Good morning, everyone. It is 9 a.m., so we are calling to order the Planning Director

Hearing of December 17, 2025. My name is Sylvia Doe, 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 two of the agenda. If you would

like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. For participants who joined

electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the

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 raise hand feature on until planning support staff identify

your turn to speak. During the meeting, you can also call 408-535-8517 or email planning support

staff at sanjoseca.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, the phone number that

you'll call into 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 listed 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 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 planning director's actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Municipal Code.

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 the removal from the meeting.

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

This brings us to the third part of the agenda.

Oops, I apologize.

The second part of the agenda, deferrals.

Any items scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting date

is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter

of deferral.

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

If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring

these or any other items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine to raise

your hand to speak. I will now open the public hearing. The following items are proposed for

deferral. So this morning, there's only one item proposed for deferral, which is item 2A SP 24-047

slash ER24-258.

This is a special use permit for Harker School.

And staff's recommendation is to drop this item

to be re-noticed to a later date.

Are there any members of the public

who wish to speak on the matter of deferrals?

If so, raise your hand at this time.

And again, what the deferrals means

is that the item is not agendized today to be discussed.

rather the item will be dropped from this agenda and the item will be re-noticed for a future

hearing date. Okay I do not see any hands raised in Zoom so with that the matter of deferrals is

now closed and again that means a special use permit will be considered at a future hearing date.

Okay, going on to the third part of the agenda, the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are 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 and any items removed from the consent

calendar by the hearing officer.

If you wish to speak on one of these items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom

or click star nine to raise your hand to speak.

And this morning, we have six items on the consent calendar.

Again, as I just mentioned, all of these items, six items on the consent calendar

would remain on the consent calendar for approval unless any member of the public

wishes to speak on the item.

There is one item this morning that staff would like to read an update into the record,

But I will just read out each individual item and then we'll provide those updates accordingly.

So item 3A is a site development permit, file number 24-050.

It's a site development permit for a project located at 35 South 2nd Street.

Item 3B is file number H24-062 and ER24-0, or I'm sorry, 24-297.

This is a site development permit for a project located on 430 Auburn Way, item 3C, file number H25-006 and ER25-035, site development permit for a project located at 1803 Bradford Way.

The planning project manager does have an update on this project, and I'll hand it over for that update.

Thank you, Hearing Officer. This is Reena Shah. I would like to read into the record for one incentive concession requested by the applicant for private open space to be added as follows.

Section 20.55.102 of San Jose Municipal Code requires 846 square feet of private open space and 1,600 square feet of common open space.

The project proposes 983 square feet of common open space and approximately 696 square feet of private open space and requests a reduction of up to 150 square feet in private open space for up to six units.

The cost per square foot of balconies is estimated to be $300 per square foot.

Therefore, if a reduction in private open space occurs, then it is an identifiable cost savings, and therefore the incentive concession may be granted.

I also request this to be added to the permit. Thank you.

Thank you planning staff for that update to item 3C.

I'm just going through the remaining items on the consent calendar.

Item 3D is a plan development permit file number PD 25-003.

on Samaritan Drive, item 3E, Plan Development Permit PD, file number 25-010 for a child care

located on the Alameda, and then item 3F, Special Use Permit, file number SP25-018

for a project located at 905 Stockton Avenue. So if any members of the public have any comments

for any of these six consent calendar items,

please raise your hand in Zoom

or click star nine on your phone.

At this time, I see one hand raised.

Yes, it's Lillian Koenig.

Okay, hi Lillian, could you mention

which item you're interested in?

I think it's PD-25.

I thought it was under two.

Under two, PD-25.

Well, it says PD-25, I believe.

Okay, we have two file numbers on the consent calendar this morning that start with PD25.

It's the one at the Samaritan.

Okay, perfect.

So item 3D.

And were you interested in providing comments or asking questions about it?

Yes, it's basically about the trees once again.

Okay, sure.

So maybe I'll just put a pause there for a moment so that we can pull item 3D from the consent calendar and move it to the public hearing portion of the agenda so that you'll have the full opportunity to ask your question.

Thank you so much, Lillian.

All right.

With that, are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on any of the remaining consent calendar items?

Again, if not, those items will be approved as part of the consent calendar.

Okay, seeing none, we are moving again item 3D to the public hearing portion of the agenda. That is item PD 25-003, the Samaritan Drive project. And the remaining five consent calendar items, items 3A, 3B, 3C, 3E, and 3F are hereby approved as part of the consent calendar.

Thank you, support staff, for reflecting that on the screen.

All right, we are moving on to part four of the agenda, public hearing.

Previously, there was one item on public hearing, and with moving item 3B to that portion of the hearing agenda,

we will hear item 3D first, followed by item 4A.

I'll start with 3D. Planning staff, do you have a brief presentation?

Thank you, hearing officer. This is Jacqueline Guerrero, the planning project manager for PD250-3.

This is a request for a plan development permit to allow the construction of an approximately

221,000 square foot parking structure with six levels and 658 vehicle spaces,

included extended construction hours Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,

and certain nighttime construction activities such as concrete pours on an as-needed basis during the construction period,

including the demolition of an existing approximately 11,000 square foot vacant office building

and the removal of 66 trees, 21 ordinance size, and 45.9 ordinance size on an approximately 20 gross acre lot.

The plan development is consistent with the neighborhood community commercial general land

used designation in the CGPD Plan Development Sowning District.

The approximately 20 gross acre site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Samaritan Drive and Samaritan Place.

Adjoining uses include State Route 85 to the north, Good Samaritan Hospital to the east, and medical office complexes to the south and west.

Vehicular access to the site will be provided through three driveways along Samaritan Place at the rear of the cul-de-sac.

A bus stop is located about 500 feet from the site at the corner of Samaritan Drive and Samaritan Place.

pursuant to section 15 162 of the sequel guidelines the city of san jose has determined

that the project is a determination of consistency with the good samaritan hospital

project final environmental impact report certified by city council resolution 24

399 on november 19 2024 the project would allow the demolition of an existing approximately

11,000 square foot vacant office building for the construction of approximately 221,000 square foot

parking structure with six levels. Within the scope of the Good Samaritan Hospital project,

the project would not result in a new or more significant environmental impacts that generously

identified in the FIR and all mitigation measures and conditions from the FIR would apply to the

project. Therefore, the staff recommends that the planning director consider the termination of

consistency with the Good Samaritan Hospital Project, final environmental impact report in

accordance with CEQA, and approves a special use permit, the plan development permit.

This concludes the staff's presentation.

Thanks so much, Jacqueline.

All right, at this time, we'll open it up for public comments.

Looks like at this moment, we have two raised hands.

Again, if you have any questions or comments regarding item 3D, please raise your hand in Zoom or click star 9.

We'll start off first with Lillian, and each speaker for this item will have up to two minutes.

Lillian, if you can unmute yourself and read your name into the record.

Just to clarify, will the applicant be using their five minutes to speak?

Thank you so much for reminding me, Irene.

First, before we go into public hearing, we will have up to five minutes for the applicant

to make opening remarks.

And then we'll move on to public speakers who will have up to two minutes to speak.

And then the applicants will have an additional five minutes to make any further remarks.

If the applicant is here, can you please raise your hand?

Rob, are you there?

Rob, you are allowed to talk.

Okay, thank you.

We do not have opening remarks, but just would like to reserve our response time if required.

I am Rob Hamby with Gresham Smith representing the facility.

Thank you, Rob.

Okay, we will move on to public speakers.

Lillian, you have up to two minutes to speak, and then we'll move on to Rebecca afterwards.

Yes, I appreciate that Rob is here today.

Rob, I don't know if you know this, but 66 trees, ordinance and non-ordinance trees.

You know, when we're building today, it's just a comment on Good Samaritan, because

the word itself, Good Samaritan, really defines what we're all about.

and how do you justify uh uprooting trees in san jose especially 66 ordinance and non-ordinance

even though you can replace them with three to one and you know you can do whatever you need to do

with that replacement but the point is we're trying to preserve what we have in san jose

and i don't feel i don't feel that this is just and and and the climate change that we have

and building parking structure.

Why can't you figure out how to build around these trees?

It's consistent with all of developers in San Jose,

just not you in particular.

But if you have a tree that you love in your neighborhood

and your kids climb that tree,

and then you go back year after year

to see that particular tree,

it could be a redwood, an oak tree,

you would feel very, very hurtful if it was cut down.

So how do you justify with CEQA,

and the city of San Jose continuing to allow developers, especially people who should be

representing us, especially the city itself and the tree arborists and all of those people that

want to maintain our trees. How do you justify removing 66 trees? And you're not the only one

to do it. There have been hundreds of other trees that have been uprooted. And of course,

developers will state, well, we can't build where those particular trees are. I think you could,

if you really tried, you could build around it or incorporate those trees in some way.

Thank you so much, Rob, for listening today.

Thank you, Lillian. And we will have the applicant team and staff respond to your comments

afterwards. We'll move on to the next speaker, Rebecca. If you can unmute yourself, you will

have up to two minutes to speak. Hello, good morning. Thank you for having this hearing and

taking a moment to listen. I live in the condos next door and I was just curious from the applicant

what considerations have been given to the design of the parking garage or the final product

related to the people that live across the street. I live another block or so down but there are

people that live directly across the street including a large senior housing complex.

So that would be my interest this morning. Thank you.

Thank you, Rebecca. Are there any other public speakers for this item? Now is your opportunity to raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine.

Okay. Seeing none, we will turn it back to the applicant team. Rob, you have an opportunity of up to five minutes to speak. And of course, if you can speak to the two comments related to the tree removals and the parking garage design. Thank you.

certainly thank you sylvia and thank you for the comments um i will i'll address the the tree

comment initially first um and you know absolutely i do not like to tear down trees uh i don't think

any of us really want to um but you know if you're familiar with the overall long-term plan

for that development of the hospital the expansion of the hospital or the improvement of the hospital

it is a large site but we fill it up in the long term and and unfortunately due to the phasing

there are not a lot of places to put a parking garage that aren't in the way of some other

future plan for development on the site we are as you noted replacing the trees at the required

ratio and obviously have made attempts to preserve trees where we can, but due to the

layout of the site, this is really the only viable location for a parking garage.

To have proper access for the users of the parking garage as well as still easy clear

entrance into the site for the front door access, et cetera. Responding to the comment about the

exterior, absolutely. We have taken into account adjacent sites. We are buffered very well with

landscaping on the front, so nobody will be looking at just a blank concrete box of a parking garage,

obviously. Nobody wants that. And the exterior, the design of the parking garage is stepped up

from just a typical concrete box.

We have several materials on the exterior to soften that,

including other materials to break the scale down

so it doesn't look like a large box.

And hopefully that makes it look like it is part

of the surrounding neighborhood, not a matricative box.

And I do have representation from the facility online as well.

I don't know if they want to respond or not or add anything to what I've said.

I think that is all I have to add to that.

Do we need to have any further response from the public?

Or do I just turn it back over to the city?

Yeah, yeah. We'll turn it back to planning staff because the public had the opportunity of up to two minutes to speak.

Thank you so much, Rob.

We'll turn it back to planning staff Jacqueline if you can also address those two comments about the parking garage design and the tree removals

and what sort of considerations or design requirements and municipal code findings are taken into consideration as part of the project review.

Thank you, hearing officer. So part of my review when it comes to the proposal of removal of trees

is ensuring that there is proper replacements and documentation through an arborist report

when proposing the removal of the trees. As the applicant Rob mentioned, this is a phase

expansion of the hospital that's going to take a couple of years. Knowing that we have a tree

planting schedule that we're going to be phasing out throughout the plan development permits,

Currently, the applicant will plant 740-inch box trees and 1136-inch box trees to kind of keep in line with what's currently existing in the neighborhood and to match the current canopy.

And then throughout the other phases, we'll be incorporating the additional trees that need to be planted on the site.

And it is one of their conditions of approval that they must plant the required trees at later phases of their development permit.

As for the consideration for the neighbors, the permit does have conditions of environmental approval, so they would have to comply with noise, any debris during construction, so that will be monitored.

Thanks, Jacqueline. Could you clarify? You mentioned that the number of replacement trees

will be planted as part of the current and future phases of this hospital. Are the number of

replacement trees all going to be planted on-site, or are there going to be in-lieve fees for off-site

replacement? So the applicant at this time, because we're going to be planting throughout

different phases this is a three-phase project that's going to take roughly 10 years at the end

of their last plan development permit they will pay any remaining in lieu fees for trees that have

not been planted overall okay thank you so i guess in consideration of the trees to be planted on

site is it this as part of the project review or consideration is it typically that we would try to

plant as many as possible on the property? Yes. Okay, thank you for clarifying. And if you could

also touch upon staff's review of the parking garage design, especially in relation to the

residential properties across the street. Yes, so when taking a look at the design of the project,

We ensured that they met all their setback requirements, that they proposed ways to screen it, ensure that it's not really that visible, which the applicant did that by providing the large canopy foliage that they're going to be planting.

They meet all their ingress requirements.

And they use durable materials that's going to match the overall look and feel of the campus that's currently at Good Sam.

Okay, and I imagine that the canopy foliage that you're mentioning for screening that would be planted as part of this phase one as part of this parking garage construction.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. I have no further questions for staff or the applicant. Thank you to the public speakers for raising your questions and concerns. At this point, I will consider this project.

And based upon what I've heard at this hearing, the project meets all of the city's considerations and permit findings for approval.

So that includes the parking garage design and its consistency with the city's citywide design guidelines, as well as meeting our tree removal permit findings as specified in the city's municipal code in which planning staff, as well as me as a hearing officer, would need to consider that any of the tree removals meet those permit finding requirements.

and for trees that are being removed, that it is being replaced at the city standard based upon the type of tree to remove and its size,

as well as the number of replacement trees over the multiple phases of this project will be planted on the property.

So with that, I hereby approve, consider the determination of consistency with the Good Samaritan Hospital Project Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA and approve this plan development permit.

Thank you, support staff.

We will now move on to item 4A, which is the item on public hearing portion of the agenda.

This is file number H23-029 and ER23-232.

And I'll turn it over to staff.

Thanks, hearing officer Alcatienza, planning project manager.

I'm going to go ahead and share my screen.

I've got a couple slides for you.

Okay.

Can you see that?

Yes, thank you.

Very good. Okay.

So, morning again, morning members of the public.

My name is Al Katienza. I'm planning project manager for this project with the city's development review team and the planning division.

So the project before you is 1000 South Deanza Boulevard. It's in city council district one.

I'll be presenting alongside Ngu Nguyen, who is the environmental project manager.

So the application before you today is a site development permit submitted under the Housing Accountability Act.

That's commonly referred to as the Builder's Remedy.

So the project consists of the construction of a seven-story, 118-unit multifamily residential building.

20% of the units would be reserved for low-income households.

Demolition of the project, or excuse me, the project includes demolition of, oh, someone's calling me, sorry.

Demolition of a 2,658 square foot building and the removal of 12 trees.

So this project also includes an application under the state density bonus law.

So that includes multiple incentives, concessions, and waivers for removal of private open space,

use of stucco, reduction in tree spacing, reduction in building articulation,

and a reduction in common open space.

So sort of the crux of the matter here is what is the builder's remedy?

So in short, builder's remedy is a penalty for when a city does not have a substantially

compliant housing element and cannot use inconsistency to deny a qualifying affordable

housing project.

So this lives in Government Code Section 65589.5D5, and that authorizes jurisdictions to deny a qualifying project if the project is inconsistent with the city's zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation, and that jurisdiction has a housing element that is in substantial compliance with state housing element law.

jurisdictions cannot deny qualifying builders remedy projects on inconsistency with the city's

general plan land use designation or zoning ordinance and the haa prohibits a city from

denying a qualifying builders remedy project unless the city can show that the project will

cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety so that's just a general overview of

what the builders remedy is now i'm going to jump into how this project actually qualifies for the

Builders Remedy. So for this project specifically, the Senate Bill 330 preliminary application

was submitted on June 16, 2023. So for the benefit of the public, an SB 330 preliminary

application, what that does is that locks in any policies, ordinances, fees, standards that are in

effect at the time that that application is submitted. So this formal project application,

the site development permit that you're seeing today that was submitted on October 12th of 2023.

Now the city's housing element was certified and found to be in substantial compliance

on January 29th, 2024. So what that means is this project is eligible for to utilize the builder's

remedy because it was submitted prior to the city having that that substantially compliant housing

element. So what did that mean for us as staff in terms of project review? So as we reviewed the

project, we basically had to treat it as if it met the general plan land use designation and as if

it met the zone met the requirements of the zoning district. The project does not require approval of

a general plan amendment or rezoning. And again, to drive that point home from that previous slide,

the city has to evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards.

So for this project itself, nevertheless, we did review the project against our standards under our normal processes for consistency with basically all of our applicable plans and policies.

So just to kick it off, state density bonus law, as I mentioned before, this project is utilizing state density bonus law to waive a number of requirements with both incentives, concessions, and waivers, as I had mentioned on that second slide there.

With regards to compliance with the Envision San Jose 2040 general plan, it should be noted that this project is in the neighborhood community commercial land use designation.

So under normal circumstances, housing is not allowed here unless it is 100% affordable deed restricted.

However, because of builder's remedy, we have to consider this project consistent with the general plan land use designation.

A couple other notes on general plan conformance. So the project is located within the South De Anza Boulevard urban village plan. That is not an adopted urban village plan.

And staff has noted both consistency and consistency with general plan policies in the draft permit.

with regards to consistency with the municipal code.

The project is located in the CP,

Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District.

And same as the general plan designation,

so housing is not allowed under this zoning district

unless it is 100% feed restricted affordable

or the applicant is otherwise using another state law

to allow housing to be developed at this site.

Nevertheless, staff has highlighted

both consistency and consistency with with the zoning code in the draft permit itself

with regards to the city-wide design standards the project has found to be consistent with all

applicable standards with the exception of the density bonus concessions and waivers that were

listed previously with regards to public outreach staff followed city council policy 6-30 so an

on-site sign was posted on the project frontage and we held a joint environmental impact report

and scoping meeting on May 13th, 2024 via Zoom. So next up for the environmental portion of the

project, I'm going to pass it off to Nunu and the environmental project manager. And Nunu,

you just tell me when you want me to change slides. Thank you, Alec, and good morning hearing officer

and everyone attending. My name is New, environmental planner with PPCE, and I'll

briefly cover the environmental review process. So the city prepared an environmental impact report

for this project, which included the following milestones that is shown on the slide. The notice

of preparation was posted on May 3rd, 2024, and the environmental scoping meeting was held on May 13th,

2024. The draft environmental impact report circulated from June 6, 2025 to July 21st,

and the final EIR, along with the responses to comments, was posted to the project's webpage

on December 5, 2025, and all commenters were notified of the posting. Next slide, please.

And a list of environmental effects found to be not significant is written on the slide,

The environmental documents did identify potentially significant impacts of the project related to air quality, biological resources, specifically nesting birds, archaeological resources, hazards, noise, and transportation.

And with the implementation of identified mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

And the EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts.

Next slide, please.

The EIR did evaluate alternatives to the project.

First, we looked at the no project, no development alternative, and also the base general plan zoning development alternative.

The environmentally superior alternative is the base general plan and zoning development alternative.

And this alternative would result in the development of a smaller commercial building or a 100% affordable housing project, which would decrease the environmental impacts associated with construction air quality and noise on site.

However, this alternative did not meet all of the project objectives.

Next slide, please.

The city did receive four written comment letters during the EIR public circulation period from various regional agencies, local organizations, and individuals.

Comments raised about the following topics.

There was a request for additional VMT analysis and intersection volume forecasts.

There was recommendation for tribal cultural resources protection on the project site.

textual changes to update water management-related maps, ordinances, plans, and permit information,

as well as concerns related to the building height, school attendance, building setbacks

and landscaping, traffic impacts, and parking supply.

However, these comments did not result in any changes to the conclusions of the analysis

in the EIR, and a response to comments and text edits to the draft EIR are included in

the final EIR, which was again posted on December 5th, 2025 on the project webpage. And all commenters

were notified of the posting. And I will now pass the presentation back to Alec.

Thanks, Nu. So with that, the key consideration here is whether or not the project would cause

a significant adverse impact to public health and safety. So based on staff review of this project,

we do not find that to be the case.

So therefore, staff recommends that the director certify the environmental impact report

and approve the site development permit.

And that concludes staff presentation.

Eric Schenauer is the applicant's representative for this one.

Thank you, Alec and New.

We'll open it up to applicants and their team's comments.

You have up to five minutes, Eric.

and for members of the public, if anyone is interested in speaking, please raise your hand

in Zoom or click star nine. Eric, we have up to five minutes.

Eric, you're on mute. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Well, good morning, hearing officer Doe.

I'm Eric Schenauer. I represent the applicant on this project. First of all, we'd like to thank

city staff and all the departments for their time in reviewing our project,

specifically Alec Atienza and Nguyen, who were the day-to-day managers on the project.

Staff really provided a comprehensive staff report explaining why the project should and,

quite frankly, must be approved. So we appreciate that. The current use of the property, a single

story commercial building currently vacant, surrounded by a sea of paved parking, is an

inefficient use of land that does not benefit anybody. So redeveloping the property makes sense

for the neighborhood and for the city. The proposed multifamily apartment building

is consistent with the pattern of development throughout the city's urban village areas and

along the major commercial corridors around the city. So high density residential development

is the norm on streets like De Anza and in urban village areas like the South De Anza urban village

area. So this is very much consistent with the pattern of development that the city allows all

over San Jose. In addition, this site was designated in the city's housing element as a

housing location, so it's been officially planned for housing. And lastly, as staff explained,

this is a builder's remedy project, so by state law it's deemed to be consistent with all the

city's policies and must under state law be approved. So for all those reasons, we appreciate

staff's review of the project and hope that the staff will approve the permit so that we can get

new housing for San Jose residents. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. At this time, we will have

members of the public speak if you are so interested. I see a few members of the public

joining this meeting. Again, if you are interested in speaking, please raise your hand in Zoom or

click star nine so I have a sense of how many members of the public are interested in speaking

this morning. So far, we have one member of the public. We'll start with Becky. Becky, if you can

introduce yourself, state your name for the record, and you will have up to two minutes.

Thank you.

post-tension slab which supports 20 of our housing units this critical structural unit ensures the

stability and safety of these homes if the ground sinks or settles due to excessive vibrations or

from the activity of lots of heavy equipment and machinery the integrity of the post-tension slab

at ventana could be compromised leading to potential catastrophic structural failures

the ramifications would not only endanger the lives of ventana place residents

but also result in astronomical multimillion-dollar repair costs that may not even fully restore the structure.

In addition, the proposed seven-storey building stands in stark contrast to the surrounding area

and raises serious concerns about such a monstrous building's negative impact on the existing neighborhood's infrastructure and character.

Furthermore, the noise and traffic congestion from heavy construction vehicles, not to mention the increased future traffic on already congested De Anza Boulevard will greatly impact our ability to live here.

In addition, the fact that there will not be adequate parking for residents of this new building will create serious problems for the neighborhood.

In May 2024, we requested Chris Borrello, the developer and the planning department, including the environmental impact study that pretends impact of construction on our buildings.

And this does not appear to have been done in any way.

Excuse me.

We also ask that you seriously consider scaling down the size of the building to more harmonious four stories.

Instead, the number of units was increased.

Responsible development requires balancing progress with community well-being, safety, structural integrity, and environmental harmony, not just profit.

Thank you for the extra time.

I'm sorry.

I'm having a problem.

Excuse me.

Thank you very much.

And also I'd like to thank Alec Atienza and the planning development staff for all of your assistance with this matter.

Thank you for your comments, Becky. I hope you're okay.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak?

If so, this is your opportunity to, and you will have up to two minutes to speak.

seeing no additional hands raised we will turn it back to the applicant team eric you will have

up to five minutes to make closing remarks and if you can address uh becky's comments in relation

construction noise and vibration um and parking that would be great thank you

thank you so the city will respond to the in contents of the environmental impact report and

the analysis. But these topics of noise and vibration and so forth are all covered and

construction impacts are all covered in the EIR adequately. And with regard to noise, yes,

construction does have noise. If the policy was we could have no noise, then we'd have no

construction and our city would end. So there will be standard construction noise. There are

mitigation requirements in the EIR to limit construction noise to the greatest extent

feasible. And I know staff will review some of those key noise mitigations. With regard to

vibrations, it's simply implausible that townhome buildings 300 feet away from our property could

have any impact from vibration. That's just the reality of civil engineering. So I don't think

that the homeowners should have any fears whatsoever. With regard to parking, you know,

the city's parking requirement is zero, and we're providing more parking than zero, so we're well

within the requirement of city policy. And in terms of people's opinions about height of buildings

in character. The city's general plan calls for major intensification of buildings along all of

its commercial corridors. And the typical building form for that type of development is seven

stories, typically five stories of wood over two stories of concrete. And so the city's plan is

that a street like De Anza will be all seven stories someday. So that's the plan adopted by

the city council for decades. So our project, just because it's one of the earliest ones,

is not out of place. In fact, it is implementing the vision of the general plan adopted unanimously

by the city council and consistent with other commercial corridors and urban villages all

over the city. You simply have to drive around on Winchester and West San Carlos and East Santa

Clara Street and North First Street to see that this is the normal pattern of development.

Cities change or they die.

And we're simply implementing the City Council's vision for efficient use of land and efficient production of housing so that we can meet the housing needs of our residents and attract the needed workers to support our retail and companies in San Jose.

So for all those reasons, we hope that staff will approve this permit and we are committed to working as diligently as possible to keep the construction impacts to a minimum. Thank you.

Thank you, Eric. I'll turn it over to staff Alec and Nu if you have any additional remarks

or clarifications that addresses Becky's comments. Thank you.

Thank you, hearing officer. I would like to speak regarding Becky's comments on noise

and vibration. Nu, I'm having trouble hearing you.

Are you able to hear me now?

Is that any better?

I think the volume is still low for me.

Okay, I will just try to speak really loudly.

I don't know what's going on with my mic.

Is that, is this okay?

It's okay for me if I have my volume up.

Yeah, I would like to reiterate

what the applicant has said earlier

with regarding impact from noise

and from noise and vibration coming from construction. As analyzed in the project's EIR,

we have estimated that the construction of the project would last approximately 14 months,

and we have included mitigation measures for noise management since construction is

estimated to last over a year. And these measures are noise reduction measures that

are included as part of our standard measures, as well as other vibration or as other noise

reduction measures to reduce noise for adjacent residences. For vibration, the noise and vibration

assessment looked at adjacent properties and other properties that would be impacted by temporary

construction vibration, and we had only identified impacts to the adjacent preschool and not the

residences at Bantana Place. We have also included mitigation measures to reduce vibration impacts,

and the project is also not going to include any pile driving, which generates substantial

vibration, and that is not proposed, and so those vibration impacts would be less than two,

less than significant as identified in the environmental impact report.

Thank you, New. Alec, is there anything you wanted to add?

um yeah i could just touch on a couple more just to sort of add on to what um the applicants

representative said so um um just sort of going down the list here so with regards to just the

height of the building i do want to be clear that um this is in an unapproved urban village so

regardless of whether or not this is a builder's remedy project or not the maximum height at this

site is actually 120 feet. So this project is actually not even quite meeting the maximum

height limit. And then with a similar, with regards to parking, so to Eric's point, there is

no minimum parking requirement in the city of San Jose. However, as a trade-off to that, we did

develop a transportation demand management ordinance, and so this project will implement

a transportation demand management plan

in conformance with that ordinance

in order to attempt to get people out of cars.

That's the idea behind it.

And I think that's about it for me.

Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

All right.

I do have one question.

Has this project requested extended construction hours?

Just kind of speaking to the Ventana concerns

about construction.

Right.

At this stage, no. So typical construction hours are Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

If applicants want to request additional construction hours, that would require

going back to new and doing some additional analysis off of the environmental impact report.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. I have no further comments for the applicant team or

planning staff. So at this point, I will close the public hearing and deliberate on the project.

So as outlined by planning staff in the beginning of the presentation, state law does preempt the

city's legal authority to deny projects for builders remedy projects. And state law is

clear that builders remedy projects are exempt from local zoning and land use development

regulations. And as Alec mentioned, there are very narrow findings for project denial, such as

evidence that the denial is required by state law or federal law, or if a project has significant

adverse impact on public health and safety based on objective written standards. And so this project

in particular either meets objective zoning, development, and design standards, including

allowable building height and parking, or where it doesn't meet objective quantifiable criteria,

this project is eligible under the state's density bonus law or the state's housing accountability

act. And so as required by state law, this project must be approved because it doesn't have any

significant adverse impacts on public health and safety based on objective standards. Therefore,

I hereby certify the 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA and approve this site development permit.

Thank you, staff, for reflecting that on the screen.

And so that brings us to the end of the agenda of the last director's hearing of 2025.

This concludes the director hearing of December 17, 2025 at 9.55 a.m.

Happy holidays and have a happy new year, everyone.