Planning Director Hearing - July 29, 2026: Approvals for Four Development Projects
Planning Director Hearing – July 29, 2026
This Planning Director hearing, conducted via Zoom by Hearing Officer David Kean (delegated by Director Christopher Burton), considered four development applications. All items were approved after staff presentations, applicant testimony, and, where applicable, public comment. The meeting began at 9:00 AM and adjourned at 10:16 AM.
Consent Calendar
- No items were on the consent calendar.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 4C (160 East Virginia Street): One public speaker questioned the applicant's characterization of a "oddity" regarding the city's land use policy and asked when the Historic Landmarks Commission had reviewed the building. The speaker expressed concern about the historic review process.
- Item 4D (941-945 Bascom Avenue): Two speakers opposed the project.
- Arian Tia, owner of 220 Maywood Avenue, stated that the applicant's own consultant found construction vibration could reach 2.58 inches per second, nearly three times the city's residential threshold. He requested denial or continuation until enforceable protections (pre-construction survey, real-time monitoring, damage bond, no tie-backs without consent) are written into the permit.
- Dan Votto, a resident of Maywood Avenue and Lindair Avenue, cited inadequate parking, noting a previous nearby business closed due to parking shortages. He also raised concerns about vibration from construction and requested the developer activate ground-floor retail for community benefit.
Discussion Items
- Item 4A (1108 Pine Avenue): File H26-009 and ER26-035. A site development permit to construct a 519-square-foot detached garage, demolish an existing 370-square-foot garage, and add an attached porch to an existing duplex on a 0.13-acre lot. Staff (Jason Lee) reported the project meets all zoning and design standards. The applicant (Jeff Leang) explained the garage is structurally unsound and the porch will provide weather protection. No public speakers. The hearing officer approved the permit.
- Item 4B (6835 Trinidad Drive – Almaden Country Day School): File H26-006 and ER26-027. A site development permit to construct a 2,915-square-foot storage building and demolish 10 sheds (1,684 square feet total) on a 9.13-acre site. Staff noted a late comment from Valley Water regarding flood zones and wells; staff clarified improvements are in Zone X and added a reminder about well destruction. The applicant (Ron Sipparin) said the project replaces old storage. No public speakers. Approved.
- Item 4C (160 East Virginia Street): File SP25-023 and ER25-223. A special use permit to expand existing legal nonconforming office and medical office uses from the second floor to the first floor and mezzanine of the Hawaii Pineapple Company building (a candidate city landmark). Uses include a food pantry, gym, concession stand, daycare, and community space. One dock door will be replaced with a storefront door. Staff reported the project is consistent with the Martha Gardens specific plan and historic review by a qualified consultant and the Historic Preservation Officer. The applicant (Eric Schenauer, representing Gardner Health Services) stated the building has provided health services for 32 years. After public comment, the hearing officer clarified that because the building is a candidate landmark (not designated), the Historic Landmarks Commission review is not required. Approved.
- Item 4D (941-945 Bascom Avenue): File H22-039 and ER22-054. A site development permit for a four-story, 53,000-square-foot medical office and retail building with ground-floor and underground parking, demolishing five commercial structures (4,636 square feet) and removing two non-ordinance-sized trees on a 0.43-acre lot. Staff (Jason Lee and Charlotte Yun) described the project as consistent with the South Bascom Urban Village Plan, with stepbacks and five design exceptions. The CEQA analysis found no significant impacts with standard conditions. The applicant (Evan Sakoloski) noted the project includes 45 parking spaces and retail activation. After public comments, the hearing officer questioned staff about vibration, air quality, shoring, and parking requirements. Staff confirmed vibration monitoring, a disturbance coordinator, and that the maximally exposed individual for cancer risk is southeast of the site due to wind patterns. The hearing officer noted the urban village plan incorporates stepbacks for privacy and that the project qualifies for the infill exemption. Approved.
Key Outcomes
- Item 4A: Approved site development permit H26-009 and ER26-035, with CEQA exemption under Section 15303.
- Item 4B: Approved site development permit H26-006, with CEQA exemption under Section 15303(e).
- Item 4C: Approved special use permit SP25-023, with CEQA exemption under Section 15301(a).
- Item 4D: Approved site development permit H22-039, with CEQA exemption under Section 15332 (infill development). The hearing officer noted that standard conditions will address vibration, noise, air quality, and shoring. The applicant must also secure county permits for work on Maywood Avenue (county jurisdiction).
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. We are calling to order the planning director hearing of July 29th, 2026. My name is David Kean, and I'm in the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the director of planning, voting, and code enforcement, Christopher Burton. This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call. Members of 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. First, for participants who join electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the raise hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they'd like to speak or click star 9 on their phone. Remember to keep your raise hand feature on until planning support staff identifies it is your turn to speak. Second option is 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 in Zoom and the phone number you are calling to Zoom with and what item or items you'd like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies their invite to speak and they are unmuted. Planning support staff will identify you by name when it is your turn to speak. At that time, you will be unmuted and can provide comment for the allotted time. If you exceed your allotted time, you may be muted so we can move on to the next speaker. Please note the following. The hearing procedure and order of input will be as follows. I will identify each project as described 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'll 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 applicant representatives has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item vaporify 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. 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 an action on the item. If you challenge these language 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 zoning ordinance. 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, Environmental Clearance. 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 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. This meeting of the director hearing will now come to order. Okay, so the first item is the item of deferrals. So any item scheduled for this morning for its deferral to a future meeting is being requested. We move to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter of deferral. So at this point, I see no items on the agenda for deferral. However, does staff or anybody wish to move any of the items that are on the agenda for public hearing to deferral? If so, please raise your hand. Okay. Seeing no hands raised, and there's no items or deferrals. I'll then move on. The items of deferral matter of deferrals is now closed. I will now move on to the consent calendar. So the consent calendar, there are no items on the consent calendar on today's agenda. Therefore, I am going to move directly on to the public hearing portion of the agenda.
openpublica.com