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.

And this is first items item 4A.

So 4A is file number H2609 and ER26-035.

This is a site development permit to allow the construction of our approximately 519 square foot detached garage, exterior modifications to an existing duplex, including an attached porch and the demolition of an existing 370 square foot detached garage on approximately 0.13 gross acre site located on the southern corner of Lincoln Avenue and Pine Avenue at 1108 Pine Avenue Avenue.

Staff, do we have a staff report?

Good morning here hearing officer.

Yes, we do, but I will need to be able to share.

Support staff, can you extend screen sharing there?

Thank you.

All right.

Good morning, hearing officer.

My name is Jason Lee, project manager for this file, and all the rest of the files today.

So this project, as you said, proposes the demolition and reconstruction of a port.

Sorry.

Sorry, the demolition and reconstruction of a garage and exterior modifications, including attached porch to an existing duplex.

Please note that there is an ADU proposed above the new garage.

However, this is not considered part of this permit and must be considered ministerial pursuant to relevant state laws separately from this permit.

So the ADU is not a part of the scope of work of this permit.

The site has a general plan designation of residential neighborhood.

The project does not change the use or density of the site, and accessory structures are allowed in this designation.

The project is in the R2 two-family residence district.

The modifications of the duplex meet the height and setback requirements for main structures, and the garage meets the height and setback requirements for accessory buildings.

The project also meets requirements for rear yard coverage, separation between accessory buildings and main structures, transportation demand management requirements, and relevant citywide design standards.

Staff followed city council policy 6-30 for public outreach.

An on-site sign was posted on the project site frontages or frontage, and this hearing was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.

Therefore, staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the site development permit.

Thank you.

And the applicant is Jeff Leang.

Okay.

So Jeff, as the applicant, you'd have five minutes to speak.

There we go.

You are unmuted.

Let me just put up the timer here.

Yeah.

Hello, can you hear me okay?

Yeah, I can hear you.

Okay, great.

Uh, thank you.

Uh, my name is Jeff Lang, and uh uh is a great opportunity to present the projects on behalf of the property owner, Mr.

Jong.

And Mito Jam purchased this property uh about a year ago, and he realized that the current uh existing parking garage is too small that he cannot put in uh his car into it.

And uh Software Engine and I do a um project survey and notice that this current existing parking garage doesn't have the proper foundation and is not structurally sound.

So we propose the property owner to we build this um whole garage and uh to meet the code and be able to park his two car.

Um for the exterior garage, we keep the stucco and to match the existing duplex unit and the paint on the uh the colour for the exterior will match also the duplex or similar.

And also you may see a uh flood vents on the exterior too because it's on the flat zone.

And on the other side, the um current um owner that the property owner is living in the adjacent uh unit 1100 eight pine avenue.

And currently there's no um uh weather protection on the front exterior uh door and also um no protection on where they devote that they received the package delivery.

So we are proposing a new Porsche in front, um, is eight foot high, and the uh Porsche WOOF is also a credit tile matching the existing architecture style.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So now do we have any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?

If so, please raise your hand or press start it and zoom or contact support staff.

Okay, so far I don't see any hands raised.

Uh support staff.

Have you been contacted by anybody who wishes to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um does not look like we have any public speakers on this item.

Um, the applicant has five more minutes to speak if they wish, otherwise, they can see their time.

Do you want do you have anything more to add?

Um, I'm okay with that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, with that, I will close the public hearing.

So I have reviewed the comments, the public comments that received on this project prior to the hearing in writing and correspondence with the planner Jason Lee.

I reviewed the permit and the plans.

Um, this permit that meets the criteria.

Um, and I am going to be approving site development permit H26 at 006 and ER26 at 027.

And consider the project exempt pursuant to SQL Guidelines Section 15303.

So support staff, if you could show that on the screen.

One second, please.

Okay.

One person has raised their hand.

However, they Brett, I see.

Did you want to speak on this item?

Um, the public hearing has the public hearing portion of item.

This item is closed.

Um that no one raised their hands during the opportunity for public hearing.

So therefore, you know, the public hearing, excuse the public comment period for this item is closed, and this permit has been approved.

However, you have an opportunity to comment if you have commenting on other permits, we'll be getting to those shortly.

Um the next item.

Item 4B.

That's excuse.

I think I said, yeah, yes.

Item 4B, it's H26 at 006 and ER26 at 027.

So this is a site development permit to allow the construction of an approximately 2915 square foot storage building and demolition of 10 existing sheds, totaling 1,684 square feet on approximately 9.13 gross acre site located at the northeast corner of Trinidad Drive and AKOA at 6835 Trinidad Drive.

This is the Alban and Country Day School.

Um SQL is exempt pursuant to SQL guidelines section 15303 for new construction of small structures.

The staff recommendation is consider the exemption requorum to sequel and approve a site development permit.

Staff, do we have a staff report?

Yeah, all right.

Um good morning again.

Um so Jason Lee again, project manager for H26006.

Um the project site for this proposal is the Albertan Country Day School Campus.

Um, and the specific project site is between the modular buildings and the interior Almaden Little League baseball field towards the Winterset Drive side of the or winter side way, sorry, side of the campus.

It's this area right here.

Uh the project proposes the demolition of sheds and other containers currently in that location for a replacement storage building.

This project was evaluated with respect to the general plan, the municipal code, the citywide design guide uh guidelines, city council policies and CEQA.

The site has a general plan designation of public quasi public.

The project can creates additional storage space at a private school, which is consistent with the designation.

The project is in the PQP zoning district as well.

And the proposal meets height and setback requirements, transportation demand management requirements, lighting requirements, and relevant citywide design standards.

The project is exempt pursuant to 15303E of the SQL guidelines, which exempts accessory structures such as storage buildings.

Sorry.

Staff followed City Council Policy 6 30 for public outreach and on site sign was posted on the project site frontages, and this hearing was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.

Staff did receive very late comment from Valley Water last night regarding a flood zone and well destruction.

Valley Water was concerned about the project being in the AE flood zone.

But all improvements in this plan are in the X flood zone.

If found that improvements will encroach on the AE flood zone in the future, additional public works review is required pursuant to condition 23E of the permit.

And this is the draft permit that was posted.

Staff does not propose adding a condition, but would like to remind the applicant that if a well is found during development of this project, they must count contact Valley Water's well ordinance program, and all wells that are encountered must either be properly destroyed or protected from damage.

With that, staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the site development permit as posted with no additional conditions.

Thank you.

And the applicant is Ron Sipparin.

I don't know if Marty Hawkhawk.

Sorry.

Hawkroth is on here, but if so, he might want to speak as well.

Thanks.

Okay.

So the applicant's representative, please raise your hand.

You have five minutes to speak.

Or potentially Bill Gold.

Or Ron.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you, Ron.

So you have five minutes to speak on behalf of the applicant.

I really don't have much to add other than you know, this is a replacement of some old topshed buildings and some old containers and modernizing the area and improving the area and allowing us to have additional storage.

Other than that, I have no other comments.

I think the site development permit speaks to all the details and uh what Jason just said, explain the project pretty uh thoroughly.

So I see the rest of my time.

Thank you.

So is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?

Um, if so, please raise your hand now and zoom or press star nine or call on to support staff.

Okay, support staff.

Have you received any any uh input or any request to speak on this item?

I have not received anything.

Um at this time.

Thank you.

So I do not see any hands raised or no one has reached out to support staff to speak on this item.

Um with that, I am going to close the public comment period and go back to the applicant.

If the applicant wants to make any more statements, they have five more minutes to do so.

Ron.

Um nothing more to add other than you know, um we're interested in what what Valley Water has said, and we will comply with um what they're asking.

I'll see the rest of my time.

Okay, thank you.

So that I'm going to close the public comment period.

So reviewing this permit, reviewing the new communication from Valley Water and communication with the project planner during the project review.

Um, I do not see any major issues with this project.

This seems to be generally a cleanup of an existing site, existing school site.

So with that, I am going to consider the exemption in accordance with SQL and approve site development permit H2606.

So support staff if you can please put that up.

Thank you.

So item 4B is approved.

I'm now going to move on to item number 4C.

So item number 4C is file SP26, excuse me, SP25-023 and ER25-223.

This is a special use permit to allow the expansion of an existing legal nonconforming office use, including medical office uses, currently on the second floor of an existing building, the Hawaii Pineapple Company building, a candidate city landmark, to a first floor and mezzanine by establishing additional office storage and training space, as well as uses and similar to the existing office and medical office space, including a food pantry, gym, concession stand, daycare, and additional community space, and adding additional doors in the facade of the building under approximately 0.83 Gross Acre site located at the southern quarter of East Virginia Street and South 5th Street at 160 East Virginia Street.

The project is exempt pursuant to SQL guidance section 15301 for existing facilities.

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

Staff, do we have a staff report on this, please?

All right, let's do this again.

Good morning here, Officer Jason Lee again, uh project manager for SP 25023 as well.

Um as you said, this project proposes the expansion of legal non-conforming office and medical office uses currently on the second floor of an existing building to the first floor and the mezzanine.

Um the office and medical office uses are not permitted in the LI Light Industrial Zoning District, but the city found such uses to be legal nonconforming in 2001, and again in 2024, an expansion of such legal nonconforming uses is permitted with a special use permit.

This permit would allow the office and medical office use and uses ancillary to such uses, including a gym concession stand and daycare for staff and clients and a food pantry and community space for health-related gardener programs to be established on the first floor and the mezzanine.

The project was evaluated with respect to the general plan, the Martha Garden specific plan, the municipal code, city council policies, and CEQ.

As I mentioned, the site has a general plan designation of light industrial where offices are discouraged but not outright prohibited.

In addition, the project complies with general plan major strategy number 11 regarding design for a healthful community and various general plan policies regarding health care for city residents and historic preservation.

The project also complies with the Martha Gardens specific plan goals and policies regarding retention of historic buildings, flexible permit processes, and limiting on street truck activities.

The project is in the LI Light Industrial Zoning District and the use is legal non-conforming.

There are no changes to height and setbacks, lighting and landscaping.

Um and the conversion of space is exempt from providing a transportation demand management plan due to the amount of space converted.

Project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301A of the CEQA guidelines, which exempts minor interior or exterior alterations, including interior partitions.

Additionally, there is a change in the facade of the building, a candidate city landmark, as the project replaces a dock door with a new storefront door.

Architectural resources group evaluated this change and found that the proposed alterations comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and would not impact the historic integrity of the building.

Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30 for public outreach.

An on-site sign was posted on the project site frontages, and this hearing was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.

Therefore, uh staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the special use permit.

Thank you.

And the um the applicant's representative is Eric Schenauer.

Okay, thank you, Jason.

So the applicant has five minutes to speak.

Eric, please raise your hand if you wish to speak on a site.

Okay.

Eric, you have five minutes.

Uh good morning, hearing officer Keon.

Uh my name is Eric Shaneauer.

I represent Gardner Health Services on this application.

Gardner Health has used this building to provide health services and wellness services to primarily low-income people in our community for 32 years since 1994.

So this is not a new project.

Due to the oddities of city land use policy, we've had to go through this process to allow, continue to allow the operations on the first floor of this building.

So we're providing critical health services to the community, because the activity is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and because we are preserving a candidate landmark historic building and keeping it in productive use.

And we thank uh city staff for all their efforts to review the project and bring this forward to hearing.

I'm available for any questions if the public has any.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there any member of the public?

Now I'm going to move on to public comment.

Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?

If so, please press star nine or raise your head and zoom or contact support staff at this time.

I don't see any hands raised at this point.

Support staff, I do actually I do.

Yes, this is a little bit, please.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

I was just looking for the lower and higher hand portion.

Um it's not an oddity.

Uh you you mentioned the word oddity.

Um the historic uh preservation and commission has not been able to meet, and they've canceled all meetings in the last gosh, half year.

So when you say you had an historic um uh conference or commission meet on this particular building, when and where um I'm just curious because I do happen to listen to the historic uh commission meetings when they have them, and they've been really interesting, but they've had a lot of controversy with the city.

And I just wondered what the word oddity meant, if it referred to the historic portion of it and when and where you met to discuss the historic aspect of that particular building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Please raise your hand at this time or press start item.

Okay, I don't see anyone.

Um support staff.

Have you been contacted just by anybody to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay.

With that, I'm gonna close the public comment portion.

So now I'm gonna return to the applicant.

The applicant has five more minutes to speak before we go on to staff.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Yeah.

So first of all, uh, there is no significant change to this building, so there's no need for historic landmarks commission review as staff has indicated.

There's one roll-up loading dock door that's being transitioned to a traditional storefront door.

An expert historic consultant has evaluated that minor door change and deemed the revised door to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards.

So it would be a waste of everybody's time to go to the Historic Landmarks Commission on the change of a door, uh, nor is it required by city policy.

Um secondly, the tr the my comment about oddity is simply the fact that that for decades the city would preserve light industrial property designations in the middle of what it wants to be a an urban residential neighborhood.

This property should have been transitioned to something other than light industrial decades ago, uh, but the city has failed to do so.

And because of that, it creates these land use uh inconsistencies and problems keeping buildings occupied uh with uses that are compatible compatible with the surrounding urban residential neighborhood.

So with that, we hope the director will approve the permit so we can continue providing health care to families in San Jose.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric.

Um that and closing the applicant comment.

Um so now just a very quick question to the planner, Jason Lee about historic review.

So this is a candidate city landmark, correct?

So it's not actually listed on the historic resources inventory as a city landmark or state or federal member, correct?

That is correct.

It is a candidate city landmark in a candidate district.

Um both uh federal, we'll start national register and city landmark district, but for all categories, it is candidate.

And um staff does generally have the option to take these to historic the HLC if needed.

Um, but again, we did the scope of the change is very small, as mentioned twice now.

It's a dock door going to a store front door.

Um we received uh evaluation from a qualified historic consultant, basically saying that this does not impact the integrity of the building.

So just wanted us to ask so the historic preservation officer also reviewed this historic report.

That's correct.

Yes, the CEQA team and the historic preservation officer reviewed uh the part and agree with its conclusions.

Otherwise, um we wouldn't have uh we wouldn't be recommending a f uh 15301A exemption.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and just so just with that, thank you for the question.

So with that, so looking at this project, the the change, the modification is very minor.

Um, I do want to mention so the historic landmarks commission um would be applicable if the project was actually designated as a city, excuse it, the project building was actually designated as city landmark, and there are substantial changes to that building if it was actually listed as a city landmark, then it would have to go to historic landmarks commission.

However, because it's a candidate city landmark, it has not been designated yet.

Um therefore we do our review, and this is actually part of the environmental review under the California Bional Quality Act CEQA to review if the changes are significant enough.

Um, that was done.

We had a historic consultant prepare uh technical report to review for consistency of the changes with the Secretary of Interior Standards and our in-house historic expert, um, the historic preservation officer Dana Peak reviewed that and determined that this change was minor enough that it did not need historical matters commissioned review or additional changes.

Um with that, um this project is essentially continuing a use that has existed on the site for several decades.

It is a legal nonconforming use, but as the planner said, Um, this has been already in place since 2001.

And if you meet the criteria, you are allowed to expand a legal nonconforming use.

Um, and this project meets that criteria.

Therefore, um, as the hearing officer, I am going to consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approve special use permit SP25-023.

So support staff, if you can please put that up.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now I'm going to move on to item 4D.

So 4D is file number H22-039 and ER2254.

This is a site development permit to allow the construction of a four-story approximately 53,000,415 square foot medical office and retail building for the demolition of five existing commercial structures totally in approximately 4,636 square feet and the removal of two non-ordnance sized trees on approximately 0.43 gross acre site located at a southwest corner at the intersection of South Baskom Avenue and Baywood Avenue at 941-945 Baskin Avenue.

The sequel is exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 for info development projects.

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

Staff, do we have a staff report.

All right, yes, we do.

Uh good morning again.

Uh my name is Jason Lee, project manager for H22039.

Uh the project site for this proposal is two parcels at the southwest corner of Bascombe Avenue and Maywood Avenue.

Uh the project proposes the demolition of all existing on-site buildings and the removal of two non-ordinance sized trees to construct a new four-story medical office and retail building with ground floor and underground parking.

The project was evaluated with respect to the general plan, the South Bascom Urban Village Plan, the Municipal Code, the Citywide Design Standards, uh, City Council Policies and CEQ.

The site has a general plan designation of neighborhood community commercial and is in the CP commercial pedestrian zoning district.

It is also within the mixed-use character area within the South Bascom Urban Village Plan, which allows 100% commercial uses and does not require mixed use projects.

Oops.

Staff has found that the project is consistent with the general plan and its policies, including the maximum allowed floor area ratio, focused growth within urban villages, and the development of commercial uses.

The project is also consistent with the urban village plan and its policies, including building height, ground floor commercial uses and design, parking location, and upper story stepbacks to accommodate a daylight plane adjacent to single family homes.

The project complies with the allowed uses, height, setbacks, bicycle and two-wheeled motorized vehicle parking, lighting and screening requirements of the zoning code, and is exempt from providing a transportation demand management plan due to the floor area proposed.

The project has been granted five exceptions to the citywide design standards, with four regarding driveways, specifically a maximum of one driveway on Maywood, driveways being less than 25% of street frontage, separation of driveways, and flare out openings at garage entrances.

The fifth request is related to a transparent facade at building corners.

In general, the driveway related exceptions are needed in order to provide below grade parking, which requires dual driveways on Maywood Avenue in order to meet required ramp grade and in order to meet the ramp grade and length requirements.

The building corner exception is required in order to allow required stairs, which must be at the front of the building due to the required building stepback.

For CEQA, I will turn it over to the environmental planner, Charlotte Yun.

Good morning, hearing officer.

I'm Charlotte Ewan, the environmental project manager.

So this is a 0.43 gross acre site that's located within an urban area in San Jose, and it's surrounded by urban uses, including residential and commercial uses.

So the site does not have any value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

And analyses conducted for the project concludes that the project would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality with the implementation of conditions stated in the permit.

Based on this analysis, the project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment.

The project will be required to adhere to standard building and green permit conditions, as well as environmental standard permit conditions related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, water quality and noise vibration.

The operation of the project would be for a medical office and retail space and would not be a generating source of excessive operational noise or odor.

Therefore, the project would not contribute any significant adverse effects to the surrounding environment.

In response to a comment letter received on July 28th from a property owner residing in a home adjacent to the property project site.

The site environmental concerns regarding vibration, noise qual noise, air quality, and unusual circumstances.

I just like to clarify the following.

So firstly, a noise and vibration report was prepared for this project by a technical expert.

The vibration findings identified in the report are not unusual for an urban and fill environment, and any vibrational impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of standard condition of approval identified in the CEQA document.

Regarding concerns about noise, uh construction noise impacts were evaluated based on the construction schedule provided by the project applicant, which stated 12 months.

So that was what was evaluated.

And for operational noise, specifically rooftop mechanical noise, uh, that was the state concern.

The noise report states that hourly average noise levels and day-night average noise levels would not exceed 55 DBA at the nearest surrounding residences.

Additionally, uh the city's municipal code threshold of 60 DBA at office and commercial uses would not be exceeded during monthly tests.

And for all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to a potential emergency generator noise would not be measurable or detectable.

Secondly, regarding the issue of air quality and air quality technical expert prepared a report for the project.

The project maximally exposed individual, MEI is identified by the technical report as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project's construction and operation.

The MEI might not be the nearest receptor because of prevailing winds and subsequent dispersion modeling.

In this project's case, the cancer risk MEI is not the adjacent or nearest receptor, but a multifamily residence southeast of the site.

And the cancer risk at the cancer risk MEI does not exceed the bad threshold or the air district's threshold.

Therefore, um all nearby residents are also below threshold.

Lastly, to clarify, um, the unusual circumstances exception does not preclude the exemption.

The project, the proposed project is a typical uh project of an urban infill project within the city.

The project site is not biologically sensitive, and the project proposed project is within the footprint of the project site only.

So under the provisions of section 1552 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Um, see staff find the project to be exempt from the environmental review requirements of Title 21 of the San Jose Municipal Code.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Charlotte.

Thank you, Charlotte.

So to sum up here, um, staff followed City Council Policy 6 30 for public outreach.

Um, an on-site sign was posted on the project site frontages for several years now, and this hearing was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.

Um, therefore, staff recommends that the director consider the accept exemption for this project and approve the site development permit.

Thank you.

Um, the applicant's representative is Evans Sokloski, and the applicant is Nick Ferrakesh.

Okay.

Thank you, Jason.

So the applicant can raise their hand, the applicant's representative to raise your hand, and then yeah, five minutes to speak.

Okay, Evan, you have five minutes.

Good morning, uh hearing officer.

My name is Evan Sakoloski with ArcTech.

We are the architect of the project and are excited to be here in front of you this morning.

Um, we've been working uh very diligently with Jason and staff to get to this point and are excited to continue to move this project forward.

Uh we worked very closely in in responding to the design guidelines.

In one of them in particular that we made sure was incorporated was the setbacks uh adjacent to our neighbors, uh, as you could see in the rendering that Jason shared.

Uh the building steps back significantly, maintaining that daylight plane, um, which is both the design feature as well as uh respecting the needs and the zoning requirements on the site.

Uh I know one of the reference giving like three hours.

Um, one of the items that uh was mentioned as far as the exemptions had to do with the uh the two driveways on Maywood.

Uh as one of the challenges on this site is uh some of the guidelines requiring us not to have any access points on uh Bascom Avenue.

So we were worked very hard on developing the ability to provide as much parking as as we could on the site, both for staff and for visitors, which is why the evolution of the two driveways uh developed on the site.

Um the the site includes uh retail on the ground floor with the medical office above.

Uh so we're really excited based on the location of this building to have an opportunity to develop this and become a very nice infill project um for the city of San Jose.

Okay, thank you.

So now I'm gonna the public wishes speak on this item.

So I have one person that has raised their hand.

Um please um speak.

You have two minutes, and then we have another speaker afterwards.

Yeah.

Uh good morning.

My name is Arian Tia.

I own 220 Maywood Avenue immediately based off this project site.

I strongly object to approving S22039 as currently adopted.

The applicant's own consultant the Lingwood and Rodkin studying this file says construction could have my residential building.

But vibration of 2.58 inches per second nearly three times the CD point to residential threshold.

That is not my number.

It is theirs.

My home was built in 1946, and it's only a few feet from the evacuation line.

My family will live with this risk.

If a project exceeds the CD noise or air quality limits by three time, no one would call that a detailed fix later.

Vibration should be no different.

And nearly every protection for that showing monitoring tie bags phase two testing seeding is deferred to after this hearing and after the pre window, and after the project is already approved.

Those are the code protection for the newest residential building.

I respectfully ask you to not approve this today, deny the permit as after or continue the hearing and keep the record open until enforceable protection for 220 may would uh written into the permit.

A pre-conception survey of my home real time monitoring with automatic stopwork, a damage bond and repair obligation and no tie back into my property without my retent consent.

Not after.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next person has their hand raised is Dan Vado.

Please speak.

Dan, you have two minutes.

Hi, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

My name's Dan Votto.

I uh own a home uh on Maywood Avenue, 2292 Maywood.

I also live on Lindair, which is a block up the street from the proposed construction.

I'm requesting that this be denied for several reasons.

Primarily is going to be the what I'm going to assume is going to be a lack of parking on site for the staff and for the clients who are going to be visiting.

There was a there is there was a business directly across the street from this one.

Um that sorry, uh they're directly across the street from this one, which was a cafe that was forced to close because they had inadequate parking for their very successful cafe.

So I can't imagine that a four-story medical building is going to have any less parking requirement than this cafe did.

The uh second thing I want to talk about is the disruption that occurred to my house.

Uh directly across or directly behind my house, there is an assisted living facility that's seven stories that took two years to build.

The vibration was excessive, and the accountability on the part of the builder uh was absolutely zero.

Since the building has been built, the uh they've been kind of bad neighbors.

And even though they have ground floor retail, they have been empty for two years.

So if this building does go forward, I would like to see some effort on the part of the owner and the developer to activate those ground level uh retail spaces with something that could benefit the surrounding community and make up for the disruption that they're gonna most obviously cause.

Uh, I'm gonna stop right here because I have will not be able to finish in 10 seconds.

So thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

So if there's anybody else who wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand now or press star nine or contact support staff.

Okay.

I don't see any more hands raised.

Support staff, have you been contacted by anybody who wishes to speak on this item?

No, we have not.

Okay.

That I do not see any more hands raised or anybody wishing to speak on public comment.

So I'm going to close the pop up comment and return to the applicant.

So app the applicant, you now have five more minutes to respond.

Sorry about that.

Uh, thank you for the time.

We do appreciate the comments of uh our neighbors and fully understand uh the need to be a good neighbor in this process.

Uh per uh Charlotte's report.

Many of these vibration and other studies have been uh done by a uh CQA expert that we hired, but we do fully uh respect to the concerns that our neighbors have.

And once we get to a construction stage and start looking at that, we would be respectful to the needs of our neighbors in order to maintain a quality construction time and minimize anything that affects our neighbor, especially directly uh to the south.

Um regarding the uh the the retail and spaces, our goal is to make this a very successful project.

So uh it is intended to reach out and find appropriate uh tenants to occupy the space.

Uh, we believe through both the uh the space we have as well as the medical office use, it will become an attractive space uh for tenants for retail and give us the variety we need uh for that to uh maintain occupancy throughout.

Uh, we appreciate the time and again look forward to uh moving forward with this project.

Thank you.

So that will close the applicant comment period.

Yeah.

Ariant, um, I see your hand is raised, but the public comment period is closed, and you've already spoken for two minutes.

Um, so yeah, but so we're gonna move on to deliberation.

So staff, uh just have a few questions.

Um, obviously there were you know several concerns raised.

This is uh you know, quite an intense development project that is proposed in the neighborhood.

I think first off the big concern, which is about concern is vibration, construction vibration.

This is a you know has an underground parking garage that is park parking level that will be built immediately next to existing buildings.

Um can you just walk through the conditions, the standard permit conditions that address construction vibration and how that reduced how that makes sure that there is no impact that exceeds the city thresholds, please.

Yes, of course.

This is Charlotte Ewan, again, environmental project manager.

So the conditions, um, which are typical of an infill development in San Jose and would be implemented before grading permits are issued, would include a construction vibration monitoring plan, um, which would document um all the construction equipment that are known to produce high vibration levels.

Um it would include a requirement to place operating equipment on the construction site at least 20 feet from the project site boundaries, um, shared, especially with the buildings to the west.

Um smaller equipment would uh be recommended and required or even required to reminimize vibration levels to below 0.2 inch uh in SAC PPB.

Um there'd be a requirement to avoid using vibratory rollers and clamp shovel drops within 30 feet of the adjacent conventional buildings.

Um there'd be select demolition methods to not involve um not involving impact tools and avoid dropping heavy equipment and use of alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder instead of dropping heavy objects within 30 feet of the adjacent conventional buildings.

And we would also designate a disturbance coordinator responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration.

Okay, thank you.

And so the construction, so there is a vibration monitoring plan and that monitoring plan, would that include monitoring cracks on off-site buildings?

The monitoring plan does not specifically um identify that, but um with the disturbance coordinator, um, they would be responsible for registering investigating claims of excessive vibration, which may include that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So just something else that came up in it again that you touched on this, Charlotte, uh, regarding the air quality report.

So there was a very thorough um air quality analysis done, and that there were was identified, we said the most exposed individual, the MEI.

Can you just clarify or further state for the record?

Um, so the NEI, there's there were two MEIs that were identified.

There was for fugitive, excuse me, for particular matter and for cancer risk.

Can you just briefly explain the difference and why that is considered to be the most exposed individual individual compared to other residents of the area?

Of course.

So just to reiterate, the MEI is the maximally exposed individual identified in the air quality report.

Um the MEI can be the nearest receptor, or it could also be a receptor that's farther away because of you know prevailing winds or the subsequent uh dispersion modeling.

Um in this case, project's case, the cancer risk MEI and the uh fugitive dust MEI are different.

So uh the cancer risk MEI is for is located um at a multifamily residence southeast of the site, and the um other MEI is located adjacent to the uh project site.

And so um in both cases, they would be the umacted, most maximally exposed individual, but in both cases they are below the bad threshold.

So all other nearby residents um would also be below the bad threshold.

Yeah, it's the air district, the Bay Area.

Sorry, yes, the Bay Area District.

Yeah, okay.

And it just so then so that other residents or daycares or other uses in the area, because the maximum exposed individual is identified in the report, those are less than the exposure is less than what that maximally exposed individuality is, correct?

That's correct.

Yes, okay.

And so then everyone who is also in the neighborhood, their threshold would be below what that maximally exposed individual is.

So therefore they would still be under the Bay Area Air District thresholds, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Just wanted to declare that because it is confusing because I know that you know, when you see you know a maximum exposed individual that's far away from the closest residence, but that's it's not always the case um as we've seen, and this is based off on an air quality report that was done by reputable um reputable for, but I just wanted to clarify.

Um I did have this actually more of a question for the applicant on the construction timeline.

Um go ahead.

Yeah, so I just had a question about the construction timeline.

So the analysis of the reports say that this the air quality analysis and the noise analysis, everything is based on the assumption that construction, substantial noise generating activities would be less than 12 months.

Is that something that you see that can be accomplished?

Uh we we do, but at the same time, if if it extends if it extended, obviously there would be any further studies that need to be done before we uh initiate any construction.

Okay, because I because looking at the project, it is uh I would say it's a larger project than not it's not a huge.

This is pretty much an that's very typical for type of info development we see, but it is a bit of a larger project that I've seen in the past sometimes takes more than a year of substantial doise generating activity.

Umstantial doise generating a excuse the activity in the general plan, essentially demolition, grading, um the you know, shoring, the framing that basically the very intense construction phase, we don't consider a substantial noise generating activity to be the framing and once the framing's done and you're doing inside work, that is not considered substantial noise generated activity typically under the general plan noise.

But all those you know, do you know in your professional you know, based upon what actually based upon the information submitted and your professional opinion, do you think you can do demolition grading and framing up to the point where you could only do interior work in less than 12 months?

We believe that is feasible.

You believe it's feasible, okay.

And question another thing that came up in the letter that wasn't addressed was the concern about shoring.

Um so this project will have underground parking that goes up to the property lines, and the public works memo does mention shoring, and there is a requirement that there be potentially approval from neighboring properties.

Um if there can be no approval from neighboring properties, is it feasible to build this without shoring that goes into neighboring properties?

Um if if obviously our goal would be to get some uh level of agreement and work closely with our neighbors to uh successfully uh get this shoring agreed to.

If there are other ways, there are there are a variety of shoring options.

Um obviously the the more standard options include needing some agreements for from our neighbors, we would hope to secure those.

But if if that is an impasse, we would have to uh look for other options.

Okay, thank you.

Um question came up in the public comment letter about privacy.

Um so the well, first off, you know, just you know, reviewing the staff report, the staff report, the permit and the comment letters received.

I'm just want to clarify.

So this project conforms to the Bascom Urban Village Plan, correct?

That is correct, including for step box, yes.

Okay.

And is there anything in the Bascom Urban Village Plan regarding privacy building for privacy?

The privacy impacts are supposed to be mitigated through the use of step backs.

Okay.

So in short, I I think, you know, by meeting the stepbacks, they therefore meet implicitly because I don't think it's explicit the idea of providing privacy for residential neighbors.

Um the stepbacks, right, are are they apply differently for residential?

I think that's that's part of it.

And then you know, in addition to the stepbacks, there are providing, you know a setback through the parking garage entrance, uh the the below grade entrance, and also they're providing plantings along the rear as well.

They are providing plantings, correct.

Okay.

And the plantings are those are trees or some sort of fast growing vegetation.

Uh there are trees at the rear um uh adjacent towards towards the rear of the lot, um, because obviously you can't plant trees on ash vault.

So um but towards towards the rear where there's you're able to put like a deck there, there's there are trees on that side.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

So there are some, there's going to be some sort of screening despite the with because there's there's going to be some outdoor space, though it's going to be stepped back.

There is going to be some outdoor space.

There will still be some screening between the residential properties and this.

Yeah, there will be some and and they're also proposing trees on the decks as well, though I don't know how much you know that it's not, but yeah, the the main screen is screening step stepback, step back um, you know, from the from the property line.

Next so there's something that was raised that wasn't addressed, it was raised in the comment letter but wasn't addressed initially was so the Maywood is a county street, correct?

That is county's jurisdiction.

That is correct, yes.

Almost all the way up to the intersection.

Okay.

So the applicant proceeding would have to obtain encroachment permits for the county in addition to the city, correct?

Um not just encroachment permits.

I think there are the driveway permits, I mean the driveways would go on to the county portion of the right-of-way.

So they would need to get that from the county, and then pretty much anything else, uh pretty much anything that they're proposing on county land.

Um site utilization, etc.

etc.

etc.

All of that would require county permits to encroach on county land.

Um anything the city would only be able to approve things within the city boundary, which for the purposes of construction here would basically be the Bascom frontage, because there's no real feasible way with how far the Maywood uh right of way runs uh as county jurisdiction for us to approve pretty much anything on the Maywood side.

Okay.

So those have to go through two approval processes of the county and department of transportation.

Um assuming they want to work on well, yes, they they they have to deal with both jurisdictions at some point, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Just and it's good also for the applicant to know that going forward so that they know that you know there's you can also have to apply through the county um road like it's roads and airports.

Um just another issue raised by a member of the public regarding parking.

Um, so just to clarify the parking requirements that apply to this project.

Yeah, this um so despite this being uh dot the application being made in 2022, uh applicants who made a application prior to the change in parking ordinance in uh 2023 could elect to use the new transportation demand management um ordinance, which requires transportation demand management and does not uh require any vehicle parking.

So there are no more no, so there are no minimum vehicle parking requirements for this project.

Um instead of transportation demand management um requirement is applied, but it is exempt because uh it is less than a hundred thousand square feet of floor area for um which applies to the visit end uses for medical office and also for um retail.

And still, even though parking is not no longer required under the city, so they are still providing you know underground parking and being and parking on the first floor.

So that's correct.

They're still providing 45 vehicle parking spaces within the project.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um just going through.

Thanks.

Sorry, just double check.

We did receive I did review all the public comments that came in prior to the hearing and also the item, the letter that was submitted on submitted yesterday, July 28th.

So I just want to make sure.

So for hazardous materials, um, that there is a phase two required, and that's part of the standard um environment.

So that's actually part of the standard environmental service department requirements.

Um that would be phase two um environmental site assessment um to potential, like anywhere, any info site, there would be potential remnant contamination that has to be cleaned.

Um this would go through the county environmental health department preview, correct?

Hi, Charlotte again here.

Yes, that would be correct.

And the phase two would be required prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits.

Okay.

And so thank you, staff.

Um, thank you for.

Yeah.

Thank you for answering the questions.

So um reviewing all the record of this project.

So this, you know, the letters that were letter received, also email correspondence of Jason Lee regarding the project testimony, uh reviewing the permit, the environmental infill exemption, the um and technical reports associated with this.

So this project, this is the type of project that was envisioned with the Bascom Urban Village Plan.

Um it intensive envisioned the intensification of development along Bascom in terms of you know residential and commercial properties.

Um the step back plane that actually provides the outdoor outdoor balconies of the site is actually part of the requirement for the Basketburg Village Plan for the setbacks.

Um so that creates this situation where you're actually gonna have the most intense of the office uses, the interior office uses will be further away from adjacent residences and consistent with that urban village plan.

However, it does create this additional privacy concern with people being a hangout outside on these decks.

However, there is screening proposed um to alleviate some of that.

However, this is part of the requirements of the urban village plan that was adopted and agreed upon by city council in order to reduce potential impacts of neighboring residents as part of that urban village plan.

So it's baked in part of the plan, so to speak.

For historic buildings, it is based upon buildings, for example, downtown built in the 1800s, maybe early 1900s, you know, brick construction, these structures are sensitive more to vibration and more standard wood frame construction you see in later years.

Um that's what that threshold was based on.

So you know, the standard construction is more prevalent out in this part of the city, further away from downtown.

That said, um, we do have standard vibration measures in order, these are standard permit conditions in order to implement to reduce vibration on neighboring structures.

Um, this is a fairly common issue across the city because we have we're an urbanized city and we have lots of urban development.

Um, and is and this is as I said, is very common, especially in downtown where structures are actually more of a historic nature, unlike this site.

The project was reviewed, the project structures were reviewed for determination if they were historic and they are not found to be historic by you know the historic review.

Therefore, there's not an issue there.

Um, but you know, the excavation, obviously, the excavation first floor level parking, you know, is a concern.

This is very common throughout the city for newer developments as we see densification at submission with the general plan and the urban diligence plans, and also throughout downtown.

So I just want to touch that this is not unusual.

We have reviewed many types of development that have this kind of underground parking and type of excavation up to the property lines or near property lines.

And we do have measures in place to ensure that there is not impacts to neighbors, and there are ramifications that if there doesn't mean something that happens, like for example, if there is dewatering required, then there would be measures that we put into place in order to alleviate that.

Um, this is you know, these are standard part of a review prior to grading permit issuance.

There's conditions that have to be reviewed.

And this is common for all types of urban info projects with underground parking or underground excavation.

You know, and you know, so there are measures in place.

Um, I do encourage the applicant to continue working with the neighbor in order to address concerns about if there are vibration, even if there's not damage, it can be unsettling.

Um, so therefore, I've encouraged them to be proactive and reach out and be bored with their neighbor prior to construction instead of just relying on the construction um the coordinator in order to take care of all that after construction is already started.

It just makes it for a better process.

But we do have measures in place that are standard.

Um, there was something that was raised, just want to touch on the argument that this project doesn't qualify for an infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act because of unusual circumstances.

Um Charlotte touched on this.

So the site is a standard urban lot surrounded by urban uses.

It's flat.

Um, it is developed with typical developments that are common throughout the city.

Um it is there's nothing unusual about this site and compared to other areas that the unusual circumstances clause for um sequa applies to situations, for example, if you are on a site that is subject to landslides, or you're on a site that you know, maybe has sensitive habitat for an endangered species or something.

But this lot is very typical of urban lots throughout the city, and we are applying the same measures that we apply in other parts of the city, especially with regard to vibration, construction noise, and shoring and other aspects of urban infill development.

So, you know, that there's no unusual circumstance compared to anywhere else in the city.

This is a standard info project for which this exemption is an appropriate sequel clearance.

And to mention, yeah.

And do want to say for the the excavation, you know, again, excavation, you know, we do this all over the city, especially downtown.

We've close closer to structures where you're right up against historic structures with you know, that are more with bricks that are more sensitive.

We do have measures in place to protect those.

This case, um, these measures should be sufficient in order to address vibration in terms of the air quality, construction air quality.

I've already touched on that.

Um, it is confusing to have the analysis, having the maximally exposed individual not be adjacent to the site.

However, I can see, say, from my experience, this is actually fairly common in San Jose, where you have construction that is upwind from residents or sensitive receptors like daycares, because the prevailing winds in San Jose come from the bay for the vast majority of the year.

Construction impacts tend to health risk impacts from construction tend to impact sensitive receptors to the south.

I have seen it several times.

We have very significant excavation, and the neighboring property immediately to the west is not the maximum exposed individual, but the maximum exposed individual is further to the south, as is the case for this project.

It's just a factor of when they consider all the construction activity and for availing winds, most of the winds will blow away from the site and will impact more likely to impact sites to the south.

So that is the reason why there's that discrepancy.

It doesn't make sense at first, but when you consider the meteorological conditions, that is you know, that is why the air quality report says what it is.

So with that, considering the totality of the record and the public comments received, I'm going to consider the exemption in accordance with CEQA and approved site development H22-039.

Hang on, we got to fix that.

Oh, yeah, there's you need to put the put the file number on.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you, support staff.

So that I'm going to move on to the next item of the calendar, which is adjournment.

Um, thank you.

And thank you.

Adjourned at 10 16 a.m.

Thank you.