San Jose Planning Director Hearing - March 27, 2026

Note: The transcript of this meeting indicates the date as March 25, 2026, but the provided metadata specifies March 27, 2026. This summary uses the latter date as instructed, but notes the discrepancy.

This hearing, presided over by Hearing Officer Martina Davis on behalf of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, considered three items: a 60‑unit builders’ remedy project, a 12‑unit density bonus project, and a live tree removal permit. Public testimony was heard on each item, and decisions were rendered or continued.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 1 (1175‑1199 Saratoga Ave):

  • Lillian Koenig expressed concern about the removal of 22 trees (18 ordinance‑sized) and questioned the project’s alignment with the city’s climate sustainability plan. She noted that developers often replace trees with smaller ones that take years to mature.
  • Scott, a 25‑year neighborhood resident, raised safety concerns about the driveway entrance off Saratoga Avenue, citing congestion after the road was narrowed from three to two lanes. He also asked about parking spaces per unit and overflow parking, noting that many families have two or more vehicles.

• Item 2 (1295 Kirtner Ave):

  • Christine Wynne, local resident, objected to the lack of a traffic study, stating that the project (using national ITE data) ignores the presence of seven schools within 1.5 miles. She noted that a child bicyclist was hit at the intersection on December 3, 2025, and three children have been hit since 2022. She questioned why the developer receives 14 waivers.
  • Doug Doll (on behalf of Cantia Roach, across the street) echoed safety concerns, especially regarding the driveway’s proximity to the corner and the difficulty of making left turns onto Cottle Avenue during peak school traffic.
  • Janet Donbro, the current homeowner, expressed support for the project, describing it as well‑thought‑out and providing middle‑income housing. She noted that if not this project, the site would likely be developed with four or five “monster homes.”
  • Multiple additional speakers (iPhone, Adam Kaspczyk, Seth Wheatley, Ron Stern, Amy, Jennifer McClenaghan, Jamie, Kathy, Daniel, Gorman/Kathy Beman) all voiced strong opposition, citing traffic congestion, safety risks (including a fatal accident involving a construction worker), height incompatibility with the single‑story neighborhood, loss of privacy, dust during construction, and the perceived threat of a lawsuit from the developer’s law firm (Cox, Castle & Nicholson). Many questioned whether the affordable units would truly serve low‑income residents and whether the project was a “done deal” before the hearing.

• Item 3 (479 Mill River Lane – tree removal):

  • Shani Kleinhouse (Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance) asked that trees 254 and 255 be retained, noting they do not drop debris on structures or walkways, and requested native replacement trees.
  • Stephen Yang (resident of unit 518) supported removal of interior trees but requested a phased removal for perimeter trees (250‑260, 254‑255, 256‑258) due to lower risk and their value as privacy screens and wildlife habitat.
  • Martin (neighboring complex resident) noted that the arborist report rated risk as high for some trees but moderate for seven and low for three, and suggested more extreme pruning instead of removal.
  • Steve Stolper (resident of 476 Mill River Lane) supported removal of at least 17 trees but criticized the replacement plan for including highly flammable Australian species and exotic Asian species, urging a native‑species revision.

Discussion Items

Item 1 – Builders’ Remedy Project (60 condos, 1175‑1199 Saratoga Ave)

• Staff (Alec Katienza) presented the project: 60 residential condominiums in nine three‑story buildings, demolition of two office buildings, removal of 22 trees (18 ordinance‑sized). The project was submitted under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) builders’ remedy because the city lacked a certified housing element at the time of application (submitted September 11, 2023; housing element certified January 2024). The applicant invoked AB 1893 in May 2025. The project provides 13% low‑income units (8 units) and requests one incentive/concession to eliminate the TDM requirement. CEQA exemption under AB 130 (Public Resources Code 21080.66) was applied. Staff concluded no specific adverse impacts to public health or safety and recommended approval.
• Applicant Mark Conroe (OICC Ventures) emphasized that the project uses state law to lower density (from a possible 240 units to 60) and to fit the neighborhood context of one‑story homes with three‑story buildings. He showed site plans, noting muted materials and common areas. He responded to tree concerns by noting that 104 replacement trees would be planted, and to traffic concerns by stating a new median would prevent left turns (right‑in/right‑out only) and the number of curb cuts would be reduced from four/five to two. Parking is two spaces per unit plus guest parking.
• Hearing Officer Davis commended the applicant for conforming to city design standards without waivers and found no health or safety impacts. She approved the site development permit and tentative map, and considered the CEQA statutory exemption.

Item 2 – Density Bonus Project (12 units, 1295 Kirtner Ave)

• Staff (Jacqueline Guerrero) presented the project: 8 condominium units on separate lots and 4 condominium units on two lots, totaling 12 units on a 0.65‑acre site (zoned R1, allowed 6 units). The applicant uses state density bonus law to get a 100% density bonus by providing one very low‑income and one moderate‑income unit. The project requests one incentive (allowing two‑family dwelling use in R1) and 14 waivers related to height, FAR, open space, parking, etc. Staff noted that under the HAA, the city cannot force rezoning, so the analysis defaults to construction costs. The project also includes a shift of the north building 2.38 feet westward to increase buffer. CEQA class 32 infill exemption applies. Staff recommended approval.
• Applicant Tom Wilson (City Connect Partners) stated that the project provides backyards (18‑foot setbacks), 44 new trees, parking of two cars per unit (plus two in driveways), and 42 on‑site parking spots total. He noted that construction would be scheduled during school vacations to minimize disruption.
• Hearing Officer Davis acknowledged neighborhood concerns about traffic but noted that under CEQA, traffic congestion is not an environmental issue; the project generates only 5 AM and 6 PM trips per ITE standards. She found no direct health or safety impacts from the waivers and stated that the city cannot legally require a traffic study for this project size. She approved the site development permit and tentative map, and considered the CEQA exemption. She reminded the public that the decision can be appealed.

Item 3 – Live Tree Removal Permit (20 Canary Island pines, 479 Mill River Lane)

• Staff (Jason Lee) presented four buckets of findings for removal of 20 ordinance‑sized trees:
  1. Five trees (262‑266) – unsuitable due to proximity (<5 ft) to multifamily dwellings.
  2. One tree (259) – poor condition, danger of falling.
  3. Six trees (250, 253, 261, 267‑269) – health and safety risk from falling pine cones (up to 3 lbs).
  4. Eight trees (251, 254‑258, 260) – fire risk (within 100 ft of structures, dense vegetation, defensible space concerns). Replacement: 40 24‑inch box trees (equivalent to 80 15‑gallon trees) or in‑lieu fee. Staff recommended approval.
• Applicant Eamon Curley (HOA board member) emphasized that the removals are about risk mitigation – falling cones have struck residents and damaged property, and fire risk is a serious concern given multiple fires in the adjacent Coyote Creek corridor. He noted that the HOA has a duty to act.
• Hearing Officer Davis expressed difficulty with the fire‑risk findings, noting that the 100‑foot defensible space recommendation is a best practice, not a code requirement, and that approving based on species alone could set a precedent across the city. She decided to continue the item to the April 8, 2026 hearing to obtain an opinion from the city arborist, specifically on the fire‑risk trees (those not already covered by other findings). She noted that the trees with clear health/safety or proximity issues could likely be approved, but the entire application must be decided together; thus the continuation applies to the whole permit. No re‑noticing is required.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 (Saratoga Ave): Approved. Site development permit and tentative map granted; CEQA statutory exemption (AB 130) considered. The project may proceed subject to conditions.
• Item 2 (Kirtner Ave): Approved. Site development permit and tentative map granted; CEQA infill exemption considered. The decision is appealable.
• Item 3 (Mill River Lane tree removal): Continued to the hearing of April 8, 2026. Staff will consult with the city arborist regarding the fire‑risk findings for trees 251, 254‑258, and 260. No other findings are affected. The applicant and public are invited to return on that date.