Okay, good morning, everybody.

We are calling to order the planning director hearing of March 25th, 2026.

My name is Martina Davis, and I'm 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, the public may participate by following instructions listed on page two of the agenda.

If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so.

If you join electronically and have audio input available on your computer or smartphone, you can use the raised hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item you would like to speak on, or click star nine on your phone.

Remember to keep your hand raised until planning support staff identifies your turn to talk.

If you have called in and you do not have access to a computer or smartphone during the meeting, please call 408 535 8517 or email planning support staff at San O'SACA.gov and identify your name, 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 allowed 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.

For those items on the consent calendar, I'll ask if anyone wishes to speak on them.

If a separate discussion is warranted, I'll move it to public hearing portion of the agenda.

If a separate discussion is not needing needed, it will remain on the consent calendar for approval.

For those items listed under public hearing, I will ask staff to provide a brief report.

If the applicant or their representative who wishes to speak on the item, they 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.

I see a lot of people here this morning.

I may limit it to one minute depending on how many hands we have, but um could be 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 an additional remarks for up to five minutes.

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 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 environmental review or uh for permits under the California Environmental Equality Act or CEQA 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 specific agenda items only.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff.

The hearing officer staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting.

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

Okay, let's get started.

Um, so we have done call to oral order.

There are no items on deferrals.

Um, so we will move on.

Um consent calendar, same thing.

We have no items on the consent calendar.

So we will move on.

Uh, consent calendar is closed.

And so let's move on to public hearing.

Our first item on the public hearing this morning is H23023 T23019 and ER23196.

This is a site development permit for construction of 60 residential condominium units configured in nine three-story buildings, the demolition of two existing office buildings, and removal of 22 trees, 18 of which are ordinance sized.

This includes a tentative map for the subdivision of one existing lot into up to 60 residential condominium units.

The project includes an application under the state density bonus law with a request for one incentive/slash concession to eliminate the requirement for implementation of a transportation demand management plan.

This application was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act, a builders remedy.

It is located at 1175 to 1199 Saratoga Avenue, Council District 1.

And the CEQA determination is statutorily exempt pursuant to public resources code section 21080.66, which is assembly bill 130.

Okay.

With that, staff, do you have a presentation?

Morning, hearing officer Alcatienza, planning project manager.

Yep, I got a brief presentation for you.

Let me pull up some slides.

Just a minute.

Can we see?

Thumbs up.

Okay.

So morning hearing officer, members of the public, uh Katienz again.

So I'm the planning project manager for file numbers H23023 and T23019 and ER23196.

So this is for 1175 to 1199 Saratoga Avenue.

The project site is located on the northwest corner of Saratoga Avenue and Doyle Road in City Council District 1.

So as you mentioned, this is two applications, a site development permit, which was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act.

Um as Builder's Remedy.

Uh includes the construction of 60 residential condominium units, townhomes uh configured in nine three-story buildings.

Uh within this development, there are eight units that are reserved for low-income households.

That's 13% of the project total.

Uh and as you mentioned, the project includes the demolition of two existing office buildings as well as the removal of 22 trees.

Uh the application also includes a vesting tenative map to subdivide this 2.78 gross acre lot into 60 residential condominium units.

And as mentioned, the project does include an application under state density bonus law with a request for one incentive and concession to remove the TDM requirement.

Um, and just a point of note.

So this aerial map is a little bit old.

So that gas station there was a shell.

It's since been demolished.

Um only demolition occurring here is the back portion of the site uh with those two office buildings.

Uh so it's important to provide some context uh why this application is here before you today.

So uh builders remedy is defined in section H11 of the Housing Accountability Act.

And there's some criteria that projects have to meet in order to be eligible for builders' remedy.

Uh so number one, projects have to provide a certain amount of affordable housing to very low, low or um moderate income households, and there's a menu of options that applicants can pick from.

So in this case, as I mentioned, the project provides at least 13% of the units for low-income households earning up to 80% of the area median income.

Uh, another key point is that the project must have the project's applicant must have submitted an application while the city did not have a substantially compliant housing element.

And I'm actually going to get into this in a later slide.

Um, but that housing element must be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and that's HCD for short.

Uh, the project also has to be within the parameters of a minimum maximum allowed density provisions.

Uh, so in this case, the maximum allowed density for this subject site is actually 80 dwelling units per acre.

Uh, and this project comes in about 21.5 dwelling units per acre, which is just consistent with the density requirements.

And then lastly, the project must not abut a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use, which this project does not.

So, if a project meets that criteria, uh, cities cannot deny a qualifying builders remedy project based on inconsistency with a general plan land use designation or zoning ordinance.

And the housing accountability act also 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 the public health or safety.

So for this project specifically, uh we received a Senate Bill 330 preliminary application on May 3rd, 2023.

Uh so what a SB330 for short.

So what an SB330 application does is it locks in any ordinances, policies, fees, standards that are in effect at the time that the application is submitted.

Um and then applicants have 180 days from that point to submit a formal application.

Uh so this applicant did that, they submitted a formal application on September 11th, 2023.

The city's housing element was not certified or found in substantial compliance until January 2024.

So that time period there is when the project, or excuse me, when builders' remedy would have been eligible for applicants.

So this applicant was able to take advantage of the builder's remedy.

So that was uh effective in January of 2025.

And what that did is that was a cleanup bill from the sit from the state that essentially clarified the builder's remedy and put to rest many of the legal arguments that were swirling around in the state.

So this applicant uh invoked assembly bill 1893 on May 1st, 2025.

So, what does this mean for project review for us as staff?

Uh the city must treat the project as if it meets the general plan land use designation and requirements of the zoning district, even if it doesn't.

Um the project must not require approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning, and shall be deemed consistent with any applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and redevelopment plans.

Implementing instruments or other similar provisions for all purposes.

And again, as with any HAA project, the city must evaluate for compliance with objective health and safety standards.

So for this project specifically, um staff still reviewed under our normal process as a site development permit investing tender map.

Um we reviewed for consistency with uh state density bonus law, which this applicant applied for.

As well as the envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan.

Uh so this site is uh designated neighborhood community commercial that does not allow for housing unless it is 100% affordable, or if the applicant is using another state law that would otherwise allow for housing on a commercially designated lot.

Um but again, we have to treat the project as if it is consistent.

Um we also evaluated against the municipal code.

Uh, this project site is actually in two planned development zoning districts, neither of which allow for housing.

Um, but nevertheless, we we still went through the exercise of actually um evaluating against the standards that are in effect.

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

Uh, there are no exceptions requests for this uh application.

Uh, with regards to public outreach, uh the staff did uh hold a community meeting on November November 17th, 2025 via Zoom.

On-site signs were posted on the project frontage, and uh we also notified everybody who is an interested parties list via email of this hearing.

Um lastly, with regards to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Uh so this is a relatively new bill, Assembly Bill 130.

It became effective July 1st of 2025.

So this project is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

Uh instead of going through the normal uh categorial exemption process, um the difference with AB 130 is that the city is required to um conduct tribal consultation.

So the city consulted with three tribes, Tamian Nation, Moekma Aloney tribe, and the Indian Canyon Mudson Band of Costa Millen Alone people.

And so uh as a result of that consultation, the uh state development permit includes standard environmental department consist conditions for tribal cultural resources, as well as additional conditions related to cultural awareness training and Native American monitoring.

So in our review of this project, um staff did not identify any specific adverse impacts that would result in uh health and safety issues.

Um, and as a result, staff recommends that the director consider the statutory exemption and approve the best incentative map and site development permit.

Uh so with that, that concludes staff's presentation.

We do have the project applicant here, uh Mark Conroe and Richard Johnson.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Alec.

Um, applicant, if you would like to speak, you are going to have five minutes now.

I don't know if you have your hand raised already, but please raise your hand so we can identify and unmute you.

Okay, Mark, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Yeah, I think that's can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Uh first and foremost, I want to thank uh obviously the director and Alec, Charlotte, and Bianca for doing a really professional, efficient job.

It's one of the best experiences I've had uh with planning staff.

So I thank you for that.

Again, uh let me uh introduce myself.

I'm Mark Conroe.

I'm representing OICC Ventures, the landowner and development entity.

I've spent uh over 40 years in uh developing projects in the Bay Area nationally.

Um when our company does a project, we always are trying to marry the needs of the city, the community slash neighborhood and the market.

I think as a result of this, we have built many successful projects that are attractive.

Um the design intent here um was to balance the needs between the neighborhood context of one story homes and the city's desire to maximize housing production.

And as Alec noted, uh we use the state law interestingly and unusually to lower the density, not increase the density, which you often read about.

Uh 240 units could have been built on this site.

We're building 60 uh instead of six or eight story buildings.

We didn't think that was appropriate, nor was it economically feasible.

So we selected a project that's three story buildings to have a better balance uh and economic feasibility.

The goal is actually to build some housing here, not just to get a project approved.

If I may, I'd like to share my screen if I can figure out how to do this to show a few slides.

Um let's see.

This is let me promote you first.

Okay, and then you can share okay.

Okay, I was muted again.

Sorry, I'm can people see my screen?

No, we cannot screw your screen right now.

Let me I'll go on the camera too.

I'm sorry for not a lot of moving parts here.

Let's see if I can uh uh figure out how to share a screen, full screen.

I usually I use this a fair amount, but uh usually there's a share screen at the bottom.

Let's see here.

Um is it under the like three dots with more sometimes stuff's in there?

Yeah, I got that.

That doesn't look transcript show captions, whiteboard settings.

Let me see if a video, no, the video I'm on.

Um let's see here.

Is there any uh any help?

I'm not the expert by solved.

Yeah, Danielle, do you have any advice on how to share where that share option might be?

Oh, sorry, it's it's right in front of me.

Some things you missed are sitting right in front.

Okay, you can see my screen now, I assume.

Oh, is it?

Yes, yes, we can see it.

Okay, good.

Okay, so this is the site plan.

I think I showed that.

There's an aerial of that uh same side plan.

Here's the uh development in the context of the surrounding single-family homes.

Uh, here's some street views, this is from Doyle.

Again, it's three-story town homes we're looking at.

This is from Saratoga.

Uh we try to use muted materials, uh, something that's gonna fit in elegantly and artfully, both in neighborhood and look uh high quality.

They can see some stone in the bases, and this is just a pick perspective of kind of looking at the common area with uh areas for dogs to exercise and to relax and have a barbecue and and some uh lawn area to run around in.

So that's um in short, uh what the project looks like.

Um I think I'll stop there.

Again, our goal is to fit into the neighborhood and to uh build some uh design and and ultimately build housing that actually can help the city's housing production goals.

So I'll stop here and uh address any questions that people have if needed.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I don't have any questions at this time, but um I'll let you know if I have any questions after public testimony.

All right.

So now if any members of the public would like to speak on this item, this is your chance.

Um please raise your hand and we can call in on you.

And so far I am seeing two-faced hands.

Please unmute your device.

I mean your comment.

Okay.

You didn't specifically say how to unmute it.

It's star six, but thank you so much.

Lillian Koenig, I used to live, well, I my mother used to live off of Dwell on Caratoga by the library over there on Anglewood.

So I know where that vacant land is, but my interest in it is obviously because I always call in on this, are the trees.

So you have 22 trees that you're uh uprooting, and 18 are um ordinance and four non-ordinance.

And I understand that the city of San Jose, which is uh counted as being tree city USA.

Um each developer that comes in, including yourself, um, has been uh uprooting our trees.

And they will state, and I'm sure you will state that you will replace them with box trees.

But I would like to know the city following its ordinances has a climate system a sustainability plan.

How do you, as the architect of a building in that area, uh, you know, comply with our climate sustainability plan.

Although you have discussed this uh area with the Aloney tribes, etc.

etc.

There doesn't seem to be any issues there.

But to me, there's an issue when we're constantly taking down our trees, older trees um that can be replaced, however, they take many, many years to grow.

So how do you incorporate what you're doing with our climate sustainability plan?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Let's move on to the next commenter, please.

Scott.

Yeah, hi.

Um I live in the neighborhood in this area for uh 25 plus years.

I have a couple of quick questions for you.

It looks like from the design plan, there's going to be an entry for parking into this facility off of Saratoga Avenue.

And if indeed that's the case, I'd just like to raise my concern about that from a safety perspective, especially since Saratoga Avenue was narrowed from three lanes to two lanes within the last two years.

Traffic has become increasingly congested since that period, since that narrowing was done and backs up tremendously in this area, both in the mornings and the evenings.

And uh I'm really concerned about you know what's gonna happen with people trying to enter and leave this apartment, this complex, sorry, um, if that's where you place it.

The other question I I have really, and I'd like to get an answer on is how many number, how many parking spaces will there be per unit?

And where are people gonna park excess cars?

As this entire area has a serious problem with overflow parking in the neighborhood streets.

There's a development that's supposed to be out at the end of it's a tribe where the number of parking spots is like one and a half per unit, which is totally unrealistic these days, where most people have at least two or more vehicles due to multiple people in the family working.

Thank you, Scott.

Um, is there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand now.

Okay.

Seeing nobody um applicant, you have five minutes again if you would like to respond to any of that or speak to um anything else.

Oops, you're muted right now, Mark, if you're there.

May I turn it?

Okay now.

Okay.

Um per uh city practice and policy.

We uh Arborist did a tree report as noted there's 22 trees.

Uh just note half of those per the arbors were in quote unquote poor condition.

Uh those included the uh the redwoods.

Uh and in the place of the 22 trees, we're planting 104.

So about five times as many trees.

Uh understand that trees take time to grow, but they uh a lot of these will be relatively large box trees.

And so um we expect them to grow in pretty quickly.

Um, but again, five times the number of trees are being planted that are out there, and half the trees out there would probably be in the process of dying.

Um as to traffic, uh we definitely studied that, uh, which we share that concern.

Uh we share that concern.

Uh there on Saratoga, there's no left turn, or actually building a new median to prevent left turns, which are currently allowed, and they'll be right in, right only, right in, right out only on Saratoga.

So that will help uh mitigate that impact.

There's currently, I can't remember if there's four or five curb cuts in this project that have been there for 50 or 75 years.

Um, and we're reducing that to two.

So the amount of movement around the site will be also um uh reduced um or the opportunity for conflict with traffic.

Um as far as parking, um, there's two units per two parking spaces per every unit.

Plus, we have, and I don't have the number right in front of me, but I want to say around it's I think 15 or 20, certainly between 10 and 20 uh guest parking spaces um provided in addition to the two per unit that we're providing.

Um so I'll stop there and answer any other questions that staff might have.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I don't think I have any questions for you.

Um staff, can you confirm that our public works department did review the the circulation um those driveways on the driveway in Saratoga, etc.

Yeah, I can I can jump in here real quick.

I think um Ray from Public Works is on here as well, but I'll I'll answer first, then he can add.

Um so if we we did obviously analyze in and out.

Um, and then one of the key standards is that driveways are not within 150 feet of signalized intersections, and so this complies with both driveways.

Uh and then Ray Sedora from public works.

I don't think he's pulled over to the attendees.

That's okay.

I think that I got my answer.

Yeah.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so with that, I am going to, I guess, close public testimony um and deliberate.

So, you know, as staff laid out this was submitted under the builder's remedy, um, which means that it does not require decline with zoning or a general plan.

Um, I want to commend actually the applicant for conforming with our design standards and guidelines.

I know that can be challenging, so it's um pretty impressive that they didn't actually have to request any waivers or um exceptions to our design standards.

So I do I just do want to commend them on the record for that.

And uh with that, given the nature of the builder's remedy that there is no finding of a health or safety impact for this project, and it is consistent with state federal law.

I am going to consider the statutory exemption pursuant to public resources code section 21080.66, assembly bill 130, in accordance with CEQA and approve the site development permit and tentative map for this project.

Okay.

Okay, so thank you all for that one.

Um let's move on to our next agenda item, please.

And this is a site development permit to allow construction of eight residential condominium units on separate lots and four condominium units on two lots, subject to the state density bonus law.

Uh the project uses one incentive to allow the two-family dwelling use in the zoning district and 14 waivers related to height, stories, floor area ratio, common and private open space, tree canopy shading, building standards, building entrances, and lot depth ratio, including uh the project includes demolition of a single family home and removal of 21 trees in an approximately 0.65 gross acre site.

Uh the project includes a vesting tentative map to allow subdivision of one lot into 10 residential uh lots and one common area for private street on an approximately 0.65 gross acre site.

The project is located at 1295 Kirtner Avenue, uh Council District 6, the CEQA determination exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines 1650, excuse me, 15332 for infill developments.

Okay.

Um with that, staff, do you have a presentation?

Good morning, hearing officer.

Yes, staff does have a presentation, but before we get started, I would like to read into the record some changes that recently have been done to the permit.

Um if I'm allowed to share my screen at this time, I will be easier to visualize some of the changes.

Okay, well, while we tried to resolve that, um, let me just read into the record some of the changes.

So the applicant has updated sheet TM6 of the tentative map to reflect the entire north building is shifting 2.38 feet west toward Coddle Avenue.

These changes result in the lot lines for lots one, two, three, four, and five, also shifting to point three eight feet west toward Cottle Avenue.

The new setbacks for the building still comply with the site's zoning requirements.

The change does not affect any of the waivers or concessions that the applicant has applied for.

As a condition of approval, the applicant will file for a permit adjustment to reflect the physical changes to the buildings and utilities on site.

And the second change that is going to the permit is regarding staff analysis under section 3.i for incentive and concession one.

Staff would like to strike paragraph one of the analysis section.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, we cannot force the applicant to rezone or do a plan development to make this project feasible.

Therefore, the analysis will default solely to construction costs as the basis for granting concession one.

Okay.

Do you want to send me one let me?

So I'm having issues with not having the ability to share my screen at this time, so I'm gonna send my slides to support staff to help me out with having the oh is it there now?

Well, Jackie and Sharia, let me know if this is the right one.

Um yes, that is the correct one.

Can you go to 4B?

The beginning to the beginning.

All right, thank you so much.

So good morning, hearing officer.

My name is Jacqueline Guerrero, planning project manager with the city's planning division, and good morning to everyone here.

Next slide.

The project involves a site development permit submitted with a state density bonus law application.

Which will involve the demolition of an existing single-family home with accessory buildings and structures on site.

This will also consist of the removal of 21 trees, 15 which are ordinance size.

Next slide, please.

So this project, as mentioned, um file for a state density bonus law application, which allowed them to exceed the current density of the general plan for the parcel.

So this law is zoned as residential neighborhood, so with a 0.65 gross acre lot, they're allowed to have six units on site.

But since the project is providing one very low-income household unit and one unit for moderate income households, under state density bonus law, they are granting an 100% density bonus or six additional units.

Staff also reviewed this project using the general plan, municipal code, citywide design guidelines, state policies, and California Environmental Quality Act.

In regards to the citywide and municipal code, as mentioned before, the applicant used state density bonus law to request some waivers to make this project more feasible.

This included waivers to the height, setbacks, lot sizes, lot width depth, tree counter coverage, height, and FAR as mentioned above.

It should be noted that staff waived these requirements to the citywide designed guidelines as they did not pose a safety or health risk.

And then with regards to public outreach, on-site side has been posted on the public frontage since October 3rd, 2025.

A community meeting was held on February 23rd, 2026 via Zoom and was attended by approximately 34 people.

This hearing was also noticed at a thousand foot radius, and all interested parties were notified of the hearing via email.

And then next slide, please.

And now I'll like to turn it over to Quart, who was the environmental planner for this project.

Good morning, hearing officer and everyone on the call.

My name is Court Hitchens.

I am the environmental project manager for this project.

So with regard to environmental review, the project was evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA.

During review, staff determined that the project qualifies for a class 32 infill infill development exemption under section 15332 of the CEQA guidelines as the project meets all applicable criteria for an infill development project.

To qualify for this exemption, it must be demonstrated that the project would not result in impacts to endangered rare or threatened species and would not cause significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

To support these findings, the applicant prepared technical studies evaluating key resource areas, including an arborist report to assess potential impacts to trees, as well as analyses of construction-related air quality hazards and hazardous materials and potential impacts to historic resources.

Based on the analysis, staff concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts and is appropriately exempt from further environmental review under CEQA.

I'll pass it back to you, Jackie.

Thank you.

And then next slide.

So lastly, um, staff recommends approval for the info exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve a tentative to a map to allow the subdivision of one lot into 10 residential lots and one common area for private street and approximately 0.65 gross acre site, and approval of the site development permits for the construction of eight residential condominium units on separate lots and four condominium units on two lots, subject to the state density bonus law.

The project uses one incentive to allow the two family dwelling use in the zoning district, and 14 waivers related to height, number of stories, floor area ratio, common and private open space, tree canopy shading, parking standards, building entrances, and lot depth ratio, including the demolition of a single family home, the removal of 21 trees on an approximately 0.65 gross acre sites.

Thank you.

And thus concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, thank you, staff.

Um, is the applicant here and would the applicant like to speak.

The applicant would be Tom Wilson.

Okay.

All right, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

All right.

Well, first off, we just want to uh say a huge thank you to city staff and especially Jacqueline.

It has been um a process to get to this point and a lot of hard work, and we definitely want to uh acknowledge all their hard work on that.

Uh first I'd like to share my screen if possible.

Let me promote you to panelist.

All right, can we see that screen up?

Yes.

Okay.

So when we started this project when we first um acquired the property, we looked at numerous uh different project or product types that would go onto the property.

Some of them were as large as a four-story product.

Uh density got as high as 22 to 24 units.

And the more we studied this, the more we looked at this property.

Uh we felt that we needed to create backyards, uh, especially for the neighbors to give them buffers.

And so if we notice uh the upper building, which would be unit uh building A, those backyards average 18 foot setbacks uh along the property line in the back.

So that's a pretty significant uh backyard for this type of product.

Um and then, furthermore, we've recently taken lot A and we've shifted it another two and a half feet towards Caudle Avenue to give more buffer there.

Um and if you look at the plans right now, we are, I believe we're removing 22 or 23 trees.

However, we have proposed putting uh 44 new trees in.

And as we've been studying the site plan, we're we believe that we're going to add even more trees along the property lines to give more buffer for the neighbors.

So we just want to let everyone know that we do plan on planting the right side and adding and infilling um some large trees.

These trees, if you look on the list, they are expected to have canopies upwards of 25 feet.

And we will be planting a more mature tree.

We're not gonna just go plant a 15 gallon tree.

We're gonna get uh trees that have existing canopies and that are evergreen in nature to help block the facade.

Uh I want to jump over to the height really quick.

Uh at our very highest point uh of our peak, we are at 36 feet.

Um and so what we did is we wanted to make sure that, and that is at the center of the roof.

And so at the edges, we are right around 30 feet.

And so that was really important for us again to minimize massing as much as possible for this three-story product.

Um another concern that we uh heard and that we definitely worked out early on is we want to be able to park our projects, and we want to be able to park them quite well.

And so every one of these units except for the two BMRs has two car garage, standard size full-size garage, and then which is also a little different in a townhouse um development, is we have the ability to park two cars in every driveway.

So if you look at the map right now, you can see each unit has uh driveway space that can accommodate another two cars.

And then finally, for the BMR units, uh, we also have uh a spot for each one of those BMR units, excuse me.

So we have a total of 42 on-site parking spots for this project, which is somewhat unheard of for a townhouse uh development, and as we know the city of San Jose doesn't have any parking requirements at all.

Um that kind of goes over what we're doing on the site.

Uh we, as much as the community, what we've heard is everyone is uh very concerned on how we are going to do construction and how we're gonna map this out.

And so we are very familiar with uh the middle school and the high school's uh vacation schedule.

We have a good week in uh the fall, we have Christmas break, we have a winter and a spring break, and then we have the summer.

And so we are gonna be working closely with city staff most likely, or uh most notably public works, and we will be doing our excavation and our major street work coinciding with school vacations.

Um we can control uh the traffic and we can control the building on this site when we are actually building the units, but the where the headache comes in is when we opened up the street, and so we are very much going to make sure that we open that street and close the street during uh vacation times for the schools.

Um I think I think I'll leave it at that.

I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of questions, so I will turn it back over to you, city staff.

Okay, thank you.

Um I don't have any questions right now, so let's move on to public testimony.

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

Hi, can everyone hear me?

I'm Christine Wynne.

I'm a local resident.

Um, San Jose says there's no need to do a traffic study, and that Tom just talked about how they were only going to do construction during, you know, big construction during vacations.

Actually, you know, this project is going to have long-term traffic impacts beyond just the traffic, you know, during construction.

Their data uses national averages for typical US suburban communities, the ITE data, which doesn't account for the seven schools and the 1.5 mile radius.

Um, yeah, we don't have buses, so you know the traffic that's generated from this project is going to persist forever.

You have um students who are on foot, people are being driven by their parents, and you have new team drivers that are maybe going to be making their way around this new access road and uh the new traffic that's being generated.

It's not just the five cars.

Your planners say that infield developments do not generate significant traffic, ignoring the particulars of this specific site.

During the community meeting in every in February, every single community member save one said traffic is already a problem.

The city knows this is a problem.

They've installed their little yellow bollards and curtain, but the city claimed there's no traffic problem, despite the fact that a child bicyclist was hit by a vehicle on December 3rd, the day two days after the city told us that there was no traffic problem.

Um three children have been hit at this intersection in the school hours since 2022.

One person, a construction worker at a nearby overflow street, has died due to school traffic issues.

How can City consider this an acceptable acceptable risk without even doing a traffic study?

The last project did a traffic study.

This project hasn't.

Why does the developer get 14 waivers?

Okay, Christine, are you done?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, let's move on to our next commenter.

Okay.

Uh commenter with the name Lenovo.

Please unmute your device.

Uh is this me?

Yes.

Oh, hi.

Yeah, hi.

Sorry.

Um, my name's Doug Doll.

I'm actually calling um in on behalf of Cantia Roach, who lives directly across the street at 1296 uh Kirtner.

And uh like the previous caller, the biggest concern that we have with this project is safety.

Um Mrs.

Roach has a daughter that goes to Willow Glenn Middle School and is keenly um aware of the traffic issues that happen at that intersection of Kirtner and Cottle every day, and certainly was a witness of that accident.

Um December of 24 when the person that got hit was um attended to by the um paramedics on her front lawn.

Um we realize that there's certainly codes that the city needs to go by and guidelines by the state regarding the number of units on the on the site.

But the um and that that doesn't require a traffic um analysis, but I don't know if those guidelines take into account the proximity of the driveway to the corner.

Um, because as as cards are turning off of curtainer on to Cottle, that definitely um can be an issue.

Um, even for the people living there exiting their driveway when it's a high traffic situation, trying to make a left onto CODL is actually gonna be very difficult and and um kind of create basically a traffic jam at that spot.

Um the other issues that we have um is in regards to um again, still but the safety, but the amount of people that are dropping their kids off on Coddle and Markham to let their kids walk in or walk to school from there because of the traffic impact.

So we definitely are are concerned about the safety and traffic impact.

Um thank you.

Janet and Steve.

Um, thank you.

This is uh Janet Donbro.

We are the current owners.

I'll like to give you a little history, especially my neighbors.

I fell in love with this house in 1968.

I went to Kirk Elementary, a closed school.

I went to Markham and Willow Glenn High School, as did all our five children.

We lived half a block away and then bought this house over 30 years ago.

We've been here for over 30 years, and we love I love this house, but at this point our kids are grown, we're downsizing, and the house is beyond its time.

We are moving, we are selling.

It's either going to be four or five monster homes or six that go on this lot, or it's gonna be this really well thought out project for the middle income people.

Um people who can't afford a three million house, but maybe can afford something roughly half that price.

And I just think it's a really good project.

And um, to my lovely neighbors, uh, we get it.

We've been dealing with this traffic and and the issues for all along, but this project is smart coming in and out of the driveway.

You just you make your life happen, and it's going to happen.

We are going to leave.

We are going to downsize, and something is gonna happen.

So I think supporting this project is is in all of your best interests because it really is a good project, and these people are really smart and thinking out something really great.

And if I am having to say goodbye to this house after so many decades, um yeah it's it's time to move on, and that's all I want to say about it.

And it's very emotional for me.

Thank you.

iPhone, um guess what the name iPhone?

You are unmuted.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, let's see.

Does that help?

Yeah, that helps.

Okay, great.

All right, let me get to my notes.

Um the BMR units that were discussed are likely to have multiple working adults and one parking space per unit will not be sufficient to meet residents' needs.

Never mind the already overpopulated um parking on those streets, especially because of the schools.

Um, I'm also very concerned about the proposed building height and the um wall design.

It's going to negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood by reducing the property values and altering the character of nearby homes while I appreciate the current homeowners.

Um saying that they're very good developers, etc.

I've worked with many developers and um uh what they end up promising is not what they end up delivering.

Um overall, I think the biggest concern is safety is already a concern at this corner, as everybody's already mentioned.

It's a concern, even when it's not you know, school drop-off and and pickup, but um adding a proposed number of units will significantly increase traffic and is expected to result in increased congestion and additional safety.

It's not a question, it's a guarantee.

Um five or six units, perhaps would still be a lot for that lot, but at least it's not a three-story building with you know 25 people, 30 people living in a very small you know, dense area.

It doesn't fit in our neighborhood.

Willow Glen is Willow Glen, a three-story building in the corner of a very you know quaint neighborhood, just doesn't fit in.

And I just have overall concerns about the project.

That's it.

You uh hello, can everybody hear me?

Yes, we can.

This is uh Adam Kaspczyk, I uh live right across.

Uh first maybe I will say that I'm uh very sad that our uh neighbor is gonna be moving out.

Uh really uh have good relationships with them.

But uh my main concern is uh pretty much everybody else has uh voiced is the the traffic situation, and I've been asking uh the city site about the local transportation analysis, and uh I was told that uh for this size of the project it's not required.

And uh I can understand there are some guidelines for the size of the project, but as everybody else mentioned, there's uh really some unique circumstances over here.

Uh it's uh next to the very uh kind of busy intersections with uh a lot of uh accidents that happened in the past, and we have I think seven schools in uh within the one mile radius, and two of them are really next door.

So why why we just don't do this local transportation analysis?

Everybody's really concerned.

Let's let's get to done and let's see uh what the outcome is gonna be before this project gets approved.

I'm really disappointed this uh hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, that's that's uh that's my main concern.

So that's all I wanted to state.

Okay, thank you.

Seth Wheatley.

Hi, yes.

Hopefully you can hear me.

Yes, we can.

Yeah, just uh, I mean, I want to reiterate I'm a local resident and reiterate the same concerns on the traffic safety and density.

Uh, I live twice a day on the school drop off and pickup.

Uh, but also and and want to highlight that one thing that I don't think folks have highlighted is many mornings uh as an example.

Kurtner Avenue gets backed up from the light down a Cherry Avenue on the far side of the school all the way past Cottle, all the way back down towards Lincoln.

And that's a complete block of traffic uh that happens many mornings.

So adding again the density to this would only make that even much worse.

Uh so again, local resident testimonial, just providing more of the same concerns on traffic density, safety.

I see the kids uh walking every morning, every afternoon, biking, etc.

Obviously, there's been incidents already that have occurred uh with people getting hurt.

So um, and I think it was a great point raised earlier that uh, you know, Willow Glen at the you know, a three-story multi-unit uh complex doesn't really fit there uh in you in Willow Glen, it's not not just doesn't fit with the nature of the community, but I will uh leave it at that, and thank you for the time.

Ron Stern.

Hi, yes.

Um, my name is Ron Stern, and I live at 1275 Purder, and everything that's being discussed today just to me sounds horrific.

Um, I share a fence line with this proposed monstrosity of about 125 feet, and I will be listening to construction day and night for I don't know how many months my yard faces the driveway, the dust and dirt coming over uh to me is going to be a problem.

Traffic is ridiculous.

That's just one of about a hundred concerns uh the residents have.

Um, I was looking to uh proposal to buy this house, and uh I'm very concerned about what's going to happen here.

This type of dwelling does not belong on that corner, it's too much for too little land, 25 trees cut down.

Um, amongst a million other things that are a problem with this development.

And my concern is we're all voicing public comment, but the deal's already been done because I saw some cable guys uh sneaking around on Sunday afternoon.

Looks like they were wiring this project.

So to me, I'm very concerned that it's already a done deal, and we're just wasting our time.

But I have a hundred and fifty feet of fence or 125 feet of fence, and I want to know how they're gonna prevent incredible amounts of dust and trees and pollen being torn down and cut down.

Um it just doesn't seem right.

It's the wrong project for the wrong corner.

Yes, traffic is always a concern.

It takes me 10 minutes to back out of my driveway on curtainer just to get out, and even then I take my life in my hands.

And now we're talking about at least another 30 or 40 or even 50 cars more.

And um, I'm just concerned that we're it's already done.

I don't know if there's any chance of stopping this thing, or the city of San Jose wants the tax money more than they care about the residents.

I'm pretty sure all of these comments, there wasn't one that was saying, Oh, what a great project.

Go ahead and do it.

So that's my comment.

I'm just really unhappy with this whole thing.

Amy.

Hello, can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Um so I live on Sandra Drive.

Um, I also have concerns about traffic and safety.

I do not walk or run in the neighborhood anymore around school time.

I'm often blocked in or out of my uh house um with long lines of traffic during school times.

So um like other speakers, the traffic and safety is a huge concern.

I'm also concerned about the waivers for height.

Uh as the developer mentioned, um, I do appreciate that that you're pushing um the project away from the fences as much as possible.

However, um even as you were talking about the trees that you're planting for privacy screens at mature uh at the maturity, you said that they only reach about 22 feet, and yet at the um ends of the height of the roof, you're you're still looking at 30 feet, so you're still eight feet of um of you know on those upper levels where um the neighboring one-story houses will be very exposed.

And finally, a question about the low-income units that are allowing um these waivers.

Are they do we have anything that shows which units are being designated low-income?

Are they standalone units or ADUs attached to another unit?

And how do we know that those units will actually be available to to service the low-income community?

Or will they be sold as part of an attached unit, and it's up to the owner whether they want to rent them or not?

Uh I'm just curious as to how that low-income element works.

Thank you.

Jennifer.

Hi.

Hi, yes, this is Jennifer McClenaghan.

I'm on 1276 Cartner.

And I just want to state that, you know, we heard the other project in Saratoga.

That project had 60 units, if I remember correctly, and there were no exemptions or any other allowances.

Um, the only reason that this project is being considered is because of the new laws that this would never have been allowed previously.

It doesn't make sense for so many of the reasons our neighbors have listed.

Um, I strongly echo the safety.

I have seen the accidents.

Um, I can't get out of my house at certain times of day.

Highly concerned what the construction will do both during construction for gosh, and nobody's mentioned how long that will take, one or two years.

Um, but then after construction is done.

Um, you know, I understand that you know it's being promoted as a good thing for the city, but I would much rather have several houses that were built thoughtfully by the owners or whoever you know buys the property, and that have to fall within the restrictions of the laws.

So because of the way this is being done under that high density, a lot of these exemptions are being allowed, where if you did put up single family homes, then you know, they would have to follow the rules in place.

And then, you know, so we would like it to be reduced.

You know, if we could fewer units, fewer less height, I think there'd be some less concern, not a ton less.

We're still all concerned about safety.

Um, and then my final point um with the trees, who who's maintaining those trees.

We all know already that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining the trees, not the city.

And then you're going to put all these trees in over all the property, and you know, somebody has to be responsible and maintain those.

Thank you.

Um, next speaker.

Hi.

Jamie.

Can you hear me?

I guess.

Okay.

My name is Jamie.

We live at 1280 Sandra Drive.

Uh, we two share a fence line with that property.

Uh, well said, Ron Stern.

I echo everything that Ron said.

Um, besides the obvious, when is Willow Glenn considered low income?

Why why are we allowing this?

Um, here's a suggestion.

Why don't you move this wonderful project to Baskum Avenue?

The old Burbank Theater building has been fenced off for years, and the building alongside of it, there's plenty of land to build condos and accommodate the lower income families.

The new development would be perfect for that neighborhood.

This area is just not warranted for this type of magnitude building.

Thank you.

Cassie.

Hello, my name is Kathy.

I also live on Sandra Drive, right across from Amy.

I have lived here over 60 years and went to Lincoln Glenn Elementary, Markham and Willowglen High School.

And like many, I am concerned about traffic.

It looks like from that ground plan, you turn right off of Coddle.

I think the next step is everybody's going to turn down Sander Drive to get to Newport to get to where they want to go.

And that is concerning as well.

And the traffic, again, I know many people have said that you have to plan your day around the traffic.

You have to let people know who are visiting you or delivering to you to avoid the area in the morning or afternoon.

You really are blocked in.

And the traffic and courtesy of those drivers is beyond anything that you should expect in this neighborhood or any.

So I agree once again that this project doesn't fit the Willow Glen neighborhood.

That's it.

Thank you for listening.

Okay, thank you.

It looks like that was our last raised hand.

So I see one more, Dan.

If anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

Hi, this is Daniel.

Um longtime resident.

I live live on uh Redondo Drive for yeah, uh myself like 60 years.

Um I think this yeah project doesn't fit the neighborhood, especially the 30 foot height.

Um it's gonna be unsightly.

And yeah, all the traffic and parking issues that came up previously, um, are definitely concerns and and like other neighbors said before, this project doesn't fit the neighborhood.

That's all.

Thank you.

Gorman.

Gorman, you are unmuted.

Hi, my name is Kathy Beman and I live on Redondo, and I've worked my entire life to afford a home in this neighborhood.

There are many people that form a community.

There's traditions at Christmas and for Halloween that the community comes together to enjoy.

My neighbors and I have invested our savings into the charm and safety of Willow Glen, only to be discovered that a law firm from San Francisco can walk in and threaten this council into submission.

The waivers packet City Connect partners submitted is crystal clear.

They are demanding 14 separate waivers of our zoning standards, plus a concession that lets them put two family dwellings on R1 lots that have never been allowed to have two units.

Also, they can force 12 units onto a site zone for only six to increase their profitability and decrease the value of homes, especially those on Sandra.

The Own Council's December 11th letter from Cox the Castle and Nicholson doesn't even try to hide the threat of duress.

Quote, we would remiss not to mention reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit if you dare enforce your codes.

The correspondence from Castle is a direct threat.

They are betting that the council is too intimidated, but to mention the attorney fees to stand up for safety of our children at the Kirtner and Cottle intersection.

If this council allows big business interests to use state density bonus law as a shield to bypass basic safety and infrastructure mapping, you aren't just approving a project, you're surrendering our neighborhood.

We aren't just talking about zoning.

We're talking about physical safety of students walking to school, economic stability of families who are tired to build value here and a crumbling infrastructure that cannot support high density projects.

Do not let a legal threat dictate the future of our streets.

Stand by your planning departments initially require a full subdivision map.

Prove the council answers to its residents, not to the highest paid lawyers.

Stand up for the people that voted for you.

Okay, I am seeing no more speakers.

So let's go back to the applicant.

Applicant, you will have five minutes to respond to anything raised or make additional comments.

And you should be able to unmute yourself.

All right.

So I'll jump on the uh affordable really quick.

So the two BMR units, they are separately conveyed.

So they will be separately sold to a qualified um below market uh resident who will be purchasing those units.

It is our goal to work with the city to hopefully get a local uh teacher.

That is our number one goal is to get a teacher into there that is working at one of the local schools.

We're still trying to work through that.

So that that is our goal on that.

Um, those units are also they are smaller, so that's a starter uh level uh BMR.

And so um that is why there's one parking spot for those.

They are not units that have multiple bedrooms, so we do not see uh multiple cars being in those BMRs.

And with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to the city staff.

Thank you.

Um do we have anyone from public works here today on this project.

Good morning, Martina um hearing officer.

Um I can I'm available to answer some of the traffic questions when you're ready.

Yeah, if you don't mind speaking to some of the the traffic concerns and let you know, you know, let people know what we we did review and um let me know if the driveway meets our standards for proximity of the intersection and that kind of thing.

Okay, yeah.

So kind of starting from the beginning.

So um as Court had previously mentioned, under the California uh Environmental Quality Act and Council Policy 5 1, the metric that we use to determine transportation impacts for development project is vehicles miles traveled.

Um per council policy 5 1, small info projects such as this project that proposes less than 25 attached dwelling units are not expected to result in a segment significant VMT impact and therefore exempted from submitting a transportation analysis.

Um sorry, um so under a TA or transportation analysis, we would also perform a local transportation analysis.

But um we did take a look at what you know, the trips trips would be a would be generated by the project.

And it is used using our ITE or Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates, and those are standard rates that are used industry wide.

Um so using those metrics, the projects only expected to generate five trips during the AM and six trips during the PM and a total of 67 daily trips.

So only projects that really generate 10 trips or more, either in the AM or the PM, are required to look at signal operational analyses and queuing.

Um and even back when you know our SEQA threshold was to look at level of service at intersections.

Projects of this size, even back then would have been exempted because it just doesn't meet that criteria.

Um we understand, you know, the the location, the you know, sensitive location of this project in proximate proximity to the number of schools um in the neighborhood.

Um so our our city's transportation department and traffic safety team did take a look at the the reported accidents in conjunction with all the neighborhood concerns um as a result of some of the accidents last year.

As some of the community didn't mention, DOT implemented improvements in July of last year at Kirtner and Cottle, which included some low profile speed bumps, additional delineators and striping and some red curving for daylighting.

DOT also has a safe routes to school program that was launched in 2022 that the schools can take advantage of.

And the program itself, the main goals is to create more safe for um and more welcoming environments for students, school, and staff, and taking a look at what kind of safety improvements could be implemented in the neighborhood.

So that's something that the schools can do to uh to really take advantage and look at some of the safety needs in the neighborhood.

Um so again, we understand the concerns surrounding the accidents in the area, but we legally cannot require the development to provide transportation improvements within the surrounding neighborhood because it's exempted under CEQA and because again, yeah, because it's under it's exempted under CEQA.

Um the project is providing frontage improvements, um, 10-foot sidewalks and new street trees.

Uh the driveway access itself was reviewed based on our complete streets designs and guidelines.

It is located um about 85 feet away from the intersection, which is a little less than what we would like.

We would like it between 100 to 150 feet, but the site is smaller and therefore uh and it needs access.

And so um we definitely didn't want the access to be a long partner and preferred the side street on CODL, so therefore it's located on CODL, but it still does meet our driveway design um requirements per the complete street design guidelines, and then we reviewed on-site circulation inconsistent with again the complete streets design guidelines, our building codes, and also um if I did review also for um for emergency access.

Um please let me know if you have additional questions.

Um, I think that's it.

So I think I'm I think I'm okay.

Um okay.

So with that, I will I guess close the testimony and start my deliberation.

Um, you know, I definitely want to acknowledge the the neighbors' concerns, you know, change.

This is definitely represents a change in types of units you see in this immediate neighborhood.

And you know, I understand that that's very much an unknown.

Um we do use standardized data that has been kind of proven around with regards to traffic generation.

Um, I will also note that, you know, under our environmental review laws in California, traffic congestion is not actually an considered to be an environmental issue.

It's really the long term, the amount of trips generated is the environmental issue.

Um, and so this one, you know, is deemed to have uh effectively de minimis uh number of trips generated given the the um you know standard that what types of development it is and the location it's in.

Um I'll also note that I would kind of assume honestly that approximity of school, if anything, would lower trip generation instead of raise it, just because you know, I think it's more likely you would have children who could walk to school instead of having being driven to school.

So I think if anything, the proximity to school actually may lower the uh number of trips instead of rising the number of trips.

Um, so let me just speak real quick to kind of what I am bound by considering.

So I have to consider the city's laws, the state laws, and you know, potentially any federal laws.

Um, as noted under the city zoning ordinance, this project would not meet it.

However, the state does provide the density bonus law, and that is where uh affordable units are provided.

Um, they are able to waive city standards in order to be able to provide those units.

The only way we could deny those waivers is if we find inconsistency with state or federal law or a immediate direct and unmitigatable health and safety impact.

Um the waivers are related to height, other design elements that I haven't found anything about those waivers that would relate to health or safety or state or federal laws.

Um, our own you know, standard analysis around transportation um kind of does consider this project to be de minimis.

Um so I I don't see any findings that this project itself will contribute to the existing traffic problem to a point where the project creates by itself a uh a dangerous situation, right?

Um I'll just speak really quickly on to confirm the deed restricted affordable the unit affordable units.

The city does actually require a regulatory agreement and typically does require deed restrictions on the property.

So that does stay in uh typically, it's a wanna say a 55-year frame, but it is a long-term deed restrictions to ensure that those units are continued to be sold to persons of the lower income categories that those units are intended for.

So it's not just kind of a promise.

It is we do have a regulatory framework to ensure that those units would stay affordable.

Um so with that, um, I am going to go ahead and let me pull that agenda language up directly.

I am going to um, so I haven't found any health or safety impacts from this that are significant and identifiable direct from this project.

So I will consider the exemption in accordance with CECLA and approve a site development permit and tentative map for the subject project.

So H25021, T25017, and ER25133.

Um also I do want to clarify that no, nothing has been approved yet.

Uh, this was the initial approval.

Um, you know, all neighbors, of course, you probably are aware you do have an ability to appeal this.

Um, so um, if you are interested, you can chat with our project manager on how to get that appeal in.

But yeah, there has been no final uh no decisions made up until today.

And our next agenda item, our final one for the day, it's a live tree removal permit to allow removal of 20 ordinance-sized Canary Island pine trees from the common area of a multifamily residential property located at 479 Mill River Lane within the Milbook within the Millbrick community at River Oaks Common Area, Millbrook River Oaks are the owners.

This is council district four.

It's exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines, Section 15301H for existing facilities.

Uh project manager is Jason Lee.

Jason, do you have a presentation?

Yes, I do.

Um Thanks everyone for sticking around.

All right.

Uh good morning, hearing officer.

Uh, my name is Jason Lee.

I'm project manager for this file for the planning division.

Um this project is a live tree removal permit to allow the removal of 20 Canary Island pine trees from the common area of Millbrook at River Oaks.

Uh staff will note that even though not all trees were requested for hearing, all trees would be up for discussion and a decision this morning.

And that for a live tree removal permit, approval of the project as a whole is not required.

And that findings are made individually for each tree requested for removal.

So this project was evaluated with respect to the municipal code, specifically the true removal findings in chapter 13.32.

Staff notes that in the evaluation of the project, an initial arborist report dated August 2025 was received from Wood Reeve Consulting and Arborist John Leffingwell, with a supplemental report dated January 2026 received from commercial tree care Arborist Sarah McMahon.

Staff evaluated the findings of these arbust reports and recommend uh making a recommendation on this file.

Um ultimately there are four buckets of findings made for the trees requested for removal.

So first, five of the trees uh qualify for removal as an unsuitable tree under section 13.32.0.0.m.1 of the municipal code as a tree as a tree whose trunk is less than five feet from the nearest multifamily dwelling.

These are trees 262 through 266.

These trees would not normally come to hearing, but they have been included in the larger permit.

The remainder of the trees are found to meet the required finding in section 13.32.100.a dot three, which states that the condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to an existing or proposed structure, andor interference with utility services is such that preservation of the public health or safety requires its removal.

So tree 259 was found to be in poor condition in the Leffingwell Arborist report.

Specifically, the report stated that the tree was in poor condition, including defects in the structure of the main trunk, and in poor health with moderate dieback.

The Arvist report found that the tree is in danger of falling, and therefore the preservation of the public health and safety requires its removal.

Six trees, specifically 250, 253, 261, and then 267 through 269 are found to be health and safety risks to surrounding properties.

The Leffingwell Arborist report found a high risk of cone damage for trees 250, 253, 267, 268, and 269, with drop zones in common and private areas.

The McMahon supplemental report stated that these trees are prone to drop pine cones, which have been measured to be over six inches long and up to three pounds in weight.

So it is also included in this bucket.

And therefore, the preservation of the public health and safety being person and property in this case requires the removal of these trees.

Lastly, uh the 11 trees along the Coyote Creek Trail are being considered for the purposes of fire safety.

Specifically, the landscaping between the trail and the multifamily development is quite heavily vegetated, including trees, shrubs, and dry grass.

The neighboring trail property also includes dry pine needles dropped from bordering trees sometimes from previous seasons.

And that property is obviously not in control of the HOA.

Mr.

Leffingwell provided information from Fire Safe Marin, which found that pine trees should generally be removed from the defensible space zone within 100 feet of structures, and if maintained would require removal of limbs within 10 feet of the ground, canopy separation and removal of all ladder fields.

Mr.

Leffingwell states that all 11 trees are within 100 feet of structures, with trees 251 and 256 through 258, not more than 15 feet from the closest structure.

That providing a 10-foot canopy separation would require major pruning or removal of trees due to the density of vegetation, including other trees, and that removal of ladder fields is not guaranteed due to inconsistent clearing of pine needles on the trail property.

Therefore, uh it's found that the removal of these trees is required for the preservation of the public health and safety, specifically regarding the protection of the community in the case of a fire event, which is what staff wrote in the draft permit.

Staff notes that trees 250, 253, and 259 were covered for removal under other findings, but the other eight trees would only have this finding for removal.

Should the removal of all 20 ordinance sized trees be removed, 815 gallon replacement tree equivalents would be required under the city's replacement table.

The applicant has proposed 40 24-inch box trees, each of which are equivalent to two 15-gallon replacement trees to meet this requirement.

Um just note that replacement tree species can be changed here with a future permit adjustment.

And if not, all trees can be accommodated on site at the end of the day.

The applicant can also elect to pay an in-lou fee of 1,000 per 15-gallon replacement tree.

Um this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301H of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act for existing facilities, specifically for maintenance of existing landscaping.

Um therefore staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the live tree removal permit.

Thank you.

Um, and the applicants are Eamon Carly with the Mobrock HOA and Sarah McMahon with commercial tree care.

Okay, applicants.

Um, you will have five minutes at this point.

I see Eamon, you said hand raised.

Hello, good morning.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Good morning, and thank you for your time today.

Um, my name is Eamon Curley.

I'm a I'm Bob Board member, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Millbrook at River Oaks Homeowners Association.

Um I'd like to start by thanking uh Jason Lee and Alec and the city staff for their help going through this permit process.

It's taken us two years of work by the board working to get to this point, working with our tree care companies and arborists.

I want to start by clarifying what this project is and what is not.

This is not an aesthetic upgrade, and it's not a discretionary landscaping change.

This is gonna this is a risk mitigation project addressing a set of trees that have over time become incompatible with a dense residential environment.

The board's responsibility in this case is straightforward.

When a known safety risk exists, we are obligated to ask to act.

The primary risk is falling debris.

The most immediate concern is the hazard created by falling pine cones and debris from these canary island pines.

These trees produce large cones, often weighing between one and three pounds, which fall from significant height.

In our community, they are located directly adjacent to walkways, patios, parking areas, and the pool, including areas where children regularly play.

This is not a theoretical concern.

Residents have been struck by falling pine cones.

Vehicles have sustained damage, including broken windshields, pine cones and debris fall in and around the pool area, roofs, AC units, patio furniture have all been dented or damaged.

Portions of the community, including patios and parking spaces, are effectively unusable due to the risk.

Three months ago, one of our residents was struck by a falling pine cone while walking with their daughter.

They were fortunate to be wearing a helmet at the time.

Had it struck her head instead, the outcome would have could have been very different.

At this point, the risk is both known and recurring.

The concern is not whether an incident will occur, but the severity of the next one.

Secondary risk, fire exposure.

The second major concern is fire risk.

Over the past five years, there have been multiple fires in the adjacent Coyota Creek corridor.

These trees produce significant needle and cone accumulation, which contributes to fuel load both within the community and along the shared boundary.

The association has spent years working with the city to establish defensible space, including recent clearing along the fence line.

The removal of these trees is the final step in reducing that's exposure within the community itself.

Insurance availability and cost are also directly tied to demonstrated risk mitigation efforts.

This is not theoretical for HOAs in California right now.

Lastly, ongoing cost and infrastructure impact.

Beyond the media safety concerned, these trees create ongoing operational and infrastructure impacts across the community.

They contribute significantly to maintenance costs through constant needle and debris accumulation, which affects roots, gutters, drainage systems, and surrounding landscape.

Over time, the dense canis canopy and root systems also create hard part soil conditions, limiting water absorption and contributing to pooling and drainage issues.

These trees consume disproportionate share of soil resources, which impacts the health of surrounding plant life and increases the burden on irrigation and landscape management.

In addition, their size and proximity proximity to the structures mean they are increasingly crowd infrastructure contributing to root to roof damage from falling debris, root intrusion, their foundations and pipes and long-term wear on the hardship and drainage systems.

These are not isolated instances, but persistent compounding impacts that the commuting has been managing for you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, I see a couple public speakers.

So let's move on to public testimony.

Shani.

Good morning.

My name is Shani Kleinhouse.

I'm the environmental advocate for the uh Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

Um we were asked by residents to come and look at the trees that were proposed to be removed.

And um in traveling through North San Jose, there are a lot of Canary Island pines everywhere.

And so one of the concerns we had is how does this project impact the entire uh landscape in that area if a lot of these trees are going to be removed and what could potentially replace them.

So we're looking at the tree specific trees, the trees that are causing risk or interfering with infrastructure.

We understand the interest removal, but we specifically were concerned with the statement that these trees are a fire hazard when there's no requirement from insurance company insurance company or state law to remove these kind of trees.

And there is more than 200 feet between the rapier and vegetation in the creek to this uh development, and there are roads and paths and really a pretty significant fire break there.

So in looking at the trees and where they're located, we thought that tree number 255 and 254 should not be removed.

255 does not drop anything on infrastructure trails or uh patios or buildings, and it's in the lawn area.

Uh 254 has marginal um coverage of of uh developed areas, and they're beautiful, healthy trees, and they are we thought that these should not be removed, and we sent you a letter about that.

And we also asked for native trees to replacement trees when time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Stephen Yang.

Hello, um, may I share my screen?

Can you grant me the permission?

Um, I would have let me promote you.

Okay, thank you.

Hello.

Okay.

Yeah, so uh my name is uh Chen Yan.

I'm a resident of the uh unit 518 in the Meal Brooks.

Yeah, first of all, I want to thank you very much for the hearing director, uh Mr.

Lee and the Mr.

Kearney, our uh HOA board member, we did a really good job, I think, to uh assemble this issue.

So uh I want to acknowledge the frustration of my neighbors and uh suffering of the damaged roof, uh the risk of the dropping coins on the physical safety, they are real concerns, and I completely support removal of the those interior trees.

Yeah.

So my my request here is to be a phase removal as I think some of the trees that uh which uh uh have a low risk, especially in the perimeters.

They they they I I request them for like two, three, five transition period.

So, first of all, the the trees on the primitive uh 250 to 60, they have limited fire risk, as uh Shani also mentioned.

So uh those trees on the perimeters.

This so they are uh there are two pathways, I think uh between this and the vegetation on the curves.

One minute left.

Okay, yeah, on the courage quick.

Yeah, and also they also are running like other neighborhood.

And for the tree 254 and 255, these two trees, they are they are they are on the landscape and they are not near any of the pathways.

And so uh uh even the uh report uh from the object mentioned that they are very low risk.

And for the tree 256 and 258 along here.

Uh the uh the report mentioned that they have risk on the patio parking.

However, that's uh, I mean, from the picture you can see that uh there is not on the on the like paddy and parking also no.

20 seconds.

Yeah, and uh yeah, so this is the front of my window.

And uh, and also they are, I think the trees they are uh part of the repair and color protection.

Yes, so here and also uh yeah, this is uh the the video.

And also that's for my own privacy screeners.

They are they providing like the primary screen from the unit uh uh for for this entire.

Okay, your time is up.

Next, we have Martin.

Good morning.

Um Martin I live in a neighboring complex.

I would uh like to echo some of the previous comments.

Um, first of all, I'd like to thank Jason Lee for a great job in preparing all these supporting materials.

And uh being very helpful about this process.

Um there's a couple of things in the Arborist reports I'd like to highlight, uh although the previous commenters have already done this.

Um the risk was uh stated as high for some of the trees, uh seven of them are listed as moderate and three for low.

So I feel that the permit has gone too far, or the application has gone too far in removing trees that don't strictly need to be removed for the danger purpose.

Uh, in order for this to be more economically uh helpful to the HOA.

I would like to see more extreme pruning, extreme care, as Mr.

Leffingwell said in his arbitration report to reduce the associated wildfire hazard.

Where he notes that some of the trees can be pruned to get them within guidance.

Yeah.

Are the trees too close to the uh buildings?

I understand they have to go fair enough.

Uh, but I'd like the scope to be narrowed as previously stated.

Thank you.

That's all.

I am seeing no more speakers.

Are there any any other okay?

We have one.

Oh, I think he went away.

Danielle, are you seeing a Stephen S popped up?

Okay, he's back.

Steven, uh Daniel could unmute you.

We'll go to you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh good morning.

My name is Steve Stolper.

I reside in 476 Mill River Lane.

Uh, I'm a certified California naturalist pursuing a degree in park management.

And I'm actually heading to Costa Rica to do tree research.

Um I read the Wood Reef Consulting Report and the Arborist Report, and I agree that there's a potential for people and property damage, and at least 17 of those trees should be removed.

Um, I would feel terrible if a child was injured by a falling cone when we have the power to prevent it.

Um my concern is the tree replacement plan.

And um I think it's good that we're planting 4D trees, but I think it needs revision.

Um three of the trees are from Australia and highly flammable species.

They contain uh flammable oils and paper thin bark.

Um 13 of the trees are native to California, but not to the Bay Area.

And 27 of the trees are exotic species from Asia, China, Korea, and Japan.

And so I believe that we should strive to provide a natural environment for mealbook residents, minimize maintenance and water use, and maximize habitat for birds and other wildlife.

So while I support the project, I believe we need to have a revision of the tree replacement plan to select more native species and eliminate the highly flammable trees.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Um seeing no more, no more hands.

Uh, we can go back to the applicant who I see his hand is raised.

Hi, thank you.

And thank you for all the commenters.

Um so just to um go back to um Steven's comment there about the replacement trees.

I think Jason did mention um in his comments that the retrace uh the replacement tree plan can be revised, and we have discussed already, Stephen, um that you'll be part of a party to that with both our landscaping company, Bella Vista and with commercial tree.

Um so that's to address that.

So uh just some final comments for me.

So the trees in question are located on our common property owned collectively by all homeowners.

Uh such decisions regarding their management must be made in the interest of the entire community.

This temple, this topic has been discussed extensively in open HOA meetings over a period of several years.

And the specific trees included in this application have been under active discussion for over a year.

Um, those meetings were properly noticed, open to all residents, and documented in accordance with California law.

The board's position reflects that ongoing process and the feedback received through it.

While individual concerns about shade, privacy and visual impact are understandable.

Those factors were considered during the permitting process and must be weighed against the broader and more immediate safety risks to the community.

We understand that there are objections, including concerns related to potential wildlife impacts, and we respect that process.

We would comply with any conditions or requirements the city determines are appropriate.

At the same time, it's important to recognize that these Canary Island pines are not of native to this region.

And current city plan and guidance already reflects that they are generally not appropriate for residential environments like ours, particularly due to the safety and maintenance issues we are here discussing today.

In our view, while the objections raised are understandable, they do not outweigh the documented and ongoing safety risks to residents, guests and the public moving through our community.

We value the landscape and the role trees play in our community.

This is not a decision taken lightly, but we are faced with a clear responsibility to act when conditions become unsafe.

In summary, this project is about addressing a known ongoing safety hazard in a responsible and proactive way.

We care deeply about our community and its environment.

And we also carry a moral obligation and a financial responsibility to take action before someone is seriously seriously injured or worse.

For those reasons, we respectfully ask that the city allow us to move forward with the proposed removals subject to any appropriate conditions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I'm going to speak on this one for a moment because this is quite a challenging decision.

You know, I absolutely recognize the safety impacts.

And I'll say the trees that are within the development with the cone drop issues, and there's a couple that also are important.

Um, I think that's a very kind of easy, you know, clear documented, direct health and safety issue that we're seeing here.

Um, the fire issue is a real thing.

Um, however, I will say that, you know, this is very much a precedent-setting decision to kind of look at these trees based on species in this area and say they they need to be removed kind of in this situation because this would actually um kind of go out to many, many, many other places in San Jose and could result in in tree removals, you know, pretty quickly and drastically.

Uh, this is actually a policy area that the city is looking into right now on our own because we absolutely understand this this tension between you know tree preservation, environmental and the fire concerns, and where do we land on that, right?

What are the correct standards?

Um, I'll mention, you know, I checked the building code for defensible space.

It's actually tends to be more of like 30-foot buffer before you really start having to get into stuff.

So it this kind of 100-foot just blanket is is kind of somewhat a little bit more as I understand it as best practice.

So um I'm not able to bifurcate a decision.

So ideally I could just approve the uh cone damage trees, so 250, 253, 262s, 263, and 269, um, and leave the other ones.

I mean, that is an option.

I could just move forward with those ones.

Um I think 252 and 259 are also in poor condition.

Um, but I think the applicant really, you know, I understand that you that's not ideal for them.

And and you know, again, I'm not confident at this point either on the fire risk um being not enough to to make the findings.

Um I guess let me ask you this applicant.

Would it be um hugely problematic to you if I asked our staff to just get an opinion from our city arborist on that?

If you know, just kind of on this uh just verification on the the fire safety standards and issues, and then maybe some advice on replacement trees, and then we could continue the hearing and it would be um a decision would be made with that additional information from the arborist.

And uh, I had talked to staff about this, and uh they think they could have that in two weeks.

Um Eamon, would that be too much trouble for your scheduling, or would you would would you think that that's um an okay pause to just give us a little bit more time to get a little bit more information?

So my comment on that is you know that going through this process, we initially had tried to contact the city arborist early on in the project, and the city arborists did not want to meet or talk with us.

Okay, yeah, and we would definitely not ask you to do that.

Um Jason, uh if you could come on real quick.

Um, do you feel good that we would be able to talk to the city arborist?

Yeah, I I think you know, based off the information and speaking with Alec as well.

I think even when you guys were asking, I don't think the city initiative on this had started at that point.

I think they've Martina correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there have been meetings now with the city arborists regarding this fire area.

So this is very much on their on their radar now, and I think it's something that you know they have to make a decision on sooner or later.

So I I do feel comfortable that we would at least be able to talk with the C City Arborist uh and you know hopefully get direction and also, yeah.

Yeah, because the option is decision today with no direction, or at least try to get the direction and then decision, you know, then so um yeah, so I I I gosh, this is this is definitely a hard one um for me.

I I again I I feel very much I understand both sides of this very much.

I I you know I am pretty concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this decision um without consulting with our city arborist office on kind of the our what is our policy and standard when when it comes to just species and proximity.

Um, because again, I'm not saying it's not an issue.

I I very, very, very much understand the concerns here, and it is something that we are looking at on our own side.

Um, because yeah, I just I just I don't know that I could make the findings for the fire tree the fire risk trees today, given the just a little bit more generic nature of the kind of generally speaking, you shouldn't plant these versus you know, um kind of some of the more specifics.

So Jason, many of the trees have other um uh of you under the categories that are not the fire risk.

I mean, there's a large number of them.

There's only a few that are yeah, yeah.

We talked about that's what Martino went in the beginning.

Yeah.

My concern, I mean, Jason, you don't think because my concern is I do want to approve those.

I I'm I'm with you.

My problem is if I approved those today, I can't, I'm I don't, I wouldn't be able to buy for, you know, I have to make a decision on your application today, right?

So if I'm approving those today, um, I think I'd be uh inclined to disapprove just the the ones, the handful that are the pure fire risk today.

Um you would, you know, you could come back, right?

But you'd have to come back, and I I wouldn't want that.

Um so that's why I'm trying to be conscious of that too, right?

Because I do I totally hear you.

Unless Jason, you think I can kind of just Alec and John can can we like confirm this?

Like I I think Martina's question is basically can she approve the trees in pretty much the first three buckets?

And then continue the remainder of the trees, or does a decision need to be made on all 20 trees if a decision is made?

I think you can either do deferral the entire project, but I can't approve just one portion and then not do it actually.

My understanding.

I mean, I it's a creative thought.

Sorry by the way, John's 2 division.

I know I'm trying to think about it.

Is there a way that you can get a certain affirmation from the city arbitrary?

Sign off on it.

I think this record is pretty clear that the findings for I believe as the hearing officer today that the findings for the Jason, can you remind me which tree numbers?

Um just I'll I'll list them out and you tell me if I miss any missing any.

So two trees.

The cone, the high cone damage is 250, 253, 262, and then 263 to through 269.

And then we had 252 and 259 were in poor health.

Does that sound right?

Sorry.

Uh the permit has 262 through 266 unsuitable.

Okay.

259 poor health, 250, 253, 261, 267, 268, and 269 health and safety risk.

Okay.

Because I have 251, 254, 255, 256.

Sorry, 257, 258, and 260 are the health and safety risks.

Does that sound right?

Sorry, can you can you just let's see?

Because I I will say that, you know, I I believe the findings could be made for those other trees.

Um, and then I want to continue it to continue discussion on the trees, and I'll direct uh the it's probably not going to be me in the future hearing officer that the discussion put on the record should be really contained to those fire risk trees that don't have um weren't deemed to be high cone damage or on otherwise unsuitable or unhealthy.

Um because again, yeah, I I don't I don't think that one is going to be those other ones, I don't really see a lot of question here.

Um, but you know, again, it would be up to the eventual decider to decide the full thing.

But I I really do think that we need to, you know, tap into our own experts, um, given that this is a topic that we're discussing now on those fire risk trees and just get some advice on again, if nothing else um replacement species or um if there are any other mitigations that we should be aware of um to mitigate the risk, or if they deem the risk to be unacceptable and just uh just have that opinion to be considered um with the decision because I think you know, I'm hearing competing things, and I again I do think that this is a very much a precedent-setting decision here.

So um so yeah, so okay, with with that, what I what I'm gonna do today, and you know, again, I apologize the home organization.

I know that this has been, I'm sure, quite a long project.

And I I really loathe to continue um it because I know I'm sure you've been looking forward to getting to this date, but um, I'm going to actually continue it with the date certain in two weeks.

So that you know, we can we will bring you back in two weeks, okay.

And in that time, staff will consult with our city arborists, and even if we don't get opinion for them, we will come back and make a decision.

But um, we should be able to get some advice and opinion from the city arborists within the next two weeks.

Um, so with that, my decision is to continue this item to the hearing of can somebody tell me what is two weeks from today.

Uh April eighth.

April eighth hearing.

Um, so that the trees that are um along the buffer and are not otherwise uh unsuitable due to proximity or the causing the damage uh just to be considered at that that hearing.

Okay.

Um can you confirm no renoticing is required because this is a continual.

Oh, because it's a continuation, so there is no renoticing.

So everybody who is here for this item, um, if you're interested, it would be decided in two two weeks.

Um, so please come back in two weeks.

And again, you know, um, I just I do want to acknowledge, I'm sure this has been quite a project for the homeowners association.

I really don't take this decision lately.

So um, I just I do need to make sure that we're making the right decision on a larger collective before we move on this one um to ensure that this is the right findings to make when we're in these these situations.

Okay.

So with that, um that should end our agenda today.

That was our final project.

So we are going to conclude the director's hearing for March 25th, 2026.

And again, I thank everyone for their time here.

Um, and we will see you, trees folks in two weeks.