San Jose Planning Director Hearing - July 31, 2026: Approval of 276-Unit Development at 470 West San Carlos Street
San Jose Planning Director Hearing - July 31, 2026: Approval of 276-Unit Development at 470 West San Carlos Street
Note on date discrepancy: The meeting was scheduled for July 31, 2026 per the assignment, but the transcript references a hearing "of July 22nd, 2026" and concludes "for July 26, 2026." This summary proceeds using the provided date, but the discrepancy is noted.
The hearing officer, Sylvia Doe, called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. The consent calendar was approved without discussion. The main item was a public hearing for a site development permit (H25-039) at 470 West San Carlos Street, proposing a 276-unit, 8-story apartment building with 14 very low-income units. The applicant also requested state density bonus waivers and extended Saturday construction hours. After public testimony and staff discussion, the hearing officer approved the permit.
Consent Calendar
- Items 3A through 3E (site development permits H20-048, H22-030, H26-002, and special use permits SP24-041 and SP25-005) were approved on the consent calendar without separate discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Laura Winter (Stakeholders Plus Neighborhoods Initiative, S+NI) requested confirmation that prior letters were in the record, raised concerns about conflicting affordable housing compliance documents, and argued the project was materially different from the previously approved assisted living facility.
- Debbie Krama (across the street resident) requested strict construction hour limits (Monday–Friday for concrete pours, Saturday 8–5) and that haul trucks use San Carlos Street, not Gifford Avenue.
- Sarah Springer (Delmas Park, S+NI) noted the site is an unremediated hazardous waste site with an active cleanup program, and that deeper excavation for parking may increase risk.
- Bert Weaver (Delmas Park, S+NI) questioned whether prior tenants had rent subsidies and urged the city not to approve until design issues (loading, parking, waste, sidewalks, street trees, sewer) are resolved.
- Dina Casanova (trustee of adjacent property at 331 and 379 Gifford Avenue) raised concerns about insufficient fire separation, construction impacts on her property, and inadequate traffic safety measures.
- Richard (Delmas Park, 20-year resident) accused the city of fast-tracking the project after a June 16th City Council meeting, and urged the applicant to redesign the building.
- Kathy Sutherland (Gifford Avenue, S+NI) argued the density bonus was nonsensical given unbuilt height, criticized the last-minute height reduction to avoid AB 130 labor requirements, and demanded the city reject the waivers without evidence of physical preclusion.
- Larry Ames (community advocate) supported high-density development but opposed the monolithic wall design and requested setbacks and upper-level stepbacks for neighborhood compatibility.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation (Jacqueline Guerrero): Presented the project details: 276 units (14 very low-income), 8 stories, five density bonus waivers (setback plane, skyline level massing, balconies, ground floor residential space, podium level massing). Staff found the project consistent with general plan, zoning, and the Diridon Station Area Plan. Public outreach included signs and a community meeting. The project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130; tribal consultation was completed.
- Applicant Remarks (Matt Bernardis, Urban Catalyst): Thanked staff and the public. In closing remarks, he addressed concerns: responded to neighborhood letters, confirmed affordable housing compliance plan with the Housing Department, stated environmental cleanup will be modified under county oversight, noted that design items (parking, street trees, etc.) will be addressed at building permit phase, and clarified that the fire variance has precedent and will be finalized with the fire department. He also argued building height (84 feet 10 inches) has always been below the 85-foot threshold when measured correctly.
- Public Comments (as above)
- Staff Responses:
- Bethlehem (CEPA planner): The site is not on the Cortese list, so AB 130 exemption applies. The county-approved soil management plan will be updated for the new project.
- Alec Atianza (supervising planner): Explained state density bonus law: the city cannot deny waivers unless they cause a specific adverse impact to public health/safety. The five waivers were justified because the standards would physically preclude construction. The Housing Accountability Act also limits denial.
- Staff clarified that fire variance, TDM, and waste management issues will be resolved during building permit phase, with conditions requiring compliance before final sign-off. Construction impacts (air quality, noise) are mitigated by standard permit conditions.
Key Outcomes
- The hearing officer approved the site development permit (H25-039) for 470 West San Carlos Street, including the five density bonus waivers and extended Saturday construction hours (8 AM–5 PM).
- The approval is based on consistency with the General Plan and zoning, compliance with state density bonus law, and the statutory CEQA exemption under AB 130.
- Conditions of approval include: completion of site cleanup under county oversight (soil management plan), resolution of fire variance, TDM, and waste management details during the building permit stage.
- The hearing officer acknowledged the community’s engagement and the Delmas neighborhood’s history of supporting development, but noted that state law requires approval given the project’s compliance with applicable regulations.
- The meeting adjourned at 9:57 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, everyone. It is 9 o'clock a.m. So we are calling to order the planning director hearing of July 22nd, 2026. My name is Sylvia Doe, and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, Christopher Burton. This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call. Members of the public may participate by following the instructions listed on page two of the agenda. If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. For participants who joined electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the raised hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak to or click star 9 on their phone. Remember to keep your raised hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak. During the meeting, you could also call 408 535 8517 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, the phone number that you'll call into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and they are unmuted. Planning support staff will identify you by name when it is your turn to speak. At that time, you'll 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. 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 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 applicants or the public, or further discuss the item. I will then take action on the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The planning director's actions on agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and mailed unless the permit or the environmental clearance determination is appealed. The planning director's actions on the permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the municipal code. The planning director's actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings. This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only. Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff. The hearing officer, staff, and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting of the director hearing will now come to order. This brings us to the second portion of the agenda, which is deferrals. Any items scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting date is being requested, will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter of deferral. I will identify any items to be deferred and ask for comments from the audience. If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring these or any other items, please use the raised hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise your hand to speak. I will now open the public hearing. There are no items proposed for deferral this morning. Are there any members of the public who wish to defer any of the items agendized for this morning? And if so, now is the opportunity for you to raise your hand in Zoom or click star nine. Okay, I don't see any hands raised in Zoom. So the matter of deferrals is now closed, and we'll move on to the third portion of the agenda, which is the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for separate discussion by the hearing officer. The public may 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 use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine to raise your hand to speak. Just a summary of today's consent calendar. There are a few items listed here as shown on your screen. There is item 3A, which is a site development permit, file number H20-048. Again, if any members of the public who would like to speak on this item or any items on the consent calendar, this is your opportunity to raise your hand. There's item 3B, site development permit file number H22-030.
openpublica.com