, not seven-story, maybe around three or four-story, something like that would work.

but there's just too much and too much too many people and cars involved.

So I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you. Lillian?

Yes, I'm just commenting back to the agenda item H24,

where they were specific about ordinance and non-ordinance trees and 50-something trees will be uprooted.

We have a climate.

I'm sorry, Lillian, are you speaking on the current item, H23.030?

Yes, yes.

And it was specific about ordinance and non-ordinance trees being uprooted.

and I'm sure the city has their agenda

where they will go ahead and plant other trees

in their place or box trees.

But once again, we are looking at a city

that claims it is Tree City USA

and it is once again uprooting ordinance

and non-ordinance trees in massive amounts

such as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, up to 200 I've seen.

And I'm here at the library today

and I'm looking at the trees that have been planted here

And they're great, but they're very, very small, and they take years and years to get to where they are mature.

So I still am perplexed how a city that calls itself Tree City USA can take away all these trees, ordinance and non-ordinance trees, and justify putting box trees or other trees.

I don't understand the policy of the city of San Jose, yet it makes its claim to fame as considering trees as a natural resource and something that we should, you know, be paying attention to, especially with the climate conditions we have.

So that is my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our speakers.

Thank you, staff.

I want to ask staff and the applicant as well has some time, but I'd like to start with staff.

If you could respond to some of the comments raised from the public around CEQA specifically, the sewage or sewer fees, trash pickup, and also parking.

I can go first, hearing officer. I can speak. I guess I had a couple other things I can add, too.

Yes, please.

I can start with parking for sure. So as of April 10th, 2023, there are no minimum parking requirements in the city of San Jose.

So in lieu of that, the applicant or the developer can essentially provide whatever parking they deem necessary or whatever the market deems necessary.

I guess the aside of that is that in lieu of having minimum parking requirements, the city now mandates that qualifying projects must implement a transportation demand management plan.

And this applicant did elect to do that. So they are providing a transportation demand management plan. And what that is, is it's basically a package of a combination of public improvements and programmatic measures that are aimed at reducing people's reliance on vehicles.

And I can have Frenzel from Public Works here as well if he wants to dive in a little bit deeper, but I can just read off what those measures are if you're interested.

So it's basically a point total.

So they are providing at least 20% of the units for affordable at affordable levels.

They're providing transit network improvements, which is a whole host of the public improvements that they're constructing along the street frontage and in the vicinity of the area.

they're also providing pedestrian network improvements so think adding wider sidewalks

they're also creating a new VTA bus shelter right in front of the project site basically trying to

get people out of the car that's that's the idea and then they also receive points for for having

right size parking totals so we do have ideal parking ratios that are within our our TDM

handbook. And so this project is meeting that. And then they're also unbundling parking costs

from the property costs. So in doing so, they meet that point total. One of the other things

I wanted to bring up, I know you didn't bring this up, but it was affordability levels. So

I mentioned in my presentation that there are requirements for affordability levels for

builders remedy. But there are also city requirements, right? So we have the inclusionary

housing ordinance. One of the speakers asked about what those levels would be and sort of how

that's actually maintained. So as I said, 15% of the units would be for very low income households,

which for Santa Clara County, that's 30 to 50% of area median income, and then 15% for moderate

income. And that's 81 to 120% of area median income. And the way that that is actually enforced

First is that the applicant or the property owner will actually have to enter into an agreement with the city that binds them for 55 years to provide that those number of units at that affordability level.

And then maybe one other point, I know that this came up a lot, is just, you know, the building is tall.

It does not meet the CN height limit.

However, this is a builder's remedy project.

project. So we can't really use the height limit as a standard for this project.

And then maybe I can kick it over to the CEQA team if they want to kind of go through AB 130.

Yes, thank you.

Hello, hearing officer. This is Charlotte Ewan, the environmental project manager for this

proposed project so i just wanted to briefly summarize the sequel review for this project again

as alec mentioned in his staff report this project is statutorily exempt under ab 130

as i like mentioned this was a new development in the summer of this year where projects that meet

meet certain housing criteria of which this project meets would be statutorily exempt from

CEQA review. What this means is that the usual categories that would be analyzed under CEQA were

not done so because it's statutorily exempt. With that being said, any concerns about public utilities

or parking that was analyzed separately with Public Works.

And if they would like to speak to that, they can do so.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

Good morning, officer.

Braced the door with Public Works, project engineer for this project.

So to speak on the utilities I was brought up,

so initial stage of this project,

we did do a capacity analysis for both sanitary sewer and storm drain utilities.

And at the time of the analysis, our current modeling shows that there will be no capacity issues stemming from the project.

And they did analyze two scenarios, a sanitary sewer discharging onto a sewer main on Wellow Street and also a scenario where the sewer discharges will be sent at Kotenberg.

And so according to public works analysis, those scenarios did not bring concern of any capacity issues.

And so as how this relates to the sanitary sewer issues as brought up during the public comments.

So those would be issues not arising from the project itself, but some more of a current maintenance issues.

And so we deem that the project would have capacity for sewer and storm discharges for this project.

Thank you, Ray.

The applicant has an additional five minutes if you wish to speak and respond to the issues and questions raised.

Yeah, hi, this is Chris Freeze from Redco, the applicant. And I just wanted to speak briefly to everyone and thank you for joining us this morning.

I think what we would like to do is we are not someone who doesn't care about San Jose or its fabric.

Currently, I'm the chair of the downtown San Jose BID, which is a nonprofit board focused on clean, safe and placemaking.

And that's a voluntary role that I do.

We care very much about your city.

We had a lot of conversations around massing, height, parking, and impacts to the neighborhood.

There's another project that was approved without nearly the amount of attention over on 1050 St. Elizabeth Street in Willow Glen for seven stories almost two years ago.

So, and frankly, it's because it's not near as much of an impact to high-end homes and the proximity to Lincoln.

But that's why housing should go here.

We are providing for 127 self-parked stalls.

The neighborhood does have a lot of parking spots on the street and is impacted.

And so one of the considerations of tradeoffs are height versus parking.

So if you want a shorter building with no parking, it's very much possible.

But from our standpoint, the tradeoff from a market project that's great for the city was that we wanted to provide a lot of parking for the project.

And you also notice that those are self-park stalls.

There's the ability to do scissor lifts and other sort of tandem stalls and ways to kind of bring more density into that garage, which we probably will do as it relates to parking stalls.

Not required by the city, not required by the project, but we want to park all of our residents on our onsite.

We don't want stalls parked on the street as many of the current residents of the neighborhood do.

And as it relates to the massing, you can see the project sets back on all sides to the adjacent neighborhood.

And, you know, a builder's remedy project allows you to go up and build a box without any setbacks and more density.

And, you know, whether it's the roof and the Mansard style roof or the massing, which we set back or the style, the architecture, which really tried to kind of break up the massing, you know, it costs more to build, but it's in a way that we think is fitting of Willow Glen.

It's a project that should be proud of.

I actually was encouraged to hear positive public comment.

And then I also, you know, generally speaking, public comment, those that are in favor of projects don't speak up.

But we get a voicemail or an email or something from people all the time, at least once a week, asking when they can move in and that they're excited about the project.

And a lot of those folks are people that are a key part of the neighborhood, which are, you know, teachers, firefighters that work downtown.

Folks that all cities need and we need more housing to allow those folks to be part of it.

The new CEO for the downtown association that we just hired who's moving out from Tulsa has a family and is going to move to Willow Glen.

And he's trying to figure out a great place that he could live and work in San Jose for his family.

And it's interesting.

He will be an applicant that will qualify for one of the affordable units in the project.

And so that's a great case study of somebody who's going to directly benefit from our project. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jenna, who's our land use counsel, to just speak briefly about some of the comments related to CEQA. But thank you for everybody for your time this morning.

Jenna, are you there?

Are you?

If you're speaking, we can't hear you.

Looks like she's still in the attendees.

Is it Jennifer?

Jenna Yarkin.

G-E-N-N-N-N.

Jenna Yarkin.

Okay.

Okay, there you go.

Jenna, you're unmuted.

Great, thank you.

So as we heard earlier this morning, some members of the public are concerned about the project's perceived traffic and utility impacts, among other things.

These are frequent community concerns with dense development.

However, they're not in themselves indicative of significant impacts.

A wide variety of projects can be exempt from CEQA.

The city has carefully and appropriately considered the legal standard that applies when considering use of the AB130 exemption, and no member of the public has disputed that.

I see I have six seconds left. I'm wondering if I can just have another 30 seconds.

I'm sorry. There's only five minutes for the applicant team. Thank you.

So I'm going to close the public comment period for this item. I want to thank the people who

joined us today from the public, the applicant, the applicant's representatives. I also want to

thank staff for the thorough presentation. You know, these kinds of projects are not the standard,

and in this case, the applicant chose to take advantage of a state law to move forward with a

project that under normal circumstances would, unless it was 100% affordable, would likely not

be permitted on this site. However, state law is clear that builders remedies projects are exempt

from local zoning and land use development regulations. The Housing Accountability Act

limits local control and it limits the legal authority of cities to deny a project.

There are very narrow findings for project denial, such as evidence that the denial is required by

state or federal law, or if a project has a significant adverse impact on public health and

safety based on objective written standards. This project either meets objective zoning or

development design standards or it doesn't. There are categories under state density bonus law

or the Housing Accountability Act that it falls under.

And therefore, I must approve this project because there aren't any federal or state laws where this project can be denied.

And the project has not shown that it would have any significant adverse impacts on public health and safety based on objective standards.

I will consider the statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, Assembly Bill 130, in accordance with CEQA, and approve the Site Development Permit H23-030.

Thank you.

We will now move on to Item 4B.

for B is H24-057 and ER24-254, a site development permit to allow the construction of an approximately

132,419 square foot concrete tilt-up industrial building with approximately 10,000 square feet

of incidental office area and associated site improvements on an approximately 6.4 gross acre

site. The project includes the demolition of an approximately 130,300 square foot building and the

removal of 152 trees, 95 of which are ordinance size and 57 that are non-ordinance size trees,

located on the northeast corner of Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Place. The CEQA is an initial

study mitigated negative declaration for the 2334 Lundy Place project. Staff's recommendation is

to consider the initial study mitigated negative declaration

for 2334 Lundy Place in accordance with CEQA

and approve a site development permit.

I will now ask staff to provide a brief report

followed by the applicant,

and then we will take public comment.

Good morning, and thank you, hearing officer.

I would like staff to also promote Jennifer Friedman

and Pete Cassiano from the applicant's team.

And I'd like to share the screen as well.

It looks like there's a P and a Peter with no last name.

Pete C.

Do you see him?

Anyway, we can get back to that.

My name is Reena Shah, Project Manager with the Planning Division.

The project before you this morning at 2334 Lundy Avenue is a site development permit

to allow the construction of an approximately 132,419 square foot concrete tilt-up building

with approximately 10,000 square feet of incidental office area and associated site improvements.

The site is, the project will be on a 6.5 gross acre site and includes demolition of an approximately 130,000 square foot building.

152 trees will be removed, but approximately 200 trees will also be planted.

The subject building is intended to be utilized for light industrial manufacturing and warehouse uses with associated office uses.

The project site is located on the northeast corner of Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue.

The surrounding land uses include a labor union office to the north, waste management

service and technology buildings across the railroad tracks to the east, a church manufacturing

buildings across Trade Zone Boulevard to the south, and residential townhomes located

in the city of Milpitas across Lundy Avenue to the west of the project site.

This application was submitted on September 27, 2024, before AB 98 law was in effect.

The subject site has a general plan land use designation of Transit Employment Center,

which allows the construction and operation of warehouses, as well as variety of manufacturing,

research and development, assembly and office uses.

The project is located in the LI, Light Industrial Zoning District,

and complies with all applicable development standards,

such as setbacks, height, bicycle and motorcycle parking,

truck loading and unloading requirements.

The building will have 16 docks.

And based on the noise analysis,

the project is also compliant with the noise requirements of the municipal code.

In accordance with Chapter 20.19, Part 9 of the zoning code,

the project is required to implement a transportation demand management plan.

that achieves a total of five points and includes a mixture of pedestrian network improvements and

programmatic measures the project is also compliant with all applicable city-wide design

standards including facade articulation pedestrian and bicycle access vehicle access landscaping and

utilities and also the building placement and design the project is consistent with city council

Policy 6-30 for public outreach. An on-site sign has been posted since January 29, 2025

to inform the neighborhood of the project. Public notices of the community meeting and public

hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of

the project site and posted on the city website. The draft permit was posted on the city's website

as well. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public. A community meeting was

held to discuss the project on April 21, 2025 via Zoom webinar. Approximately 30 to 50 members of the

public attended the meeting. Staff and the applicant responded to the public's comments and questions.

Comments received during the community meeting and project review pertained to traffic,

circulation, pollution, noise, and safety.

Staff received one letter in opposition

and approximately 20 letters in favor of the project

after noticing and scheduling the project

for the director's hearing.

With regards to CEQA,

an initial study mitigated NECDEC

was prepared and circulated for public comment

between September 11, 2025 to October 1, 2025.

I will have Charlotte Renn speak on ISM&D. Charlotte?

Thanks, Reena. Hello, Charlotte Ewan here again, Environmental Project Manager for this proposed project.

So the ISM&D identified potential impacts to biological resources, tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials and noise.

But the ISM&D also concluded that the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for biological resources, tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials and noise, as well as implementation of the city's environmental standard permit conditions.

Although construction activities within 500 feet of residential units are limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, the ISM&D includes analysis for construction on Saturdays.

And the analysis concludes that with the implementation of noise mitigation measures and standard permit conditions, the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to noise.

and as rena mentioned the earlier the ismnd document was circulated for public comment

between september 11 and october 1st 2025 and a total of three comment letters were received

from public agencies and private parties i would also like to speak into the record that a comment

letter was received after the public comment period closed and the comment letter cited

concerns to noise, traffic, land use, and air quality. The comments that were received did not

result in any substantial changes to the project description, analyses, or impacts that were

previously disclosed in the ISM&D. These environmental comments were addressed by staff

in a formal response to comments document, and that's available on the project website,

and was emailed to parties that commented during the public circulation period.

Thanks, Reena.

Thank you, Charlotte.

And with that, staff recommends that the director adopt the ISM&B

and approve the site development permit.

This concludes staff presentation.

I believe applicants Jennifer Friedman and Pete are here to present

and answer any questions on the project.

Jennifer?

good morning can everyone see my screen and hear me okay

yes okay great um thank you so much uh rena and charlotte for the introduction

um i'm going to go ahead and uh get started with our presentation here

um so just to give a quick intro um and with overton moore properties we have been developing

in Northern California for over 20 years. We've done projects in San Jose. We very much take the

approach of partnering with our communities that we're developing in. And I'm going to spend most

of my commentary addressing the outreach and discussions we've had with community members to

date. So we heard back in April at our community meeting, you know, really, I think four different

buckets of concerns, obviously, the biggest one being traffic, parking, and air quality. And the

comments that I want to make today, again, are really addressing how we've designed this project

to best fit with the current location and also take into account the residences to the northwest.

So as we previously mentioned, all of the building and truck court orientation is intended to shield

the residents to the northwest. We're building an eight-foot-high concrete sound wall to further

protect the residents from both light and noise at the dock doors. We've oriented all the employee

parking to the eastern portion of the site away from the residents, and we've designed the ingress

and egress to be primarily off of Trade Zone Boulevard. That will be our main point for both

trucks and for cars, and the Lundy Place driveway will be primarily used for truck egress.

In terms of the project design, we're replacing an old data center here that's been vacant for some time and has attracted a lot of homelessness and other sort of unsavory things that happen when you have a vacant building for a period of time.

So we're really excited to get started as soon as we can and bring a new industrial manufacturing building to San Jose, where there's a lot of demand for these types of modern facilities.

In terms of the environmental benefits, we've included quite a few sustainability measures, including 40% of EV chargers will be both installed and then EV ready for the future.

We are meeting all the Cal Green mandatory measures, including a solar ready roof. We've got drought tolerant landscaping. We've got bike parking and also priority locations for carpool vanpool, which is part of our TDM that Rena mentioned.

And in terms of the public benefits, the biggest ones really are fees and tax revenue that come to the city over time from commercial properties like this.

And then importantly, as part of our project, we are upgrading the intersection at Lundy and Trade Zone.

We'll be taking out the two northern pork chop islands.

We'll be improving ADA access on the southern part of the intersection.

and we'll be installing new signals. We'll also be redoing the landscape and sidewalks along both

Trade Zone and Lundy and our frontage to create a protected pedestrian and bike lane.

So this is just a quick snapshot of the site plan a little bit more close up. I just want to point

out this sound wall here to the northwest portion of the site. Again, the residence is here to the

northwest, and so we're really being thoughtful in wanting to prevent as much sound and noise

traveling to the residence as possible, and then orienting all of the office here in the southeast

corner and all of the office parking on the eastern portion of the site. In terms of community

engagement. We've spent a lot of time since April meeting with both Milpitas and San Jose staff,

because we're right on the border of Milpitas, as many of you know. So we've met with both planning

and public work staff, both in Milpitas and San Jose. We've had several discussions with the

neighboring developer, Toll Brothers, who's currently developing the next phase of their

residential. We've met with some Milpita City Council members. We've spoken to...

Hi Jennifer, the five minutes is up.

Oh, okay.

Thank you. Thank you Jennifer for the presentation. We are going to move on to the public comment

portion of the agenda. If you are a member of the public and would like to comment on this item,

please raise your hand and we will identify you by name. You will have two minutes to speak.

Rico?

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. All right, good morning Ruth and staff. My name is Rico Gallardo.

I'm a field representative for the Carpenters Local 405. I'm born and raised in the city of San Jose.

I want to speak from a community's perspective about the redevelopment at 2334 Lundy Place.

It's important.

Anyone who's driven by that site knows it's been sitting empty for years.

It's outdated, it's neglected, and it doesn't reflect the progress San Jose is trying to make.

This project gives us the chance to turn a dormant property into something productive and meaningful for the community.

When Overton Moore takes on a site, they don't just build structures.

that build quality, safety, and long-term value.

They've shown time and time again

that they follow through on their commitments

and that's something residents can trust.

Instead of an empty lot collecting dust,

we get a development that supports local business,

brings in revenue, and restores life to the area.

But the part that stands out most

is their approach to people.

They understand that a strong project

depends on a strong workforce.

By providing healthcare, living wages,

and apprenticeship opportunities.

They're helping families build stability

and helping future carpenters,

including unrepresentative groups,

move into a career that lasts a lifetime.

This is the type of development

that enhances the neighborhood,

supports workers,

and reflects the values

of a growing, inclusive San Jose.

I respectfully ask for your support

to approve this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Shannon Wang.

Hello. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can.

Yeah. So I'm one of the residents

at the Parkside, right next to the development

site. I am against this development and race concerns. So I'm a new mom with a newborn,

and I realized around this community there are a lot of kids under three-year-old. I would say

like so many of them. So I have a lot of concerns in terms of this site bring a lot of traffic,

especially large trucks, that's not safe for a neighborhood community with a lot of young families

and young children growing up in the area. So I feel very vulnerable and I don't know how

much voice we could raise, but I am strongly against this project. I also have lived in

Torrance California for quite a long time and I actually saw the Builders site before.

The Builders site at the Torrance California location is nowhere near any neighborhood

community. It's in the industrial zone around industrial and office buildings. So this project

is different than what your developer has been doing or experiencing probably.

So I also have concerns on or trust in terms of building this new site so close to a neighborhood

with young kids.

And yeah.

Armando?

Hi, my name is Armando Gomez. I'm a former council member with the city of Milpitas.

I'm here to speak in support of Overton-Moore Properties project at 2275 Trade Zone Boulevard.

I think this will actually be great for Milpitas and San Jose.

I want to thank Overton-Moore for bringing jobs and revenues to both cities and redeveloping a blighted site.

site, their project's going to be a welcome addition and improvement to the area.

One thing I want to add is, as a council member, I led the effort back in, I want to say, 2006

to redevelop in this area around the Bard Station, which added nearly 7,000 homes in

the area, including the Terraport residences.

We did this knowing that San Jose had industrial lands to the south, and we believed that residential

industrial could coexist. And industrial uses like the one proposed by Overton Moore would

bring jobs and housing and benefit both of us and would have, and the existing residences,

you know, should have, you know, could coexist. You know, I'm very pleased that Toll Brothers

and KP Homes, who were the developers of these residences, I appreciate them including

in their disclosures about the surrounding industrial uses because both cities, San Jose

and Milpitas, we need to protect our jobs and ensure that residential projects don't

impact jobs and revenue for both cities.

So I ask that you please support this project.

Thank you.

Bernadette?

Hello.

My name is Bernadette.

I am a nearby resident of Malpitas.

I strongly support the plans to redevelop the long vacant property at 2275 Trade Zone Boulevard.

The site sat idle for years and has become an eyesore for those who live and work in the area.

transforming this neglected space into a modern facility will clean up the surroundings,

improve safety, and bring renewed activity to a part of the community that is badly in need of

attention. It is exactly the kind of reinvestment our region needs, turning blight into opportunity.

And that is all. Thank you very much for the time.

Swati.

Hi, my name is Swati and I live right across the street from the proposed development and

I'm here to strongly oppose the warehouse project and here are the reasons why.

One, it is morally reprehensible.

Most of the people speaking in support of this project are people that do not live across

the street.

This is a deliberate attempt to evade California's warehouse protections.

and it is a lie.

It is changing the usage of the land

from light industrial to actually warehouse.

And all of the people that are speaking in support of it,

I would believe you if you actually bought homes

and invested more than a million dollars

like all of us have,

our life savings and living across the street.

I think this is the proposed mitigations are laughable.

You have the reasons why.

An eight foot sound wall

and construction across over the weekends.

It does not make sense. We have hundreds of homes. That is not mitigation. That's an insult.

Secondly, what makes it really troubling is that this is prime transitable area where you could build research facilities.

You could build an office development. Instead, you're building a warehouse with 24-7 usage and employing only 113 people.

To Armando's comment earlier that industrial and living residential areas can coexist.

This is not why I bought the house. I thought there would be an R&D facility or an office building. I did not buy the house to live next to a warehouse. Neither did hundreds of my neighbors. My proposal is we should develop the land, but let us continue using it for R&D and office use.

We are replacing innovation with pollution and lying to the community by calling it innovation.

This is a migrant-heavy community, minorities, and the people of Milpitas across the street are bearing the cost of the tax revenue that San Jose is bearing.

That's all I have to say.

I'm strongly opposed to this project, and I hope everyone considers the lives of the people impacted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Noreen?

Hi, can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

My name is Naren Kinoi.

So as a Mopedas resident, I'm asking for support of the redevelopment of 2275 Trade Zone Boulevard.

This project represents a real opportunity to bring good jobs back to an area that has sat under use for too long.

Revitalizing this property will attract new businesses and create quality employment close to home,

something our region needs to strengthen local families and reduce long commutes.

I urge your support for this project and the jobs it will bring to our area.

Thank you.

Caller ending in 528.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Hello, my name is Vince. I just wanted to express my support for this project. I'm a

Pletus resident and I just think it'll be really good for the area and bring jobs to Pletus.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh, Dongdi? Sorry if I pronounced your name correctly.

No, that's good. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yeah, good morning everyone. My name is Jungdi and just like Swati and Shana, I live directly

next by the project at Parkside Tarot Court. I want to express my strong concerns about this

proposal. I think the current design is simply not compatible with the residential homes

immediately adjacent to it. First, like what they both mentioned, I think we are talking about 24

hour truck operations and loading docks right nearby a big residential area with over 100

residences. We are talking about nighttime noises, vibrations, and light impacts. This is not

hypothetical, this is guaranteed daily disturbances to families living next door. And as everyone

observed, we are talking about many, many keys that's below three years old, interact walking

on the road, passing with the trucks passing by the road. We're talking about strong safety concerns

there with the truck entering along with all the keys and residences nearby. And in addition,

our home, we're talking about the homes like hundreds of residences nearby Trade Zone Boulevard

and Lundy. Those residences already immediately adjacent to approved stacked Tree Zone Park

data center project. It's another 24-hour industrial facility with continuous mechanical

noises along with electrical and cooling equipment. So this project plus the Tree Zone Park data

center combined, we are intensifying the environmental impact to the surrounding

neighborhoods. And I believe the current CEQA analysis did not evaluate based on the overall

impact to the surrounding community. So with this being said, I strongly request denial of this

project or at minimum I think we need to develop a better plan to handle all the noises and safety

concerns along with the overall overall stacked CEQA impact to the surrounding hundreds of

residences. So thanks.

Allison?

Hi, my name is Allison, and I want to express my support for Overton-Moore's project at 2275

Trade Zone Boulevard. While I am a Melpitas resident, I am excited to support Overton-Moore's

investment at the San Jose-Milpitas border. Overton Moore has a long history in Milpitas,

and they are a developer whom I am proud to recommend and support. In Milpitas, they worked

to revitalize a site that was obsolete off of Milpitas Boulevard, and I was impressed with their

collaborative work style. They worked early with neighbors and surrounding businesses to ensure

everyone was informed of the project. They are also a community-minded business and they have

been active in supporting community projects and programs. So I have no doubt they will be a good

addition to the San Jose business community. Thank you.

Person with the name Chamber One.

Please unmute your device.

Okay, they lowered their hand.

Jaime Velasquez, sorry.

Jaime?

Sorry, Jaime, can you hear me?

You can unmute device.

Okay, I'm going to move on to Sal.

Sorry, can you?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, there you go.

Yeah, thanks for asking.

Good morning, I'm Shunyi.

I'm like Swati and Zhongdi.

I'm also one resident next to the trade.

I strongly disagree to this project.

There are three reasons.

First, we are also a family

which are preparing for having our first child

and for having such a trunk operational nest to our street,

nest to our community is super dangerous for the new life.

And it's a very concern for people living across the street.

And I saw people, I saw there are maybe one or two people

supporting this project, mentioning their like

myopidas residents, but none of them are like us

living right across the street.

It's super dangerous and nonsense for us to like,

to cause that additional risk and in danger to our,

like a new life baby and to ourselves and to the community.

And second, we are also like a,

like very sensitive to the sound and noise.

And I saw this is like 24 hour and seven days operational mode.

And it doesn't make any sense to have such a,

like a trunk operational space,

just nest near to the community.

And it will make people like basically cannot go sleep.

And it's just caused the people to lose their life

and lose their life quality.

The third one is just a reason that every people living in this community will notice.

In fact, Long Day Place is actually a way that's used by a lot of people

commuting between the BART station and North San Jose.

And there are a lot of people riding bikes and just walking and using their skateboard

to commute between the BART station and North San Jose.

this project will cause a lot of danger and potential risk to those people who

even not live in this community and use that way to commute.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Jay Ren?

Yeah, here. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, cool.

Yeah, good morning. My name is Jiajun Ren.

Yeah, I began to study this proposal on 2275 Trades of Boulevard.

I'm similar to other residents, I also live in the park side.

I mainly use a landing place every day for the community and daily activity like going

by the grocery to the better earth area.

So landing place is the only way.

But this road is very narrow and I don't think it can handle any large trucks

for more than two trucks at the same time.

We cannot drive them.

So if more trucks start coming through,

I mean, it will be very hard for the residents

like us to use the road and safe and comfortable.

And also this heavy trucks are damaging road all the time.

If you drive a lot on the Lundy Avenue,

you know, the road is damaged very frequently,

maybe once a week or even a few days a week.

So I don't think that road will be good for any residents

to drive if you approve this proposal.

So I strongly against this proposal.

Thanks.

Thank you, Margaret.

Oh, hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Oh yes, I am a resident very close to this project

and I strongly against this project.

My reason is very similar to my fellow residents nearby.

The first one would be the safety concern,

and then the second one would be the concern to the noise.

Everyone living nearby are strongly support for a safe

and a quiet neighborhood,

which we can grow our family as intended to

when they purchase the property.

And we hope the government can support our will to living in a nice and quiet neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Gene?

Yes, this is Gene. I'm also the resident of Parcside and with the several residents who already raised up their concern about against in this project.

Yeah, that's the same reason they already spoken quite enough.

And I also, I wanted to point out to those supporting Milpitas residents who may be rethinking if they are the residents just nearby this project.

I believe that all of you who raise up your voice to support this project, I know that's reasonable for good for the Milpitas city.

But if you are the resident just right next to the project, then you can foresee what will be changed.

Then I believe you will rethink and you will not say the same thing this time.

And also for the safety issue.

And I remember that coincidentally that happened a couple of times that we have eye test.

The company is just right across the street of Parkside.

that we do have camera capture,

a couple of co-workers just walk out there,

a couple of workers from the ITAS company

just walk out the building and then across the street

and grab the packages delivered to our properties

and then just return to their work.

I hope that it will not happen for anything nearby,

but this is a human being.

That's my concern.

And so I strongly against this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chamber one.

Can you unmute your device?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Larry Suradella, resident of Milpitas,

former planning commissioner,

Overton Moore has done projects in Milpitas and proved to be a responsible builder.

I totally support the project, this vacant site, local jobs to our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Shubhi?

Please unmute your device.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you can.

Yes.

So I'm resident at Parkside, and we have more than 200 residents.

And I can assure you none of us support this project.

There are multiple reasons.

The first thing is the nearby schools will face around-the-clock noise,

increased diesel truck pollution, bright nighttime lightning, and significantly more traffic, including heavy truck on Lundy Avenue.

And because many homes and there are like two elementary schools nearby, which is within a half mile range,

this project would disrupt sleep, increase health risk, and reduce neighborhood safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

and also lower the nearby property value.

And I would like to highlight this thing

as like how it is going to affect the property value

because we have spent like more than a million on like all of us.

And this is like it will because the trucks will operate overnight.

And I mean, if you see the visible truck activity from the street,

And it will, I mean, no one, the potential buyers will actually avoid this area.

And there are like multiple reasons.

And we strongly oppose this project.

And I hope that our voice will be heard.

And yeah, that's it from my end.

Hi, May.

Please unmute your device.

Yes, good morning.

My name is Jaime Vasquez. I'm with the NorCal Carpenters Union field representative from the Carpenters Local 405.

And I want to talk about the redevelopment of 2334 Lundy Place actually means for working families and the city.

For years, this property has sat vacant.

What Overton Moore Properties is proposing turns that around and puts this land back to work for San Jose.

This project brings something the city generally needs right now.

real job creations, a strong tax base, and space that support manufacturing and industrial

employment who fuel our local economy. These aren't abstract benefits. They translate directly

into paychecks, business opportunities, and long-term stability for hundreds of families

across the region. But what really matters to us, the carpenters, is the quality of those jobs.

Overton Moore is committing to a standard that includes living wages, healthcare, and

registered apprenticeship pathways.

Those pathways are what lift people out of poverty onto a skilled career, especially

women, minorities, veterans like myself, and also young people trying to get their start

in the trades.

When developers bring forward projects that offer economic value and respect workers,

the entire community wins. This is the type of responsible development we want to see in San Jose,

one that builds opportunity from the ground up. For these reasons, I respectfully urge

you to approve this project. Thank you for your time.

Jessie? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Hi, everyone. My name is Jessie and I'm a resident of the Parkside at Tarope.

So I'm here today to express my strong opposition to this project that is going to happen near my neighborhood.

So first of all, I think this project poses significantly safety concerns around my community.

There are elementary school near my community and then the increased heavy truck traffic will raise the risk of accidents on roads that were never designed for this level of commercial use.

Many of us, I see children walk on the roads, I see people with their pads, and then they jog on the road.

So all of this will be impacted if this construction is being introduced.

And then secondly, the environmental and the quality of life will be impacted.

So large trucks will bring noises, they will bring pollutions.

And then like my fellow neighbors mentioned before, there's already a data center near our community.

so our community will be experiencing more and more noises and then there will be louder streets

and then our life quality will be impacted let alone the property values as well and then last

but not least i agree that um we need you know the city needs job increase people need to work

but then there's better to the locations for this type of development we want a neighborhood where

families leave and then children grow up and then you know seniors can seek a quiet and stable life.

So for all of these reasons I want you to reject this project and then

protect our community safety. So thank you.

Joe, please unmute your device.

Hey, hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hey, hi, I'm Joe. I live in Parkside, Joshua Tree Circle, which just happened to be the building that are close to the railway.

So I strongly against this project because first, so across the railway, there's already a factory over there.

So in the night, sometimes there will be like security cars and lots of noise which will impact my, I mean, the noise, my sleeping.

And even during the work daytime, when I work from home.

So it's a noise concern.

The second is I think this is our community and our home.

We spend lots of money to get home here.

So we don't have a choice to move to other places, but the company has.

They have a choice to pick up at different locations to put the project.

So I think they have a choice, but we don't.

So please respect opinions of the residents here.

We have children.

We have our elders living here.

We just want to be quiet and safe.

place to live that's all we want okay thank you

dancing

dancing unmute your device

hey everyone can you guys hear me

yes we can hear you all right great um hey everyone thank you for

opportunity to speak. My name is Dan Son and I'm a resident living near Lundy Place in the Parkside

Tower Court. I'm here to express my strong opposition to the proposed truck warehouse project.

So first, Lundy Place is already an extremely narrow street. It simply is not designed to handle

large commercial trucks. Introducing frequent truck traffic would create serious safety risks

for pedestrians, cyclists, and everyday drivers who use the road. And secondly, the traffic

conditions in the area already very congested you know there are increasing traffic accidents

by the intersection of london place and and you know the road nearby and adding a high volume

truck facility would make the situation significantly worse leading to longer delays more unsafe

maneuvers and more frustration for the entire community so um yeah overall i definitely would

strongly oppose the projects you know because of the safety traffic noise and also the well-being

of families there are a lot of newborn babies toddlers i respectfully urge the decision makers

to reject this proposal and consider a more suitable location thank you guys

claire

Hi, I want to state clearly that I'm against the current site planning for this truck factory

because it is directly detrimental to my community's health, safety, and residential property value.

I also want to emphasize that I'm echoing all the concerns already raised by many of my neighbors.

This is not an isolated opinion, but a shared serious worries among all the families who live here.

I also want to be clear that I'm not against economic growth or new job opportunities for our community.

I fully understand that development can bring benefits.

However, these benefits should not come at the expense of the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents who live right next to this proposed site.

A project is not truly beneficial if the gains or sums are paid by significant harm to others.

job creation is important but it must be pursued responsibly with fairness and proper planning

i'm simply asking that the pursuit of economic benefits will be built on this

won't be built on the sacrifice of our neighborhood's well-being thank you

thank you um manali ring

Manali, please unmute your device.

Okay, we're going to move on to Shi Yang.

Can you unmute your device?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yeah, I'm Xi Yan. I'm living in the Parkside Milk Peters neighborhood.

I'm also strongly against this truck plan because it's increasing the noise in the already crowded neighborhood.

And it also increases the traffic in the crowded neighborhood.

And we have a bunch of other resident places that's building and the traffic is going to be worse.

and there are going to be like more people living here and with their families.

It's not very safe with this truck place.

And also the noise, the 7.24 hours noise and the light,

it's going to just, you know, harm the people's life here.

Yeah, and also echo all the neighbors that already against this plan.

Thank you.

Manali, you are unmuted.

There's two in here with the same name.

Can you unmute your device?

Okay, we're going to move on.

Let's see, there's another.

Manali, can you unmute this device?

Yes.

Can you hear me now?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, so I'm a resident of the Tariff Court at Parkside.

I do not approve of this project.

I actually completely vehemently oppose this project

for multiple reasons that the previous owners have already

or the previous residents have already spoken about.

So maybe I will not add that. I'm not against, you know, increasing jobs or having sources of employment. It's just that the project that you guys have picked, which is the hardware or the warehouse construction is probably not, I mean, I wouldn't say probably, it is not ideal for the residential area that we have, considering there are new constructions also that are happening.

yeah so the city should definitely revisit what project they want to install in that particular

location and doesn't seem like the warehouse is is an ideal project given various reasons of

you know our houses are just giving us the residents a way of life okay thank you

Richard, please unmute your device.

Yeah, hi, can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Yeah, I just align with all other residents in Parkside and the Tarabacourt community.

I'm strongly against this project.

Before I talk many reasons, maybe if the city councils and city officials, if you go to visit that site,

site you will find that due to the bot uh bot line it stopped the landy place so there's only one

way and it's a dead end of that landy place entering our community that's the only

um entrance and exit there so if that is killed by those uh large 18-wheeler trucks especially

is operating 24 and 7 in the morning, then imagine we need to send our keys in the morning time to

the school and we already have to wait a long time there by turning left to our public school assigned

in Northwood. Then due to those long queue on top of that by the trucks, we cannot imagine how the

traffic will be that bad on top of the bad noise and other concerns. And also, all this is missed

in the four environmental reports. I did review that. The report is quite immature. It doesn't

mention at all. I do understand the back-end building, which was an NTT data center building

before, why not continue to convert into a new data center building?

And I know the data center business is booming here in the Bay Area, especially in South

Bay.

We already have another one across the road.

So you can have another data center produce less noise and less pollution.

It's only consumed electricity.

I think that's okay to us.

Your time is up.

XT, person with the initials XT, you are unmuted.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead with your comment.

So plus one to all the people who expressed opposition before.

So I do want to say that I'm also seriously against this location being developed into

a truck facility because the communities nearby we have lots of kids living there so it's it raised

significant safety issues for kids living nearby also there is significant traffic burden

for like peak hours.

Currently, we only have a tiny road

that's going into the Toll Brothers communities

and KB homes,

but we have lots of residents living there.

So if you develop that into a truck facility,

it's going to be a lot more traffic concerns.

And also, I don't think it's good for the environment.

yeah that's all

Arsha

Hi

I'm a resident of Parkside Tarap

I strongly oppose

the proposed project to all the points

have been added I just wanted to

bring out the child safety

increased heavy traffic will create

dangerous conditions for the many families

and children who frequently walk and

bike and moreover

it also means the risk

of high volume traffic will also have the effect of children's respiratory health and overall

well-being with higher emissions and noise pollution. We urge the city to prioritize

the child safety and community health. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Banu, Priya, can you please unmute Bryce?

Are you able to hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, awesome. I'm a resident of the Parkside community and I strongly oppose the truck site which San Jose is trying to build.

Our community generally have young people with young kids and newborns and there are many pet lovers as well.

And they're going to impact our day-to-day lives significantly.

also most of us are working parents and this is going to help really cause a really hectic

morning times so I'm strongly against that and I speak not just for the Parkside community and

I also include the other upcoming houses in and around and also the community across the

road in San Jose. So thank you.

Jisoo?

Please unmute your device.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Guangdong and I am a homeowner in the

Parkside community located directly adjacent to the proposed development to our lonely place.

I want to clearly express my strong objection to this project.

This facility is designed for a 24-7 operation with more than 100 employees.

That means non-stop heavy trunk movement, nighttime noise, bright lighting, and significant safety concerns.

Those are all next to the homes where many families with young children and seniors live.

placing an around-the-clock logistics or industrial hub here will make the area more

hazardous for both residents and for the workers driving and operating equipment on-site.

So some voices said this project brings employment, but a project that creates jobs must also protect

the people who work there. And this industrial use introduces constant traffic hazards, hazard

exposure to emissions and accident risks that could affect everyone in the area. We believe

safer, healthier job creation alternatives do exist. And we are also concerned about the

environmental and wildlife impacts. So residents have observed animals and birds living on and

around the site, showing the area is serving as a habitat. Construction and 24-7 industry

operations will disrupt the ecosystem and increase air and noise pollution that harms

both wildlife and human health.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sean?

Sean, please unmute your device.

Hey, can you hear me?

Yes, you can.

Yeah, so this is Sean.

I'm a resident from the Parkside Tarot Court.

I strongly oppose this construction because it will not only bring excessive noise, diesel pollution, and safety hazards to the street used daily by our families and children.

It also simply does not become compatible with the character of the community by placing such an industrial facility of this scale immediately beside our homes.

We strongly urge the planners to reject this proposal and protect the well-being of our neighborhood.

Thanks.

Thank you. And that concludes our speakers.

Thank you, staff. I am going to close the public comment period for this item. Thank you to everyone who called in and gave us your feedback. Thank you.

So just want to point out a few things. So I did hear concerns regarding noise levels, impacts of the 24-7 potential uses on the site.

And I feel that staff, specifically our environmental staff, the information they provided in terms of the sound wall, how employees will be accessing the site, the ingress and egress, I think, as they noted, these are things that are going to mitigate those impacts.

There will always be impacts with any new development, any new use.

But given the analysis and the feedback and the changes in the project, I agree with staff's recommendation that this is going to mitigate those concerns.

And I also want to add that, you know, I, in supporting this permit, I find that, you know, the use and the permit itself are consistent with our major strategies, specifically major strategy number four, Innovation and Regional Employment Center, as well as other industrial preservation goals.

We want to attract new industrial uses in San Jose that will help us achieve fiscal sustainability, help us to provide services. And I think that the way that this is designed and with the, again, the mitigation, it's going to be able to give us a project that's going to protect the adjacent residential uses and at the same time allow us to take advantage of these jobs producing lands.

So with that, I am going to move forward and approve the project.

Consider the initial study mitigated negative declaration for 2334 Lundy Place in accordance with CEQA and approve the site development permit H24-057.

Thank you.

This concludes the director's hearing for December 3rd, 2025.

Thank you for joining us.