Planning Director Hearing: August 19, 2026 – Approvals for Builder's Remedy and Density Bonus Projects
Planning Director Hearing: August 19, 2026
The Planning Director Hearing, presided by Hearing Officer Sylvia Doe, convened on August 19, 2026, from 9:00 AM to 10:28 AM via Zoom. The meeting addressed one consent calendar item and two public hearing items, including a Builder's Remedy project and a Density Bonus project. All items were approved, with one condition added to the Cherry Avenue project.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3A: Special Use Permit SP26-005 (Crystal Springs Court) – Staff added a condition requiring referral to Valley Water for an encroachment permit. No public comments were received. The hearing officer approved the permit as modified.
Public Hearing Item 4A: 741 South Winchester Boulevard (Builder's Remedy)
- Staff Presentation – Supervising Planner Alec Intienza explained the project: a seven-story, 264-unit multifamily building (13% low-income units) on a 2.97-acre site. The project invoked Builder's Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), submitted as an SB 330 preliminary application on February 15, 2023. It requests a 9.8% density bonus and multiple waivers. Staff found no specific adverse health or safety impacts and recommended approval under a statutory CEQA exemption (AB 130).
- Applicant Remarks – Glenn Cerradano (Cyrez Properties) expressed excitement and requested modifications to conditions of approval as detailed in a letter from attorney Hall & Knight. He reserved the right to appeal if changes were not made.
- Public Comment – Lillian (District 3) criticized the removal of 23 trees (14 ordinance-sized) and the lack of a mandatory community meeting (noting the city's policy uses "should" not "shall"). She urged better outreach and tree canopy protection.
- Discussion – City Attorney Daniel Sasuetta invited applicant attorney Jenny Yarkin to elaborate. Yarkin sought changes to conditions regarding SB 330 vesting timelines and affordable housing requirements (AB 1893). The city attorney opposed, arguing the proposed language could leave the permit open-ended and violate city policy on land banking. Staff confirmed that tree replacement would include 68 fifteen-gallon trees or 25 box trees plus an in-lieu fee, and that public outreach policy is under review.
- Decision – Hearing Officer Doe approved the site development permit as drafted by staff, stating that state law stands alone and the conditions are legally consistent.
Public Hearing Item 4B: 1425 Cherry Avenue (Density Bonus)
- Staff Presentation – Project Manager Jason Lee described the proposal: demolish four existing units and construct two single-family homes and one four-plex (six units total) on 0.33 acres. The project uses the Housing Crisis Act to replace four units (two low-income, one extremely low-income) and requests an 88.75% density bonus (from 8 to 18.1 du/ac), three concessions, and nine waivers. Staff found full compliance with objective standards and recommended approval.
- Applicant Remarks – Austin Lynn noted collaborative revisions in response to neighborhood feedback: reducing driveway cuts from three to two, adding two parking spaces for the four-plex, and proposing a three-foot fence and landscape buffer.
- Public Comments – Martha Lazarakis (neighbor at 1439 Cherry) raised concerns about traffic safety on the narrow street, loss of on-street parking (potentially reducing property values 15%), and inadequate design for pedestrians, cyclists, and children. Carmen (nearby resident) criticized a lack of transparency and insufficient off-street parking, arguing the project is unsafe near multiple schools.
- Discussion – Staff clarified that the city's objective parking requirement is zero spaces; the applicant voluntarily provides two. Public Works engineer Ray Adora confirmed driveway spacing and traffic thresholds are met, and that further safety reviews (e.g., sight distance) will occur during permitting. Staff noted the fence is not in the current plans and would require a minor permit adjustment.
- Decision – Hearing Officer Doe approved the site development permit and tentative map, adding a condition requiring a three-foot fence along the four-plex parking area fronting Cherry Avenue, as voluntarily agreed by the applicant. The fence must be applied for via a minor permit adjustment before building permit issuance.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved item 3A (SP26-005) with added Valley Water condition.
- Item 4A (741 S. Winchester): Site development permit approved per staff recommendation; no changes to conditions.
- Item 4B (1425 Cherry Ave.): Site development permit and tentative map approved, with an added condition for a three-foot fence.
- Both public hearing items were approved under applicable state laws (HAA, Builder's Remedy, Housing Crisis Act, Density Bonus Law).
- The meeting adjourned at 10:28 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Hi, good morning everyone. It is 9 o'clock, so we are calling to order the planning director hearing of August 19th, 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 comments, 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 raise hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak to or click star 9 on their phone. Remember to keep your raise hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak. During the meeting, you can also call 408 535 8517 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, the phone number that you'll call into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and they are unmuted. Planning support staff will identify you by name when it is your turn to speak. At that time, you will be unmuted and 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. 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 wish 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 applicant or the public, or further discuss the item. I will then take action on the item. If you challenge these, 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 mailed and signed. 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. Next up on our agenda is deferrals. Any item 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 names to be deferred and ask for comments from the audience. If you wish to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring these or any other items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise your hand to speak. I will now open the public hearing. And so far, there are no items identified for deferrals. Are there any members of the public who wished to speak on the matter of deferrals? If so, please raise your hand. And again, to clarify what deferrals means is that for any of the three agenda items or projects listed on today's agenda, you are requesting for it not to be heard today and to be for it to be heard at a future meeting date instead. So with that in mind, I do see one hand in Zoom raised. And I can unmute you and I will ask you to uh please uh speak your uh mention your name for the record and speak to the matter of deferrals and which item on the agenda you would like to defer to a future meeting date. You're unmuted and you can go ahead and speak. Yes, I made a mistake. I want to speak on an item on public hearing. So I'm gonna star, I think star nine, then lower my hand. Okay, perfect.
openpublica.com