Good morning.

We are calling to order the Planning Director hearing of May 27, 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m.

My name is Sylvia Doe and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, Christopher Burton.

This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call.

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

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

For participants who joined electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the raised hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak to or click star 9 on their phone.

Remember to keep your raise hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak.

During the meeting, you can also call 408-535-8517 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, the phone number that you'll call into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on.

All speakers, 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 provide comment for the allotted time.

If you exceed your allotted time, you may be muted so we can move on to the next speaker.

Please note the following.

The hearing procedure and order of input will be as follows.

First, I will identify each project as listed on the agenda.

For those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item.

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

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

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

The applicant or the representative who wishes to speak on the item will have up to five minutes to speak and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record.

After the applicant or their representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item may provide testimony up to two minutes per speaker, either for or against the project.

All members of the public should identify their name for the record, although it is not required.

Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes.

I will then close the public hearing and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or the public, or further discuss the item.

I will then take action on the item.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

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

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

The planning director's actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the municipal code.

Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only.

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

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

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

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

We'll move on to the second portion of the agenda, which is deferrals.

Any item scheduled for this hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting date is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter of deferral.

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

If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring these or any other items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise a hand to speak.

I will now open the public hearing.

And this morning there aren't any items proposed for deferral.

At this point, I'll ask if there are any members of the public who would like to defer any of the agenda items this morning.

If so, please raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine.

Okay, at this time I do not see any hands raised in Zoom.

So the matter of deferrals is now closed, and we'll move on to the third portion of the agenda, which is the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for separate discussion by the hearing officer.

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

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

There's item 3A, file number H25-023, which is a site development permit on Doyle Road.

There's also consent calendar item 3B, which is file number SF25-010.

This is a single family house permit on Co.

Avenue.

And then lastly on the consent calendar item is item 3C, which is file number sp 25-022, which is a special use permit located on North First Street.

If there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this item, again, you can raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine to speak.

And again, otherwise, any items on the consent calendar will remain so for approval.

So just pause a bit in case anyone is looking for the raise hand feature in Zoom or clicking star nine on their phone.

Okay.

Seeing none, there are no hands raised.

So the consent calendar items 3A, 3B, and 3C are hereby approved.

And I'll just pause for a moment for that approval to be reflected on the screen.

Thank you so much, support staff.

Alright, we'll move on to the fourth portion of the agenda, which is public hearing.

This morning there's only one item on public hearing, which is item 4A.

This is site development permit file number H24-017 and vesting tentative map file number T2407.

I believe staff has a uh brief presentation, and I will turn it over to uh project manager.

All right, good morning, everyone.

Um I think I'm sharing now.

All right.

Uh good morning, hearing officer.

My name is Jason Lee, planning project manager for this project with the city's planning division.

The application before you today is located northwest of Berriessa Road, directly west of the BART right of way.

Um, the address is 1655 Berriosa Road.

This is considered block I of the Facino District and is in City Council 4, uh District 4.

Uh the application is a 61 unit townhome development submitted under the housing accountability act.

Um builders' remedy.

Uh with eight units reserved for low-income households and a vesting tentative map to subdivide the 2.21 gross acre lot into nine residential parcels, including a public street easement and create up to 61 condominium units.

Uh note that the aerial image still shows buildings and trees on this and neighboring sites.

Uh the buildings have been demolished and many of the trees have been removed under the auspices of the master plan development permit for the Facino District.

Alright, so I'm gonna provide some context on this application.

This application was submitted under a section of the Housing Accountability Act commonly referred to as the Builder's Remedy.

So to qualify for the Builder's Remedy, a project must uh provide a certain amount of affordable housing to very low, low or moderate income households.

In this case, the project provides at least 13% of units for low-income households, which is one of the options that a builder's remedy applicant can choose from.

The application must have been submitted while the city did not have a substantially compliant housing element as certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development HCD.

This is true.

I'll explain the timeline in the next slide.

The project must be within the minimum and maximum density provisions as defined by the definition of a builder's remedy project.

For this site, the maximum allowed density is 80 dwellings per acre, and the project proposes a density of approximately 28.9 dwelling units per acre and is therefore compliant.

And the project cannot abut a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use.

As the proposed project qualifies under the definition of a builder's remedy project, the city cannot deny the project based on inconsistency with the general plan and zoning ordinance.

Furthermore, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits cities from denying a qualifying builder's remedy project unless the city can demonstrate that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to the public health and safety.

I'll note here in staff's review, we did not find any, we did not identify any specific adverse health and safety impacts of this project.

Alright, so this slide shows the timeline for eligibility under builder's remedy.

Um, so for this project, an SB 330 preliminary application was submitted on October 13th, 2023.

Um the city's housing element was certified and found in substantial compliance on January 29th, 2024.

The formal project application was submitted March 28, 2024, and AB 1893 was invoked on April 24th, 2025, to opt into the changes to the builder's remedy as passed by the state legislature.

So I'll note here that pursuant to Senate Bill 1886 of 2024, the city did not have a substantially compliant housing element at the time of submittal of the applicant's SB 330 preliminary application.

Therefore, the project is eligible for builders' remedy, even though the formal project application was submitted after the housing element was found in substantial compliance.

So basically, even though the housing element was found in substantial compliance two months prior, because the preliminary application was already submitted, the project and you know the project meets all the benchmarks for an SB 330 application that did not cease.

So what does this mean for project review again?

Uh the city must treat the project as it meets as if it meets the general plan land use designation and the requirements of the zoning district.

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

This includes the general plan, the urban village plan, citywide design standards, etc.

And like I said, the city must evaluate the project for compliance with objective health and safety standards.

So despite this, staff did review the project for consistency with um the following.

So the general plan, the urban village plan, the Muni code, the citywide design standards, state density bonus laws, city council policies, and CEQA.

Um the applicant is although it's deemed the project is deemed consistent with everything.

The applicant is still requesting one concession and eight waivers under the state density bonus law.

With guard with regard to the general plan and zoning for the project, this project is designated transit employment center, which does not allow housing at the site and is located in a CPPD plan development zoning district, which also does not allow housing at this portion of the site.

Nevertheless, we must treat the project as if it is consistent with the general plan and zoning.

The project was also reviewed against applicable standards of the urban design standards of the Bariessa Bart Urban Village Plan and the Citywide Design Standards.

The project includes concessions and waivers for certain standards, but still does not comply with other standards.

However, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, it is deemed consistent with all applicable standards.

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

A community meeting was held on March 10th, 2025 via Zoom.

Um this hearing and that meeting were noticed at a 1,000 foot radius, and all interested parties were also notified of this hearing via email.

Um again it is important to note that although we reviewed against all of these things, staff did not find that any of the consistency the inconsistencies would result in a specific adverse health and safety impact.

All right, for environmental an addendum to the Barias or Road Mixed Use Development Final Environmental Impact Report and Adenda there too was provided for this project.

There have been no new significant changes to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken, and no new significant environmental impacts have been identified.

Specifically, the scope of this project allows for the removal of 480,000 square feet of planned commercial space and the addition of 61 residential units, which would not result in new or significant effects beyond those previously studied.

All previously identified mitigation measures will remain applicable.

Therefore, no subsequent environmental document shall be prepared for the project, and no new mitigation measures are proposed.

Comments on the addendum were received from VTA, PGE, the Amamudson tribe, and Tamian Nation.

VTA stated that they oppose the loss of commercial use and would like to see options to retain the site for some form of commercial in the future.

Failing that, they would like to see higher density residential.

PGE indicated that there was no conflict with their utilities.

The AMA Mudson tribe provided recommendations.

Tommy and Nation requested consultation under AB 52.

However, the city did consult with Tommy and Nation during the preparation of the originally approved project, and recommendations made by Tommy and Nation were incorporated into the mitigation measures and would apply to the subject project.

None of the comment letters raised any new environmental concerns.

Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA process and no further analysis is needed.

So with that, um staff recommends that the director consider the addendum to the Barriessa Road Mixed Use Development FEIR and addenda there too and approve a vesting tentative map and a site development permit for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Jason.

At this time, in terms of order of procedures, if the applicant team would like to make opening remarks, you will have up to five minutes to speak.

And thereafter, if any members of the public are interested in speaking, you can raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine, and in which case you have up to two minutes to speak, and then thereafter, the applicant team has remaining up to five minutes to make closing remarks.

So we'll go ahead and start with the applicant team.

I see Mr.

Shanehauer, you have your hands raised, and you will have five minutes.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Good morning, Eric.

Okay, yeah.

Good morning, Madam Hearing Officer.

We really want to thank city staff for all their time and effort on this application.

I'm Eric Schaenauer.

I represent Bariasa properties on this application.

Uh really, we don't have any um comments.

We'll be available to answer any questions from the public and reserve our time to do so.

We're just excited to continue to build more housing for the city and more housing at the Barrias ABART station.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this project?

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

Again, if you would like to speak, please raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine on your phone.

Okay, I'll just pause for a moment to see if there are any interested members of the public.

Okay, seeing no hands raised, I will bring it back to the applicant team.

Eric and team, if you would like to make any closing remarks, you have up to five minutes to speak.

You have the floor, Eric.

Thank you.

Uh, just want to thank staff again for all their time and effort to get to this point and uh look forward to the project moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate that.

And since there are no further members of the public who wish to speak, I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of the agenda and move on to deliberating on this project.

So the state law is clear that builders remedy projects are exempt from local zoning and land use development regulations, as uh project manager Jason Lee has outlined.

The state's housing accountability act limits local control and it limits the legal authority for the city to deny a project.

There are very narrow findings for a project denial, such as evidence that the denial is required by state or federal law, or if a project has significant adverse impact on public health and safety based on objective written standards.

As staff has summarized, this has been deemed to be consistent with all objective zoning and design standards, or where it doesn't meet objective quantifiable criteria.

They are in categories eligible under the state's density bonus law or the state's housing accountability act.

So, under all circumstances, this project has to meet minimum building and fire code requirements for public health and safety.

Therefore, I must approve this project because there are not any federal or state laws where this project can be denied, and this project does not have any significant adverse impacts on public health and safety based on objective standards.

So with that, I hereby adopt the addendum to the 2023 Bariessa Road Mixed Use Development Final Environmental Impact Report and Adenda there too, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and I hereby approve the site development permit and the vesting tentative map.

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

So this brings us to the end of the agenda to adjournment.

This concludes the planning director hearing of May 27th, 2026, and this hearing is concluding at 9 21 a.m.

Thank you, everyone, for your attendance and participation.