Good morning.

We are calling to order the planning director hearing of July 8th, 2026.

My name is David Keon and I am filling in for Martina Davis as 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 participate by following the instructions list on page two of the agenda.

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

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

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

Or during the meeting, please 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 are calling into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on.

All members of the public will remain on mute until 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'll be unmuted and you can provide comment for the allotted time.

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

Please note the following.

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

I will identify each project as described on the agenda.

For those items in the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on this 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 the 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 an 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 enrich a 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 or 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 for 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 specific agenda items only.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing on 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 a removal from the meeting.

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

So the first item we have is the item of deferrals.

So the item of deferrals for any items scheduled for this hearing for which deferral to a future meeting date is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered as a 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 your raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine to speak.

And I'll open the public hearing in regard to deferrals.

So we have one item on the deferral agenda, and that is file number H25039 and ER25225.

This is a site development permit to allow an eight-story residential building with 276 dwelling units with 5% affordable units restricted to very low income, subject to the state density bonus law, underground parking, and extended construction hour from 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Monday through Saturday on an approximate 0.89 gross acre vacant site at 470 West San Carlos Street.

So the recommendation is that this be dropped and re-noticed to the July 15, 2026 director's hearing per staff request.

Is there anybody who wants to speak on the item of deferring this item?

Please raise your hand now or press star nine or contact support staff.

Okay, see no raised hand support staff.

Have you been contacted with regard to questions on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay.

So with that, item number 2A.

Um that item will be deferred and it'll be renoticed to the July 15, 2026 director's hearing, which is next week.

I'm now going to move on to the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent counter items as they are considered to be routine.

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

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

If you wish to speak on one of these items, please do use the raise hand feature and zoom or click star night to speak.

We have one item on the consent calendar.

This is item 3A.

And this is file number SP24-031 and ER24-206.

This is a special use permit to allow the expansion of an existing legal nonconform religious assembly use and allow post-secondary boarding school use on an approximately 2.3 gross acre site.

The project does not include any new construction or tree removals located at 1228 Redman Avenue.

The staff recommendation is considered the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve a special use permit.

Is there anybody who wishes to remove this item from the consent counter?

Either have a comment or wanted to speak on the item.

Please raise your hand now or press star nine on Zoom or contact support staff.

We have one hand raised.

You do have one hand raised.

Okay.

Actually, it looks like they put the hand down.

They did.

Okay.

Okay.

And you have not been contact support staff.

You have not been contacted by anybody who wishes to speak on this item.

No, we have not.

Okay.

Okay.

Since nobody is interested in speaking on this item.

I will then move to approve the consent calendar item 3A, file number SB 24-031 and ER24-206.

Thank you.

So the next part of the count, the agenda is the public hearing portion of the agenda.

We have two items on public hearing.

The first is item number.

Yeah, item 4A.

This is file number PD 20-004 and ER22-112.

This is a plan development permit to allow the construction of a new mixed use building of up to six stories with 20 with 65 residential units and approximately 14,070 square feet of commercial use, including a TICO performance building and an office workshop and gallery space with one level of being low grade parking on an existing 0.74 gross acre vacant site and the removal of one ordinance size tree, including extended construction hours on Saturdays from 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

located at 6537, excuse me, 653 North 7th Street.

The SQL is an addendum to the Japan Town Corporation Yard Vedevelment Project Final Environmental Impact Report.

And the staff recommendation is consider the addendum in accordance with CEQA and approve of plan development permit.

So staff, you have a presentation.

Yes, thank you, hearing officer.

This is Laura Miners, the planning project manager for this plan development permit as described in the agenda.

And read into the record.

Please note the following change to condition number 44C, one of the public works conditions as follows.

The proposed encroachment for balconies, windows, and or architectural features shall be subject to Chapter 13.37 of the municipal code.

No further discretionary approval by City Council is required for balconies, windows, and/or architectural features that comply with the San Jose Building Code.

Property owners shall execute an encroachment agreement as part of the public works clearance requirements, and prior to building permit issuance.

The encroachment agreement shall be recorded against title to the property.

The project is located southwest of North 7th Street, approximately 300 feet northwest of Jackson Street at 653 North 7th Street, and includes the construction of a new mixed-use building with 65 residential units and ground floor commercial space, including an office, workshop, and gallery space, and a separate tyco performance building with one level of below grade parking.

The project includes approximately 8,555 square feet of common open space, and 40 units will have private balconies ranging in size from 60 to 77 square feet.

The project also includes extended construction hours on Saturdays from 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

The extended construction hours will support the project schedule during inclement weather, specifically during grading activities and concrete pouring.

The expedited schedule will also benefit the local neighborhood by completing the construction several months ahead of schedule, minimizing the duration of neighborhood disruption due to construction activities, and will expedite the arrival of much needed rental units to the housing market.

The site is situated on the city's former Japan Town Corporation Yard, and the site was originally developed with a series of buildings, mechanical equipment, and parking areas, and in 2007, the city's use of the Japan Town Corporation Yard was transferred to the central service yard, and in 2008, the city's former redevelopment agency commenced demolition of the entire series of buildings on site associated with the corporation yard.

The surrounding developments to the north and south have since been developed into residential and commercial retail space, and Highlandville Park has been dedicated recently to the West.

Per the approved plan development zoning file number PDC 15-018, ordinance number 29651, adopted by City Council on December 1st, 2015.

The project is consistent with the applicable requirements and policies of the transit residential general plan designation, the general, excuse me, the Jackson Taylor specific plan, the Plan Development Zoning Development Standards, and City Council Development Policy 6-30.

A community meeting was held to discuss the project on December 5th, 2025, via Zoom webinar.

Approximately 14 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting.

Comments received during the community meeting were in support of the project.

There were no speakers in opposition.

The project is also consistent with the applicable standards of the 1999 residential design guidelines.

The citywide design guidelines were adopted on February 23rd, 2021, and effective March 25, 2021.

The subject project was submitted on June 17, 2020, which was prior to the effective date of the new citywide design guidelines and therefore subject to the 1999 residential design guidelines.

The project was previously analyzed in the 2008 Japan Town Corporation Yard Redevelopment Project Final Environmental Impact Report, also called final EIR.

An addendum was prepared, which found that the subject project would not result in significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the 2008 final EIR and addenda thereto.

Um would not increase the severity of impacts already identified in the 2008 final EIR.

Therefore, implementation of new or significantly changed mitigation measures is not required.

The project would be required to implement the city's standard permit conditions and mitigation measures for the certified 2008 final EIR and addenda there too to reduce potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hydrology, noise, and utilities to less than significant level.

Therefore, staff recommends that the planning director consider the addendum to the Japan Town Corporation Yard Redevelopment Project, final environmental impact report in accordance with SEQA and approve the Plan Development Permit.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

So now is there anybody from the applicate team who wishes to present or speak on the item?

The applicant is Sean M.

Sean M.

Okay, yes.

Okay, yeah.

So Sean, you can speak.

You have up to five minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And am I able to share my screen or uh just a second?

Let me promote you to panelist.

Okay.

Thank you.

Looks like it sent the request to share.

So let's see.

Looks good.

You should be able to share now.

There you go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm Sean McCarron with Shea Properties.

We are the owner and developer of this project.

I appreciate uh staff's presentation.

Laura, thank you for the for all of the details.

I can focus a little bit more on uh on some of the some of the fun stuff.

This project is um a long time coming.

We're excited to get to this milestone.

Uh Shape Properties, we're a family-owned and operated development company.

Uh we've developed two large uh mixed use projects in San Jose, and we develop own and manage with a very long-term outlook.

This project is as I think everybody on this call remembers was a community collaboration from the start.

Um the city and the community completed a lengthy visioning process during the entitlement phase, going back more than a decade, and we've been engaged since 2016.

We developed the main project in uh Heinlandville Park as well, which we're very proud of.

The CCA project uh is the empty lot uh in this image, and it's really the final piece of the project vision.

Uh, we partnered with Silicon Valley Creates and San Jose Tyco to design a project that kind of completes the vision for this block.

Um, the most important component of that is delivering a permanent home for for San Jose Tycho.

Um, I think that they've moved uh more than 15 times over the last 20 years, uh, and we're hoping that this can become their final home.

So when we set out to kind of work on this project with staff and with Silicon Valley Creates and uh in San Jose Tyco, we wanted to create something that was uh that was sustainable.

And so the best solution we could find to to complete this block was to provide ground floor space for for Tyco and SVC and apartments above, and those apartments create the the financial feasibility in the long-term stability for the project.

So this image shows the the ground floor space.

Um you'll see the kind of the gallery space that's dedicated to um Silicon Valley Creates, and they'll help curate that space and utilize that space for community arts uses and then the light blue and the medium blue areas are our tycos kind of back of back of shop space their office space and then their main studio where they practice um as well the floors above that that ground floor podium space are all dedicated to residential it's a total of 65 units and it's and it's focused on much larger units than exist at the other two existing buildings so they're more focused on on roommate layouts and family friendly layouts and the residents from this building will utilize the amenities that are already built in the other two buildings which are highly amenitized.

So the project benefits you know I've talked about completes the full block development and aligns with the original goals of the community art serving spaces it expands much needed housing options with 65 larger units in this community and it provides an attractive continuation of of the park design and the storytelling elements that that already began in Highlandville Park.

So I will uh I'll pause there but I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Okay thank you so next we're gonna go on to public comment if there's any member of the public who wishes to speak on this project please raise your hand at Zoom or press star nine now or contact support staff.

Looks like we have two speakers yeah SJ Women's Club please speak.

Hi hello actually that's my name tag from another um zoom but um my name is Eileen Hunter and I lived in a duplex at 568 okay can you hear me now?

Yeah I can hear you okay my name's Eileen Hunter and I've lived in duplex at 568 North 9th Street since 2011.

The property has been owned by a family of Italian heritage for four generations I love living here and with good luck we'll be here another 20 years.

What I love about living here is the historical interconnection of Japanese, Chinese, Hispanic and Italian families and the new unique diversity of my neighborhood I am retired senior who never lived in one place more than eight years before moving here in 2011.

My daughter and granddaughter live across the driveway in one of the homes owned by the original family.

I provide daycare for my three year old granddaughter and it's the reason I co-wrote the petition to provide access to a restroom at Heinlandville Park.

We usually can be found at the park weekly on Thursdays and Fridays where my granddaughter plays with her friends all that we met at the park and I get to connect with their parents grandparents and caregivers who knew that a park without a traditional playground and no restroom would be so popular and needed by us please read the submitted petition signed over the last two weeks by over 200 local residents families and workers schools visiting Japan town tourist shoppers and people eating their takeout at Hymanville Park.

So the petition was sent to Laura Miners and I hope that you will read that it describes what we're hoping for.

I realize that the um building won't be built for quite a while and um so we're um willing to have any other suggestions for us.

Right now we knock on the door to the leasing office for one of the buildings and sometimes they tell us it's not for the public but um they usually let us in if we beg.

I guess that's all I have to say you can read the petition I hope and I'm amazed at the many people how many people I was able to get to the thank you yeah so now we're yeah the two minutes are up.

So now we're thank you.

And so now I'm going to go on to Jordan M.

Jordan M.

Please speak.

Thank you.

My name is Jordan Moldow.

I'm a resident of the neighborhood.

Um I live on North Seventh Street across the street from the Six and Jackson apartments and the site of the future mixed-use Tyco Performance building.

And I support the development of the mixed-use building and I look forward to its completion.

I'm also thankful for the prior development of the Highlandville Park and all the residential units surrounding it.

I do have some comments on the permit application.

Primarily my comments are related to the bicycle parking.

I'm glad to see that 20 uh spaces worth of secure uh parking in a bike room are provided.

Uh however, it sounds like the uh plan is to only provide the bike room parking and nothing else.

Um, while the building is largely for residential use, there will be uses for visiting members of the public as well.

And so there should be some bike parking provided as short-term bike parking uh at street level uh with bike racks.

Um the municipal code says that for those kinds of uses, some of the bike parking should be short-term.

And I sent an email with the specifications.

So I believe there should be at least three short-term bike parking spaces provided as well.

And I hope that the plan will be changed to include those.

Uh please also make sure that the plan is in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, uh, which was updated last year.

Um I also really really hope for the success of all the ground level uses that are envisioned.

And I hope that the building will be designed to ensure its success as opposed to the retail uses in the other buildings, which were not built out and have been converted to residential.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand or press star nine now or contact support staff.

Support staff, have you received any requests to speak?

No, we have not.

Okay.

Then so first I'll go back to the applicant.

They have five minutes to respond.

Sure.

Um on the first comment regarding the public restroom.

Um, you know, this project does not include a component related to that.

The park development and the overall development uh did include access to a public restroom for specific events.

Um the city uh did not develop a restroom within the park, so that was not part of the overall park design or plan.

Uh they're very expensive to build and maintain, as you can imagine.

There is a bathroom that's integrated into our South Building that can be utilized for specific events, and there's a noticing process.

So I I understand the concern and uh I'm easily available if you'd like to discuss, and we could figure out some options for you guys.

Um, but I but I think that's kind of a component of the prior project and and not necessarily applicable to this development.

Um, and then related to the the bike parking.

Um, you know, I do know that there were some um short-term parking available uh spots at the park.

Um, and certainly there is uh space at the new development um kind of at that podium level uh to provide some area for that.

So I'm not overly concerned about finding uh a space for three for three bikes.

Um, but I did want to point out that the public park also has uh space available uh along sixth street.

So we do want to be able to accommodate people that that do bike in and visit the site or who are biking in to uh you know watch a performance or anything like that.

So um that's all for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing for the portion for the for this item and just have uh just a few questions first off for Laura for plant the planner of the change, the 44 C, the change to the condition of who just want to confirm the applicant has agreed to that change in condition, correct?

They are aware of it.

Yeah, they were the they were the ones that brought it up.

It was originally required to go to city council and now it is not required to go to city council.

Okay.

Thank you.

And just the questions about bathroom access.

Um it sounds like this has been a concern that has been raised and has been something of concern.

So the I just wanna because just want to understand.

So it sounds like there was no bat bathrooms built as part of the original park, you know.

So there's no so there's no access provided as part of this project for the Tyco building or the proposed residential use.

Is that correct?

That's what no public access for general public just for special events.

Is that correct?

Um so Eileen Hunter did contact me about three or two or three weeks ago regarding this issue.

Um, and I got her um her petition at 8 44 a.m.

this morning.

Um, it is signed by over a hundred residents.

Um, and it it just basically kind of goes through the reasons why um they need a public bathroom or publicly available bathroom at or near the park.

Um I previously talked to her about approaching parks, and parks was against the idea.

Um, so it it kind of would be up to the applicant to agree to open their the bathrooms at the community center and the gallery space to the public during uh their normal business hours.

Okay.

So just I guess a good other question for the applicant, just you know, because this issue is coming.

So would there be provisions that users of the park could potentially use the bathrooms at the community center when during open business hours, or is there concerns that, you know, having that bathroom?

We would have safety and and maintenance concerns for accessing to that.

And and I do want to reiterate as part of the park development, there there was a there is a restroom that was built into our South Building that is available for events, and that was um a key component of the parkland agreement and the construction of the park.

So I think we're we're better off working within the framework of what we what we already have existing.

Um, but Tyco San Jose Tyco operates uh in the evenings.

They have a kids program.

Um, so access control and and safety in that um building is is critical.

So we wouldn't agree to um you know having public access to to the building for that restroom, but we we do have uh uh uh an existing restroom that there is a process to get approvals for that to be utilized.

So I think that we should work within that framework and work with the parts department.

Okay, thank you.

And with that, so this is a good project.

I mean, it's definitely something that's been a long time coming, and we've seen this on the books for quite a while, and I know Tyco has been really wanting to have a home and to anchor themselves in Japan town.

So this is we're we're glad to see this moving forward forward.

So sorry, already an echo.

Okay.

So we're glad to see this moving forward.

Um in terms of the access to public restrooms, um, we don't have a nexus to require access to public restrooms for a private building that's being built.

Um, however, there looks like there's already an arrangement in place, and I'm hoping that the community can work with the developer in order to continue making sure that there's an ease of use to the public restroom that's already existing that would already be in place for the for the previous agreements with the parks department and prior approval.

Um I understand because it's you know, it's a concern in many cases, or you go and you do not have easy access.

So I'm hoping that that can be maintained and the access system can be, you know, can be made easier.

However, I do not see any nexus to require access to public restrooms as part of this particular permit.

In terms of bike parking, I'm glad that bike parking is being provided.

This is a very bikeable area.

Um the provision of biking and hope that the applicant can provide additional bike parking spaces as needed, but there's also bike parking in the park.

Um, I do anticipate this will be used because again, this is a very bikeable area in the city.

Um, with that, um, I am going to approve file number PD 20-004 and ER22-0112 with the change to the condition number 44C.

Flash here on the screen.

Okay.

Thank you, support staff.

Now I'm going to move on to item number 4B.

Um, so item number 4B is SP25-029 and ER25-243.

This is a special use permitting while we're data center used within an existing approximately 97,800 square feet research and development building on an approximately 4.86 gross acre site located at 300 Volgar Way.

The SQL is exempt pursuing to CQ guidelines section 15332 for info development projects.

The recommendation is consider the exemption in accordance with SQL and approve a special use permit.

So is there a staff presentation on this project?

Yes.

Thank you, hearing officer.

This is the Angela Wong, planning project manager for special use permit file number SP 25-029.

This special use permit is to allow a data center use within an existing research and development building on an approximately 4.86 gross acre site.

The project does not include any building exterior changes or site improvements.

The proposed improvements are limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks.

No mechanical equipment, emergency generators, grading excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscape or landscaping modifications are included.

The site is surrounded by research and development buildings to the east, south, and west, and the mobile home park to the southeast.

The site is designated CIC combined industrial commercial on the 2040 general general plan land use map.

The CIC land use designation supports commercial office or industrial developments.

The proposed data center is an industrial use and therefore is consistent with the CIC general plan and use designation.

The project complies with the zoning code, including bicycle parking requirements and will be required to implement a transportation demand management plan.

Staff has followed uh council public outreach policy to inform the public of the proposed project.

A development site has been posting alone's uh project street frontage since January 2026.

And the notice of this public hearing was mailed to the property owners and tenants meeting a 500 foot radius of the site.

An in-field exemption was prepared for the project.

At this time, I would turn the presentation over to the project's environmental planner to report the environmental review for the project.

Good morning, hearing officer.

I am Charlotte Ewan, the environmental project manager for this project.

So under the provisions of section 1532 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements.

The project site is less than five acres.

It's located within an urbanized area.

It's served by state utilities and public services and does not contain habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project is limited to interior tenant improvements, including the installation of data racks, and does not include exterior building modifications, site improvements, grading, excavation, demolition, tree removal, or landscaping changes.

Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise, air quality, or water quality.

In addition, the project would not result in transportation impacts as it is expected to have less than significant vehicle miles traveled impacts.

The project uh the projected traffic generated by the project would be minimal due to anticipated reduction in employees compared to the existing research and development use.

Therefore, the project qualifies for the class 32 involvement exemption and development exemption.

I would also like to read into record um that yesterday on July 7th.

Um, Adam Sprotwell Josephine Cardazo, on behalf of citizens of responsible industry, submitted a letter regarding this project.

And the letter raises the concerns, the concern that the sequel analysis does not take into account exterior equipment and electrical upgrades, including a transformer, electrical panel, emergency generator, and backup battery installations to operate the data center, and that such mechanical equipment would result in significant air quality and noise impacts.

So to clarify, the sequel analysis was conducted based on the project description provided by the applicant, which does not mention exterior equipment and electrical upgrades.

The city confirmed this with the applicant, and that it would not be proposed.

The mentioned equipment would not be proposed as part of the project for preparing the sequel analysis.

The letter also raises concerns regarding the site's value as a habitat for Western borrowing owls.

And while the project is located within the borrowing owl fee zone, it was confirmed with the habitat agency that since the project is a project site is a previously disturbed area that is entirely paved, and the project does not propose new development, only interior renovation.

There are no land cover impacts, and the project is not covered under the habitat plan and burrowing owl fees do not apply, and the site does not have value as a foraging habitat for burrowing owls.

So with that, with that, I want to say that the staff recommends the director of planning to consider the interval exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve the special use permit.

This concludes the staff's report.

Thank you.

So now I'm going to have the applicant present, please.

The applicant.

Yes.

Thank you.

So I'm Eric Shaneauer.

I represent Menlo Equities, the landlord on this property.

And the staff has done a great job summarizing the uh the reason for the um SUP application.

The important point to emphasize is that there is no proposed uh exterior construction in this project whatsoever.

This building is existing.

It was built in 2000.

It's been here for 26 years.

And so there is no construction that needed to be analyzed.

We're here because the city has an uh an inadequate definition of data center.

And because of that, it's hard for the city to distinguish and for building owners to distinguish between a true large-scale data center and data processing to support a primary use of research and development or manufacturing.

The planning department has all along determined that data processing and data storage equipment and facilities within an RD facility or within a manufacturing facility as an ancillary part of that operation, did not constitute a data center under the zoning code that necessitated a special use permit.

But unfortunately, the city's definition in their code for data center is lacks detail.

And so it was important to our tenant that no matter what facilities they install and the amount of power they ultimately use, that they wouldn't get stuck with someone claiming that a special use permit was required and we didn't have one.

So we're proactively pursuing a special use permit that allows data center as a matter of zoning conformance from a land use perspective.

However, there's no proposed change to the property.

But that's not proposed as part of this application.

Lastly, we'll just note that previous work on this property was conducted by a signatory union contractor.

So we're not sure what the issue is with the written commenter about this property.

So for those reasons, we hope that the staff will approve the special use permit so that the tenant and operator of the property that's already in there and operating, fully occupied, that they do not have to be concerned that someone at some random point would try to claim that their existing operations uh constitute a data center and require an SUP.

We will already have one in place.

I'm available for any questions and also available to respond to any comments from the public if there are any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So now I'm going to move on to the public hearing portion, public comment portion, excuse me, public comment portion of this item.

So any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand or press star nine or contact support staff.

So you have two minutes to speak.

Somebody has their hand raised.

Um, anybody else's wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand or press star nine now.

So I have Kunglaya.

Um please speak.

Good morning morning, honorable planning director.

My name is Khalila Fetterman on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Industry.

Citizens is a coalition of individuals and labor organizations whose members live and work in San Jose and Santa Clara County who may be affected by the public health and noise and air quality impacts of the project.

Citizens submitted comments to the city, which demonstrate that the special use permit proposed today is part of a larger project to construct a 20 megawatt data center approval of the project today without reviewing the whole of the project would be a separate piecemeal approval of the project's entitlements in violation of CEQA.

The city cannot rely on a class 32 exemption from CEQA because substantial evidence and citizens' comments and expert consultant reports demonstrate that the project results in significant air quality, greenhouse gas, public health and noise impacts, and significant impacts on borrowing owl habitat and consistency with mandatory general plan policies.

Citizens expert consultants calculated air pollution emissions from the project's necessary diesel backup generators and found that diesel particulate matter and toxic air contaminants would danger would endanger public health for nearby residents, including residents within 200 feet of the project site at Los Encinos Court.

The noise from the project's necessary chillers would be so loud for nearby residents that it would violate the county's noise ordinance.

The city cannot rely on an exemption where a project results in significant environmental impacts.

These impacts must be analyzed in an EIR as required by CEQA.

Citizens respectfully request that the city postpone this hearing and remand the project to staff to prepare an EIR, which discloses and mitigates the project's significant environmental and public health impacts and addresses the project's non-conformance with the general plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand or press star nine now.

Or contact support staff.

Support staff.

Have you been contacted by anybody to speak?

I see one person just raised their hand.

Same cook.

Sincook, please speak.

You have two minutes.

Oh righty.

I just had a question because I'm um I'm in nearby resident, right?

Um, so my mobile home park now has is instituting um individual water meters for all the um for all the homes.

I expect um I haven't seen water usage kind of addressed here, like electrical and water usage.

How do we ensure that the local low-income housing does not get negatively affected by you know costs being raised for them as a result of this?

That's kind of what I want to understand.

Because obviously our park is is expecting water costs to rise because where the park's been here for over 40 years and they've never installed water meters until now.

So that's my ask is how is that how is the uh council going to ensure that that the local residents don't bear the costs of the electrical and water usage?

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this item?

Please raise your hand or press star nine now.

Okay, support staff.

Has anybody contacted you?

Okay, not hearing permittive.

I'm gonna assume that there's no more public comments on this item.

So I'm now going to return to the applicant.

Applicant, you have five more minutes to speak.

So that'd be Eric.

Or is representative.

Thank you.

Um, hearing officer Eric Schaenauer, representing the landlord.

Um, to repeat what was already said by staff and it there is no new construction.

There are no backup generators.

There's no possibility of impact to any animal or person.

This building has been in place for 26 years.

This operation has been in place, is in place, and there are no changes proposed for the operation of this property.

Uh, this is simply an exercise to ensure that as the city's uh ambiguous definition of data center as it relates to requiring an SUP um uh evolves, that somehow that we are not captured by a net uh for our existing operation.

So it will not impact neighbors at the mobile home park.

It will not impact burrowing owls because there's nothing nothing new here.

The physical existence of the property remains as it is, and the operation of the property remains as at as it is, with the exception of um updated data equipment to support the research and development testing operations that are operating within this building already.

So, with that, uh not and not to mention um the previous work done on this property was signatory union contractor, so we're not sure why the union activists are submitting letters and challenging uh a property that has been a good participant in the labor force.

We're available for any further questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So now I'm gonna close the public comment period of this agenda item.

So I just had a few clarifying questions, you know.

So I just for matter of record, I did receive the letter that was submitted um yesterday from Adam's Broadwell Joseph or Cardoso regarding the city's class 32 info exemption that was prepared.

Um so I have reviewed that and reviewed the technical reports that were submitted with that.

Um a lot of the comments or most of the comments actually say in that letter are assuming essentially build out of equipment um to support a large-scale data center use and off-site improvements, for example, would be required if you're going to have, for example, PGE substation.

That is not proposed as part of this application.

I'm looking through the application materials and you know what I've seen on file.

There's no offset improvements proposed and no, you know, exterior equipment.

I just want to confirm with the planning project manager that that is the case, correct?

There's no offset improvements and no outside mechanical equipment proposed, correct?

As to that's correct.

Yes, okay.

So now I want to ask a follow-up question.

So assuming this is approved, and the applicant starts the work and realizes they need they want, I'm just gonna use the example.

Let's say they need some backup generators that they want to install because they realize what would be the permit process at that stage if they came in to now install backup generators or some sort of exterior equipment.

So if generators were proposed in the future, they would require separate city review and permits, and depending on the proposal, a permit adjustment or a permit a special use permit amendment may be required.

Staff will check zoning code section um chapter 20.85 regarding the backup generators and zoning code section 20.100.1500 to see if the changes qualify as a permit adjustment or not.

If it doesn't qualify for an adjustment, a special use permit amendment will be required.

And the special use permit amendment uh process is the same as the special use permit.

Require a public hearing before the planning director noticed, okay.

Yes, so there if there's other changes, for example, if they need to do modifications to the building that would say at stall, I'm just saying like if they need to install equipment like chilling towers, those that same process would occur, correct?

There would be.

Yeah, so staff will still check the zoning code section regarding um a list of the uh I mean the potential, sorry, so the change, so the permit adjustment per hour zoning code only applies when changes to the approvement permit, uh, but only for minor modification of architecture elements or landscape details.

So, for example, if changing uh if adding um mechanical equipment on the rooftop and increase the building height and create um, I mean a significant changes to a building exterior, then we'll the this this type of change will trigger a special use permit amendment to the project.

Okay, and at that point we review the noise, air quality, all that at that time in order to evaluate okay.

Yeah, okay, and so because I know there's one of the concerns raised is there is a mobile home park just to the south, and that is a sensitive receptor for air quality and noise.

So all those reviews would be analyzed if there was a change to the project.

Then it would include backup generators or other mechanical equipment.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

And I want to and uh the based on the presentation, there's no grading or ground disturbance proposed.

So that means that we're not gonna have a huge amount of construction equipment on site.

However, if this is installed, that would be included.

Of course, if there was new backup generators, there would be then requirements for grading permits, correct?

Like if they're gonna actually be doing ground disturbance to install, like for example, new foundations.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

And then at that point, we had also other kick-in other requirements, you know, standard requirements for construction, you know, so construction management plan, etc., that is not required at this stage, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

So, and I think the other question I have is regarding there is a claim made that this is in a burrowing owl habitat, um, and Charlotte responded to that.

So just as a background, the burrowing owl fee zone is a covered in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan.

That area applies mostly areas north of 237.

It does extend south.

However, as Charlotte has mentioned in her presentation, because this is already disturbed area, there is no habitat for burrowing owls or disturbed meaning it's already paved.

There's buildings, parking lot, landscape trees, burrowing owls.

The idea is that they need adequate area for nesting within ground boroughs.

There's no areas for burrowing owls to actually nestle into the ground at this location.

Plus, there is say that there's obstacles such as trees and higher areas, such as taller buildings that burrowing owls do not like to be near because there are nesting raptors that do like to perch on higher ground.

So burrowing owls tend to want to be in areas that are flat, surrounded by open flat areas far away from other vertical surfaces such as trees or buildings.

And because there's no actual areas for burrowing owls to burrow, since the site is already developed, this is not burrowing owl habitat.

So therefore the finding that this is sensitive habitat does not apply.

Again, as mentioned prior in the presentation, there is no ground disturbance proposed.

There's no development.

We have to go with what the applicant is proposing.

It is very common that you know when people are doing interior work, that oftentimes that is just a tenant improvement.

But because this is a change in use per the definition of our zoning code to data center, a special use permit is required.

But typically this would just be a tenant improvement.

I just want to confirm that is correct, right, Angela?

That if this was if there was no need for this definition of data center use, it would just be teted improvement, building permit, correct?

Yes, this is this is just a TI project.

Yeah, tenant improvement.

Yeah, okay.

So just yeah, just why I could because that's that's important.

That's the only reason why there's a discretionary um permit before us today is because of the use table in the zoning code that says you need a special use permit to change the use to a data center use.

So I acknowledge the applicants or concerns about our definition of data center.

I know we're looking into updating that in the future, but right now we have what we have, and therefore, in terms of the definition, this is a special use permit specifically for the change of use.

Otherwise, this would not even be a discretionary action.

Um, with that said, as a you know, the class 32 um exemption to CEQA is very, you know, is very exhaustive.

There's several findings that need to be made.

Um, I see that this meets those findings because there are no major proposed construction activities.

To have an air quality impact, you're going to need to have major construction activities or have generators, backup generators, cooling totters, other sets of mechanical equipment that have construction or operational noise.

Same thing with air quality.

Um, since none of those are proposed, um, it is not going to have an impact, and as is as I mentioned earlier, there is no biological resources impact.

So I see that a class 32 exemption is appropriate for the use as proposed.

If in the future there's the realization that we need to have additional generators or additional equipment, there will be a process where it could come back through a special use permit amendment process, if it is significant enough to require major changes.

At that point, there will be an analysis of the project's air quality, noise, other emissions to make sure there's no impact to sensitive receptors.

Even that said, it is very common that if we we do the analysis most of the time, projects in these types of this type of use is a scale of use in an industrial commercial area is appropriate.

And often they are able to have design features that ensure there's no impacts to sensitive receptors such as residents.

So I do not feel that there is any concern about the use of the Class 32 exemption.

There was a question about water.

So that's a Muni water district.

This will not affect water rates on this particular project, and we don't govern water rates.

However, if the planner can give contact information to Muni water, you know, they are in charge of setting water rates for the area.

This is their service area, but this will not affect water rates for this particular project.

But yes, I said this is that's the Muni water service area.

So we want to provide contact information with Muni water.

So that said, I am going to recommend that the we approve the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve the site development permit.

Member SP25 has 029.

Wait for it to bring up as approved.

Okay, thank you.

And with that, the next is adjournment.

So this adjourns that this director's hearing of July 8th, 2026 at 10 o'clock a.m.

Thank you.