Good morning. We are calling to order the Planning Director hearing of July 29, 2020.
My name is David Keyand, and I'm in the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the Director of Planning, vote in a 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 2 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,
that 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 as your turn to speak.
Second option is during the meeting, please call 408-535-8517 or email, planning support staff at soundsacca.gov and identify your name that is most Zoom and the phone number you're calling you to Zoom with and what item are items you'd like to comment on.
All members of the public were in the unmuted until the individual identifies them by to speak and they are unmuted.
Planning Support staff will identify you by name what it is your turn to speak.
At that time you'll be unmuted and can provide comment for a lot of time.
If you exceed your a lot of time, you may be muted so we can move on to the next speaker.
Please note the following, the hearing procedure in order of input will be as follows.
I will identify each project as described on the agenda.
For those items in the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item.
If a separate discussion is warranted, I will move the item to the public hearing portion of the agenda.
The separate discussion is not needed that I can remain on the consent calendar for approval.
For those items must be 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 applicant representatives is spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item,
paper by testimony, up to two minutes per speaker, either four or against the project.
All members of the public should identify their name for the record although it is not required.
Following comments in 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 for the discuss the item.
I will then take an action on the item.
If you challenge these 90 decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.
The planed records actions on agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and bail, unless the permit or environmental clearance determination is appealed.
The planning directors actions on the permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of title 20 of the municipal code or the zoning ordinance.
The planning directors actions on the environment review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of the title 21 of the municipal code environmental clearance.
Before you 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 or staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language.
Repeated failure to compile the code of conduct that you will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result or in move from the meetings.
This meeting of the director here will now come to order.
Okay, so the first item is the item of deferrals.
So any item scheduled for this morning for each deferral to the future meeting is being requested.
We move to this portion of the agenda considered on the matter deferral.
So at this point, I see no items on the agenda for deferral, however, the 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 deferrals out then move on.
The answer for matter deferrals is now closed.
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'm going to move directly onto the public hearing portion of the agenda.
And this is first item for a.
So for a is file number H26009 and ER261035.
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.
Approximately 0.13 gross acre site, located on the southern corner of Lincoln Avenue and Pine Avenue at 1108 Pine Avenue.
So the sequel is exempt pursuant to sequel guidelines 1.5.
Breel 3 for new construction or conversion to small structures.
The staff recommendation is consider the exemption according to the sequel and approve the site development permit.
Staff do have a staff report.
Good morning.
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 of us are the first today.
So this project, as you said, proposes the demolition and reconstruction of a port.
Sorry.
I'm 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.
This project was evaluated with respect to the general plan, the municipal code, the citywide design guidelines, city council policies and sequo.
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 to family resident's district.
The modifications of the duplex meet the height and set back requirements for main structures and the garage meets the height and set back requirements for accessory buildings.
The project also meets requirements for barrier coverage, separation between accessories buildings and main structures, transportation demand management requirements and relevant citywide design standards.
This project is exempt pursuant to section 15303E of the Sequoid Guidelines, which exempts accessories structure, the construction of accessories structures such as garages.
Staff followed city council policy 630 for public outreach and 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 have five minutes to speak.
If you can raise your hand and then support staff can unmute you please.
There we go.
You are unmuted. Let me just put up the time we're here.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you.
Okay, great. Thank you. My name is Jeff Leang and it's a great opportunity to present the projects on behalf of the property owner.
Mr. John and Mr. John purchased this property about a year ago and it reminds that the occurring existing parking garages too small that he cannot put in his car into it.
And software engine and I do a project survey and notice that this current existing parking garage doesn't have the proper foundation and it's not structurally sound.
So we propose the property owner to we build this whole garage and to meet the co and be able to part is too car.
And for the exterior garage we keep the circle and to match the assistant to press unit and the pain on the color what the exterior will match also the do press or similar and also you may see a flood winds on the exterior to because it's on the flat zone.
And on the other side, the current owner that the property owner is living in the adjacent units 11 or so eight.
Find Avenue and currently there's no weather protection on the front exterior door and also no protection on where they did that they received the package delivery.
So we are proposing a new Porsche in front is a foot high and the Porsche roof is also a great tile matching the existing architecture style.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you. So now do you have any member of the public who wishes to speak of this item if so please raise your hand or press start and zoom or contact support staff.
So far I don't see any hands raised.
Support staff have you been contacted by anybody wishes to speak on this item.
Now we have not.
Okay.
Does not look like the only public speakers on this item.
The applicant has five or minutes to speak if they wish otherwise they can see their time.
Do you want.
Do you have anything more to add?
No.
Okay.
Thank you.
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 and writing and correspondence with the planter Jason Lee.
I reviewed the permit and the plans.
This permit that meets the criteria.
And I am going to be a proving site development permit age 26 as 006 and ER 26 as 027.
And consider the project exact pursuit to secret guidelines section 15303.
So support staff.
You could show that on the screen.
One second please.
Okay.
If you one person has raised their hand.
However, they.
Brett, I see, would you want to speak on this item of the public hearing as the public.
Pretty fortunate of item.
This item is closed.
So that no one raised their hands during the opportunity for public hearing.
So therefore, you know, the public hearing.
This is the public comment period for this item was closed and this permit has been approved.
However, you have an opportunity to comment if you have commenting on other permits will be getting to go shortly.
The next item.
Item 4 B.
So that's.
I think I said.
Yeah.
Item 4 B is age 26 as 006 and ER 26 as 027.
So this is the site development permit to allow the construction of approximately 2,915 square foot storage building.
And demolition of 10 existing sheds total in 1,684 square feet.
Approximately 9.13 gross sacred site located at the northeast corner of Trinidad Drive and A.K.O.A. at 6835 Trinidad Drive.
This is the album and country day school.
The is equal is exempt for soon to seek look on its section 1353 for new construction of small structures.
The staff recommendations consider the exemption requirements to seek when approve a site development permit.
Staff, do we have a staff report?
Yeah.
All right.
Good morning again.
So Jason Lee again, project manager for age 26, 006.
So the project site for this proposal is the Ovidin country day school campus.
And the specific project site is.
Between the modular buildings and the interior Ovidin little league baseball field towards the winter set.
Drive side of the or is winter set ways are side of the campus.
It's this area right here.
The project proposes the demolition of.
All-salt is the Ovidin Country Day School campus.
And the specific project site is between the modular buildings and the interior omitant little league
Baseball field towards the winter set, drive side of the, or it's winter set ways, sorry,
side of the campus is, it's this area right here. The project proposes the demolition of Sheds
and other containers currently in that location for replacement storage building.
This project was evaluated with respect to the general plan, the municipal code, the citywide
design guidelines, city council policies, and the site has the general plan designation of public
quasi-public. The project 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 630 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 A.E.
Flood Zone, but all improvements in this plan are in the X Flood Zone. If found that improvements
will encroach on the A.E. Flood Zone in the future additional public works review is required,
pursuant to condition 23E of the permit. This is the draft permit that was posted.
Valley Water also commented on potential well destruction as there is a well on site.
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 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 athlete kit is run sippering.
I don't know if Marty Hart.
Sorry.
Okay.
Hock Roth 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.
You know, this is a replacement of some old tough shed buildings and some old containers and modernizing the area and improving the area.
And along is they have additional storage.
Other than that, I have no other comments.
I think the site development permit speaks to all the details.
And what you can do is to explain the project pretty thoroughly.
So let's see the rest of my time.
Thank you.
So is there any member of the public who wish to speak on this item?
If so, please raise your hand now in Zoom or press star 9 or call on to support staff.
Okay.
Support staff have you received any any input or any request to speak on this item?
I have not received anything.
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.
If that I'm 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.
Right.
Nothing more to add.
You know, we're just in what what Valley Water is said.
And we will comply with what they're asking.
I'll see the rest of my time.
Okay.
Thank you.
So if 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 project review.
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 if that I am going to consider the exemption in accordance with SQL and approve site development permit.
H26.
That's zero zero six.
So support staff.
If you can please put that up.
Thank you.
So item for be is approved.
And now I'm going to move on to item number four.
So item number four.
C is file S p twenty six.
This is S p twenty five.
That's zero two three and ER 25.
That's two two three.
This is a special use permit to about the expansion of existing legal not conforming office use including medical office uses currently on the second form and existing building the Hawaii pineapple company building the candidate sitting landmark to a first floor.
And visiting by establishing additional office storage and trading space as well as uses at somewhere to the existing office in medical office space included a food pantry gym.
Concession stand daycare and additional community space and added additional doors in the facade of the building.
On to approximately 0.83 gross sacred site located the seven quarter of East Virginia street in South fifth street at what 60 East Virginia street.
And it's an exact person to seek what got in section one by three one for existing facilities staff recommendation is considered the exception in accordance with seek when approve a special use for this.
Staff do you have a staff report on this please.
All right, let's do this again.
Good morning here.
Officer Jason Lee again, a project manager for SP 25 to 23 as well.
So.
As you said, this project proposed the expansion of legal not conforming office and medical office uses currently on the second floor of an existing building to the first floor and the mezzanine.
The office and medical office uses are not permitted in the ally light industrial zoning district.
But the city found such uses to be legal not conforming in 2001 and again in 2024 and expansion of such legal not conforming 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 sand and day care 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 sequel.
As I mentioned, the site has a general plan designation of light industrial or offices are discouraged but not outright prohibited.
In addition, the project complies with general plan major strategy number 11 regarding design for a helpful community and various general plan policies regarding health care for city residents and historic preservation.
The project also complies with the Martha Garden specific plan goals and policies regarding retention of historic buildings flexible permit processes and limiting on street truck activities.
The project is in the ally light industrial zoning district and the uses legal not conforming.
There are no changes to height and setbacks lighting and landscaping.
And the conversion of space is exempt from providing a transportation demand management plan due to the amount of space converted.
The project is exempts pursuant to section 15301A of the secret guidelines which exempts minor interior or exterior alterations including interior partitions.
Additionally, there is a change in the facade of the building as 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 630 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.
Therefore staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and approve the special use permit.
Thank you and the applicant representative is our machine.
Okay, thank you Jason.
So the applicant has five minutes to speak Eric.
Please raise your hand if you wish to speak on the side.
Okay.
Okay, five minutes.
Good morning, hearing officer Keon.
My name is Eric Sheenauer.
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. It's not a new operation. It's not a new activity at all 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
Because 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.
We hope that the director will approve this permit and we thank 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.
Okay. Thank you.
Is there any member of the public?
I'm going to move on to public comment. Is there any member of the public wish to speak on this item?
If so, please press star nine or raise your head and zoom or contact the fourth staff at this time.
Okay.
Don't see any hands raised at this point.
Support staff.
Actually, I do.
I see loading and going.
Yes.
Please.
Yes. Thank you.
I was just looking for the lower and higher hand portion.
It's not an audit key. You mentioned the word audit key.
The historic 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 conference or commission meet on this particular building when and where.
I'm just curious because I do happen to listen to the historic 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 audit team meant.
If it refer 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 from the public who wish to speak on this item? Please raise your hand at this time or press start.
Okay, I don't see any one.
Support staff have you been contacted just by anybody to speak on this item?
No, we have not.
Okay, with that I'm going to close the public comment portion. So now I'm going to 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.
Yes, so first of all there is no significant change to this building. So there's no need for.
The historic landmarks commission review as staff is 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.
The waste of everybody's time to go to the historic landmarks commission on the change of a door and nor is it required by city policy.
Secondly, the my comment about audity 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 an urban residential neighborhood.
This property should have been transitioned to something other than light industrial decades ago, but the city has failed to do so.
And because of that it creates.
And because of that, it creates these land use in consistencies and problems keeping buildings occupied with uses that are compatible with the surrounding urban residential neighborhood.
So with that, we hope that the director will approve the permit so we can continue providing health care to families in San Jose. Thank you.
Thank you, Eric. So that I'm closing the applicant comment.
And so now just a very quick question to the planar, basically, about the store 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 landmark. Correct.
That is correct. It is a candidate city landmark in a candidate district.
Both federal, both our national register and city landmark district.
But we're all categories. It is candidate.
And staff does generally have the option to take these to historic.
The HLC if needed.
But again, we did the scope of the change is very small.
As mentioned twice now, it's a doctor going to a store front door.
And we've received a evaluation from a qualified to store a consultant basically saying that this does not impact the integrity of the building.
So.
And it just wanted to ask that. So the historic preservation officer also reviewed this historic report.
That's correct. Yes. The secret team and the historic preservation officer reviewed the part and agree with its conclusions otherwise.
We wouldn't have.
We wouldn't be recommending of 15301 a 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 change of application is very minor.
I do want to mention.
So the historical landmarks commission would would be.
The applicable if the project was actually designated as a city.
As soon as the project building was actually designated city landmark.
And there are substantial changes to that building.
But was actually listed as a city landmark.
Then it would have to go to the historic landmarks commission.
However, because the cadet city landmark market has not been designated yet.
Therefore, we do our review. And this is actually part of the environment review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Sequa.
If the changes are significant enough.
That was done.
We had a historic.
We prepared a technical report to review for consistency of the changes with the Secretary of Interior Standards,
and our in-house historic expert.
The historic preservation officer.
Dana peak reviewed that.
And you terminated this changes.
Mine are not visited and not need.
The storm owners commission review or additional.
Changes.
So with that.
This project is essentially continuing a use that has existed on the site for several decades.
It is a legal and not-conforming use that as the planner said.
This has been already in place in 2001.
And if you meet the criteria, you are allowed to expand a legal and not-conforming use.
And this project meets that criteria.
Therefore, as the hearing officer, I am going to consider the exemption in accordance with Sequa
and approve special use from at SB 25 as 023.
Those supports staff, if you can please put that up.
Thank you.
Okay.
Now I'm going to move on to item 4D.
So 4D is file number H22 does 039 and ER22 does 2-5-4.
This is a site that I want to permit to allow the construction of a 4-story,
approximately 53,450 square foot medical office,
and retail building, the demolition of 5 existing commercial structures,
total in approximately 4,60036 square feet,
and a removal of two non-ordered size trees, and approximately 0.43 grow
sicker site located at the southwest corner at the intersection of south-baskin
Avenue and Baywood Avenue at 941-945-Baskin Avenue.
The Sequa is an example of the Sequa guideline section 15332 for ample development projects.
The staff recommendation is considered the exception of accordance with Sequa
and approve a site development permit.
Staff, do we have a staff report?
All right. Yes, we do.
Good morning again. My name is Jason Lee, a project manager for H22-039.
The project site for this proposal is two parcels
at the southwest corner of Baskin Avenue and Maywood Avenue.
The project proposes the demolition of all existing on-site buildings,
and the removal of two non-ordered and size trees,
to construct a new 4-story medical office and retail building with ground floor
and underground parking.
The project was evaluated with respect to the general plan,
the south-baskin urban village plan,
the municipal code, the citywide designs standards,
city council policies, and Sequa.
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-baskin 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 step backs to accommodate a daylight plan,
adjacent to single family homes.
The project complies with the allowed uses,
height, set backs, 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 been less than 25% of street furnish,
separation of driveways, and fly 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 step back.
Of, or, sequel, I will turn it over to the environmental owner, Charlotte.
Good morning, hearing officer.
I'm Charlotte, you and 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 around about 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
in the permit based on this analysis.
The project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment.
The project will require to adhere to standard building and printing 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, or abrasion.
The operation of the project would be for a medical office in 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 comma letter received on July 28th from a property owner,
reciting in a home adjacent to the property project site.
These site environmental concerns regarding vibration, noise, noise, air quality,
and unusual circumstances, just like to clarify the following.
So, firstly, a noise and vibration report was prepared for this project,
by technical expert.
The vibration findings identified in the report,
are not unusual for an urban infill environment,
and any vibrational impacts be less than significant
with the implementation of standard condition of approval,
identified in the SQL document, regarding concerns about noise,
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 our operational noise, specifically rooftop mechanical noise,
that was the state concern.
The noise report states that hourly average noise levels,
and day-night average noise levels,
we're not exceed 555 BBA at the nearest surrounding residences.
Additionally, 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 increased
due to a potentially 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 MI,
is identified by the technical report as the sensitive
researcher that is most impacted by the project's construction
and operation.
The MI might not be the nearest receptor because of revealing winds
and sub-tucant dispersion modeling.
In this project's case, the cancer risk MI is not the adjacent
or nearest receptor, but a multi-family resident
southeast of the site.
And the cancer risk at the cancer risk MI
does not exceed the bad threshold.
Or the air districts are threshold.
Therefore, all nearby residents are also below threshold.
Lastly, to clarify, the unusual circumstances exception
does not include the exemption.
The project, the proposed project is a typical
project of an urban and built project.
Within the city, the project site is not biologically sensitive
and the proposed project is within the footprint of the project
slightly.
So under the provision section 1552 of the state guidelines
for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
see staff find the project to be exempt from the environmental review
requirements of Title 21 of the San Jose Municipal Quote code.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Charlotte.
So to sum up here, staff follow the city council policy
6430 for public outreach.
And on site side was hosted on the project site
frontages for several years now, and this hearing
was noticed at a radius of 500 feet.
Therefore, staff recommends that the director consider the
exemption for this project and approve the site development
permit.
Thank you.
The applicant's representative is Evan Sock Losky,
and the applicant is Nick Berkish.
Okay.
Thank you, Jason.
So the applicant can raise their hand at applicants
and then you have five minutes to speak.
Okay, Evan.
Yeah, five minutes.
Good morning, hearing officer.
My name is Evan Sock Losky.
With architect, we are the architect of the project,
and are excited to be here in front of you this morning.
We've been working very diligently with Jason and staff
to get to this point and are excited to continue to move this project
forward.
We work very closely in responding to the design guidelines.
And one of them in particular that we made sure was
incorporated was the setbacks adjacent to our neighbors.
As you can see in the rendering that Jason shared,
the building steps back significantly maintaining that daylight
plane, which is both the design feature as well as
respecting the needs and the zoning requirements on the site.
I know one of the.
One of the items that was mentioned as far as the exemptions
had to do with the two driveways on Maywood.
And one of the challenges on this site is some of the guidelines
requiring us not to have any access points on.
Basque Avenue.
So we work very hard on developing the ability to provide as much parking
as as we could on the site, both the four staff and for visitors,
which is why the evolution of the two driveways.
Develop on the site.
The site includes retail on the ground floor with the medical office above.
So we're really excited based on the location of this building to have
an opportunity to develop this and become a very nice in-fill project
for the city of San Jose.
Okay, thank you.
So.
We're not.
Oh, of course, anybody.
And the public wish to speak on this item, I have one person that is
raised their hand.
Are you.
Are you, are you, are you, and please,
speak up two minutes and then we have another speaker afterwards.
Yeah.
Good morning.
My name is.
I am Tatea.
I only took 2-2-0, maybe I would have a new, maybe really best of this project site.
I shown you object to improving S-2-2-0-39 as promptly adapted.
The applicant's own consultant, the lingwood and rod can...
Will attend the Lingwood and Rotten studying these files and says construction could act my Russian
initial building. With vibration of 2.58 inches per second he has been 3 times a city point
two Russian financial threshold that is not my number, it is theirs. My home was built in 1946, and
set only a few feet from their graduation line. My family will live with this risk. If a project
exit the city noise or air quality limits by three times, no one would call that a detail to
fix later, vibration should be not a friend, and nearly every protection for that trust
ensuring monitoring tie-backs face to testing, saving is deferred to after this hearing,
and after the pre-wind, and after the project is already treated as a approved, those are the
core protection for the nearest residential building. I respectfully ask you to not approve this
today, deny the permit as raftered or continue the hearing, and keep the record open until
enforceable protection for two, two, two, two, zero maywood are written into the permit,
a pre-conception survey of my home. Every time monitoring with automatic stuff,
a damaged bond and repair, obligation and no driver can do my property without my return
concern, I just want this protection in place before construction start, not after. Thank you.
Thank you. So the next person has their head raised is Dan Vado. Please speak Dan, you have two minutes.
Hi, can you hear me, okay? Yes. My name's Dan Vado. I own a home on Maywood Avenue,
2019 Maywood. I also live on Lindeir, 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 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 was a, there was a business directly across the street from this one.
That, sorry, they've 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. And then this cafe did.
The second thing I want to talk about is the disruption that occurred to my house
directly across, or directly behind my house, there is a assisted living facility that seven stories
that took two years to build. The vibration was excessive and the accountability on the part
of the builder was was absolutely zero. Since the building has been built, 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 developer to activate those ground level retail spaces with something that could benefit the
surrounding community and make up for the disruption that they're going to most obviously cause.
I'm going to stop right here because I have will not be able to finish in 10 seconds. So thank you very much.
Hey, thank you. So if there's anybody else who wish to speak on this item, please raise your hand now
or for a 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, you 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 public comment and return to the applicant. So the applicant, you know, five more minutes to respond.
Sorry about that. Thank you for the time. We do appreciate the comments of our neighbors and
fully understand the need to be a good neighbor in this process.
Pearl Charlottes report, many of these vibration and other studies have been done by a
sequel expert that we hired, but we've do fully 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 neighbors, especially directly to the south.
Regarding the retail and spaces, our goal is to make this a very successful project. So it is intended to
reach out and find appropriate tenants to occupy the space. We believe through both the space we have
as well as a medical office use. It will become an attractive space for tenants for retail and
give us the variety we need for that to maintain occupancy throughout. We appreciate the time and again,
look forward to moving forward with this project. Thank you. So that will close the applicant
comment period. I see your head is raised, but the public comment period is closing you've already
spoken for two minutes. So we're going to move on to deliberation. So staff, I just have a few questions,
and obviously there were several concerns raised. This is a quite intense development project
that is proposed in the neighborhood. I think first off, the big concern, which is of
all concern is vibration, construction vibration. This is a, you know, it has an underground parking garage
that is parking level that will be built immediately next to existing buildings. 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, you in again, environmental project manager. So the conditions,
I'm sure typical of an inbuilt development in San Jose, and would be implemented before
greeting permits are issued, would include a construction vibration monitoring plan,
which would document all of the construction equipment that are known to produce high
vibration levels. It would include a requirement to place operating equipment on the construction site
at least 20 feet from the project site boundaries, shared, especially with the buildings to the west.
Smaller equipment would be recommended in required or even required to minimize vibration levels
to below 0.2 inch in sack ppb and there would be a requirement to avoid using vibratory
rollers and clamp shovel drops within 30 feet of the adjacent conventional buildings.
There would be select demolition methods to not involve nonvolving impact tools and avoid
dropping heavy equipment and use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a
pavement grider instead of dropping heavy objects within 30 feet of the adjacent conventional
buildings and we would also designate the disturbance coordinator responsible for registering
an investigating claims of excessive vibration.
Okay, thank you, and so the construction, the construction, so there is a vibration monitoring plan
and that's monitoring plan with that include monitoring cracks on off-site buildings.
The monitoring plan does not specifically identify that, but with the disturbance coordinator
they would be responsible for registering and 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 regarding
the air quality report, so there was a very thorough air quality analysis done and in that there
was identified with the most exposed individual, but any eye, can you just
just clarify a further state for the record, so that any eye there were two any eyes
that were identified, there was for a fugitive, who's before particular matter and for cancer
risk, can you just briefly explain the difference and why that is considerably the most explosive
individual compared to other residents of the area. Of course, so just to reiterate, the MIA is
the product that is the maximum exposed individual identified in the air quality report.
The MIA can be the nearest receptor or it could also be a receptor that's far the way because of
no prevailing winds or these subsequent dispersion modeling. In this case, the cancer risk MIA and
the fugitive dust MIA are different, so the cancer risk MIA is for is located at a
multifamily resident's southeast of the site and the other MIA is located adjacent to the
project site and so in both cases they would be the most impacted, most
maximally exposed individual, but in both cases they are below the bad threshold, so all other nearby
residents would also be below the bad threshold. The air district, the Bay Area District, the Bay Area
District, the Bay Area District, the Bay Area District. So then, other residents or
daycares or other uses in the area because the maximum exposed individual is identified and report.
Those are less than the exposure is less than what that maximum exposed individual is correct.
That's correct. Yes, okay, and so then, everyone who is also in the neighborhood, they're a
threshold, we've been low, what that maximum exposed individual is, so therefore they would still be
under the Bay Area District. That's correct. Yeah, okay, think it's just what is it to
clear that? Because it is confusing because I know that when you see a maximum exposed individual
that's far away from the closest residents, it's not always the case, as we've seen, and this is
based on an air quality report that was done by a reputable, a reputable for, but I just wanted to
clarify. I did have, this is actually more of a question for the applicant on the construction time line.
Yeah, so yeah, so I just had a question about the construction time line. So the analysis of
the reports say that the air quality analysis and the noise analysis, everything is based on the
assumption that construction substantial noise jittering activities would be less than 12 months.
Is that something that you be that can be accomplished? We do, but at the same time, if it extends,
if it extended, obviously there would be any further studies that need to be done before we initiate any
construction. Okay, because I was looking at the project, it is, let's say it's a larger project,
then not decided. This is pretty much it. It's very typical for television sources, only 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 noise jittering activity, substantial noise jittering activity in the general plan,
essentially demolition, grading, the, you know, showing the framing that basically the
very intense construction phase, we don't consider substantial noise jittering activity to be the framing,
and what's the framing it's done, you're doing inside work, that is not considered substantial
noise jittering activity typically under the general plan to waste, but all those, you'll do, you know,
in your professional, you know, based upon what actually, based upon the information submitted,
and your professional opinion do, thank you could 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 concert about shoring, 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,
is if there can be no approval from neighboring properties, is it feasible to build this without
shoring that goes into neighboring properties? If obviously our goal would be to get some level of
agreement and work closely with our neighbors to successfully get this shoring agreed to, if there
there are other ways there are, there are a variety of shoring options. Obviously, the more standard
options include needing some agreements from our neighbors, we would hope to secure those,
but if, if that is an
We would have to look for other options. Okay, thank you.
The question came up in the public comment letter about privacy. So they go first off, you know, just reviewing the staff report, the permit and the comment letters, we see. I'm just going to clarify. So this project conforms to the basketball urban village plan. Correct.
That is correct, including for step backs. Okay. And are there anything in the basketball urban village plan regarding privacy?
The privacy impacts are supposed to be mitigated through the use of step backs. Okay. So.
I think, you know, by meeting the step backs, they therefore me implicitly because I don't think it's explicit the idea of providing privacy for residential neighbors.
The step backs right are they apply differently for for residential. I think that's that's part of it. And then, you know, in addition to the step backs. There are providing, you know,
a step back through the parking garage entrance that the below grade entrance and also they're providing plantings along the rear as well.
There are providing plantings. Correct. Okay. And the plantings are those are trees or some sort of fast growing vegetation.
There are trees at the rear adjacent towards towards the rear of the lot because obviously can't plant trees on asphalt.
So, 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.
Because there's there's going to be some outdoor space, though it's going to be step 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 they're also proposing trees on the decks as well.
Although I don't know how much.
You know, that it's a site, but yeah, the main screenings.
Screenings up step back step back step back.
You know, from the from the property line.
Next, so there was something that was read it wasn't addressed.
It was raised in the comment letter, but wasn't addressed.
And initially was so the Maywood is a county street correct. That is county 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.
Not just encroachment permits.
I think there are the driveway permits.
I mean, the driveways would go onto the county portion of the right of way.
So they would need to get that from the county and then pretty much anything else.
Pretty much anything that they're proposing on county land.
You need to utilize it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
All of that would require county permits to encroachment county land.
Anything, the city would only be able to approve things within the city boundary, which are the purposes of construction here,
would basically be the Bascom frontage, because there's no real feasible way with how far the Maywood of right of way runs
as county jurisdiction for us to prove pretty much anything on the Maywood side.
Okay.
So there's have to go through two approval processes, the county and the Department of Transportation.
Assuming they want to work on, well, yes.
They have to deal with both jurisdictions at some point. Yes.
Okay.
Make it just, and it's got also for the applicant to know that going forward, so that they know that there's, you can also have to apply through the county.
Roach, make its rows and airports.
Just another issue raised by a member of the public regarding.
Parking.
So just to clarify the parking requirements that apply to this project.
Yeah, this, so despite this being the application being made in 2022 applicants who made a application prior to the change in parking ordinance in 2023 could elect to use the new transportation demand management.
Management ordinance, which requires transportation demand management and does not require any vehicle parking.
So there are no more, no, so there are no minimum vehicle parking requirements for this project.
Instead of transportation demand management.
Requirement is applied, but it is exempt because it is less than 100,000 square feet of lower area or which applies to the visit and uses for medical office and also for retail.
So even though parking is not no longer required in the cities, though, they're still providing.
You know, underground parking and being and parking on the first floor.
That's correct.
They're still providing 45 vehicle parking spaces within the project.
Okay.
I just going through.
Thank.
I just.
Double check. We did receive.
I did review all the public comments that came in prior to the hearing and also that I didn't the letter that was submitted on submitted yesterday July 28.
So I just want to make sure so for hazardous materials that there's a face to required and that's part of the standard.
So that's actually part of the standard environmental service department requirements that would be faced to environmental site assessment.
To potential like anywhere any info site there would be potential.
Remnant contamination that has to be cleaned and this would go to the county environment and health department review correct.
Hi, Charles again here. Yes, that would be correct and the face to would be required prior to the issuance of greeting or demolition permits.
Okay.
Well, thank. Thank you, staff. Thank you for.
Thank you for.
Thank you for answering the questions. So reviewing all the record of this project.
So this, you know, the letters that were letter received also email correspondence adjacently going to project testimony.
I'm reviewing the permit the environmental infill exemption the and technical reports associated with this.
So this project.
This is the type of project that was envisioned with the basketball urban village plan.
They did intensive it envisioned the intensification of development along basketball in terms of residential and commercial properties.
The step back playing that actually provides the outdoor.
Outdoor balconies of the site is actually part of the requirement for the basketball and village plan for the setbacks.
So that creates this situation on where you are actually getting at the most intense of the office uses the interior office uses will be further away from adjacent residences and consist of that urban village plan.
However, does create this additional privacy concern with people being a hangout outside on these decks.
However, there is screening proposed to alleviate some of that.
However, this is part of the requirements of the urban village plan.
It was adopted and agreed upon by city console 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.
Biggest concern raised which is understandable is the vibration from construction having heavy construction near residents something that was raised is that there's different vibrations for historic.
Versus buildings of standard construction so historic construction where this threshold comes from is the or the general plan with the general plan policy that fits.
Brush holes of significance 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 what frame construction you see in later years.
So 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, we do have standard vibration measures.
And or these are standard for recommendations or to implement on to reduce vibration on neighboring structures.
This is a fairly common issue across the city because we have we're urbanized city and we have lots of urban development.
And is and this is as this is very common, especially in downtown where structures are actually more of a sort nature on like the site.
And the project was revisit the project structures were reviewed for determination if they were historic and they're not found to be historic by you know the historic review therefore they not an issue there.
But you know the excavation of this is the excavation first for level of parking you know is a concern.
This is very common throughout the city for newer developments as we see.
Decivocation it's in addition with the general plan and the early intelligence 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.
So a measures in place to ensure that there is not impacts to neighbors and there are.
ramifications that if there doesn't have to be something that happens like for example.
If there is water required then there would be measures that we put into place in order to alleviate that this is you know these are standard part of review prior to grading permit issue and there's conditions that after review and this is common for all.
So there are more than four main and four projects of underground parking or underground excavation.
You know and you know so there are measures in place and I do.
I 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.
I encourage them to be proactive and reach out and be word with their neighbor prior to construction instead of just relying on the construction.
The coordinator in order to take care of all that after construction is already started just makes it for a better process but we do have measures in place that are standard.
There is something that was raised just want to touch on the argument that this project doesn't qualify for an info exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act because of unusual circumstances.
Charlie that touched on this so the site is a standard urban bot surrounded by urban uses it's flat and it is developed with typical.
I don't know developments that are common throughout the city.
It is there's nothing unusual about this site and compared to other is that unusual circumstances.
I'm going to ask you a question.
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 for GAR2 vibration,
construction noise, and ensuring in other aspects of urban infall development. So,
you know, there's no unusual circumstance compared to anywhere else in the city. This is a standard
infall project for which this exemption is an appropriate sequel clearance. And,
let's imagine, yeah. And, do I say for the excavation? You know, again, excavation,
you know, we do this all over the city, especially downtown.
Most of the structures, we are right up against historic structures with Brexit or more sensitive. We do a measures in place to protect those. This case, these measures should be sufficient to address vibration in terms of the air quality, construction air quality of already touched on that. 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 of 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.
The maximum exposed individual is further to the south as is the case for this. This project is just a factor of when they consider all the construction activity and prevailing winds.
Most of the winds will go away from the site and will impact more likely to impact sites to the south. That is the reason why there is that discrepancy. It doesn't make sense at first but when you consider the meteorological conditions, that is why the air quality report says what it does.
With that, considering the totality of the record and the public comments received, I would consider the exemption in the cords of sequa and approved site development h22 to 039.
We got to fix that.
Oh, yeah, there's the need to put that. Put the final number on.