Okay, good morning, everybody.

We are calling to order the Planning Director hearing of December 10th, 2025.

My name is Martina Davis and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and

delegated by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, Christopher Burton.

This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call.

of the public may participate by following the instructions listed on page two of the agenda.

If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. So the first method for

participants who joined electronically and have audio input available on their computer or their

smartphone, you can use the raised hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item you'd like to speak on

or click star nine on the phone. Remember to keep your raised hand feature on until planning support

staff identify your turn to speak. If you need to call in for audio during the meeting, please call

408-535-8517 or email planningsupportstaff at sanjosaca.gov and identify your name that's listed

on the Zoom and the phone number you'll be calling in with and what 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 a 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 listed on the consent calendar,

there will not be separate discussion, but I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item.

If a separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to public hearing portion of the agenda.

If a separate discussion is not needed, the item will remain on 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 then have up to five

minutes to speak and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record. After the

applicant or their representatives 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 this 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.

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 meeting or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

Planning director's actions on agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or environmental clearance determination is appealed.

The planning director's actions on permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, which is the zoning ordinance.

The planning director's actions on the environmental review per permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Municipal Code, which is the environmental clearance ordinance.

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 the meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

The meeting of the director's hearing will now come to order.

Okay, so first agenda item we have today is deferrals. Any items scheduled for a hearing this morning for which a 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 the items, please raise your hand.

I'll now open the public hearing. However, we have no items recommended for deferral this morning.

And any changes to that? I'll give a second for staff to let me know if you have anything you want to defer.

Okay, I see nobody. The matter of deferrals is now closed.

And we will move on to our consent calendar.

So as a reminder, there will be no separate discussion of individual items as they are considered to be routine

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

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

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

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to read each item individually, and then I will ask if you want to pull this item, that item off consent to discuss it at public hearing to raise your hand after I read that specific item.

And then we'll check in and make sure you want to pull it.

And then at the end, I'll give one more opportunity to pull any items that anyone missed the first read around.

So with that, we will start with H24035 and ER24174.

This is a site development permit for construction of a 100% affordable five-story residential building with 128 units, 127 units subject to the state density bonus law and one manager's unit, and the demolition of an approximately 5,600 square foot single family house and removal of 14 trees, including four ordinance-sized trees with extending construction hours on Saturdays from 8 to 5.

On an approximately 1.5 gross acre site located at 1207 North Capitol Avenue, Council District 4, the CEQA clearance is a mitigated negative declaration for 1207 North Capitol project.

And the staff recommendation is to consider the mitigated negative declaration in accordance with CEQA and approve a site development permit.

Would anyone like to pull this item off of the consent calendar for discussion at public hearing?

If you would like to, please raise your hand.

And I'll ask support staff if you can let me know.

Do we have any raised hands?

Glenn Cohen.

Okay, can you confirm?

Would you like to pull this item off consent?

Yes, I would like to pull this item off consent and discuss it.

Great.

We will hear this item at the public hearing portion of the agenda.

Okay, next item. Item B, H25024 and ER25140, a site development permit to allow construction of a new approximately 2376 square foot duplex and removal of one ordnance sized tree on an approximately 0.18 gross acre site located at northeast side of South 21st Street, approximately 175 feet northwest of East William and South 21st Street.

1st Street intersection, the address being 374 South 21st.

Council District 3, CEQA is exempt per CEQA guidelines section 15303 for new construction

of small structures, and staff recommendation is to consider an exemption in accordance

with CEQA and approve a site development permit.

Would anyone like to pull this item for discussion?

We have one hand raised from the last one.

And...

and whomever has got your hand raised,

do you want to pull this item?

Or is that just left over from the last one?

iPhone M2Y.

Hello?

Hello.

Hello, my name's Jannaro Diaz.

I wanted to speak in regards to,

but I believe the item you pulled it to the public,

I wanted to speak on 1207 Capital.

Okay, so yeah,

so if you want to speak on 1207 Capital, everybody,

you can go ahead and lower your hand for now.

We will have that item on the public hearing calendar, and I'll ask you to all raise your hands now at that time when we are ready for public speakers for that item.

All right. Sounds good.

So, so far, no pulling of item B. So, item C, HA2100601 and ER25187. Site development permit amendment to allow building and site modifications due to a change in use to a research and development facility, including the addition of two 1.5 megawatt emergency generators or up to four 3 megawatt backup generators.

transformers evaporative cooling chillers and a step-down power transition yard to support

research and laboratory uses new fencing gates and a guard shack a new 14 foot sound enclosure

around the existing 500 kilowatt backup generator associated site improvements and the removal of

four ordnance sized trees and one non-ordinance sized tree on an approximately 17.4 gross acre

site located at 5853 Rue Ferrari, Council District 2, CEQA, an addendum to the 5853 Rue Ferrari

project mitigated negative declaration. And the staff recommendation is to consider an addendum

to the 5853 Rue Ferrari project mitigated negative declaration in accordance with CEQA

and approved a site permit. Anyone want to speak on that item?

I'm hearing nobody for now.

Okay, so I'm going to move on to the next one.

And again, I'll give one last chance at the end to pull any if you missed it.

SP-24029 and ER-24198, special use permit to increase in existing recycling and transfer facilities permitted maximum daily inflow capacity of construction, demolition, and inert debris from 174.99 tons to 2,451 tons per day,

for which the facility was designed and constructed

and increase operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

except for holidays on an approximately 4.37 gross acre site

located at 1611 South 7th Street, Council District 7,

CEQA exempt pursuant to guidelines Section 15301 for existing facilities.

Staff recommendation, consider an exemption and approve the special use permit.

Anyone like to pull this item?

Okay, hearing no one. Move on to the last one on our consent calendar, T25002 and ER25038.

Hi, Martina. Sorry, we did have one hand raised.

Oh, my apologies. Who had their hand raised?

Hey.

Would you like to speak on item DSP24029 and ER24198?

Yes.

Okay, so we're going to go ahead and we will pull that one off the consent calendar

and we will have a discussion at public hearing.

And so if anyone else would like to speak on that item,

you can go ahead and lower your hand for now

and we will call for speakers

when we get to that at public hearing.

All right, so then last one, T25002 and ER25038,

tentative map to subdivide a 12.26 gross acre

non-residential lot into four non-residential lots

located at the southeast corner of Skyport Drive

and Technology Drive, 1650 Technology Drive.

Council District 6, CEQA exempt pursuant to guidelines

Section 15301 for existing facilities

and staff recommendation is to consider the exemption

in accordance with CEQA and approve a tentative map.

Anyone like to speak on this item?

Okay.

All right, so seeing no one on that item,

So the consent calendar, we will be pulling 3A, so the site permit for the 100% affordable project on Capitol Avenue.

We will also be pulling off the consent calendar 3D, which is the special use permit to increase the existing recycling transfer facilities permitted daily inflow of debris, construction debris, and allow 24-7 operation.

the remaining projects on the consent calendar will be moved forward on the consent calendar.

Any last, any before I approve it, any last chance to anyone want to speak on any of those other three?

All right, so you know when I am going to go ahead and approve items B, C, and E off the consent calendar

and we will move A and D to public hearing.

Okay, so for public hearing, let's see which order.

I will go ahead and let's do the consent ones first in order they showed on the consent calendar.

So that means that we are going to start with item 3A.

I will read it pretty quickly one more time.

H24035, it's a site permit for construction of a 100% affordable five-story residential building with 127 units.

and demolition of a 5,600 square foot single family home,

removal of 14 trees, including four ordnance sized trees,

and extending construction hours on an approximately 1.5 gross acre site at 1207 North Capitol.

Okay, the first item we've got, does staff have a report?

Yes, good morning and thank you, hearing officer.

My name is Cora McNaughton and I'm the project manager for this application for a site development permit.

for the construction of a five-story 100% affordable residential building with 128 units.

The project is subject to the state density bonus law. The application also includes demolition of

an existing single-family house and removal of 14 trees, including four ordnance-sized trees,

with extended construction hours on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Adjacent uses to the project site

include a two-story commercial building to the south, one and two-story multifamily residential

buildings to the north and west, and one-story commercial and single-family residential

development to the east across North Capitol Avenue. The site is also adjacent to the Berryessa

station on the VTA Blue Line. The site has a general plan land use designation of neighborhood

community commercial and is in the commercial neighborhood zoning district, which allows 100%

affordable multifamily housing developments. The project is consistent with the general plan,

the use and development standards of the zoning district, and the citywide design standards and

guidelines. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a mitigated

negative declaration has been prepared for the project and is included as part of the permit.

The MND was publicly circulated from September 16th to October 6th. We did receive one late

comment on December 8th, but it doesn't change the CEQA findings. And the environmental project

manager, Charlotte Ewan, is in attendance and is available to answer any questions regarding the

environmental review process. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning director find the

project is in conformance with CEQA and approve the site development permit. This concludes my

presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Next, in the

order of the procedures is does the applicant is the applicant here and would you like to

make a presentation you will have up to five minutes so applicants uh the applicant is mackenzie

all right um staff if you could promote her

mackenzie you are promoted

Good morning, everybody. Thank you so much, Cora, for the presentation.

I don't have a presentation prepared, but I really appreciate the time here and the hearing,

and I'm here available to answer any questions. If Cora or Charlotte let me know, I can chime in

whenever there's something to be said.

Okay, great.

So what we'll do is we'll take public testimony

and we'll let you know you will have an opportunity

after the public testimony to speak.

So we'll get to that.

So, okay, so public testimony time, support staff,

go ahead and let people know when it's their turn to speak.

iPhone?

iPhone?

Hello, good morning.

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

Good morning. So my name is Gennaro Diaz. I'm a representative with the NorCal Carpenters Union.

I'd like to speak in relation to 1207 Capital. And I want the record to show that Danko,

as a problematic developer on affordable housing projects in San Jose. So once again,

I'm here to express serious concerns about labor practices on housing projects such as Madron Place, another Danko project in the city of San Jose.

Danko is not just a developer.

It's a family of companies that includes Danko Builders, a general contractor corporation.

Danko Builders has demonstrated repeated failure to exercise care for its San Jose projects in the selection of subcontractors and institute effective compliance monitoring when it comes to California labor laws.

I respectfully urge city decision makers to bear in mind when creating pathways for Danko to undertake further projects in the city of San Jose, especially instances where worker protections and taxpayer dollars are at stake.

Since 2023, public records show that the city of San Jose has issued at least seven separate notices to withhold payments from Danko or its subcontractors due to missing pay stubs, benefit records and compliance documentations.

In one case, Danko's subcontractor, NorCal Drywall, underpaid workers $270,000, resulting in $810,000 in city-assessed penalties for that violation.

Another subcontractor, Via Brothers, was cited for misclassifying six workers, owing $12,000 in back wages and $36,000 in penalties.

Even Danko's HVAC subcontractor, Cool Running Heating and Air, triggered multiple withhold notices and a March 2025 noncompliance notice for failing to provide required payroll and benefit documentation.

This pattern spans over multiple years, violations in 2023, 2024, and 2025.

This isn't isolated, it's systematic. So please let the record show that DANCO is not a responsible GC on affordable housing projects in the city of San Jose. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the comments. I think our next speaker is Lillian.

Lillian. Yes, Lillian Koenig, District 3, subteacher. You know, when I go into classrooms and I speak about our trees and our community, San Jose is supposed to be on what they call a green vision goal.

and you are going to be displacing and uprooting 14 trees,

whether they're ordinance or non-ordinance.

That particular part of North Capitol does have some really beautiful trees on it.

Once again, I think that as a city we can do better

instead of constantly uprooting and displacing trees

and stating that we're going to put trees that are in like these big round barrel kinds of things

that you can actually move around.

I think the owner of that property probably has seen those trees on that property.

And again, it's not just that particular owner.

And by the way, affordable housing in San Jose is not really affordable.

It's a misnomer.

I don't know if you know that.

You have to make one and a half times your rent in order to live in some of these, what they call affordable housing.

So as far as the Carpenters Union, I absolutely agree with them.

I bet more than likely that particular union is upset over the wage garnishments when dealing with the carpenters.

But again, to the vision of San Jose Green Vision, the goals were stated 15 years ago in that green vision.

And we are supposed to be climate conscious and what they call have a green vision in order to keep our, you know, our pollution down here.

And trees are very, very important.

So when I'm teaching in a classroom and I go to many of the schools and I see the beautiful trees on those school campuses, I'm thinking, how many of these schools have recently closed?

Probably 12.

And they will have developers coming on them and uprooting those trees also.

So it's a real shame for San Jose.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak on this item?

Christina?

We have two more speakers.

Christina, you are next.

Hi, Christina.

Can you begin your comment?

We can't hear you.

Okay.

Yeah, it looks like you're unmuted, Christina, but we still can't hear you.

why don't we move on to the next speaker and then try again with Christina

okay uh Goetz please unmute your device hello can you hear me yes yes yeah hello my name is

Goetz Frank I'm an architect with Ascend Architecture we are the architect on the

project and i just wanted to comment on the uh on the comment that the previous speaker made uh and

just wanted to point out that we follow the mitigation requirements for trees and we are

removing 14 trees but we are replacing it with actually 33 trees we will also provide

street trees that are not there. So one could argue that the situation after the project is

complete is more favorable than it is now. So that was just a comment. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay and then Christina let's try again

if you are speaking, we're not able to hear you.

If you would like to use your phone to call in,

the number is 535-8517.

We can give a minute to try that.

So we got the call-in numbers at the bottom if you want to try just using like a normal

phone to call in.

A little bit longer.

Okay, so Christina, unfortunately, we are not able to hear you.

Again, if you want to call in, I'll give you a little bit more time.

Use one of those numbers on the bottom of our screen, 408-638-0968 or 213-338-8477 to call in.

Otherwise, I am going to move on.

I don't see her on here anymore.

Oh, no, I see you still, Christina, but no more hand raised.

Okay.

Oh, I see the unmuted or the muted.

I'll try one more time.

Christina, if you would like to talk, would you like to raise your hand?

Okay.

Christina, can you try calling these numbers?

on your phone.

All right.

Okay.

Christina, you are unmuted if your last three digit is 028.

You'll have to unmute the phone, Christina.

Unmuting star six.

How does she unmute the phone?

Do you know?

They will have to use star six.

The instructions are on the screen.

Okay.

Oh, it looks like you're unmuted now.

Oh, I just saw her.

Was she here?

It looks like the number is no longer in the meeting.

Okay.

Still see the hand up, unfortunately.

All right.

I see your hand down.

Do you no longer want to speak or you still want to try one more time with the phone?

All right.

Hand back up.

Because you were in, I think you just needed to press star six to unmute.

Thank you.

1, 2, 3, 0, 5, 0, 9, 7.

And to unmute your phone, you would have to do star 6.

This one, what project was this one?

Okay, I see the call-in listener again, and it looks like you're unmuted.

Are you, oh, muted again.

Can you try star six again?

Christina, unfortunately, we still cannot hear you, and we would need to move on.

For any concerns, you can message Cora McNaughton.

The project manager is listed on the screen right now.

It would be cora.mcnaughton at sanjosaca.gov.

Unfortunately, we would have to move on.

It looks like she has dropped off the call.

Okay.

I'm sorry about that.

Or she has raised her hand.

I don't see her.

Yeah, I apologize about that, but we do have to move on.

Okay, so in the applicant, you will have...

Okay, so any other public speakers before I move back to the applicant?

Okay, seeing nobody, let's go back to applicant.

You have an additional five minutes to speak.

Thank you.

So I just, excuse me, wanted to address the comments by the union representative.

And yes, all of our projects that are required to do so through funding sources comply with

state and federal prevailing wage laws.

Our compliance is monitored through certified payroll, audits, and inspections.

And oversight comes not just from us, but from the state and federal agencies that fund the project.

So Danco Builders Northwest, our general contractor and our subcontractors are required to meet those standards.

And if there are times when they're not met, there's real consequences for the violations.

And so I just wanted to add that like most long standing developers, we've had some disputes and they're generally related to subcontracts.

And to our knowledge, all of them have been resolved in accordance with the legal systems.

And the two projects that the representative referenced were our first in San Jose.

This would be our third. We have another couple that are in the works as well.

And at this, you know, when we started these projects, we were entering into a large new market and we acknowledged that that came with a little bit of a learning curve in terms of finding trade partners.

But since then, we've taken clear steps to address any issues that came up, including holding back payment from subs with unresolved disputes and replacing them when necessary.

and you know we've absorbed financial impacts as a result of those issues and um you know it's not

just about our reputation but um our ability to continue working in the community and our own

standards and well-being as a company so i just wanted to say that and we're grateful for the

opportunity to learn and grow and be a stronger partner for san jose thank you

okay thank you just um and then uh while you still have a minute can you speak just really

quickly to any did you take any considerations of preserving trees uh when you design the project

and then can you confirm are the replacement trees in boxes that are movable or are we talking

replacement trees in the ground so the sites um i mean i don't have the site plan to pull up at

moment but I think Gertz could speak even more clearly to this but the site is almost entirely

building and parking lot and sidewalks and so preserving trees just wasn't really an option

but Gertz are you available to comment on the trees and what exactly their placement is?

If not, that's okay.

I can also, I have, I mean, I have the site plan up now and I can show you where the trees

are if you'd like me to share my screen.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

I should not.

Yeah, so as mentioned before, we do actually, so we are removing 14 trees that are scattered over the current site.

Some of them are deep into the site, so, you know, they're not even very visible from the public site.

But we replace, we have a schedule and we will plant 33 replacement trees so that we follow the replacement ratio.

so we are actually planting more trees than we are removing and the trees are on the side in

in our courtyard where they provide shade for the for the parking lot that we're providing

and there are also street trees along along in front of the building so yeah i think i think

in terms of the replacement. I think the project does a very good job on making the tree situation

better than it is right now. Okay, thank you. Okay, so with that I'm going to go ahead and

I'm going to close the public hearing. I have no further questions for staff or anybody else.

I'll note the labor issues is not something I could consider when evaluating a permit.

My considerations are limited to does it meet our objective development standards and would

otherwise be unsafe or contrary to state or federal law.

I do thank the applicant for responding to those comments around the prior labor issues.

So thank you for that response.

then with regards to trees, yeah, you know, in the end of the day, this will result in a lot more

trees. And I'll note only, I think, what is it, four of the trees are ordnance size. So the other

10 could just actually be removed now by the property owner without any permit requirement.

So we're really, you know, primarily considering those four trees, and we are going to end up with

significantly more trees. And I heard that they will actually be planted and not just on

on a plant boxes. So with that, I am going to approve the project, the H24035 and ER24147,

the site development permit for the 100% affordable five-story building and

the mitigated negative declaration. Okay. So with that, thank you very much.

Thank you. The next item we had pulled off our consent calendar is item 3D SP24029 and ER24198, a special use permit to increase an existing recycling transfer facility is permitted maximum daily inflow capacity of construction demolition and inert CDI debris from 174.99 tons per day to 2451 tons per day.

per day for which the facility was designed and constructed and increased operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except for holidays on an approximately 4.37 gross acre site.

Yeah, thank you.

Gross acre site at 1611 South 7th Street, Council District 7, CEQA exempt pursuant to guidelines section 15301 for existing facilities.

staff recommendation is to consider the exemption in accordance with sequin approved the special

use permit staff do we have a staff report yeah we do thank you hearing officer good morning

my name is alex hughes planner with planning building code enforcement the project manager

for file number sp24-029 as you've already said this is a project for increase to an existing

recycling and transfer facility where the permitted maximum daily inflow capacity of

construction, demolition, and inert debris from approximately 175 tons to the 2,451 tons per day.

They also want to increase their operating hours from to 24 hours per day, seven days a week,

except holidays. And the site is primarily surrounded by heavy industrial uses. Staff

finds the project is consistent with both the general plan and land use designation and zoning

district of heavy industrial staff finds that the project furthers general plan policies and

conforms with the zoning district with regard to height setbacks and both parking and off-street

loading spaces staff followed city council policy 6-30 for public outreach site signs were posted

on the project frontage in august and verified in good condition this hearing was both noticed

at a radius of 500 feet as a standard project and posted on the city website the project is exempt

pursuant to Section 15301 for existing facilities of the state guidelines for implementation of the

California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. CEQA Project Manager Charlotte Yoon is available

for questions, and staff recommends the director consider the exemption and approve the permit.

Staff will be available for comments or questions if needed. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, public

speakers on this item. If you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand now.

Oh, sorry. Hold on. Wait, hold on. I skipped a step. Applicant. Applicant, do you have any comments?

I do see Michael Gross. The applicant is on the attendee side with his hand raise.

Okay.

Michael, you are unmuted.

Right. I'm on mute?

Unmuted. You're unmuted. We can hear you.

Okay. All right. Cool. Thank you. I'm going to start my presentation.

here.

Do you want to

share a PowerPoint? I'll have to promote you. Just a second.

Okay.

Okay. You can go ahead and share your screen.

Okay.

Michael, we see your presenter view, by the way.

Hey, Michael, you are muted. Can you unmute your device?

Huh.

I guess I could just do...

The old-fashioned way. I think there's a way to do it. If you do slideshow, and I think there's

like a new window option is how you do it.

The play from start, open, rehearse.

Yeah, I'm bad at this too, to be honest, if anyone else.

Alex, do you know how to do it?

If you go back to the presenter view you were in,

there should be an option to switch screen.

There you go.

Okay, presenter view and switch screen.

There should be an option.

Swap displays.

There you go. Perfect. All right. Let's get going.

Well, that's good. It got rid of my presenter view, though.

I'm going to be winging this. Sorry, guys.

Michael Gross with Representing Valley Recycling.

And we were here at our facility today giving this little presentation.

We also have in the audience our environmental consultants, both air, noise, and traffic.

Valley Recycling is currently a 175 ton per day facility going to 2,451 if the plan development permit is approved.

One of the big things we're doing here on this facility is something different.

We're taking in a lot of source-separated recyclables now, and that material is something

we currently do not do, so brush, wood, concrete, et cetera.

We see here we're up to 2,450 tons a day.

We do not expect to receive this amount of tonnage every day.

This is a lot of tons, but we have to plan for the future.

If there's a construction project going on across the street or a demolition project,

we want to be able to accept that material.

or if there's an earthquake or a natural disaster, we want to be able to accept that material.

We want to have our permits in hand and in place and be ready for that material.

This is the proposed equipment that we'd be increasing on the site.

Probably the biggest thing here is our water truck.

Now, the water truck is a brand new piece of machinery that is 4,000 gallons.

We use that actually to help with the dust control here on site.

The entire site is paved.

We use both the water truck and also a sweeper to control dust there.

But that water truck is also used to water the inbound materials and to water materials before they're actually gone through our screening and grinding operation.

We use that water truck occasionally, too. There's a large cannon on top to wet down dusty loads when we actually get those loads.

We have an emissions control plan here at the facility.

The number one is the vehicles and the equipment. This has all been approved by the BAA QMD.

Everything we do is complies with their regulations.

The impacts to public health from the release of toxic air contaminants, that has been approved by the BAA QMD also.

And there's no significant contamination there.

The biggest issue that we always want to address is, of course, the fume of dust emissions from material handling.

With that, we actually have four points that we focus on.

Piles are watered after they are received and prior to being processed.

We're controlling dust emissions by the source.

So we actually inject water in the shredder and the screening system to actually reduce the amount of dust.

We water and we sweep all our paved areas. Everything's paved here as needed.

And so that might be eight or 20 times a day. It all depends.

And of course, we reduce the speed limit on site to five miles per hour.

Valley Recycling, as you can see, this is a photo of how we process materials.

there's no dust being generated at all. And you can see by the dark color of the material,

it looks very, very damp because it is. This is the way we control our dust on incoming materials.

At night, you can see the lights on this pile right here. There's no dust being generated.

One of the big problems is the material does heat up. Here we have an employee actually taking a

daily temperature, making sure we don't get the material too hot. At this point, it's 111 degrees,

and we're allowed to get up to 122 degrees. This actually produces steam, which does sometimes

look like dust. The BAA QMD is very strategic. They impose a lot of different rules and regulations

on us, and we actually have to obey by all these rules. Otherwise, our operating permits,

would not only be issued, we would be out of business. These are standard permits,

and the conditions are put into our authority to construct and also our permit to operate.

These conditions are enforced by both the BAA QMD and also the LEA,

and BALIE has never been cited for dust or related emissions from the BAA QMD.

With that, I'm going to turn that back over. That's the ending of my presentation. Once again,

our environmental consultants are here to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, time is up.

I guess this timer has sound to it.

Wow, I didn't know that.

Yeah, wow, great job.

Right on five minutes.

Okay, let's go back.

The members of the public who would like to speak on this item,

please raise your hand.

Support staff, can we get the agenda back up when you get a chance?

Sorry.

All right.

Okay.

Kay.

Kay, you are unmuted.

Hello?

Hey, we can hear you.

Okay.

So we are the next door neighbors that share a fence with Valley Recycling.

And the dust and debris that comes over their fence has been going on for years and years and years.

So I strongly disagree with Michael Gross.

We have many pictures, many videos, many text messages begging them to put water on their piles.

um we did get bay area quality involved because it got to be so bad there are times that

we can't even go outside our building the dust comes inside uh all over our motor homes that

we're working on they can be here for one day and within two days they have uh inches of dust

all over them. So it's causing a problem with us having to keep our vehicles clean and having to

use water to constantly wash them. I have asthma and I've had numerous asthma attacks because of

the dust and debris that is coming from their site. And for them to be allowed to go 24-7,

2,000% more of what they do now is going to be devastating to our business and our neighboring

businesses and how we can operate. Thank you, Kay, for your comments. Would any other members of the

public like to speak on this item? I do not see any hands. Okay, all right. So then the applicant

may make additional remarks for up to five minutes.

Thank you.

Actually, I don't think I need to respond to those comments.

The BAA QMD, that's their job to do regulations,

and we have never been cited before,

so I think we could stand on our own merits.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

and then staff um do we have a history of citations or other issues with them

with regards to dust control through our lea function

um not to my knowledge i do believe one of our lea representatives is on the attendee side uh

Emily Shea, I believe, if we want to pull them over or have them speak on the LA enforcement

side of things.

Emily, you are unmuted.

Yeah, okay.

Hey, this is Emily Shea with the City of San Jose, LA.

I have seen some of the complaints.

because we are part of the LEA, the LEA does not directly

adjust the complaints that are coming in. We do enforcement of their permits. The complaints

should be going towards code enforcement to be kind of be regulating that, but I am aware of the

comites that are made and I do

do routine monthly inspections

over at Valley Recycling 2.

Based off of my inspections,

I have seen proper

sweeping

happening on site and

I have not been shared

of any recent

photos or videos of

dust being

moving off

site based off of my

inspections just seems very controlled over the past years or two that I have been inspecting the

site. So I would say that the facility, based off of my inspection, has been doing an adequate job

at proper dust control. It hasn't been brought up to me any recent issues regarding the dust control.

Okay. Thank you very much, Emily. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. So given what I've heard from staff and that, you know, I am aware BACMED does enforce on air quality issues where they arise.

I have, you know, been involved in some enforcement with BACMED for various projects. So, you know,

they do active enforcement. And, you know, if there is not a history of citations, and there

isn't a history of permit violations from our end from the LEA, I am going to go ahead and improve

the permit. I'm happy to hear the purchase of the dust, excuse me, the water track, right? So that

should hopefully make dust control even easier. So with that, I will approve, consider the exemption

and approve the special use permit. And yeah, you know, if issues from the neighbor's side,

you know, get worse or continue to arise, please make complaints to our code enforcement so we can

investigate and you can also feel free to make complaints obviously to BACMID because that would

be the agency to handle the any dust issues. Okay with that we will move on to our final agenda item.

It is a site development permit H23044 and tentative map T23031 environmental clearance

er 23264 site development permit to allow construction of five two-story single-family

residences through the demolition of an existing single-family house garage and accessory dwelling

unit and removal of 17 trees 10 ordinance size and seven non-ordinates size on an approximately

0.49 gross acre site the tentative map will allow subdivision of one lot into six lots

five residential lots any private street on an approximately 0.49 gross acre site

Located on the north side of Franquette Avenue, approximately 200 feet westerly of the intersection of Franquette Avenue and Coastland Avenue.

Address is 879 Franquette, Council District 6.

I will note this application was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act, which is Builder's Remedy specifically.

The of Minotaur and Clearance is exemption in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 for infill development projects.

uh project manager is jason lee staff's recommendation is to consider an exemption

in accordance with sequin approve a site development permit and tentative map

staff do we have any reports

good morning hearing officer uh my name is jason leigh planning project manager with the city's

planning division. So the application before you today is located at 879 Frankett Avenue in

South Africa District 6. As we said, the application is for a site development plan

submitted under the Housing Accountability Act for construction of five two single, well it's

two-story single-family houses, demolition of the existing buildings on site, and removal of 17 trees,

10 ordinance size, mostly fruit trees in the backyard, in the current backyard,

and as well as a alternative map to allow for a subdivision of one lot to six lots, five lots, and

it would target.

All right, so we got to provide some context on this application,

because this was submitted under a section of the Housing Accountability Act,

commonly referred to as the Builder's Remedy.

Well, actually referred to as the Builder's Remedy.

So a Builder's Remedy project is defined by Section H11 of the Housing Accountability Act.

It is a project that provides a certain amount of affordable housing to very low, low, or moderate income households.

There is a carve-out that this project is using.

If it is all three of 10 or fewer units on a site smaller than one acre and proposed for development at over 10 dwelling units to the acre, this site does meet all three and therefore does not have to provide affordable housing to qualify for the building.

renovate. To qualify for the Builder's Remedy, you also must have submitted an application while

the city did not have a substantially compliant housing element as certified by the State Department

of Housing and Community Development, known as HCV. There's more information on this on the next slide.

Must be within the minimum and maximum density provisions as defined by the definition of the

Builder's Remedy project. For this site, the maximum allowed density under the Builder's

Runway law is 80 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 10.2 dwelling units per acre.

As mentioned, that's over the minimum 10 units per acre required to not provide affordable housing.

Lastly, it does not abut a heavy industrial or federal applied industrial use as this is within

a residential neighborhood. Because the project qualifies under the definition of a Builders Runway

project in the HAA. The city therefore cannot deny the project there's no inconsistency with

the general plan and zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the housing accountability

prohibits cities from denying a qualifying builder's remedy project unless the city can

demonstrate that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety.

And on top of that, if there is a specific adverse impact to the health and public health and safety,

it must be a mitigable meaning if there is an impact and it can be mitigated

the city cannot know that project

so for this project basically showing the timeline for eligibility

an SB 330 preliminary application was submitted on June 16th 2023 and the formal project application

was submitted December 8th, 2023.

HCD found our housing element in substantial compliance

on January 29th, 2024.

And Assembly Bill 1893 to qualify for,

under the definition of Builders-Limby,

under H11, was invoked on May 30th, 2025.

five um so what this means for project review is that the city must treat the project as if it

meets the general plan land use designation requirements of the zoning district we cannot

require a general fine amendment rezoning or rezoning and the project shall be deemed consistent

with all applicable plans programs policies ordinances standards requirements redevelopment

plans implementing instruments or other similar provisions for all purposes and this is within the

haa so as mentioned the city therefore must evaluate the project for compliance with objective

policy standards nevertheless staff did review the project for consistency with the general plan

the municipal code the single family design guidelines city council policies uh this is the

the Public Outreach Policy, and the California Environmental Quality Act.

So just a few notes on this.

With regard to the general plan designation of residential neighborhood,

the project is beyond the allowed 8 gallon units per acre.

And also certain lots are above the allowed floor area ratio of 0.7.

With regard to the R18 zoning district, the project is not consistent

with the development standards, including minimum lot area, front, side, and rear setbacks,

and minimum driveway length.

However, because the project is a builder's room-based project, we must review as if it

is consistent with the general plan and zoning, and the project must meet the minimum building

of fire codes to allow the reduced setbacks.

The project also does not meet certain design requirements for subdivisions pursuant to

the city subdivision ordinance because the proposed lots are less than 5,000 square feet,

and some of the lots have average width and frontages of less than 55 feet. However,

the project is allowed by state law in the form proposed because there is no alternative way to

subdivide the parcel and allow the project, and the project isn't contrary to state or federal

law, including the subdivision map. The project was analyzed by consistency with the single family

design guidelines found to be inconsistent with certain guidelines regarding both. However,

because these guidelines are subjective, they cannot be applied as a basis for denying any

project, including this one pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. With regard to public outreach,

an on-site sign has been posted on the private frontage, including updating for this project

after a change with the ADA Commodary Submission. A community meeting for this project was held on

October 1st, 2025 via Zoom. It was attended by approximately 11 people. The hearing was also

noticed at a 1,000-foot radius, and all interested parties were notified via email. So, um,

we did, again, we did review this project. We found many inconsistencies with our code, our general

plan, our guidelines. However, it is important to note that staff did not find that any of the

inconsistencies, including the reduced setbacks, would result in a specific adverse health and

safety impact. One more slide. For environmental review, the project is exempt from the California

Environmental Quality Act as it is consistent with the criteria set forth in CEQA guidelines

section 15 through 32 for A class 32 exemption for infill development projects.

again for this while the project is not consistent with applicable general plan and zoning regulations

and policies as required by class 32 as a builder's remedy project it is deemed consistent pursuing

pursuant to the housing accountability act

so with that staff recommendation here is to consider the exemption in accordance with CEPA

to approve a tentative map to allow the subdivision of the lot into six lots and to approve a site

development permit to allow the demolition of the existing structures on site and the construction

and the removal of some mean trees for the construction of five two-story single family

residences uh that concludes staff presentation uh the applicant is present uh is uh

All right. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. Applicant, would you like to speak? And if you have a presentation, let us know so we can promote you to panelists.

Sorry, Jason, did you say that is the applicant Cyrus?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Cyrus, you are unmuted.

Cyrus, we cannot hear you.

Cyrus, I'm going to promote you to panelist.

You should get a notification on your screen.

Okay, hopefully that works.

Thank you.

It booted me and brought me back on.

Nice to meet you all.

My name is Cyrus Jahanian, Vice President here at City Connect Partners.

This project has been, as Jason alluded to, we submitted almost exactly two years ago, December 8th.

And originally this was here, I'll share screen.

As mentioned previously, this was a builder's remedy project

originally proposed to be 10 townhomes.

These were three stories tall on our half acre site,

long road strip, and then two five home buildings

that were all three stories tall, kind of looked like that.

And over the course of a couple of community meetings, one informal and one formal, as Jason alluded to, and with the new AB 1893, which allowed some changes to Builder's Remedy, we realized that the five-home, single-family home kind of fit better with the character of the neighborhood, met a lot of the neighbors' concerns,

while also meeting this dire need for medium density infill housing.

So these are, again, two stories max addressing the biggest concern, which was the height concern.

There will always be, as I'm sure you all are aware, traffic concerns,

and this is kind of part of us bringing medium density housing to desirable neighborhoods.

We believe that this reflects a good balance between community input and the housing needs.

So with that, we respectfully request approval.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, public speakers.

So if any members of the public would like to speak on this item, I ask that you please raise your hand now.

And so we can unmute you and give you your opportunity.

Okay, I see a Jason.

Jason, please unmute your device.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, with all due respect,

It seems like this whole process has just been covered up or is hiding behind the builder's remedy.

But to say that there is not a public safety and health issue is completely dishonest.

This is which was acknowledged by the city in the last meeting.

This is one of the longest streets, if not the longest street in all of San Jose.

It can only handle one car driving one direction at a time down the street.

It is the traffic is already unbearable on the street and it has an incredibly unsafe blind turn around the corner because of the bridge at Kirtner.

The city acknowledged that in the last meeting and said that they cannot mitigate it.

So, Martina, if you come to this spot, adding five homes with 10 to 15 new cars to a street that already cannot handle the traffic that is on it is a complete dereliction of duty.

It is unsafe. It is not within the code. It is not an appropriate decision.

this project would never get approved on a city council member's street or any other streets.

It is completely unsafe. And if they're not going to mitigate the traffic issues and the traffic

safety, there is going to be accidents. There are going to be people hurt. And there are kids who

live directly across the street from this project. When they get hit or hurt or God forbid killed,

It will be on every single person who approved this project.

And Cyrus and Jason, you guys are not being honest.

You guys have not addressed the traffic issues, the parking issues, and the flying turn issue

recurrent.

And Martina, I urge you to please come out and take a look at this spot before you approve

it because it should not be approved.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any additional speakers?

Okay, I'm seeing nobody.

Applicant, would you like to use your five minutes to respond or add any additional information?

Just briefly, I wanted to say thank you again to Jason Lee.

It's been wonderful working with him.

Everything that he mentioned, there's nothing else I'd like to add with regards to Builder's

Remedy Housing Accountability Act and kind of the the yeah the the life safety issues that were

already reviewed and addressed so thank you thank you

okay um staff um

do we have any information on trip generation or anything you you would uh like to include to

respond to the concerns around the traffic or would you like to could you speak a little

bit to the any analysis we did around traffic safety issues?

I mean ultimately this project is sequel exempt so there's it's five houses so it is below

the threshold it's a small rental project so there's not an LTA or anything done here

screened out by a policy about the transportation analysis policy. So

city policy doesn't really, and it's a CEQA exemption, so ultimately city policy doesn't

really allow us to look at this. Now, I think the Kertner and Coastal intersection has been

under a lot of discussion this is not something that is being caused by this project uh it is an

existing condition um the city of departmental application I don't believe is here today

but I mean they have had lots of discussions on that intersection and how to you know

do things on that intersection.

Ultimately,

I did mention

if things are mitigable,

then it's not

an unmitigable health and safety.

Now, the city

would probably be very loathe

to do this, but

it is two lanes

that are near post run.

If it really becomes

an issue,

well, first off,

is according to, you know, our transportation policies and everything, that condition is not

caused by this project. But if that project, but if it were, we would have to find ways to mitigate

it. It could be something like taking it down to one lane in that area, which would not, you know,

be the preferred situation for anyone. But I think the idea is DOT wants to look at alternative

ways to do that, to make that intersection better without doing that.

And same with on Frank, that, you know, there are mitigations there that could occur if

needed by fire or if needed by the police.

you know so

if

you know ultimately

after the project is built

or if more projects

come onto the street

by one way or another

this will need to be

then

you know they will have to

find ways to mitigate

and if they

truly are unable to mitigate

then future projects could be denied but I mean the fire department did look at this project and

they said they would be able to continue to serve the site and the street um I think you know we

took the fire department's word for that okay okay thank you Jason okay so with that um I will

deliberate. So, you know, as Jason explained very well, and I just also want to thank staff for

writing a written staff report on this. I'll mention for everybody, the actual staff reports

are not common for a director's hearing. I think it's really important that we lay out the situation

with regards to Builder's Remedy, just so everyone is on the same page. And I think that information

is very helpful for both me and the public. So thank you for doing that, staff. So yeah, given

the nature of the builder's remedy, I am very limited in what I can consider, which would be

unmitigable health and safety impacts or contrary to state and federal law. As Jason noted, five

homes, the traffic generation from five homes is considered to be so negligible that we don't

actually individually study it. And it sounds like there is an existing, it's, you know, not great

intersection over there, but, you know, this project was reviewed by our fire department. I do

work with our fire department closely and I just know generally speaking they are very I will say

safety conscious particularly when it comes to those narrow street issues and access so if this

has been reviewed by fire department and they have not raised these as substantial unmitigatable

issues then I am not hearing you know enough to be able to say that that would would warrant me to

not approve this project. I'll also do actually want to commend the developer. They didn't have

to do, you know, really any design standards. I will note they added the porch to that rear unit.

I think that was very much probably not, would have been easier to just have a garage on that

unit in the very back. But instead, you know, when you look down that street, you'll see someone's

porch. So I think that's a nice detail. So I do want to thank the developer for what appears to

needed some effort in designing to keep the community in mind for this project. I've also

heard nothing about this project that will violate state or federal law. I hope the city does

continue to review that intersection if it is challenging already. And, you know, if issues get

worse, we will hopefully be able to mitigate that. But that would not be on a five-unit development,

as again, the traffic generation from a five-unit development is negligible.

So with that, I will consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve the site development permit and tentative map for five two-story single-family residences at 879 Franquette Avenue.

And I thank you all for your time.