NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
1 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN JOSE AMENDING THE ENVISION SAN JOSE 2040
GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO TITLE 18 OF THE
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE
BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH 1 ST STREET TRANSIT
VILLAGE PLAN, ADOPT THE NORTH 1 ST STREET
LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN, AND AMEND THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SPECIFIED PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NORTH 1ST STREET
TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN AREA
2022 General Plan Amendment Cycle (Cycle 1)
FILE NO. GP21-016
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Title 18 of the San José Municipal Code and state law to adopt and, from time to time, amend the General Plan governing the physical development of the City of San José; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the City Council adopted the General Plan entitled, "Envision San José 2040 General Plan, San José, California” by Resolution No. 76042, which General Plan has been amended from time to time (hereinafter the "General Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015 , the City Council adopted a Supplemental EIR to Envision San José General Plan EIR, Resolution No. 77617, and Addendum thereto; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 18 of the San José Municipal Code, all general and specific plan amendment proposals are referred to the Planning Commission of the City of San José for review and recommendation prior to City Council consideration of the amendments; and
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
2 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the following proposed North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan, and associated General Plan Amendments, at which hearing interested persons were given the opportunity to appear and present their views with respect to said proposed plans and amendments:
A. General Plan Amendments changing the boundary of the North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan and amendment of the land use designations for specified properties within the North 1st Street Transit Village Plan boundary, File No. GP21- 016 specified in Exhibit “A” hereto (“General Plan Amendment GP 21-016”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “General Plan Amendments”); and B. T he North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “B” (“North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan”); and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission transmitted its recommendations to the City Council on the proposed General Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, copies of the proposed General Plan Amendments are on file in the office of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City, with copies submitted to the City Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 18 of the San José Municipal Code, public notice was given that on March 15, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. the Council would hold a public hearing where interested NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
3 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
persons could appear, be heard, and present their views with respect to the proposed General Plan Amendments including the Village Plan adoption (Exhibits “A” and “B”); and WHEREAS, prior to making its determination on the General Plan Amendments , the Council reviewed and considered the Determination of Consistency with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified by Resolution No. 76041) and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan EIR (certified by Resolution No. 77617), and Addenda thereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code (“Section 21676”), the City made a referral of the General Plan Amendments (File Nos. GP21-016 and GP21 -017), Rezonings (File Nos. C21- 041 and C21 -042), and an Ordinance Amendment (File No. PP21-014) to the Airport Land Use Commission of Santa Clara County (“ALUC”) for a determination of consistency with the ALUC’s plans to the extent that the area covered by the subject General Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and Ordinance Amendment associated with the North 1st Street Local Transit Village plan falls within the ALUC’s Airport Influence Area surrounding Mineta San José International Airport (“SJC”); and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the ALUC, acting pursuant to its authority under Section 21676, determined that the project was consistent with ALUC policies as defined in the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan for San José International Airport” (“CLUP”), as the language regulating height in the San José Municipal Code Amendment (File No. PP21- 014) requires conformance to the CLUP’s Part 77 Surfaces (a requirement governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)) and a “no hazard determination” will be required of development projects to meet this FAA requirement; and
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
4 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Senate Bill (SB) 330, a city is prohibited from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive residential use or reducing the residential intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66300(b)(1) allows a city to change a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive residential use if the city concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity; and
WHEREAS, the City is amending the General Plan land use designation of properties within the North 1 st Street Loc al Transit Village boundary, in which the proposed project provides 2,495 housing units and therefore, there is no net loss in residential capacity with the change in land use designation set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Council is the decision -making body for the proposed General Plan Amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Council’s determinations regarding General Plan Amendment GP21-016 and the North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan are specified and set forth in Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
5 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
SECTION 2. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement is delegated the authority to administratively update and/or revise the North 1st Street Village Plan provided the update and/or revisions are limited to making minor clarifications, corrections, or technical changes to the text and diagrams. All administrative updates and revisions shall be immediately published on the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement webpage.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days following the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED this _____ day of _____________, 20__, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
SAM LICCARDO
Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
6 2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
I hereby certify that the amendments to the San José General Plan specified in the attached Exhibit A and the North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B were adopted by the City Council of the City of San José on _______________, as stated in its Resolution No. ________.
Dated: ________________ ___________________________ TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-1
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
EXHIBIT “A”
ENVISION SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
GP21-016. The Envision San José 2040 General Plan is hereby amended to modify the North 1st Street Local Transit Village boundary and change the land use designations on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram on specified properties within the boundaries of the Village Plan area as shown on the North 1st Street Local Transit Village land use map attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Council District 3.
APN Current General Plan
Designation
Proposed General
Plan Designation
23036074 NCC No change
23506037 NCC No change
23507043 NCC UR
23507044 NCC UR
23507061 NCC No change
23507064 NCC UR
23507065 NCC No change
23507066 NCC No change
23507067 NCC No change
23507068 NCC No change
23507069 NCC UR
23508065 NCC UR
23508072 NCC UR
23508073 NCC UR
23508074 NCC UR
23508075 NCC UR
23508076 NCC UR
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-2
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
23508077 NCC UR
23508078 NCC UR
23508079 NCC UR
23508080 NCC UR
23508081 NCC UR
24901017 NCC No change
24901018 NCC No change
24901019 NCC No change
24901023 NCC No change
24901025 NCC No change
24901026 NCC No change
24901027 NCC No change
24901028 NCC No change
24901070 NCC No change
24902008 NCC TR
24902009 NCC TR
24902013 NCC TR
24902014 NCC TR
24902015 NCC TR
24902016 NCC TR
24902017 NCC TR
24902018 NCC TR
24902019 NCC TR
24902020 NCC TR
24902021 NCC TR
24902022 NCC TR
24902064 NCC TR
24902068 NCC TR
24902069 NCC TR
24902070 NCC TR
24902071 NCC TR
24902072 NCC TR
24902073 NCC TR
24902074 NCC TR
24942067 NCC No change
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-3
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
24942068 NCC No change
24942070 NCC No change
24942071 NCC No change
24942073 NCC No change
24942074 NCC No change
24942075 NCC No change
24942079 NCC No change
24942084 NCC No change
24942085 NCC No change
24942086 NCC No change
24943031 RN UR
24943032 RN UR
24943033 RN UR
24943042 NCC TR
24943043 RN TR
24943044 NCC TR
24943050 NCC UR
24943051 NCC UR
25905008 NCC UVC
25905012 NCC UVC
25905013 NCC UVC
25905014 NCC UVC
25905027 TR No change
25905037 TR No change
25905038 TR No change
25905039 TR No change
25905040 NCC TR
25905041 NCC TR
25905048 NCC TR
25905050 NCC TR
25905053 NCC TR
25905058 TR No change
25905060 NCC UVC
25905063 TR No change
25905064 TR No change
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-4
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
25905065 TR No change
25918066 NCC UVC
25905066 TR No change
25905068 NCC TR
25905069 NCC UVC
25905070 TR No change
25905071 TR No change
25905072 TR No change
25905073 NCC UVC
25905074 NCC TR
25905075 NCC TR
25905076 NCC TR
25905077 NCC TR
25905078 NCC UVC
25917109 NCC No change
25917110 NCC No change
25917113 NCC No change
25918032 NCC RN
25918033 NCC UR
25918034 NCC TR
25918036 NCC TR
25918037 NCC TR
25918038 RN No change
25918050 NCC No change
25918051 NCC No change
25918061 NCC UVC
25918061 NCC TR
25918063 NCC UVC
25918067 NCC UVC
25918068 NCC UVC
25919098 NCC No change
25960C01 TR No change
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-5
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Figure A-1: Existing General Plan Land Uses
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
A-6
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Figure A-2: Proposed General Plan Land Uses
NVF:VMT:JMD
3/21/2022
B-1
2022 General Plan Amendment (Cycle 1)
File No. GP21-016
T-1201.072 / 1899459_2
Council Agenda: 03-22-2022
Item No.: 10.2(a)
REVISED – Administrative changes made to Exhibit A since original posting on 3/11/2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
EXHIBIT “B”
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
GP21-016. The North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.
Council District 3.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
MONTH DATE YEAR
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
MONTH DATE YEAR
ii
DATE AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. SUMMARY
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
iii
FUNDED BY CALTRANS
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION CONT.
Tracy Tam (Lead) Edward Schreiner
Jennifer Piozet Charla Gomez
Kieulan Pham Dana Peak
Jessica Setiawan
Allison Schuster DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Jared Hart Benjamin Schuster
Michael Brilliot Wilson Tam
Thai-Chau Le Natasha Opfell
David Keyon
Cassandra Van Der Zweep DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Ruth Cueto Thomas Borden
Brent Carvalho Manjit Banwait
Martina Davis
Robert Rivera PARKS, RECREATION, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES Justin Daniels Zak Mendez
Jose Ruano
Matias Eusterbrock ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Jennifer Provedor Tiffany Ngo
Kenneth Chou Shayan Serajeddini
Danielle Buscher
Hannah Galzote CITY COUNCIL MEMBER & STAFF
Stephanie Garcia Raul Peralez, District 3
Leila Hakimizadeh David Tran
Mindy Nguyen
CONSULTANTS
Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill (Lead)
For other information related to Urban Villages please visit:
https://sanjoseca.gov/urbanvillages
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTE R 1: INT RODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTE R 2: VISIO N STATEM ENT & GUIDING PR INCIPLE S .............................................................. 5 CHAPTE R 3: LAND USE ................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTE R 4: UR BAN DE SIGN & PLACEM AK ING .................................................................................. 17 CHAPTE R 5: P AR KS & OP EN SP ACE ....................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTE R 6: CIRCUL ATIO N & ST REE TSCAPE ....................................................................................... 30 CHAPTE R 7: IMPL EMENT AT IO N .............................................................................................................. 41 APPE NDICE S .................................................................................................................................................. 45 APPE NDIX A: VILL AGE PL ANNING & COMMUNITY OUT RE ACH PR OCE SS ................................. 46 APPE NDIX B: REL AT IONSHIP T O OT HER DO CUM ENTS .................................................................... 51 APPE NDIX C: DE FINIT IO NS ....................................................................................................................... 55 APPE NDIX D: AR CHIT ECTUR AL STYLE S ................................................................................................. 58
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
1 CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan (Village Plan) is a City Council approved policy document guiding the future growth of the approximately 54-gross acres section of North 1st Street between Interstate 880 and Hensley Street. The Plan is prepared by the City and with input from the community to provide a policy framework to guide new job and housing growth within the Village boundary. The Village Plan will also guide the characteristics of future development, including buildings, plazas and placemaking, streetscape and circulation within this area. The Village Plan will be primarily implemented through investments made by private development.
Location
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village (Village) is located in Central San José, generally along North 1st Street and bordered by Interstate 880 to the north and bounded by East Empire Street to the south.
Two Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail lines (the Blue Line (Baypointe to Santa Teresa) and EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
3 the Green Line (Old- Ironsides-Winchester)) bisects the Village. The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is located adjacent to many unique neighborhoods, including Rosemary Gardens, Hyde Park, Japantown, Civic Center, Vendome, Hensley Historic District, and downtown San José.
North 1st Street is a Grand Boulevard as designated in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan (General Plan). Grand Boulevards connect multiple neighborhoods and act as urban design elements at a citywide scale. The public right of way along Grand Boulevards requires extra attention and improvement, such as enhanced landscaping, additional attractive lighting, wider and comfortable sidewalks, and identification banners.
Plan Purpose
The Village is planned as a complete community which builds upon the surrounding unique neighborhoods, drawing upon the existing fabric and promoting community investment and growth.
This existing fabric includes small businesses, schools, historic buildings, and government offices. In a complete community, people have safe and convenient access to the amenities needed for daily life, including grocery stores and other commercial services, as well as a variety of housing options, public open spaces and recreational facilities, multimodal transportation options, and civic amenities. A complete neighborhood is built at a walkable and bikeable human scale and meets the needs of people of all ages and abilities. Goals, standards, guidelines, and action items shape new development and private and public investment to achieve the Village Plan’s vision and guiding principles. The Village Plan is focused on meeting future jobs and housing needs for the area, while also improving public spaces like streets, sidewalks, and open spaces.
Private development projects are required to comply with the standards within this Village Plan and must be consulted by the development community, city staff, and members of the public for goals, standards, guidelines and action items to implement this Village Plan. This Village Plan will be implemented through investments made by private development, and in some instances, the City and other public agencies. Each improvement will need to be fully designed and funded before it is implemented. Additional public outreach will be conducted for specific improvements and developments.
How to Use This Village Plan
Within this Village Plan, there are goals, standards, guidelines, and action items. Goals are overarching concepts that are implemented by standards. Standards are considered requirements and private development projects shall be evaluated with the standards for compliance. Standards are written with “shall” statements. Guidelines are suggestions and are not required; however, guidelines describe best practices, and they are an indication of the community’s desires and should be integrated into the development, as feasible. Guidelines are written with “should” statements. Action items are items for the City to consider and potentially implement in the future.
The Land Use designations contained within this Village Plan replace the land use designations in the General Plan for the properties within the village boundary. However, development review projects are still required to comply with applicable General Plan policies.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
4 Document Organization
Chapter 1: Introduction
Describes the planning areas and the Village Plan purpose and outlines the organization of the Village Plan document.
Chapter 2: Vision
Conveys the community’s vision for the North 1st Street Local Transit Village and presents the guiding principles which inform the goals, standards, guidelines, and action items contained within this Village Plan.
Chapter 3: Land Use
Describes the planned growth, identifies land use designations, and land use goals, standards, guidelines, and action items.
Chapter 4: Parks and Open Space
Identifies policies, guidelines, standards, and action items and potential locations for new publicly- accessible open spaces, and presents strategies for incorporating plazas, pocket parks, paseos, parklets, and public art into the Village boundary.
Chapter 5: Urban Design and Placemaking
Describes the concept of urban design and the placemaking strategy. Contains policies, standards, guidelines, and action items related to urban design and placemaking opportunities.
Chapter 6: Circulation and Streetscape
Discusses the existing circulation network for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars, streetscape treatments, and transportation improvements as future action items.
Chapter 7: Implementation
Summarizes the City’s action items and potential funding sources to assist with implementing certain aspects of the Village Plan over time.
Appendix A: Village Planning and Community Outreach Process Provides information related to the Village Planning Process and the Community Outreach Process.
Agendas and meeting notes from the workshops are also contained within the appendix.
Appendix B: Relationship to Other Documents
Provides an overview of the relationship between the Village Plan and other city documents.
Appendix C: Definitions
Contains definitions of terms used throughout the document. Terms defined in this appendix are notated in italicized text.
Appendix D: Architectural Styles
Contains objective guidance for architectural styles listed under Urban Design and Placemaking Standard UDP-1.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
5 CHAPTER 2:
VISION
STATEMENT &
GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
6 CHAPTER 2: VISION STATEMENT & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were shaped by the community engagement process through a series of outreach efforts detailed in Appendix A. This Vision Statement describes how the community would like to see the North 1st Street Local Transit Village area transformed and preserved.
The Guiding Principles support the Vision Statement and embody the foundation of the Village Plan’s policies, standards, guidelines, and action items.
Vision Statement:
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is envisioned to be a vibrant, multicultural, and well-connected community that promotes local businesses and amenities, provides affordable housing opportunities, integrates community gathering and open spaces, preserves existing historic assets, and offers a well- connected and safe transportation system.
Guiding Principle 1: CREATE A VIBRANT BUSINESS CORRIDOR WITH COMMUNITY GATHERING AND
OPEN SPACES
Create a vibrant, activated Village promoting local businesses and amenities with community gathering and open spaces where the community can meet, socialize, enhance community spirit, and encourage pride of place. Enhance local and neighborhood-serving businesses through sidewalk activation, providing high-quality urban design, and streetscape improvements.
Guiding Principle 2: CELEBRATE THE MULTICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC
ASSETS, AND ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Celebrate the Village’s variety of cultures, and ensure preservation and sensitivity is a priority to existing historic assets. Promote an inclusive, mixed-income community with housing opportunities for existing and future generations, while respecting the existing character of the neighborhood and its’ historic assets and context.
Guiding Principle 3: ESTABLISH A WELL-CONNECTED, SAFE, AND INTEGRATED MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Enhance the Village to serve all individuals and support all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, public transportation, and cars. Promote a well-connected and integrated multi-modal transportation system where people who walk, bike, drive and take transit can attend to daily needs safely, efficiently, and comfortably.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
7 CHAPTER 3:
LAND USE
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
8 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE
The Land Use Chapter describes the planned growth anticipated for the North 1st Street Local Transit Village and identifies the type, location, and intensity of specific land uses within the Village. The land use diagram contains the general type of allowed uses and details the minimum and maximum densities and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) allowed on a property. Densities and FAR are mechanisms used to define the overall building envelope for a property, though there may be other applicable limiting factors including, but not limited to, urban design standards and guidelines, height maximums, and zoning code regulations.
Planned Growth
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan (General Plan) establishes specific employment and residential growth capacities for all Urban Villages. This Plan supports the identified growth capacity for this Urban Village in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Appendix 5: Planned Job Capacity and Housing Growth Areas. As specified in the General Plan, this Village Plan considers one job as equal to 300 square feet. This translates to 756,000 square feet of capacity for new employment development.
Character Areas
Character Areas are used to denote specific districts that share similarities. While the land use designations control allowed uses, Floor Area Ratios (FAR), and density (dwelling units per acre), the Character Areas helped inform the land use designations assigned to properties within the Village boundary.
The Village Plan establishes three Character Areas: Commercial Gateway, Central Civic Center, and Southern Mixed-Use.
The Commercial Gateway Character Area is located on the northern portion of the Village and is envisioned to be commercially focused, with neighborhood-serving and mid-scale commercial uses. The Central Civic Center Character Area is in the center of the village and is envisioned to accommodate most of the growth in this Village due to the larger parcels and proximate freeway access. The Central Civic Center Character Area is intended to be developed with high-intensity residential and employment uses with a series of public-and privately- maintained but publicly accessible plazas and open spaces woven throughout. The Southern Mixed-Use Character Area occupies the southern portion of the Village and is envisioned to be developed into a mixed-use environment that is blended with the existing neighborhood context.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
9 Land Use Designations
Land Use designations in the General Plan and this Village Plan identify locations, types, and intensities of development allowed on a particular site. There are six land use designations within this Village Plan:
Urban Village Commercial, Neighborhood/Community Commercial, Transit Residential, Urban Residential, and Residential Neighborhood. These land use designations control the type of uses allowed on a property and the level of development intensity that is envisioned by the use of FAR and density.
Intensities of development are generally measured in density for residential development (dwelling units per acre) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for stand-alone commercial development, a combination of dwelling units per acre and Floor Area Ratio are used for mixed-use development (residential and commercial development).
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
10 Density is used to describe the intensity of development allowed on a property for fully residential uses.
Density can generally be described as the number of dwelling units (regardless of square footage and number of bedrooms) per acre of land. Lower densities, such as eight dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) generally allow for a suburban residential style development whereas 55 DU/AC, for example, generally allows for a more compact urban style of development.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is used to describe the intensity of development allowed on a property for fully commercial uses. The ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the net acreage of the lot upon which the building stands. Above ground structured parking is included in the calculation of the total structure/building square footage. However, for single-family residential parcels, the square footage of accessory structures, garages, attics, and basements are not included in the calculation.
For mixed-use developments (residential and commercial developments), intensity is calculated by using both density per acre and floor area ratio. Calculating the FAR for mixed-use development should include both the floor area of the commercial and residential components of the entire project.
The requirements for the types of uses allowed in the applicable zoning districts are specified in San José Municipal Code Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance).
Neighborhood/Community Commercial
Density: 0.15 to 3.5 FAR
This designation supports a very broad range of commercial activity, including commercial uses that serve the communities in neighboring areas, such as neighborhood serving retail and services and commercial/professional office development. Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses typically have a strong connection to and may provide services and amenities for the nearby community and should be designed to promote that connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction. General office uses, hospitals, hotels, and private community gathering facilities are also allowed in this designation.
Urban Village Commercial
Density: 0.50 to 8.0 FAR
The Urban Village Commercial land use designation supports commercial activity that is more intensive than that of the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. Appropriate uses in this designation include mid-rise office buildings, health care facilities, and hotels, along with ground floor neighborhood-serving commercial and retail uses. Aggregation of smaller parcels is supported in this designation in order to form parcels ideal for larger, mid-rise development. Development under this designation should be developed with an urban and pedestrian-oriented form with the parking and automobile circulation presence minimized from the adjacent public right-of-way. This designation does not support drive-through uses or ministorage. Big box stores would only be supported as part of a vertical mixed-use development and are not supported as a stand-alone use.
Residential Neighborhood
For a description of this land use designation, refer to the Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use designation contained within Chapter 5, Interconnected City, in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
11 Urban Residential
Density: 30-95 DU/AC; FAR 1.0 to 4.0
This designation allows for medium density residential development and a fairly broad range of commercial uses, including retail, offices, hospitals, and private community gathering facilities. Ground floor commercial uses are required where indicated on the Land Use Diagram. This designation is used to identify portions of Urban Village areas where the density of new development should be limited to a medium intensity in order to provide for a gradual transition between surrounding low-density neighborhoods and other areas within the Urban Village suitable for greater intensification.
Transit Residential
Density: 50-250 DU/AC; FAR 2.0 to 12.0
This is the primary designation for new high-density, residential (mixed-use or standalone) development that is located in close proximity to transit, jobs, amenities, and services. This designation also supports intensive commercial employment uses, such as office, retail, hotels, hospitals and private community gathering facilities. To help contribute to “complete communities,” ground floor commercial uses are required where indicated on the Land Use Diagram.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
12 EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
13 Historically Sensitive Properties
Historic Landmarks are locally recognized and designated properties (including building, structures, and land) that represent a physical connection with significant persons, activities, or events from our past.
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village boundary is surrounded by historically sensitive properties that either are placed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) or are City Landmarks. Properties on the HRI are considered to have some historic merit. City Landmarks are considered to have significant historical value and have policy protections in place in order to ensure these properties are preserved. In addition to serving as visible reminders of our historical and cultural heritage, City Landmarks contribute to San José's unique character and sense of place. This uniqueness strengthens the local economy by preserving property values, attracting tourists, creating a sense of place, and encouraging investment.
There are several City Landmarks within close proximity of the Village boundary: Moody Flats Apartments (311 North 2nd Street), Borcher Brothers Building (396 North 1st Street), and the Plate Residence (607 North 1st Street). There are a number of properties within this Village that are listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
14 Land Use Goals, Standards, Guidelines, and Action Items Development projects that require a discretionary approval from the City shall be reviewed in conformance with the standards contained in this Village Plan, in addition to other applicable City requirements. The purpose of these standards is to set land use parameters to ensure implementation of the community’s vision of this Village Plan area and balance the goals and policies in the General Plan.
These land use goals, standards, guidelines, and action items have a symbiotic relationship with other goals, standards, guidelines, and action items in this document.
Land Use Goals:
Goal LU-1: Develop the Commercial Gateway Character Area into a commercial-first area with neighborhood serving commercial uses and mid-scale commercial uses.
Goal LU-2: Transform the Central Civic Center Character Area into the heart of the village where the majority of new intensive growth is placed.
Goal LU-3: Ensure the Southern Mixed-Use Character Area is developed into a mixed-use environment that is sensitive to the existing neighborhood context.
Land Use Standards:
Standard LU-1: Drive-through uses are prohibited.
Standard LU-2: "Big box" uses are prohibited except as part of a vertical mixed-use development that is designed to be pedestrian oriented.
Standard LU-3: Properties with a General Plan land use designation of Urban Village Commercial shall replace all existing non-residential square footage when redeveloped.
Standard LU-4: Properties with a General Plan land use designation of Urban Village Commercial shall be built at a minimum FAR of 0.50.
Standard LU-5: Ground floor commercial shall be required for parcel(s) noted on the Land Use Diagram.
Standard LU-6: Properties with a Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation must replace all existing non-residential square footage when redeveloped and provide a minimum of 0.15 FAR.
Land Use Guidelines:
Guideline LU-1: Support the ability of parking areas (either within buildings or standalone) to be repurposed over time to respond to travel mode shift and an evolving market demand by incorporating design features that provide for future redevelopment opportunities including but not limited to: floor- to-floor height, structural loading, ramp configuration and location, and/or column separation.
Guideline LU-2: Strongly encourage the placement of vehicle parking underground where feasible.
Guideline LU-3: Strongly encourage shared parking between uses to reduce the amount of square footage dedicated to parking.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
15 Guideline LU-4: Strongly encourage mixed-uses and higher-intensity development at Light Rail stations to support transit ridership.
Guideline LU-5: If “mom and pop” businesses are displaced by the redevelopment of private property, relocate these businesses within the Village to the fullest extent possible.
Guideline LU-6: Encourage the integration of commercial tenant spaces within new development to accommodate small businesses.
Guideline LU-7: Encourage farmers’ markets, food truck events, and temporary pop-ups along the paseo and in plazas.
Guideline LU-8: Support commercial amenities such as, but not limited to: grocery stores, pharmacies, childcare services, and restaurants to serve the community and surrounding areas.
Guideline LU-9: Provide a multitude of housing types and levels of affordability within the Village.
Guideline LU-10: Encourage the aggregation of parcels within the North 1st Street Local Transit Village to facilitate new development, especially mixed-use or wholly commercial uses at a higher density or intensity throughout the Village, with particular emphasis in the Central Civic Center Character Area.
Guideline LU-11: Projects are encouraged to provide spaces for community gatherings, art studios, and maker space.
Land Use Action Item:
Action LU-1: Explore policy work on fostering and retaining small businesses.
Historic Preservation Goal:
Goal HP-1: Preserve Candidate City Landmarks, City Landmarks, and properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.
Historic Preservation Standards:
Standard HP-1: Reuse of a designated City Landmark building shall not require any additional parking spaces.
Standard HP-2: Preserve Candidate City Landmarks and City Landmarks, with the priority to preserve and rehabilitate them for their historic use, and secondarily, to preserve and rehabilitate them for a new use.
Historic Preservation Guidelines:
Guideline HP-1: Where new buildings will be immediately adjacent to or between existing historic buildings, the overall design of the new buildings should respond to the existing structures through use of architectural elements and similar proportions that provide a transition between the old and the new.
Architectural treatments may include matching cornice lines, similar wall and roof materials, or similar window and door proportions. Existing parcel lines and lot patterns should be respected in new construction to retain the rhythm of the urban fabric, and interest for pedestrians, particularly along street frontages.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
16 Guideline HP-2: Adaptive reuse of historically significant structures should maintain the architectural integrity and character-defining elements of the structures with respect to materials, façade treatment, window and door openings, rooflines, and other detailing.
Guideline HP-3: New construction should relate to existing historic buildings (e.g. those listed on the Historic Resources Inventory, Candidate City Landmarks, and City Landmarks) by drawing upon the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form, and materials. When new construction is located next to existing historic building(s) (e.g. those listed on the Historic Resources Inventory, Candidate City Landmarks, and City Landmarks), the new building should be compatible in scale, site relationship, and style. New construction should not imitate or mimic historic buildings.
Guideline HP-4: Demolition of buildings and structures listed on the Historic Resources Inventory shall only be considered if rehabilitation, reuse on the subject site, and/or relocation of the resource is not feasible.
Historic Preservation Action Items:
Action HP-1: Explore funding opportunities to conduct periodic survey work to identify historic resources.
Action HP-2: Continue to conduct community and property owner outreach on the benefits of preserving historically significant buildings and structures.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
17 CHAPTER 4:
URBAN DESIGN
&
PLACEMAKING
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
18 CHAPTER 4: URBAN DESIGN & PLACEMAKING
North 1st Street Local Transit Village is envisioned as a vibrant, multicultural, and well-connected community. A strong urban design and placemaking concept for future development in the Village will help create cohesion and improve the look and feel of the Village, enhance access to amenities, and create a distinct sense of place. The urban design and placemaking concepts look to build upon the three distinct Village character areas.
The Urban Design and Placemaking Chapter relies and builds upon the City Council approved Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines which sets forth requirements and guidelines for building massing, architecture, and urban design. The Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the goals, standards, and guidelines contained in this chapter. Should there be any discrepancies between the Village Plan and the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines, the standards within the Village Plan shall apply.
Urban Design
Urban design can be thought of as the practice and process of designing the physical aspects of a city or place. This can include the form and shape of buildings, roads, plazas, and open spaces. Often times, urban design is a blend of a multitude of disciplines, such as architecture (not only architectural style, but also form and massing), landscape architecture, and city planning. All these disciplines must work together harmoniously in order to create great people-first places.
Building Height
The Village Plan height diagram identifies maximum heights of development within the North 1st Street Local Transit Village including taller heights for higher-intensity development and locations where lower height is necessary in order to step down towards existing low-intensity residential uses. The building height diagram works in tandem with the land use designation and urban design goals and standards contained within this document, and other relevant city regulations, affecting the form of buildings and structures.
As the Village is within proximity to Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, development projects may require Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review. The ALUC is a body required by state law and administered through the County of Santa Clara. The ALUC is not an agency or commission of the City of San José. Development project applicants shall be required to coordinate and notify the Federal Aviation Administration of their proposals.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
19 EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
20 Placemaking
Placemaking has a wide variety of definitions but can generally be thought of as a way to reimagine public spaces in a people-centered approach through a collaborative effort among community members, government entities, and private developers. Public art, wayfinding, and urban design principles all contribute to creating spaces for people.
Public Art
Public art can play a vital role in increasing a sense of place within the Village. It can signify the heritage and historic character of the Village, create an inviting walking environment, and enhance the identity of the community as it develops. Public art is not merely an amenity that could be included in public parks but could also be implemented in both public and private development. While there is currently no private development funding requirement for public art, the inclusion of public art and public art maintenance into private development projects is highly encouraged and has a demonstrated benefit for developers, attracting businesses, customers, residents, and visitors.
Wayfinding
Wayfinding is the ability to orient oneself and navigate using visual cues, such as signage, in a physical space. Wayfinding signs can be used as a visual tool to guide the user to a destination, such as a transit station, a shopping district, or a community amenity. Wayfinding can also assist in furthering neighborhood identity as a secondary role, such as street light banners.
Gateway Elements
A gateway element signals that you have arrived at a certain place. It could include a decorative sign, landscaping, and other elements. Gateway elements can assist with placemaking. Primary gateways are typically larger and more impactful, while secondary gateways are smaller in scale, and more appropriate at the neighborhood setting.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
21 Urban Design and Placemaking Goals
Goal UDP-1: Ensure the built form contributes to the multicultural quality of the Village and surrounding areas and continues to build upon the sense of community.
Goal UDP-2: Ensure the architecture of new buildings are reflective of and represents the high-quality and rich architectural character in the Village.
Goal UDP-3: Create thoughtfully designed destinations throughout the Village where people can congregate, socialize, relax, and enjoy.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
22 Urban Design and Placemaking Standards
Standard UDP-1: New buildings shall be designed and contain at least two character-defining features of architectural styles within the Village, which are defined in Appendix D of this Plan. The architectural styles in the Village are generally: Spanish Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, Contemporary, New Formalism, Minimal Traditional, Beaux Arts, Mission, Craftsman, Colonial Revival, and International. The intent is not to combine elements of architecture that do not complement each other. New buildings may use the same materials and the same texture of materials in similar applications as existing buildings.
Standard UDP-2: Screening techniques, such as tall trees or shrubs, fences, and walls, shall be utilized along all shared property lines if a property directly abuts a structure being used as a single-family residence. This shall not apply to properties that have a single-family house that has been converted to non-residential use(s).
Standard UDP-3: The building stepbacks shall be those contained in the adopted Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines document.
Standard UDP-4: All public art shall be publicly viewable and accessible. To ensure public art is publicly viewable and accessible, direct paths of travel from the public sidewalk or unobstructed view sheds to the public art must be provided. Access easements may be required to provide proper access.
Standard UDP-5: Properties with North 1st Street frontage shall provide a 5-foot setback. The setback area shall not include any land held as public right-of-way, regardless of whether such land is held in fee title or easement. This setback is to ensure a minimum 20-foot clearance from the curb to the building.
This 5-foot setback shall not be paved and must be landscaped.
Urban Design and Placemaking Guidelines
Guideline UDP-1: Encourage a variety of public art throughout the Village. Public art may convey the history of the area and visually impart the values of the community.
Guideline UDP-2: Encourage gateway elements at the intersections of West/East Taylor Street and North 1st Street, North San Pedro and West Taylor Street, Interstate 880 and North 1st Street, West/East Hedding Street and North 1st Street, North 1st Street and Jackson Street, Burton Avenue and North 1st Street, and North 1st Street and Empire Street, so people know they have reached a destination.
Gateway elements should be visually consistent with each other for a cohesive aesthetic.
Guideline UDP-3: Locate plazas in areas that will support community events such as farmers’ markets, art fairs, live music concerts, and other periodic special programming. Preferred locations of plazas are reflected in the Land Use Diagram.
Guideline UDP-4: Encourage interesting features, such as public art or water features, in plazas that reflect the multicultural quality of the Village. Public art is encouraged in the privately owned but maintained public open spaces.
Guideline UDP-5: Sidewalk seating that does not impede pedestrian use of the sidewalk is encouraged to promote activity at the pedestrian level.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
23 Guideline UDP-6: Use trees and landscaping to help create a series of comfortable and inviting places throughout the Village.
Guideline UDP-7: ‘Boxy’ modern architecture is discouraged.
Guideline UDP-8: Integrate stormwater runoff treatment into the vegetative treatment systems where appropriate.
Guideline UDP-9: Mature trees meeting the definition of a tree in the San José Municipal Code Section
13.32.020 (as may be amended from time to time) should be preserved to the fullest extent possible.
Urban Design and Placemaking Action Items
Action UDP-1: Explore opportunities for public and private art installations within the Village.
Action UDP-2: Explore opportunities to expand the Streetlight Banner Program to encompass the North 1st Street Village in order to better establish a sense of place.
Action UDP-3: Explore opportunities to partner with Community-Based Organizations to set up an art utility box program within the Village.
Action UDP-4: Explore opportunities to partner with the Valley Transportation Authority to install artistic wayfinding signs to transit stops.
Action UDP-5: Explore the possibility of adopting an ordinance for Street Business Areas. A “Street Business Area” is defined as the portion of the public street abutting a business’ property that has been repurposed for seating and business use by separating the area from vehicular and bicycle traffic with physical barriers approved by the City (“Traffic Barriers”).
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
24 CHAPTER 5:
PARKS & OPEN
SPACE
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
25 CHAPTER 5: PARKS & OPEN SPACE
The Parks and Open Space Chapter offers strategies to create new public or privately-owned and maintained, but publicly-accessible open spaces within the existing and planned context of the North 1st Street Local Transit Village. This Chapter builds upon the guidelines and goals established in ActivateSJ and the GreenPrint, the departmental strategic and capital improvement planning policy documents implemented by the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
26 The City’s General Plan establishes a goal of 3.5 acres of open space and parkland per 1,000 residents.
Based on City Parkland Ordinances, 10 acres of parkland in needed in this Village area based on the anticipated number of new residents and new private development. Currently, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village has no public parks within the plan boundaries, leaving the Village underserved for both existing and future residents of the area. Additionally, ActivateSJ establishes the goal of providing residents access to a park within a 10-minute walk. An analysis of the Village area reveals that much of the Village lacks adequate access to a park facility. However, proximity to ample regional resources including the Guadalupe River Parkway and Trail, Columbus Park, The Rotary Playgarden, and Ryland Park and Pool, in the nearby vicinity does present an opportunity to improve access to a quality park for Village residents.
Due to the condensed nature of the Village area, the Village will not likely be able to accommodate a large traditional park, given the small and shallow parcel sizes and challenges with parcel aggregation and acquisition. Traditional parks have historically been developed as larger open spaces of at least one acre with recreational opportunities such as large gathering spaces and sports playfields. However, there are opportunities to create smaller open spaces, with opportunities for recreation that can serve the multi-generational community. Improved connections to the existing Guadalupe River and Ryland Parkway Trails, multi-purpose plazas, paseos, small neighborhood parks, and open spaces like dog parks are all expressed desires within the community. Together, these open spaces can provide much needed opportunities for community recreation and public life. This Chapter expresses the goals, standards, guidelines, and action items to achieve the community vision for open space and recreation in this Village.
Connections to Trail Systems
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is located just east of the extensive Guadalupe River Trail that connects South San Jose all the way to the Bay Trail in the North, and the Ryland Parkway Trail connecting Ryland Park, Pool, and Dog Park to the Guadalupe River Trail.
Currently, the Guadalupe trail provides five access points within relative proximity to the Village boundary: generally at the intersection of West Julian Street and Autumn Parkway, at the northside of Coleman Avenue at the Coleman Avenue and Autumn Parkway intersection, the northside of West Taylor Street at the intersection of West Taylor Street and Irene Street, and the northside of West Hedding Street at the intersection of West Hedding Street and Ruff Drive, and via the Ryland Parkway Trail, at the intersection of North 1st Street and Ryland Park Drive. All of these trail connections are located outside the Village boundary.
While opportunities to add direct connections to the to the Guadalupe River Trail from the Village boundary may be limited, this Village Plan encourages and contemplates enhancements to trail connections though sidewalk and bikeway improvements to improve visual wayfinding cues to direct users to trail resources.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
27 Parks and Multi-Purpose Plazas
Public parks provide a necessary space for residents to congregate and engage in public life, recreational opportunities, and connect to nature. Vibrant and diverse public spaces with multi-generational recreation opportunities are vital in sustaining the physical and mental health of the people of San Jose.
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is severely lacking in access to quality parks and public life experiences. This is particularly evident in the Northern section of the Village, where 10-minute walk analysis clearly shows that most of the area and the neighborhood lack access to a park. This Village Plan identifies the need to provide a public park somewhere within the northern part of the Village area, indicated by the preferred park location noted on this plans land use diagram. A neighborhood park of EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
28 approximately 1-acre in size (a minimum of .5-acres in size) would greatly benefit the both the Village and surrounding neighborhood. The park should provide a variety of recreational amenities identified though the PRNS park master planning community engagement process. Amenities may include, but are not limited to: playgrounds, contemplative spaces, small sports courts (e.g. pickleball courts).
Multi-purpose plazas are generally spaces that are owned, developed, and maintained privately, but are open to the public. As properties along North 1st Street redevelop with higher intensity uses, the City and the community will work with private developers to facilitate the creation of privately-owned public plazas within new development. This would ensure that these plaza spaces would successfully serve the community. Plazas should be designed to provide visually engaging gathering spaces for community members to socialize informally as well as provide space for neighborhood events. Features such as art, fountains, and plants would draw the eye to these lively, urban focal points. This Village Plan supports locating publicly-accessible plazas at the intersection of North 1st Street and Taylor Street at each corner of the intersection located at Asbury Street and Miller Street. A plaza should have good visibility and wayfinding from the street in order to attract residents and visitors alike. While larger plazas of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet are desired and would provide the most flexibility in use, the size of existing parcels North 1st Street could result in plazas that are smaller.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Paseo
Paseos can provide safe circulation paths for pedestrians and bicycles, and can function as an active linear public space that creates connectivity between neighborhoods and opportunities for outdoor enjoyment such as sitting, gathering, public art, live entertainment (I.e., music events), community classes (I.e., yoga events), and social interaction. As more development comes to the area, there will be an opportunity to create a linked chain of paseos, particularly on Asbury and Miller Streets (north of West Taylor Street). While not required of new development, a paseo should be a considered and is encouraged to help create a sense of place. Furthermore, pedestrian and bicycle paseos present a unique opportunity to enhance connections to the Guadalupe River and Ryland Parkway Trails.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
29 Pocket Parks/Dog Parks
“Pocket parks” are smaller than traditional parks but may contain much of the neighborhood-serving amenities of larger parks to better serve the Village. Pocket parks are typically built on single lots or irregularly shaped pieces of land and can be owned and maintained by the City or included in private development as part of a public open space requirement. Pocket parks on private property can also be made publicly accessible (but privately maintained) and may be considered as part of a development’s parkland dedication requirement. The City will seek private partners to maintain pocket parks throughout the implementation of this Village Plan.
Pocket parks and dog parks should be considered where small or irregularly shaped parcels exist, such as the ‘finger’ parcels located in the Commercial Gateway Character Area on the block in between Burton Avenue and Younger Avenue and on the block between Younger Avenue and Hedding Street.
Parks and Open Space Goals
Goal POP-1: Create a variety of multi-purpose open spaces throughout the Village.
Goal POP-2: Design safe, well-lit open spaces that serve the community and surrounding areas.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
30 Parks and Open Space Standards
Standard POP-1: Ensure that the length and width of privately-owned, but publicly-accessible open spaces be a minimum of 40 feet when any building on its perimeter is 30-feet or taller in order to accommodate sufficient amenities and create viable spaces.
Standard POP-2: Privately-owned, publicly-accessible open spaces shall contain places to sit, shade, and be well lit (i.e., meaning outdoor artificial lighting is provided).
Standard POP-3: Ensure that privately-owned, publicly-accessible open spaces have access easements dedicated to the City for the benefit of the public, and the spaces are designed to be easily recognizable as publicly-accessible through signage and visually open design.
Parks and Open Space Guidelines
Guideline POP-1: Properties located at the intersections of North 1st Street and West/East Taylor Street should provide a publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained plaza or open space.
Guideline POP-2: Properties located at the intersection of Asbury Street and Miller Street should provide a publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained plaza or open space.
Guideline POP-3: Encourage new development to incorporate roof top gardens for the use by the building occupants as well as members of the public.
Guideline POP-4: Community gardens are encouraged within the Village.
Guideline POP-5: Properties with frontage on North 2nd Street and located within the Commercial Gateway or Southern Mixed-Use Character Areas should incorporate privately-owned publicly- accessible open space.
Guideline POP-6: The pedestrian and bicycle paseo should incorporate interesting paving materials (e.g. diamond scored concrete, pavers), a variety of landscaping and seating areas, and public art.
Guideline POP-7: Encourage private development to incorporate community spaces that can be used to provide a space for neighborhood meetings and events.
Parks and Open Space Action Items
Action POP-1: Explore opportunities to acquire property specifically for public open spaces, especially properties highlighted as potential park locations in this Village Plan’s land use diagram.
Action POP-2: Explore opportunities to create better connections to the Guadalupe River Park, Guadalupe River Trail, and Ryland Parkway Trail.
Action POP-3: Explore opportunities to use art to create connections to the Guadalupe River Park from the North 1st Street Transit Village.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
31 CHAPTER 6:
CIRCULATION &
STREETSCAPE
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
32 CHAPTER 6: CIRCULATION & STREETSCAPE
The Circulation and Streetscape Chapter sets forth the improvements and enhancements sought by the community. This chapter also contains transportation improvement identified by staff that will require further study and exploration in the future. This Chapter builds upon the City’s Complete Streets Standards and Guidelines document and relies upon the San José Better Bike Plan 2025 and the Downtown Transportation Plan. These documents are policy documents implemented by the Departments of Public Works and Transportation in a joint effort. This Chapter should be considered complementary to the City’s Complete Streets Standards and Guideline document. If there are conflicts between the City’s Complete Streets Standards and Guidelines document and this Village Plan, this Village Plan shall apply.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify transportation and circulation challenges and improvements within the Village area. The Policies, Standards, Guidelines, and Action Items in each section are intended to be mutually reinforcing, creating a framework for improving circulation and streetscape in the North 1st Street Local Transit Village over time. The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is envisioned to support all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, public transportation, and cars.
Roadway Network and Classifications
Roadway Network
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village is bounded by the State Route 87 to the west, Interstate 880 to the north, Japantown to the east, and Downtown to the south with VTA light rail tracks tracing the spine of the Village along North 1st Street. To the east of North 1st Street, the street network is generally a grid pattern while to the west of North 1st Street, the street network is a semi-grid pattern. The block sizes on the east side of North 1st Street are generally the same, spanning approximately 750 to 900 feet long.
North 1st Street is generally a two to four lane road (including both north and south movements). The corridor is generally narrower towards the southern portion of the Village area and is generally wider towards the northern portion of the Village area.
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan seeks to establish the Village as a concentration of activities, with planned high density residential and commercial land uses. This level of development requires support from an array of multimodal transportation options. The future transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and motor vehicle networks will complement each other to serve the access and mobility goals for the Village area.
Street Typologies
The Village Plan includes a transportation network designed to move people to and within the Village area in the most efficient, accessible, and comfortable way. To accomplish this, the network dedicates space to different modes with clear priority and separated networks across the Village area. A central focus is to prioritize walking, the use of public transit, and bicycling. This is achieved by maintaining vehicle access, circulation, and parking at concentrated areas of the Village. This allows motorists to easily drive to and park in the Village without the compromising the pedestrian and transit-oriented quality of the Village or dealing with the frustration of excessive vehicle congestion.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
33 Grand Boulevard
North 1st Street is designated a Grand Boulevard in the Village area, providing direct access to the Light Rail Green and Blue lines at the Civic Center Station and the Japantown/Ayer Station. As defined in the General Plan, Grand Boulevards are major, transit priority corridors that connect City neighborhoods.
Bicycles and motor vehicles can be served by these streets; however, if there are conflicts in the public right-of-way, priority will be given to enhancing 1) transit service, 2) pedestrian access to transit, and 3) public life, in this order. Design features supporting these priorities include transit signal priority, light rail stop enhancements, turning-movement restrictions for motor vehicles, enhanced landscaping, attractive lighting, wider and comfortable sidewalks, high-visibility crosswalks, and identification EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
34 banners. For adjoining land uses, special design standards support cohesive and engaging urban development related to the character of the Grand Boulevard.
City Connector Street
North San Pedro and a portion of West Taylor Street are City Connector Streets, connecting City neighborhoods with long-distance travel, freeway interchanges, and limited transit options. As defined in the General Plan, City Connector streets equally prioritize automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and trucks. Transit use, if any, is incidental. These streets typically have four or six traffic lanes and would accommodate moderate to high volumes of through traffic within and beyond the City. Pedestrians are accommodated with sidewalks.
Local Connector Street
West Taylor Street (east of North San Pedro Street) is a Local Connector Street (as defined in the General Plan). Automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and trucks are prioritized equally in the roadway.
Transit use, if any, is incidental. These streets have two traffic lanes and would accommodate low to moderate volumes of through traffic within the City. Pedestrians are accommodated with sidewalks.
On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility
West Hedding Street is an On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility. On-Street Primary Bicycle Facilities (as defined in the General Plan) are either classified with Class II (bike lanes) or Class III (signed routes) and are through routes for bicycles providing continuous access and connections to the local and regional bicycle network on the street. Through
and high volumes of motor vehicle traffic
are generally discouraged, but may be
allowed in localized areas where
necessary to accommodate adjacent land
uses. Local automobile, truck, and transit
traffic are accommodated in the roadway,
but if there are conflicts bicycles have
priority. Neighborhood traffic
management strategies to slow and
discourage through automobile and truck
traffic may be appropriate. Pedestrians
are also accommodated through
sidewalks. Design features supporting
these priorities typically
include separation between bicyclists and
the adjacent motor vehicular travel lanes,
as with protected bike lanes. However,
depending on the street context, they
may also include low-stress shared bicycle facilities (e.g. bike boulevards, advisory bike lanes), right-of- way infrastructure improvements, signal enhancements for bicycles, turning-movement restrictions for motor vehicles, end-of-trip bike facilities, attractive lighting, wayfinding, high-visibility crosswalks, and wide and comfortable sidewalks for pedestrians, etc.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
35 Bicycle Network
The bicycle network in and around the Village boundary is generally comprised of painted bike lanes and shared lane markings, or sharrows. Painted bike lanes are generally indicated by green paint with a small buffer in between the bicycle lanes and vehicular travel lanes. Sharrows are lanes that are shared by vehicles and bicycles and are typically indicated by markings in the travel lanes.
The existing bicycle infrastructure in the east/west direction is present on Hedding Street, Taylor Street, and Hawthorne Way. In the north/south direction, bicycle infrastructure is present on San Pedro Street and North 2nd Street. There is no bicycle infrastructure on North 1st Street.
Challenges
There are limited instances where a vehicle, bicyclist, and pedestrian can cross from the west side of North 1st Street to the east side of North 1st Street due to the limited signal controlled crossings. This is particularly true towards the southern end of the Village boundary. Introducing additional west-east protected movements is challenging due to the signal timing of the corridor and the existing light rail line. Adding additional crosswalks to the west-east direction may impact the efficiency of the light rail.
There may be some challenges in expanding the public sidewalks in certain areas of the Village, particularly where a historic property exists (either a City Landmark, a Candidate City Landmark, a property located on the Historic Resources Inventory). Furthermore, due to the general narrowness and current road and lane configurations of North 1st Street, adding bicycle lanes on North 1st Street is a challenge.
Transportation Improvements as Future Action Items
To address the community’s transportation related concerns and improve the multi-mobility options in this Village area, there are several transportation improvements that the City would need to explore in greater detail in the future. These future action items include:
- Creating a Pedestrian and Bicycle Paseo
- Streetscape improvements
- Expanding bicycle infrastructure
- Partnering with the Valley Transportation Authority in increasing the frequency of the Light Rail line
- Exploring the possibility of implementing wayfinding signs to transit - Changing street typologies
- Exploring the feasibility in implementing Complete Streets with bicycle priority improvements - Traffic calming improvements for residential streets
- Intersection transportation improvements
Creating a Pedestrian and Bicycle Paseo
Asbury and Miller Streets are envisioned to be transformed into a pedestrian and bicycle paseo that is closed off to automobile travel. This pedestrian and bicycle paseo is envisioned to be a publicly- accessible space that allows for social gatherings to occur. While temporary events, such as food truck events and farmers’ markets could be explored, the intent of this pedestrian and bicycle paseo is to promote comfortable gathering spaces with commercial uses for pedestrians and bicyclists. In order to EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
36 restrict these streets to primarily pedestrian and bicyclists, bollards can be explored at the intersections of West Mission Street and Miller Street, North San Pedro Street and Asbury Street, West Taylor Street and Miller Street, and North 1st Street and Asbury Street. At the time of adoption of this Village Plan, it is uncertain how Asbury and Miller Streets will be transformed into pedestrian and bicycle paseo, so the City will explore this as a future action item for potential implementation.
Streetscape Improvements
The following streetscape improvements should be explored within the Village area:
• Incorporating Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting
• Sidewalk Improvements
• Street Trees
Pedestrian-scaled lighting are light fixtures that illuminate the pedestrian walking paths. The purpose of pedestrian-scaled lighting is to illuminate walking paths where there is expected increased pedestrian activity. Within the Village area, pedestrian-scaled lighting is envisioned along North 1st Street, within the pedestrian and bicycle paseo (Asbury Street and Miller Street north of West Taylor Street), and at all corners of the intersection of North 1st Street and Taylor Street. Examples of pedestrian-scaled lighting can be found in the following areas and neighborhoods: Naglee Park, Japantown, Downtown, Willow Glen, Garden Alameda, to name a few. Pedestrian-scaled lighting can help better define an area and contribute to a sense of place.
Sidewalks within the Village area are envisioned to be 15 to 20-feet wide (inclusive of planting areas for street trees). Street furniture and art may be placed adjacent to the sidewalks, and may be required to be placed on private property.
Street trees should be planted throughout the Village to create a more comfortable walking experience for pedestrians. Along North 1st Street, there shall be a street tree well with a minimum dimension of five feet by five feet. The spacing and species of street tree planting shall follow the Street Tree Clearances Standard Detail (as may be amended from time to time), of the Department of Public Works.
Generally, the street tree species should have a wide branch spread, to provide well shaded areas for the pedestrian.
Expand Bicycle Infrastructure
There are opportunities to provide additional bicycle infrastructure within and around the Village boundary. While North 1st Street south of East/West Taylor Street may not be a good opportunity for bike lanes due to the narrow roadway width, the City’s Better Bike Plan 2025 Plan identifies bicycle infrastructure on North 1st Street north of East/West Taylor Street, and North San Pedro Street for the north/south direction. In the east/west direction, West/East Mission Street, East Taylor Street, Jackson Street, Hobson Street, and Hawthorne Way have bicycle infrastructure planned, and Taylor Street and Hedding Street for the east/west direction. The Better Bike Plan 2025 identifies a bike boulevard on East Taylor Street, a protected bike lane on West Taylor Street, and a protected bike lane on North 2nd Street.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
37 A protected bicycle lane is planned for North 1st Street, and a portion of North San Pedro Street (between West Taylor Street and West Mission Street). A bicycle boulevard is planned for North San Pedro Street (between West Hedding Street and West Mission Street, and from West Taylor Street to Coleman Avenue), East Mission Street (between North 1st Street and North 7th Street), Hobson Street (from North San Pedro Street to North 1st Street), Jackson Avenue (from North 1st Street to North 9th Street), and on Hawthorne Way (from North San Pedro Street to North 1st Street).
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
38 Increase Frequency of Light Rail Line
The Village is currently served by two VTA light rail lines, the Blue line (Baypointe-Santa Teresa) and the Green line (Old Ironsides-Winchester). The Blue line extends from Santa Teresa Boulevard in South San José to East Tasman Drive in North San José. The Green line extends from Winchester Boulevard in Campbell to Tasman Drive in Santa Clara. There are two VTA stations within the Village boundary: Civic Center Station and Japantown/Ayer Station. These two stations are approximately one-half mile from each other.
The community expressed desire to increase the frequency of the light rail to make it more convenient to use and encourage transit ridership. The community had also expressed interest in expanding light rail to the Santana Row/Valley Fair and Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport in West San José. The VTA is the agency that would determine any changes in the frequency and expansion of its light rail services.
One method to remove a barrier to transit would be providing transit passes to residents. Through the discretionary planning entitlement process, applicants or developers submit a development application to the City for review and can request parking reductions through this process. There are times where parking reductions require the applicant or developer to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. These TDM measures are intended to help shift more typical car dependent travel practices by providing a series of alternatives. These TDM measures must be maintained for the life of the project. One of these TDM measures is providing the residents of the development with subsidized transit passes. Furthermore, improvements to bus shelters can potentially be explored through the discretionary planning entitlement process.
Another method would be to explore with VTA the possibility of grade separating the light rail line on North 1st Street to remove conflicts between the light rail line and pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. In turn, this may improve service frequency, capacity, and reliability.
Wayfinding Signs to Transit
Wayfinding signs can help an individual reach their destination by providing visual indicators to that destination. Wayfinding signs to the VTA light rail stations can assist new and existing riders to locate a station more easily and to remove a barrier to using transit. Wayfinding signs can be placed in strategic locations throughout the Village to help lead the user to the stations. Furthermore, a ‘points of interest’ map can also be placed at the light rail station to provide information related to nearby attractions.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
39 Changing Street Typologies
Street typologies define a modal priority for each street in the transportation network serving the Village area. Changing street typologies in this Village is a future action item for the City to explore, such as:
- Designating North San Pedro Street (between Ryland Street and Hedding Street) as an On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility. As described in the General Plan, On-Street Primary Bicycle Facilities are either classified with Class II (bike lanes) or Class III (signed routes) and are through routes for bicycles providing continuous access and connections to the local and regional bicycle network. - Designating Empire Street and North 2nd Street (between Hensley Street to East Hedding Street) as an On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility
Complete Streets with Bicycle Priority Improvements
Prioritizing bicycle and shared micro-mobility as On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility Streets, the following streets are planned to have high-quality protected bike lanes, bike boulevards, bicycle detection at traffic signals, and/or other bicycle priority improvements. These streets will also prioritize safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and crossings for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Local vehicle mobility will be accommodated where appropriate.
− Hedding Street with protected or fully separated bike facility. − Empire Street with protected bike lanes.
− North San Pedro Street (between Ryland Street and Hedding Street) with bike boulevards. − North 2nd Street (between East St. James Street and East Hedding Street) with protected or fully separated bike facility.
Residential Streets with Traffic Calming Improvements
Prioritizing local access to residences, the following residential streets will provide safe, comfortable, and ADA compliant sidewalks and pedestrian crossing, neighborhood traffic calming measures, and enhanced streetscape, and vehicle parking. Bike boulevards will be accommodated as appropriate as part of the Better Bike Plan 2025.
Intersection Transportation Improvements
- At the intersection of Burton Avenue and North 1st Street: remove porkchop island, add new crosswalk on the northern side of intersection
- At the intersection of East Hedding Street and North 1st Street: Ban north-bound and south- bound left turns at Hedding Street, implement pedestrian refuges in the banned left turn lanes - On North 1st Street between Hedding Street and Mission Street: Implement midblock crossing across North 1st Street to facilitate connections to and from the north end of the Civic Center Light Rail station platform, add pedestrian fencing along the platform to discourage unsafe pedestrian movements to and from the station
- At the intersection of West Taylor Street and North San Pedro Street: Curb extentions at West Taylor Street and North San Pedro Street, remove right-turn lane at Taylor Street turning onto North San Pedro Street
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
40 - At the Japantown/Ayer light rail station: Add pedestrian fencing along station platform to discourage unsafe pedestrian movements to and from the station.
Circulation and Streetscape Policies:
Policy CS-1: Accommodate a variety of multi-modal transportation options throughout the Village.
Policy CS-2: Prioritize the bicycle transportation mode in the east/west direction along Mission Street, Taylor Street, Jackson Street and in the north/south direction along North San Pedro and North 1st Street (north of Taylor Street).
Policy CS-3: Create comfortable, easily accessible pedestrian paths throughout the Village.
Circulation and Streetscape Standards:
Standard CS-1: A 15-foot sidewalk (inclusive of a minimum 5-foot by 5-foot tree well for a street tree) is required for properties with North 1st Street frontage. In addition to the 15-foot sidewalk, properties with a North 1st Street frontage must provide a 5-foot landscaped setback starting at the back of sidewalk, which can include pedestrian travel paths. In circumstances where a 15-foot sidewalk (inclusive of a minimum 5-foot by 5-foot tree well for a street tree) is not feasible due to preservation of an existing Candidate City Landmark or a City Landmark building or building façade fronting North 1st Street, the 5-foot landscaped setback requirement may be reduced to accommodate the sidewalk.
Standard CS-2: A 12-foot sidewalk (inclusive of a minimum 4-foot by 4-foot tree well for a street tree) is required for all properties with frontage along the following streets: Burton Avenue, East Younger Avenue, East Hedding Street, West and East Mission Street, West and East Taylor Street, North San Pedro Street, Ashbury Street, Miller Street, George Street, Jackson Street, Hobson Street, Rankin Avenue, and East Empire Street.
Standard CS-3: Street trees shall be planted along North 1st Street to contribute to the comfortability of the Grand Boulevard. Street tree wells shall be located per the Street Tree Clearances in the Standard Details maintained by the City of San José Department of Public Works.
Standard CS-4: Vehicle curb cuts shall not be located on North 1st Street and shall be located on side streets. If infeasible to locate curb cuts on side streets, then properties with North 1st Street frontage shall be limited to one curb cut on North 1st Street.
Circulation and Streetscape Guidelines:
Guideline CS-1: Encourage street furniture, such as benches and chairs, and public art to create a more inviting and comfortable walking experience throughout the Village.
Guideline CS-2: Encourage artistic crosswalks at the intersections of North 1st Street and Hedding Street, and North 1st Street and Taylor Street.
Guideline CS-3: Encourage parklets along North 1st Street, where feasible.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
41 Circulation and Streetscape Action Items:
Action CS-1: Explore restricting through traffic from the I-880 off-ramp to Burton Avenue by making Burton Avenue a right in, right out configuration. The I-880 off-ramp would then be two dedicated left lanes and one dedicated right lane.
Action CS-2: Explore restricting through traffic from North 1st Street to East Younger Avenue by making East Younger Avenue a right in, right out configuration.
Action CS-3: Upon receipt of funding, conduct a luminosity or similar study to establish potential locations for pedestrian-scaled lighting.
Action CS-4: Explore increasing pedestrian crossings in the west/east direction across North 1st Street.
Action CS-5: Explore creating a bicycle and/or pedestrian bridge from Mission Street to Guadalupe River Park.
Action CS-6: Explore conducting traffic studies to reduce cut through traffic in with the North 1st Street boundary.
Action CS-7: Explore adding medians and traffic calming measures within and immediately surrounding the North 1st Street boundary to create safer pedestrian paths of travel.
Action CS-8: Explore partnering with the Valley Transportation Authority to provide additional access points to the Civic Center Light Rail Station.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
42 CHAPTER 7:
IMPLEMENTATION
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
43 CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
The North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan will be implemented through a combination of public and private actions and investments. Generally, the private sector will be responsible for on-site buildings, parking, landscaped areas, standard developer infrastructure improvements, and the compliance with applicable mitigation programs including but not limited to the payment of mitigation fees. The public sector may provide open space, circulation, and certain streetscape improvements. The following sections summarize the various actions that will help implement the Village Plan, while Table 7.1 lists the specific implementing actions.
List of Implementing Actions
Table 7.1 lists the implementing actions, responsible parties, and associated financing measures.
Table 7.1 List of Implementing Actions
Action
Item #
Action Item Responsibility Potential Financing
Measures
1 Explore policy work on retaining small
businesses.
PBCE, OED Grants; Capital budget
2 Explore funding opportunities to conduct
periodic survey work to identify historic
resources.
PBCE Grants; General Fund;
Citywide Planning Fee
Fund
3 Continue to conduct community and property
owner outreach on the benefits of preserving
historically-significant buildings and structures.
PBCE Grants; General Fund;
Citywide Planning Fee
Fund
4 Explore opportunities for public and private art
installations within the Village.
PBCE, OCA,
PRNS, PW
Grants; Capital
Improvement Program
5 Explore opportunities to expand the streetlight
banner program in order to better establish a
sense of place.
OED and DOT Grants; Capital
Improvement Program
6 Explore opportunities to partner with
Community-Based Organizations to set up an
art utility box program within the Village.
OCA and DOT Grants; Capital budget
7 Explore opportunities to partner with the
Valley Transportation Authority to install
artistic wayfinding signs to transit stops and to
community amenities and points of interest at
VTA transit stops.
OED and VTA Grants; Capital
improvement Program
8 Explore the possibility of adopting an
ordinance for street business areas.
PBCE, OED Grants; Capital
improvement program
Legend DOT – Department of Transportation; OCA – Office of Cultural Affairs; OED – Office of Economic Development; PBCE – Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; PRNS – Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services; PW – Department of Public Works
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
44 Table 7.1 List of Implementing Actions (continued)
Action
Item #
Action Item Responsibility Potential Financing
Measures
9 Explore opportunities to acquire property for
park development.
PRNS Grants; Capital
Improvement Program;
Park Impact
Ordinance/Parkland
Dedication Ordinance
through Private
development
investments
10 Explore opportunities to create better
connections to the trails in Guadalupe Park.
PRNS, DOT Grants; Capital budget;
Park Impact
Ordinance/Parkland
Dedication Ordinance
through Private
development
investments
11 Explore restricting through traffic from the I-
880 off-ramp to Burton Avenue by making
Burton Avenue a right in, right out
configuration. The I-880 off-ramp would then
be two dedicated left lanes and one dedicated
right lane.
DOT Grants; Capital
improvement program
12 Explore restricting through traffic from North
1st Street to East Younger Avenue by making
East Younger Avenue a right in, right out
configuration.
DOT Grants; Capital
improvement program
13 Upon receipt of funding, conduct a luminosity
or similar study to establish potential locations
for pedestrian-scaled lighting.
DOT, PW Grants; Citywide Planning
Fee Fund; Capital budget
14 Explore increasing pedestrian crossings in the
west/east direction across North 1st Street.
DOT Grants; Capital
improvement program
Legend DOT – Department of Transportation; OCA – Office of Cultural Affairs; OED – Office of Economic Development; PBCE – Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; PRNS – Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services; PW – Department of Public Works
Funding Strategies for Improvements
This Chapter identifies sources of funding to construct or implement various aspects of the Village Plan.
These financing strategies will assist the City in competing for discretionary funding and in planning for future project budgets.
The financial plan presented here is general in nature and addresses the availability of funding and potential funding sources for various components of the Village Plan, allowing flexibility for a long-range plan where funding sources and availability change over time. As the plan is implemented and as specific projects are considered by the Council, detailed financial analysis will be made, and specific sources of EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
45 funding will be identified for each project. A review of funding sources and availability will be a continuing task of plan implementation.
Currently, both state law (Government Code section 65864 et seq.) and local ordinance (San José Municipal Code Chapter 18.02) authorize the City to enter into development agreements under specified circumstances with landowners who apply to the City to negotiate such an agreement and the parties voluntarily enter into such an agreement. Some landowners and developers in this Village area may desire to apply for a development agreement with the City, and the negotiated development agreement may provide for agreed upon additional benefits and/or funding for improvements to the Village area in exchange for specified development rights for a specified period of time.
The City has also adopted various requirements to increase the supply of affordable housing including, but not limited to, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applicable to specified residential development and the Commercial Linkage Fee ordinance applicable to specified non-residential development (see San Jose Municipal Code Chapters 5.08 and 5.11 respectively).
Among other requirements of new development, as mentioned above in the discussion of parks the City has adopted improvement and fee requirements for the provision of parklands (San Jose Municipal Code Chapter 14.25). The City also requires standardized street and sidewalk improvements of new development, additional transportation related improvements as the result of project specific traffic studies, and street lighting and trees in accordance with City requirements.
In addition to these existing entitlement-related programs and requirements, City staff will explore all or some of the following potential funding sources to determine whether they are feasible and applicable:
• Mitigation programs and fees (Government Code 66000 et seq.); • Various special districts under state law;
• State and Federal grants;
• Public/private partnerships; and
• Other sources yet to be identified.
Mitigation programs and mitigation fees under Government Code section 66000 could be explored as well as the establishment of some form of special district to provide for various public improvements in the Village area, but generally require that a nexus to the impacts of new development on the desired improvements be established for the requirement to be valid.
Grants through various agencies and departments within the State or the Federal governments could be pursued to help fund programs or improvement projects. Some of the grants are through the National Endowment for the Arts, United States Economic Development Administration, National Park Service, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Transportation, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. As with all grant funding, there are regulations tied to how the grant funds can be utilized, if awarded.
Public/private partnerships can be formed through the development review process when a project is in the Planning entitlement phase. These partnerships can also be formed through grant funded activities between Community Based Organizations (or similar) and various City Departments.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
46 APPENDICES
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
47 Village Planning & Community Outreach
Process
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
48 In 2015, Caltrans awarded the City a Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning grant to develop an Urban Village Plan for the North 1st Street Local Transit Village. The planning process for the North 1st Street Local Transit Village began in 2016.
Village Boundary Alterations
When the General Plan was adopted in 2011, the urban village strategy and their respective boundaries were established. Through the village planning process, the boundary of a village may be changed and refined. The North 1st Street Village boundary was slightly expanded east and contracted on the south and north east ends. The Village boundary established in the 2011 General Plan generally extended from Interstate 880 to the north, State Route 87 to the west, North 3rd Street to the east, and to West/East Julian Street to the south. The current Village boundary extends from Interstate 880 to the north, North San Pedro Street to the west, North 2nd Street to the east, and Hensley Street to the south.
In the northern section of the Village, properties were removed from the boundary due to the low potential of redevelopment. In the central and southern section of the Village, properties were removed due to the low potential of redevelopment and potential historic resources.
Through the Village planning process, staff heard feedback from the community and interested parties, as well as consultants on what the Village boundary should be. At workshops, the community and interested parties expressed interest in expanding the Village westward to encompass State Route 87 and Guadalupe River Trail. Consultants evaluated the Village boundary against market demand and development potential. Staff evaluated the Village boundary with a critical eye to preserving historic resources, as this was a desire from the community.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
49 EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
50 Public Workshops:
First Workshop: Community Values & Guiding Principles
The first workshop was held in-person on June 13, 2019 and drew in approximately 56 community members. At this workshop, Planning staff presented the Urban Village concept and asked participants to identify assets and opportunities within the Village through a hands-on small group exercise. The small group exercise was structured around a series of questions that touched on assets present in the Village, opportunities sought within the Village, and the future vision of the Village. Assets were defined as places, buildings, and environments that were prized within the community. Opportunities were defined as areas of improvement or change. The vision is the overarching concept for the community’s preferred future for development and transformation of the corridor. After the small group exercise, participants were invited to share their ideas with the group before adjourning.
Second Workshop: Character Area Visioning
The second workshop was held in-person on October 21, 2019 and drew in approximately 50 community members. The purpose of this workshop was to establish character areas within the Village.
The character areas were then used to inform the land use designations, heights, densities, Floor Area Ratios (FARs), historic preservation policies, open space/plaza policies, and transportation related policies. At this workshop, Planning staff presented the purpose of the second workshop, provided a recap on the Village planning effort thus far, and walked through what character areas were. The presentation was followed by a small group exercise. The small group exercise focused on what the community envisioned to see in each character area in terms of types of businesses and open space, locations for open space, and transportation improvements. After the small group exercise, participants presented their ideas to the group before adjourning.
Third Workshop: Community Open House
The third workshop series was held virtually through zoom on Monday, August 16, 2021 and Saturday, August 21, 2021 and drew in approximately 60 community members. The purpose of these workshops was to present the draft Village Plan and obtain feedback. The draft Village Plan was built upon the feedback provided during the first and second workshops. The draft Village Plan contains information related to land use, maximum heights, urban design concepts, parks and open space, and circulation and streetscape. The draft Village Plan also proposes to change the village boundary. Following the staff presentation, participants were placed into breakout rooms for small group discussion and feedback of the presented concepts. The small group discussion was led by a city staff facilitator and a city staff note taker. After the small group discussion, participants were placed back into the main zoom room for close out and next steps.
Focused Community Outreach:
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Outside Agencies
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to collaborate on Village concepts and provide feedback on specific subjects. The TAC was comprised of City departments, including the Department of Transportation, Public Works, Housing, Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services, and outside agencies, such as the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
51 Neighborhood Leaders Meetings
In-person and virtual meetings were held with neighborhood leaders for neighborhoods in and around the Village boundary. The purpose of these meetings was to provide information, introduce the purpose of the workshops, and obtain early feedback. There were a total of two meetings held, with roughly 60 total attendees. Community leaders from Vendome, Japantown, Hensley, Rosemary Gardens, The Plaza, Hyde Park, Park Townsend, and Ryland Mews were invited to attend these Neighborhood Leaders Meetings. Council District staff were also invited to attend these meetings.
Online Survey:
An online survey was created to obtain feedback from the community regarding the primary priorities of the Village.
The online survey went live on the project website on June 10, 2019 and closed on July 7, 2019. The online survey was initially set to close on June 30, 2019, however, in order to receive additional responses, the survey was extended by one week to July 7, 2019. An email blast was sent to community leaders, interested parties, and attendees of the First Workshop informing them of the survey.
Furthermore, posts were made to Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement’s website and social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter) notifying interested parties of the survey. Council District 3 office also posted on their social media platforms (Nextdoor and Facebook).
The survey had four components: introduction, background, values, and additional comments. The introduction section welcomed participants to share feedback and noted that comments would be anonymous. The background section provided information about the policy context of urban villages and more specific information on this Village Plan. The values section asked participants to rank a series of statements using a rating scale of 1 through 5 (where 1 represented strongly disagreeing and 5 represented strongly agree). There were six total statements that touched upon transportation, housing, and land uses. The optional additional comments section allowed participants to share the cross streets of where they lived and/or worked and any additional typed comments.
A total of 103 survey responses were received. Of the survey responses, 54 participants provided additional written comments. Eighty-two participants lived within two miles of the Village boundary and all participants live within five miles of the Village boundary. Participants expressed concerns about lack of affordable housing, additional cars and traffic, displacement, insufficient number of parking spaces, surface parking lots, homeless, lack of commercial services, and lack of parks.
Virtual Drop-In Office Hours:
A series of virtual drop-in office hours were held virtually to provide additional opportunities to ask questions, receive answers, and have discussions. These office hours were informal and did not have an agenda, and were an open invitation for anyone to drop in. A total of two virtual office hours were held and there were a total of 11 participants. The virtual office hours were held on the following dates:
August 25, 2021 and August 31, 2021.
A summary of the virtual drop-in office hours in incorporated as part of this appendix.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 1
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
First Workshop
Summary
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019
Advertised
Time 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm
Actual Time: 6:30-9:00pm
Location: Santa Clara County Cafeteria, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110 Prepared by: Athina Loumou, SOM
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 2
Workshop overview
On June 13th, 2019, around 85 participants (approximately 56 community members, 15 city staff members and 8 consultants) participated in the first North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan community workshop. The workshop was the first in a series of three community outreach meetings geared towards engaging the community in the North 1st Street Local Transit Village planning process. Participants included neighborhood residents, property owners, and other individuals interested in gaining insight into the planning process.
The workshop began with a welcome and meeting overview from Tracy Tam, planning project manager for the City of San José. The City staff and consultant team then gave a 30/45-minute presentation which focused on the Urban Village planning process, analysis of the existing conditions in the study area and identification of community values for a vision for the future of the study area.
At the end of the presentation, participants broke out into 6 smaller groups (approximately 9 people per group) to engage in small group discussions. Within the groups, participants were asked for their insights on the following three categories to understand attendees’ perspectives of the assets within the neighborhood and areas of opportunities:
Identification of Assets:
1. What businesses enhance this neighborhood?
2. Are there are buildings that should be preserved?
3. What services do you like most in your neighborhood?
4. Aside from physical characteristics, are there other assets in the community? For example: community groups, good neighbors, good schools etc.
Identification of Opportunities:
1. What should change for the better?
2. Are there properties that could be better utilized?
3. Are there areas that could be made more comfortable for walking or bicycling? Or areas that could be improved to better connect the assets with the planned future growth?
Future Vision for North 1ST:
1. What would you like to see in this neighborhood in 15-20 years?
2. How would you like to get around? Car, transit, biking, walking?
3. What types of services/businesses would you like to see in this neighborhood?
4. What other neighborhoods do you like? What do you like about these neighborhoods?
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 3
Participants were excited and engaged, the ability to add their voice to the process was appreciated. They provided their insights on assets and hopeful opportunities, but also shared their worries and concerns of development as summarized below.
Concerns
Continued confusion about how the Transit/Urban Village process works; what will come out of it and how does the community get to influence it? Concerns with how new development will impact neighborhoods within and surrounding Transit Village boundary. Concerns that increased building heights adjacent to single- family homes will impact privacy and quality of life for residents in the community.
Concerns regarding vehicle traffic and parking.
High cost of housing in the area was a concern and there was an interest in how the project would address housing affordability.
Concerns on parking pressure. Overflow parking is a general concern in neighborhoods surrounding Transit Village. VTA does not provide direct connection to airport which current results in overflow parking in neighborhoods.
Concerns over air quality and noise from airport that reverberates off new/taller buildings in Transit Village.
Uber/Lyft/Waze cut-through traffic is a problem for residents in the area. Commute hours congestion of Hedding at 1st and Taylor at 1st intersections is a challenge.
People using SJC will park in one of the neighborhoods within or adjacent to the Village boundary to avoid paying for airport parking. There is interest in residential parking permits.
Air quality is affected by the airport, with the smell of jet fuel regularly spreading throughout the neighborhoods in the northern part of the Village area. No common services such as schools, grocery stores
Impacted by homelessness and transient population in Guadalupe River Park, characterized as blight and a wasteland.
Hedding St bike connection to Guadalupe River Park is bad. VTA Light Rail is not frequent.
2nd Street is a better street to walk than 1st St. It’s a nice walkable street. North of 880 is a nice wealthy mixed-use neighborhood, south of 880 is not nice. Too many bail bonds, low value properties.
Not many people walking/strolling.
North First is not wide enough.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 4
Assets
Existing historic buildings along N. 1st Street that contribute to the character of the neighborhood are worth preserving and promoting. Specific buildings that add value to the area and should be preserved are the following:
- Mission Court apartments at Hensley
- Barcelona Apartments at Ayer
- Seneca Building
- Teachers’ apartment building on North First St. & Jackson St. - Hispanic style building on Hawthorne & First St.
- Sandwich spot
- Teske’s
- Ludwigs‘
- A couple of mid-century office building spaces
- Mom & Pop businesses on George Street
Rankin St. has distinctive character and many beautiful homes Hyde Park Neighborhood is a gem
The existing apartment complexes are distinctive but still affordable for working class families.
The mixture of diverse housing types in the area and small businesses should remain The historic character of the Southern area of the Transit Village should be preserved
Japantown is a unique cultural asset.
Existing apartments provide affordable options.
The Village area is described as multicultural, and that quality should be preserved, celebrated and promoted through this process.
Shaded streets and small houses should be preserved.
Ryland Park is the only open space within the Village boundary, providing essential services for decades.
Access to Guadalupe parkway and Guadalupe Park should be maintained/expanded upon.
Existing greenery/street trees are mature and vibrant, improving air quality, scenery, and reducing some noise pollution.
Each of the neighborhoods in the Village area have individual characteristics that include good quality of life and are generally thought of as inviting. The VTA light rail, while not always as frequent as might be desired, provides valuable connections to other parts of San José and the region.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 5
Opportunities
Expand the village boundary: extend the village boundary to north of I-880 and south to include St. James Park.
Village area is too narrow to work. Due to narrowness, attention needs to be paid to how this area interacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. Infill/new development should be compatible with existing building types in the area. Historic buildings that are coherent with neighborhood and contribute to the character of the neighborhood should be preserved and valued. Don’t simply preserve historic buildings because they are old.
Bring more jobs and businesses, not too much housing. Focus growth north of Taylor St.
Civic Center is highly underutilized and should be focus area of future development. It could accommodate a mix of housing types and locally servicing uses. Provide additional high-density development where high density already exists. Different options regarding location of density/new development: (1) focus density towards downtown, (2) emphasize density towards the north, (3) new development/density can be mixed throughout with historic buildings. Accommodate high density, but not necessarily high rise. Increased density is fine as long as street traffic gridlock is avoided. Mitigate the impact of the new high-density development on the surrounding neighborhood. Ensure there is adequate parking for the new development.
Provide mid-density housing with parking underground. Provide low-density development with plenty of parking. Promote an open community, not a gated one.
Introduce more condos with convenience access to services. Vision of a mixed-use development like Santana Row.
Provide rental and affordable housing.
There is currently a high concentration of affordable and transitional housing. Provide more market rate housing.
Opportunity for student housing.
Provide a variety of building typologies.
Build underground parking in the Transit Village to accommodate parking needs without wasting valuable space.
Introduce short-term parking at ground level that can be transformed to residential later. Introduce small businesses, such as vet hospital, library, school, daycare, yoga studio, grocery store, hardware store, small/local restaurants, coffee shop, ice cream shop, youth center, athletic facilities, community center, senior center, performing arts center and theater to enhance the neighborhood by providing services to the local community.
Ideally such businesses would replace bail bonds businesses. Promote quality restaurants that do not require a trip downtown or to Japantown. The Village area, specifically north of Taylor St, is a food desert. The addition of a EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
FIRST WORKSHOP SUMMARY | JUNE 21, 2019 6
grocery store and a Farmers’ Market would be a major improvement to the area. Make Guadalupe River Park and the Transit Village a safe, clean and vibrant place. Connect to Caltrain.
Improve automotive access to Hwy 87 and 880.
Create a sense of arrival when you enter the area by automobile from 880 or 87. Extend VTA Light Rail to Santana Row.
Increase frequency of VTA Light Rail.
Reduce cut-through traffic.
Provide residential parking permits
Improve connectivity between the 1st St Corridor and the adjacent neighborhoods (Vendome, Japan Town, Hyde Park). There should be a sense of progression as you move North/South through the area and East/West into the neighborhoods. Improve connectivity to and across VTA Light Rail through better pedestrian crossings and pedestrian lighting throughout the corridor.
Provide connection to grocery stores in the area (i.e., Trader Joes). Vision of a vibrant walking, biking and transit corridor with local serving businesses on ground floor and an absence of automobiles for the N. First St corridor. Improve and extend the bike lanes for better connectivity. The current bike lanes are not used much and are unsafe.
Enhance the pedestrian circulation on Hedding St, especially the pedestrian connection across SR 87 to Guadalupe River Park.
Improve pedestrian connectivity to Guadalupe River Park. Add more access points Guadalupe. Consider “a green bridge”.
Preserve and improve existing small parks (such as Ryland Park) and add more pocket parks, little plazas and community gardens throughout. Make the area “more green”, promote more area for recreation.
Extend and improve the tree canopy of the area. Plant more trees north of Mission Street.
Improve landscaping in any new streetscape project and further improve air quality/noise/quality of life.
Improve the pedestrian environment with shaded, inviting streets with good lighting, seating areas and safe pedestrian crossings.
Sidewalks at rail crossings need to be improved.
Opportunity for public art.
Opportunity for wayfinding and signage.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
SECOND WORKSHOP SUMMARY | OCTOBER 21, 2019 1
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
Second Workshop
Summary
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019
Time: 6:30-8:30pm
Location: Santa Clara County Cafeteria, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110 Prepared by: Onur Ekmekci, SOM
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
SECOND WORKSHOP SUMMARY | OCTOBER 21, 2019 2
Workshop Overview
On October 21th, 2019, around 75 participants (approximately 50 community members, 25 City staff and community partners) participated in the second North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan community workshop. The workshop was the second in a series of three community outreach meetings geared towards engaging the community in the North 1st Street Local Transit Village planning process. The purpose of the second workshop was to discuss the different land uses (i.e., what type of businesses can be located where, densities, floor area ratios), building heights, transportation improvements, parks and open spaces, and amenities for the village area. Participants included neighborhood residents, property owners, and other individuals interested in gaining better understanding of the planning process.
The workshop began with a welcome from the City Council representative Raul Peralez. Tracy Tam, project manager and planner for the City of San José, then provided the purpose of the village plan, explained what has been done so far and a brief overview of the table exercise. At the end of the short introduction, participants broke out into six groups to engage in small group discussions and mapping. Within the groups, participants spent 20 minutes for each segment of the Village (Northern, Central, and Southern), answering specific questions prepared based upon the feedback received at the first workshop:
Questions:
1. How would you like the Northern/Central/Southern section of this Village transformed?
2. Are there areas/buildings you would like to see preserved? Why and how would you like these preserved?
3. Where should pedestrian amenities (e.g., larger sidewalks, street trees, street furniture, lighting) be placed?
4. Are there areas that could benefit from transportation improvements? What kind of transportation improvements and why? Examples include:
a. Traffic calming measures
b. Bicycle lanes
c. Larger sidewalks
5. When properties are redeveloped, what should they be developed into and how tall should they be? Note: New residential must be at least 4-stories as required by the General Plan (General Plan Policy CD-7.9), however step downs and step backs are possible a. Do you want more commercial businesses in this area? Do you want more residential buildings in this area? Maybe a mix of both commercial and residential? b. Given that this village area must accommodate 2,520 jobs (approximately 756,000 square feet) and 1,678 residential units, how should this be done? Where should this be concentrated?
6. Do you want public gathering places in this area? If so, what kind? Where should these be located (on the map and next to what type of buildings) and how should they be designed? Examples: plazas, paseos, small neighborhood parklets
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
SECOND WORKSHOP SUMMARY | OCTOBER 21, 2019 3
Participants were excited and engaged, the ability to add their voice to the process was appreciated. They provided their insights on assets and hopeful opportunities, but also shared their worries and concerns of development for each of the three-character areas (Northern, Central, and Southern) as summarized below.
Northern Section
Maintain the residential neighborhood character with low to mid-density housing Introduce mixed-use development with ground floor retail High-rise office buildings should be located on the west side of North 1st street, while the east side should not have high buildings
Highest buildings should be comparable to the County building (12 stories or 100 feet) Develop mixed-income housing along the corridor
Opportunity to remove parking lots and create underground parking instead The new development needs to be sensitive with existing residential areas The new development needs to be integrated with the proposed Santa Clara County development
Maintain mom and pop stores and avoid displacement of small businesses Add continuous tree canopy on sidewalks
Add walkways and bike paths
Development needs to maintain off-street parking
May need permit parking
Central Section
Parcels on the west side of North 1st Street should be the focus for concentration of development with high-rise clusters
Taylor street to have ground floor retail with housing on top Introduce high-density residential near the Civic Center station The west of North 1st Street is suitable for high-rise and mixed-use development The east side of North 1st Street is suitable for low-rise residential, at maximum four floors
Substantial amount of housing could be developed in the Santa Clara County site Opportunity to develop the parking lot on 87 into mixed-use development The Barcelona Apartments are important and need to be preserved More jobs could be located at the central area
High-density development is desirable as long as connection to Guadalupe is provided Opportunity to transform George Street into a commercial street More retail (including supermarket, pharmacy) needed
Opportunity to have “community center core” with a farmers’ market Introduce larger open space and public gathering area Concerns about traffic along Taylor Street
Call this area the “civic center”
Southern Section
Explore opportunities for more development (in addition to newer developments). Prefer to maintain low-rise buildings (up to 4 stories) Introduce residential, mixed use development
Provide housing for different income groups (for teachers, students, city workers, etc.) EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
SECOND WORKSHOP SUMMARY | OCTOBER 21, 2019 4
Protect historic buildings and preserve pre-1940s buildings. Preserve Mission Court
More reasonable setback policies for 1st and 2nd Streets even if it reduces development capacity
Union Pacific tracks: blighted area needs to be cleaned up, and tracks should be easier and safer to cross
Opportunity to have more retail (grocery stores, pharmacy), maintain existing mom & pop stores
Improve Ryland Park
Enhance walkability
Wider and safer sidewalks with less obstructions to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists
Improve pedestrian crossings, particularly at Jackson St. Provide better connections to other neighborhoods on the other side of Freeway 87 Provide safer access from Ryland Park to Guadalupe trail Concerns with the new development bringing more traffic and needs for parking
All Sections
Mixed use development preferred
Transition in height from East to West towards the Civic Center area Concentrate commercial and retail within ½ mile from the VTA stations No need to preserve too many buildings along the North 1st Street Historic buildings: if a historic building is preserved, owner should receive incentives Consider shared parking between office developments and residential buildings No bail bonds
Avoid having strip mall along the North 1st Street
Amenities emphasized: Grocery stores, pharmacy, gym, daycare, cafés, restaurants, space for kids, and food trucks
Not enough schools, playgrounds
Provide program/space for homeless
Public art could be placed all along the North 1st Street (by City and developers) Provide rooftop gardens for new residential buildings Public gathering spaces needed (could be in open spaces and parks) Provide more open space around the VTA stations
Opportunity to establish network of interconnected of parks/open spaces Guadalupe Park is an asset and there should be better connections to it (bike trails) Provide protected bike lanes around transit stops
Take measures to make public spaces safe
Provide dog parks
Concerns about parking
Limit the cars on North 1st Street
Provide shuttle services to San José State University to reduce the traffic Opportunity to create “no-car allowed” zones
Traffic calming improvements particularly around the intersections Make North 1st Street more walkable and pedestrian friendly Provide wider sidewalks with street furniture and trees Safer and easier ways to get to stations (wayfinding) Introduce loading/unloading areas
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
NORTH 1 st STREET LOCAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN
SECOND WORKSHOP SUMMARY | OCTOBER 21, 2019 5
Make North 1st Street a viable, transit corridor with bus stop pockets and ADA improvements
Need better lighting along North 1st Street
Need spaces for all ages that are walkable
Should employ green building practices
Creative architecture (no boxes and no beige) and murals. Reflect the character of the neighborhood like Spanish, Art Deco, and Victorian.
Need updated infrastructure
Need affordable housing plan
Expand Village boundary west across freeway
Concerns about noise and air pollution from tall buildings
Desired Amenities
Place for farmers’ markets
Outdoor seating
Retain mom and pop businesses, have pop ups and kiosks Open spaces, both big and small (dog park, pocket parks, roof top gardens, plazas, paseos, playgrounds, and connections to trails)
Community spaces/meeting spaces
Lighting
Businesses that are a “little bit” upscale
Neighborhood-serving businesses: Grocery store, coffee, shops, pharmacy, gym, day care
Painted utility boxes
Save historic buildings
Public art and water features
Street improvements: crosswalks, bike lanes, street furniture Increase walkability/pedestrian connections from one side to the other connectivity/crossings
Pedestrian accessibility, wayfinding, and safety to stations No-car allowed zones in certain areas
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
Third Workshop Summaries
Dates: Monday, August 16, 2021 and Saturday, August 21, 2021 Advertised times: 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Actual times: 6:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Location: Held virtually on Zoom
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Workshop Overview
On Monday, August 16th, 2021, approximately 65 participants (40 community members, 19 staff members, 4 consultants, and 2 interpreters) participated in the first virtual community meeting for the Third Workshop series. The third workshop series is the last workshop series for the Village effort. Participants included neighborhood residents, property owners, and interested parties.
A second community meeting was held on Saturday, August 21, 2021. Approximately 31 participants (20 community members, 9 staff members, and 2 interpreters) participated in the virtual community meeting. Participants included neighborhood residents, property owners, and interested parties.
The purpose of the third workshop series was to present the draft village concepts, such as land use, maximum heights, urban design, parks and open space, and circulation and streetscape, and obtain feedback. These concepts were discussed at both community meetings.
The workshop began with a presentation by staff which provided an overview of the village concept, the first and second workshops and the results of those workshops, what a village plan does and does not do, the village concepts, and rezonings under Senate Bill 1333.
After the presentation, participants and staff members were invited to participate in a small group discussion where the draft Village concepts were presented with discussion questions.
The purpose of the small group discussions was to obtain feedback on the draft concepts. The following feedback was provided for each topic area:
Village boundary:
• Question: why doesn’t the village boundary extend south to Julian Street? o Answer: The current village boundary extends to Julian Street but the proposed village boundary extends mid-block between Empire Street and Hensley Street.
Properties were removed from the village boundary if they are historically sensitive or were not going to be redeveloped.
• Why is Lot E not part of the village boundary?
o Answer: Because the City wants to use Lot E for city uses • Why is the County properties excluded from the village boundary? o Answer: The County wants to build on their properties to further their mission statement, so there is no need to have land use rules over these properties as the County would not be required to obtain city permits for projects that further their mission statement.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Surprised to see so many properties removed from the Village boundary, especially towards downtown. This creates a strange 4-block disconnect, and there seems to be many sites that could help connect the residential/commercial intent of the area • Question: Why are historic properties being excluded from the boundary? • Answer: We want to keep our historic properties and placing them in the village would risk them being redeveloped
• Question: Is the historic house at 560 North 1st Street part of the village boundary? o Answer: No, this property has been removed from the village boundary. • Question: The original village boundary included more single-family residential on Fox Avenue, Ryland Park, etc.; why was this changed?
o Answer: These properties were removed if they were historically sensitive, and/or if they were single-family dwellings (generally low likelihood of redevelopment).
Land use:
• Concerns related to max building height at 200 feet for the block between Hedding and Mission Streets and whether the middle school would be shaded/in the shadow. County building is very high at 160 feet. Concerns that the height is too tall near the middle school.
• Proposed height between Hedding and Mission Streets on the west side of North 1st Street seems intrusive to the neighborhood. Wish to have height restrictions here, even at 150 feet. The height applies to the majority of the city block. • The 4 to 5 houses on Mission and 2nd Street would be dwarfed, height should be reevaluated.
• The 200 max height from Hedding and Mission is not appropriate; unacceptable. • Height belongs on the west side of North 1st Street. County parking lot can be developed with more height.
• The max height of 135 feet between Hedding and Burton Ave will seem like a wall of buildings.
• Density would naturally occur on the west side of North 1st Street. • Appreciation that the taller heights are on the west side of North 1st Street. • Concerns related to shadows, but also has desire for high density developments. • Consider Residential Neighborhood land use designation on Hedding Street and Mission Street for lower density.
• Land use diagram reflects what neighbors stated at previous workshop—taller buildings concentrated at Taylor/Mission area.
• Question related to the density for the light yellow color (Residential Neighborhood land use designation).
• If there isn’t an opportunity for residential on the east side of North 1st St between Jackson Street and Mission Street, it will stay like it is for a long time.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Building footprint needs more land. Can developers acquire more land for projects to get built?
o Answer: It is possible through land acquisition and willingness of property owners to sell.
• This area is a food dessert so having a grocery store or a weekly farmers market would be great. Small market tried to locate on 1st Street but was not successful likely due to lack of density. An example that could be considered is Jackson Square in New Orleans. • Why aren’t there more sites for residential or mixed-use and so many sites for Neighborhood/Community Commercial?
o Answer: the market study and lot size, along with other components do not lend itself for more growth. Also, do not want to place residential next to freeways.
Furthermore, through past community workshops, the community stated that the intensity should be placed in the central part of the village, therefore, the land use map is reflective of that. Cannot realistically get larger development along the northern and southern NCC sites because of small lot sizes. Central sites have larger parcels. Parcel aggregation potential can feed into feasibility of redevelopment.
• Question: How will the potential bicycle and pedestrian paseo be built? Will there a fee be established?
o Answer: No fee established. This will need to be studied more. The potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo is in the village plan to identify it as a priority so the city could do a nexus study or pay for it as part of a city Capital Improvement Project (CIP) project.
• Intensity of development seems to be focused on the center of the village. The big ‘elephant in the room’ is that the County controls a huge swathe of land in this area—is there any understanding of what they are doing to plan their properties? o Answer: They do have a Master Plan for all their land in the area along the northern portion of the village. The City has been coordinating with the County to understand their intent and interest.
• Would be nice to see a map showing North 1st Street and the County’s master plan. • Would be nice to have a grocery store nearby so that there are options to not drive. • Question: what is the delineation between transit residential and urban residential? o Answer: Transit Residential is higher density at 30 to 250 dwelling units per acre and a 1.0 to 12.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
• Question: Can we clarify what is the south-mixed use character area? Could the first floor for buildings in this area be commercial?
o Answer: Existing buildings are more residential in nature, so more mixed-use and smaller scale than anything north of this subarea. Yes, there is a red line on the land use map which indicates that ground floor commercial is required. We want to make sure to specifically ask for ground floor commercial.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Question: Are there any guidelines, controls, etc. regarding the type of commercial uses? For example—can we prevent a strip mall type of environment or alcohol licenses?
o Answer: The type of commercial uses are controlled by the Zoning Ordinance and not the village plan. The village plan and urban design guidelines would not support a strip mall type of development. Alcohol licenses are issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (State of California agency) though the city retains local control of where licenses can be obtained.
• Question: is there any consideration in this village plan to take over a property to establish a parking garage or similar?
o Answer: Generally, these village plans are not supportive of auto-uses, but we don’t see people building standalone parking garages. We may see this as part of a private development. The redevelopment agency tried to build parking in other parts of the city, but they were never able to generate enough money for it to make sense. But private development generally provides parking as part of their development.
• Question: What is the impact to the overall traffic to within the plan area as well as surrounding areas? Are we going to be seeing more impact to traffic and street parking? o Answer: While there will be overall more traffic in the bay area, the goals of the General Plan is to provide opportunities and to develop communities or villages that allow people other opportunities to get around so that it’s not as reliant on the car. The environment is more of a mixed-use urban fabric that is bike, pedestrian, and transit-oriented to provide alternatives to people driving a car.
We are looking at the city’s parking standards and eliminating parking minimums and letting the market decide what is the ‘right size’ amount of parking is needed. This would be in companion with Transportation Demand Management measures which means the development would need to do a selection of items like providing bike share, car share, clipper cards, other things that allow people to get around using other modes.
• Most of the properties along North 1st Street are of historic nature, and over the years, there are a few commercial properties that have replaced these structures. Do not like the commercial tenants as they alter the historic nature and are actively using barbed wire.
• Concerns related to the Kelsey project. Living on Fox Avenue, learning that it was 115 units with only 18 parking spots, was a scary precedent knowing that the public transit is not very great/utilized. What is the timeline for the UV, and within that timeline is there intentions to do any improvements to public transit (light rail, buses, etc.)? I tried living 6 months without a car and it did not work. There will be more FedEx, UPS, and Amazon trucks delivering packages and coming through these streets.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Answer: This is a plan and not a project and is anticipated to go to the City Council early 2022. In terms of VTA, there are longer term plans of how they can speed up light rail. DOT is working with plans to filter transit into this area over the next 5-20 years. We don’t have control over VTA, but we have certain levers to ask VTA to concentrate on certain areas to drive certain improvements to certain areas –N. 1st street being one of them. Fixing light rail on 1st street is one of the top priorities of the Plan Bay Area. Also Department of Transportation (DOT) is looking more at ‘urban freight’ such as Amazon, UPS, etc. as part of the mobility work.
• Question: In the presentation you used words like ‘most likely’ and ‘I don’t anticipate’.
Doesn’t this plan allow you to be more specific? I.e. limit things to specific heights, uses, etc.
o Answer: SJ is a ‘bedroom community’ - only large city where this is true. We have a lot more trouble getting people to build commercial instead of housing; therefore, we are developing areas where people could do commercial uses if they wanted to, while also allowing them to do housing which is what they would prefer. That’s why residential uses often allow commercial, but not vice versa. While the specific types of commercial are not discussed in this village plan, this village plan states where the general commercial and residential uses can be placed. The zoning code further details what kind of commercial can be located where (i.e. retail, dentist office, acupuncture, etc.). • Concern related to signing of a lease at 840 North 1st Street, what are the impacts. o Answer: What is existing may remain, the village plan applies when properties are being redeveloped.
• Question: Why was the bank (515 N. 1st Street) removed from the village boundary? o Answer: We found that the bank is a great example of New Formalism architecture and is a candidate city landmark and we don’t want the historic properties to be redeveloped, and therefore, it was removed. • Question: Are the larger sidewalks a part of the increased density that’s intended? o Answer: We want to have enough area for people to walk side-by-side and talk to each other, but also about a public area that does not feel so cramped with the buildings, and makes it harder to grow large-canopy trees, locate benches, etc.
• Concern related to tent-based community occupying the widened sidewalks. As an example, the segment of North 5th Street (north of City Hall) is occupied by houseless people and isn’t being utilized as intended.
Maximum height, urban design and placemaking:
• Regarding the gateway elements:
o Use of landscaping and signs are nice but needs to be reviewed EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o No neon signs. Signs that are eco-friendly to animals to sleep at night, too close to river for light
o Use landscaping identifiable to the area
o Gateway locations are good
o Consider soft landscape lighting like the Highline in New York o Connect the village through landscaping and lighting
• Great existing architecture along North 1st Street and at 3rd Street and Jackson Street • Dislike building architecture for new buildings near Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations • Spanish style, Vendome hotel, and craftsman are unique architectural styles to this area • Heights should be gradual. Increase heights mean less sun in the afternoon and can shade the middle school, less dust from the highway and less sun onto those houses. • Height on the east side of North 1st Street is acceptable and can block the view of the jail.
• Desire to gain an understanding of what realistic heights will be for redeveloped buildings, factoring in stepbacks, setbacks, etc.
• Concerns related to maximum heights, shade, and loss of sunlight • Desire to see public art (e.g. sculptures) in the public open spaces • There will be concerns related to height from Hyde Park neighborhood • How would you feel if someone proposed a 20-story building next to your house? • Appreciate the varied architecture in village
• Important to keep the historic structures
• Spanish colonial revival architectural style in northern section of the village fits well • Taller building heights are a concern when located adjacent to single-family homes • Proposed maximum height at Younger Ave and Hedding Street at 135 feet is too tall.
Blocks the sun. Can the maximum height be a maximum of 50 feet instead? • There is a decrease in height proposed in the village plan compared to what is allowed today.
• Would be helpful to understand the transition from North 1st Street and North 2nd Street (cross section).
• Curious as to why adjacent isolated building across from I-880 is only 50 feet. Should be taller than 50 feet (at least 120 feet). Should be taller near the freeway. o Answer: The proposed height diagrams were developed with the land use designation in mind. The site has a land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial, which is not an intense commercial designation and therefore, the proposed height is reflective of that. • What is the likely building height given the parameters? o Answer: it is difficult to answer as this depends on other factors, such as parking, public/private open spaces, etc.
• Good that gateway location is at North 1st Street and Hedding Street because of proximity to light rail.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Question related to why the publicly-accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces are in the middle of the village?
o Answer: the middle of the village is planned to be the “heart” of the village where the most activity will occur.
• Gateway element should be added at Jackson and North 1st Street to channel people into Japantown—should be culturally distinctive
• Victorian style architecture should be added since many buildings along North 1st Street are Victorian style
• Each block has 1 or 2 buildings that are fourplexes that were built in the early 1900s.
That would be nice to show if they can keep the style if they want to build low-rise density example—good way to show high density.
• The proposed height of 200 feet adjacent to the public school. Was the school contacted for any input or are schools exempt from feedback?
o Answer: The City didn’t meet with the school, however, they were sent notices of the community workshops and can provide feedback if so desired • Concerns regarding proposed heights adjacent to single-family houses • Why aren’t there any gateway elements at North 1st Street and Empire Street? Coming from downtown, seems like this intersection is a natural gateway into the village • Question: Can shadow studies be conducted?
o Only if shadow studies can be requested of private development. Shadows are not considered an impact unless it is over a public park. Stepbacks and setbacks will assist with providing more sunlight.
• High-rise projects do not happen often—seems unlikely that 200 feet height maximum will be built out with consistency
• What are the reasons for lowering some of the required heights? o Answer: where you have an established neighborhood adjacent to the property, those heights were lowered. Additionally, many lots are not large enough to support the heights that were proposed. The land use designation and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is not as intense.
• If I lived on 2nd Street, I would not like a 135-foot building staring down at me. From Hedding Streetto almost Burton Avenue, you can see that height permitted. While you say it probably will not happen, it could happen. It would be better to have heights adjacent to San Francisco neighborhoods be much less. If opportunity housing is coming, then the reduced height would be very important to reduce massing in the surrounding area.
• High heights next to train station is a really good idea—happy to see that. • Gateways are good opportunities for public displays of art, and developers would want to use these or support these efforts for their own developments. Perhaps they could be kept consistent in a given area to tie them together?
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Referencing architectural styles in new development would be very good, but accountability will be low.
• The buildings should be oriented towards people with children, in terms of size, play areas, etc. There are many existing families in this area. • Craftsman architecture in the area is beautiful.
• The potential park in the northern portion of the village is a great location because it is right off of 1st Street so there will be a lot of people walking around so they will want to rest and hang out.
• Question: The southern mixed-use character area could be 200-feet tall? o Answer: the proposed heights max out at 120-feet.
• Question: What is the driver to change heights?
o Answer: because of the boundary and land use changes, we need to also consider the height diagram as well to align the land use and height. • Question: Why is there tall heights in the southern area where there is a lot of existing residential? Why would you have more height here looming over these residents? o Answer: The height is reflective of the land use designation. In the southern area of the village, the proposed land use designations are Transit Residential and Urban Residential, which are more dense residential land use designations.
Because of the density, the height needs to be aligned with and reflective of the density.
• Question: Are there massing examples for the entire corridor? o Answer: No. The massing examples are only provided as examples and may not necessarily be reflective of any potential new development. • Concerns related to 120-foot height across from the Vendome neighborhood. 120-foot heights would block the sunlight and be very imposing for the area. • Question: how hard is it to get the height changed from what is being proposed? How hard is it to change this now?
o Answer: The proposed heights are still a work in progress so there is an opportunity. However, there are state laws that we need to consider. For example, if we decrease the density and height here, we would need to place it somewhere else. Staff will consider all community feedback. o It is unlikely that the height of the building on North 1st Street across from the Vendome neighborhood will be at the proposed maximum 120 feet in height, as there are requirements that the portion of the building fronting a street would either need to the maximum width of the public right-of-way, or the height of the property across the street. This is covered in the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines document, which is a City Council approved document and can be found here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/69148/6375209035 52430000
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Concern from residents in Vendome is the reverberation from airport/aircraft sounds against taller buildings and affecting the noise in the neighborhood and within existing residences
• Question: What is the difference between primary and secondary gateways? o Answer: Primary gateways are intended to be more grand/visually eye catching than secondary gateways.
• The corner of North 1st Street and Jackson Street would be a good place for a gateway element due to the proximity to Japantown commercial corridor. It is a natural entry point to Japantown, seems like an intuitive marker to let people know there is a great historical commercial district a few steps away.
• Question: What are the architectural style of the homes on Fox Avenue? o Answer: there are many architectural styles on Fox Avenue but seems to be a mix of Victorian and Craftsman style homes.
• The temple in Japantown should be represented as an architectural style and at the entry point into the area. Temple should be represented since it is the heart of Japantown.
• Question: Do any state laws for housing waive the requirements for stepbacks/setbacks?
o Answer: There are some state laws that do—the most obvious of which is Density Bonus Law.
• Question: If the village plan has certain maximum heights that aren’t anticipated to be built to—why not make the heights lower?
o Answer: The market could change in the future. But staff will be taking another look into the heights.
• Perhaps can place a gateway element on Burton Ave instead, as the proposed gateway element at 880 and North 1st St would be blocked due to the elevated freeway. • Hensley has various things that are aesthetically cohesive, to let you know you're entering the historic district. These would be good examples to look at when planning gateways for this UV, and the gateways could even be integrated with those in Hensley to let you know you’re going from one place to the next. • Regarding gateways: Two vibrant neighborhoods here – Vendome neighborhood and the Hensley district. They are separated by the railroad - if there’s a new designated area then you could connect 3 designated areas (Hensley, Vendome, 1st Street UV) together
• Ayer would be a good name for the district/area for gateways. • There should be something about Vendome – e.g., “You are now leaving Hensley to enter the Vendome district.” Related to gateways
• Why aren’t there any gateways at the southern end? Would make sense to have some gateway element there to encompass the whole plan area.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• The Santana Row population is a lot different than the population in this corridor so the planning should be different. The POPOs may have houseless that want to utilize this space; how has that been considered?
o Answer: the POPOs would be located on private property so the property owner would have to say about who could be removed.
• Concern related to houseless people using POPOs as a base to commit crimes, similar to what is happening in the neighborhood now
• Appreciate all the thought that went into considering the existing architecture.
Parks and open space:
• Concerns related to placing a floating park symbol in the plan that may not happen. • Incorporating a public park may not be feasible here because of high price of land • If a park is not feasible, desire to have a publicly-accessible but privately maintained and owned open spaces in northern section of Village.
• Taylor Street has direct access across 87 to Columbus Park (to be redeveloped with new softball fields) and Guadalupe River, Heritage Rose Garden, Rotary Garden • Cannery Park on Mission and 10th Street is great. Good work between 2 developers.
Park is sophisticated and helps builds community.
• Question regarding the draw to Miller and Asbury potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo. What is bringing people here?
• Publicly accessible but privately-maintained and owned open spaces and the potential bicycle and pedestrian paseo needs more landscaping, too much concrete. Potential bicycle and pedestrian paseo looks like a back alley way and does not make people want to sit down. Does not have the feeling of good streetscape. Too utilitarian looking. Uses benches, lampposts as artwork, bring artwork here. Desire to have things children can interact with.
• Good example of parks is the Salesforce Park in San Francisco, or Highline in New York.
Good parks have small, but simple water features where adults and children can interact with it. Use water, wood, and stone elements so everything is usable and interchanged.
Another good example is the Denver South Plat/Rhino District where there are residential townhomes and apartments, breweries, and bike shops. Little pieces of artwork. Having a brewery in this area will bring people here. • Support for the potential bicycle and pedestrian paseo. Likes the idea of a plaza for people to be outside.
• Explore the possibility of creating a bicycle/pedestrian bridge from Mission Street to Guadalupe River Park.
• Concerns related to homeless individuals in the paseo after dark. • Difficult to connect Taylor Street to Guadalupe park for pedestrians. • Potential paseo would be great; should include opportunity to outdoor dine. • Mom and pop restaurants would be great along the potential paseo.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Question regarding where the publicly-accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces are located.
• Amenities for open spaces should include shade—trees/landscaping. • If murals and trees could be incorporated onto/nearby Hedding Street, it would make a better connection to Guadalupe River Park.
• Including open areas, small pavilions for bands or entertainment in potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo would help attract people, but a menagerie of commercial businesses is key.
• Free events, music, or exercise (yoga/tai chi) would be great for activation of the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo. Needs to have a draw to the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo.
• Question: What is the likelihood that the City buys property for a park? What is the likelihood of a park being developed?
• Include more publicly-accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces on the east side of North 1st Street especially with the unlikeliness of a public park being developed. If there is not going to be a public park, then more publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces please.
• Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo sounds fine in concept but need a significant commercial element in and around it to create a draw. People do not like going to a place where nothing is happening.
• Need kid friendly programming, such as sidewalk chalk to draw, chess/checkers and other outdoor games.
• Question: What is a POPO?
o Privately-owned public open spaces (POPOs). These spaces are on private property and are privately owned and maintained. These spaces may be eligible for private recreation credit which is managed through the department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services.
• Concerns related to emergency interim housing site and the interface with the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo and residential uses. Supportive of emergency interim housing on Lot E but potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo would lead directly onto Lot E. Concerns related to safety.
• Concerns related to activation of potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo. How do you manufacture the draw to use the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo when there are park spaces. Downtown is already over retailed so what can be successful here? How do you manufacture here on this scale to generate enough foot traffic you need for full activation so the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo will not be abandoned? • Water fountains are difficult to maintain (such as the one in Cesar Chavez) and with the drought, they are not a good use. Amenities for kids get used, small pocket playgrounds.
Spaces where people can eat and watch their kids.
• Consider a dog park to attract people to the area.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Attract a morning, lunch, and evening crowd that will walk around to get out of the office or the house. Include seating for lunch in potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo. • There is already a big lunch crowd due to nearby county buildings, and the new residents in the new residential buildings will need an escape. Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo is not big enough for entertainment but can be used to escape cars. • Include a park on the two finger parcels facing North 2nd Street (between Younger Ave and Hedding, and Younger Ave and Burton Ave) or a community garden. • There are family rich neighborhoods here.
• Need solution to the homeless situation. Vendome area has homeless issue. Columbus park has become a campground and should not be allowed. Homeless situation must be rectified, and it is a burden for neighborhoods.
• Question: Who polices the publicly accessible but privately-owned and maintained open spaces?
o Answer: the property owner will be responsible for maintenance and policing.
There are some resources through the Housing Department:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/housing/ending- homelessness/homeless-encampments
• How are the publicly accessible but privately-owned and maintained open spaces maintained?
o Answer: Code enforcement division. The city is party to the public access easement.
• Consider placing a publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained open space on the corner of Asbury and Miller Street, however there is an existing building with only a 5-foot setback (south corner).
• Appreciates the idea of publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces because they give people in the neighborhood a spot to walk to and sit by a near café or greenspace. It is a nice relief from the urban hardness of the city and if they’re not too excessive they can be very nice.
• How will the publicly accessible but privately maintained and owned open space kept from being turned into tent city?
o Answer: Through coordination with property owners, code enforcement, and the housing department
• Likes the publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained open spaces at Market Street and St. John Street. They just opened a seafood chowder house. It was very nice. • The corner of North 1st Street and Taylor Street would be a great place for ground-floor commercial, as well as a publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained open space.
• In places like Europe, parks will have vendors and other commercial/food uses that can support family trips, meetups, etc.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• The success of this whole village is based on Guadalupe River Park being cleaned up and used as a resource for the community.
• No shade for pedestrians at any corners—especially as things get hotter. This is really important for making it nicer to walk.
• Unaware that the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo is in this village effort. Very excited. Having a pedestrian oriented commercial space and having something to walk to would be awesome. Plus plus over here.
• The concept of the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo is great, however, there are concerns related to transients and homeless people
• The type of development envisioned near the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo would place more eyes on the street and would push these people away. • Question: Is there any connection of existing trails to this area? o Answer: There are not any currently proposed.
• Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo should be lined with family friendly restaurants.
Wants family friendly activation like Santana Row
• Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo would be a popular lunch spot. Would like to see it more than a daytime lunch spot and would like to have something people can gather in the evening.
• Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo is a lovely concept however, there are concerns related to unhoused people incorporating into these spaces. I think of the Market Street closure in San Francisco where they had major issues with homeless encampments. The city ended up spending a lot of money to build it, then more money to tear it out. • Concerned about tent-dwellers occupying the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo, given the existing population there.
Transportation:
• Concerns about cycling on Taylor Street because of Highway 87 ramps, prefer to cycle on Hedding Street instead.
• Bikelink lockers need to be installed at destinations so cyclists do not have to worry about stolen bike parts.
• Potential transportation improvement of removing right turn lane at Taylor to North San Pedro is supported by certain residents in Vendome neighborhood. Vendome neighborhood has limited access during commute hours.
• People are reluctant to use bike lanes because of speeders. o City response: The City has adopted Vision Zero. Speeding is the #1 factor for traffic deaths. Need more infrastructure to narrow the roadways to reduce speed.
• Question related to whether cyclists need to yield or full stop at red light/stop sign. • Question related to the proposed infrastructure on Hawthorne Way. Hawthorne Way already has a park strip/island and is a narrow street already.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o City response: Hawthorne Way is proposed as a bike boulevard, per the Bike Plan 2025. Bike boulevards are supposed to be calm and relaxing with future traffic calming measures like speed bumps.
• Concerns related to increased traffic.
• Transportation improvements are needed at I-880 and North 1st Street. • Additional bike lanes are needed in and out of the area. • Comment related to enough landing space for flying cars. • Hedding Street should be enhanced so homeless can relocate to 10th street and use a nice bike lane to get there.
• There is cut through traffic through Hyde Park on 2nd Street and Burton Avenue, between I-880 ramp and 4th Street, and at the corner of North 1st Street and Hedding.
People drive on North 2nd Street and likely Younger Avenue to get to the freeway. • Concerns about speeding to and from the freeway.
• Concerns related to additional traffic, additional cars, and parking. • Cars park on North 1st Street which is a concern.
• Question: What can be done about traffic calming around Hyde Park? o Answer from Department of Transportation: the thresholds were not met to study for cut-through traffic for Hyde Park.
• Question: Is the Civic Center redevelopment moving forward? o More information regarding the County’s civic center can be found at the following links: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/faf/capital- projects/cc/pages/ccmp.aspx and https://www.sccgov.org/sites/faf/capital- projects/Pages/fmr-city-hall.aspx
• Concerns related to where driveways for properties front North 1st Street are going to be placed as cars are not encouraged to take North 1st Street because of the transit corridor.
• Burton Ave is being used for cut through traffic and vehicles speed through because Hedding Street is a busy street. Unsafe to cross at intersections because of people speeding through the roundabouts and corners.
• Younger Avenue is also used as a cut through—drivers hit trees and parked cars. • Question related to widening of sidewalks along North 1st Street, would the sidewalk encroach into private property or the street?
o Answer: The widened sidewalks will encroach into private property when property redevelops.
• Would be nice for LED light conversions for street lights along North 1st Street—many street lights are either burnt out or are high pressure sodium (yellow color). It would be more comfortable for people to walk with LED street lights. • 20-foot sidewalks along North 1st Street is excessive. North 1st Street already has a nice scale, and most sidewalks in downtown are not 20-feet so may not be necessary and will reduce development capacity. 15 feet sidewalks are adequate on North 1st Street EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
(inclusive of 5-foot tree well and 10-foot sidewalk). Properties on the west side are too shallow for redevelopment, so a 20-foot sidewalk and stepdown will significantly diminish the development potential. No one would redevelop the properties on the east side of North 1st Street. The sidewalk width from Taylor Street to Julian Street has a fairly distinct pattern of a 15 to 20-foot setbacks of front landscaping. Although this pattern is not urban, it is the historical pattern of the neighborhood. 5 to 10-foot setback from sidewalk for amenities/usable space not necessarily on a sidewalk. A mandatory narrower sidewalk and a design standards that buildings should be setback for landscape/softening would be more consistent with the historical patterns than 20- foot concrete.
• Where are the bike routes and how do the bike routes connect to the bike network? o Answer: The Better Bike Plan 2025 illustrates the bike routes and can be found here: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/transportation/walking-and-biking/better-bike-plan-2025. There is an interactive map available here:
https://csj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f5f8d005271c4 300ba3f99cb90abb246
• Question: How do we widen the sidewalks on North 1st Street? o Answer: it is taken from private property and does not narrow the existing street.
• Question: Are there any plans to widen Taylor Street? Maybe East Taylor Street? Lots of traffic jams
o Answer: There are no current plans to widen this segment of Taylor Street • Taylor and North 1st Street needs to be looked at carefully. There is currently an unprotected left turn from Taylor Street onto North 1st Street and it is impossible to turn left. Very traffic heavy intersection. North 1st Street goes from 2 lanes down to 1 lane. • Light rail alters the traffic signals because light rail takes priority. Prefers to take North San Pedro to avoid it
• Hedding and North 1st Street intersection with light rail blocks traffic for a few cycles, which is frustrating. Forces people to use 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Street to get around it.
Speeding issues on North 2nd Street.
• Mission Street gets impacted with traffic because of Hedding/North 1st Street, and Taylor/North 1st Street intersections
• Burton Ave is impacted with traffic and roundabouts have not helped to slow down traffic
• Appreciate the bike lanes on Hedding but narrowed the vehicular travel lanes, which angers people
• Crossing Hedding Street to get to the public school on North 2nd Street is dangerous because drivers are upset having to wait. Even with flashing lights and crosswalks, EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
drivers do not slow down because they are trying to race to get through the light at Hedding and North 1st Street
• On San Pedro Street in the Vendome neighborhood, drivers are running through the stop signs and the medians do not help. It was the wrong approach. • Open spaces are desired to get out of houses, but there are issues with traffic and speeding. It’s unsafe. Department of Transportation or City Council should be talking to police department about the issues. Department of Transportation should be talking to Police Department about speeding on North San Pedro.
• New traffic signal at 4th Street and Hedding works really well. • Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program which can potentially work here. Safe routes to school program looks to teach kids to cross safely and what improvements keep them safe. Department of Transportation can reach out to the schools about joining the program.
• Potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo, will it prohibit automobiles? o Answer: It could but details are still being worked out • Love the idea of something more pedestrian-oriented and the only access is from Miller so it would be complicated for that building.
• Overall, like the notion of pedestrian orientation and landscaping in that area. Do not like the idea of locking a property in, but otherwise the idea is liked. • Mission Street and North 1st Street should have protected left turns. • Bicyclists should not be on the sidewalks.
• Regarding the future action item of removing the north-bound and south-bound left turns from North 1st Street to Hedding Street, this will change 2nd and 3rd Streets from a quiet street to busy streets. This future action item will push traffic in an uncomfortable way for those neighborhoods. Traffic will be diverted to those areas in order to get onto I-880. Traffic patterns and spillover efforts of these future action items will really need to be studied.
• Will the 20-foot sidewalks on North 1st Street be implemented all at once or only on a project-by-project basis? May have alternating sidewalk depths for several decades. o Answer: It would be as properties redevelop. These sidewalks will still help serve the purpose of increasing the pedestrian area.
• Do we want to keep all street trees? Some trees hang into the light rail lines. Trimming seems to harm the health of the trees; some of the trees are not going to be sustainable in the long-term.
o Answer: Yes to keeping street trees. Will need to make sure the right species are selected that can be compatible with light rail.
• VTA Civic Center station can only be approached from Mission, not Hedding. This is very inconvenient for VTA riders—you have to overshoot the station to get to the platform.
This is especially inconvenient for people who are in a wheelchair or otherwise struggle with moving, but challenging for others as well.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Bikelanes share the same space as buses and this is scary. • When a light rail train is approaching a station, can we put a period where all crosswalks are on so that all people can catch the train without having to run across the street? • Guadalupe park trail could be a bicyclist paradise if it was better developed and cleaned up to encourage cyclists to really use the park as much as possible. Cyclists would be way more comfortable if they could use this—this would be amazing. Hedding would be much nicer if it could be cleaned up.
• Improving connections would be really useful in the north-south direction but not very useful in the east-west direction
• It is not possible to obtain the density envisioned in this village plan without providing parking
• It does seem like most developers are calculating more parking than required because they need the spaces for the economics to be feasible
• Does not seem feasible for people to really walk or otherwise to reduce their need to park their cars. There is no parking nearby—where will people park if there is no parking?
• Concerned that we will be building too much parking in San Jose, and greenhouse gases will continue to burn up our planet and create more congestion. We need to utilize other ways to get around the city. I trust that a non-profit developer has an understanding of the clients they serve and their needs for parking. They also provide transit passes to offset the need for driving. Increased density is important to help finance things like grocery stores.
• Because of the light rail on North 1st Street, there are segments of North 1st Street that are a single vehicle lane, so you are just kind of trapped on North 1st Street due to the traffic. Traffic through this area can be really problematic because of the single lane and not being able to turn left.
• Comment regarding future action item for the City to explore disallowing left-turn lanes onto Hedding Street from North 1st Street: This area is such a major section, so the concern is that people would break the law and turn left anyways because it is such a high flow corridor and intersection
• People generally follow the traffic rules, except stop signs. People run stop signs. • Information from the Department of Transportation: the restricted turn and other diverters to help with cut through traffic. Cut through traffic is something we have more and more of as the city grows. We cannot widen the roads to accommodate them all so we have different methods. This is just one of the tools in the toolbox that DOT is exploring. Acknowledge that the City does not have enough enforcement for traffic law breaking so that’s why doing something physically on the ground like diverters. • Question: Is there any plans on connecting the potential pedestrian and bicycle paseo to the Guadalupe River and some of the other parks across the way because it would be a good transition and improve the use of the site.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Answer: there is the Better Bike Plan 2025 that the City Council approved that looks at connector streets. The paths that are off the public streets and on park land are within Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services department jurisdiction. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also does county-wide bicycle improvements as well. VTA is currently proposing a “bike super highway”. o Note: More information on VTA’s bike super highway can be found here:
https://www.vta.org/projects/central-bikeway-study
• What is the reason behind the future action item of removing the right-turn lane from Taylor to San Pedro?
o Answer: This is a planning recommendation. DOT would need to do an analysis of the right-turn restrictions. San Pedro Street is a neighborhood street but people may be using it as a connector to Taylor Street. o Follow up question: With the new proposed land use designations, this restriction may not be needed?
o Answer: DOT would need to do a full analysis before any turn restrictions are implemented. When new development comes in, we would need to look at where the driveways are located. We want to provide multimodal options, although we recognize not everyone can travel without a car. We want to keep North San Pedro Street as a calm street as it is proposed to be a bike boulevard in the Better Bike Plan 2025
• Question: What about parking? Or a parking structure? What is the vision for some high density parking?
o Answer: DOT does not handle parking when it is related to a private development project, however, there are efforts to eliminate parking minimums.
Parking is not usually discussed as part of the village planning process. Depends on the private development application/proposal. Parking is not typically discussed as a separate chapter or as part of the Circulation chapter in the village plan. However, DOT is looking at relaunching residential neighborhood parking program so be on the lookout.
o Follow up concern: Brought it up because do not want the Vendome neighborhood to be the parking area for the neighborhood. It’s already pretty full. If there is not enough parking, George Street/Hobston/ and the Vendome area will be the parking lot.
o Parking is a big concern. We have a lot of folks parking all the way down the street so please mark parking as a bid concern.
• Question: What is pedestrian fencing? What does it look like? Is it literally a fence? o Generally the fencing is about as tall as your hip and is see through with some decorative elements. Purpose is to prevent people from walking where the train is going. Intended to be placed next to the elevated platform and not adjacent to sidewalks within the North 1st St village area.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Follow up concern: Do not want this fencing to look distasteful. • Hoping that there will be continued discussion about impacts to traffic in this UV as well as the areas that are bordering the UV. What changes here could have negative impact should be looked at? For example on Julian Street.
o The Downtown Transportation Plan is currently underway that is looking at a downtown holistically, including Julian Street. We don’t want to have a piecemeal approach to traffic changes. You can find more information about this on the Downtown Transportation Plan: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments-offices/transportation/planning-policies/downtown- transportation-plan
General questions/comments/concerns:
• The navigation center or tiny homes on Lot E: will it continue to operate? Could hurt perspective real estate
• Question about plans for affordable housing
• Issues with homeless individuals trying to break into homes. • City departments do not talk to each other to solve issues. It’s sad that they can’t communicate or get anything done.
• Police department keeps stating that they are understaffed and cannot help with the homeless issue.
• How are historic resources going to be kept from redevelopment? o Answer: Historic resources were excluded from the village boundary and will be added to the Historic Resources Inventory. There are a few candidate city landmarks that may eventually be designated as city landmarks • How does historic properties play with state law and ministerial actions? • San Jose’s processes are unclear on everything. No departments communicate. • If you want to keep the area nice, need to deal with homeless issue. Property owners need to secure their properties. Not all individuals are homeless, they are mentally ill and we are not providing resources for them, which is sad. • Question: How were the candidate landmarks get that designation? Is that something the city chooses to do or the property owner needs to apply for? How does that designation come about?
o Answer: The candidate landmark in and of itself is not a designation, but rather saying that a property has the potential (i.e. meeting certain criteria) to be a city landmark. There is a separate process for formally designating a property as a city landmark, which requires staff review (including the city’s Historic Preservation Officer), Historic Landmarks Commission, and the City Council. • Question: What were the specific criteria that the bank building located at George and North 1st Street met?
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Answer: The Sumitomo Bank of California located at 515 North 1st Street is an embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen. The building is an excellent example of New Formalism-style building.
It embodies many elements of the style including, most notably, the original stone cladding and expressed steel structural system which spans the height of the building and encompasses all but the west elevation. • Have attended village meetings in the past and can see that our feedback is incorporated and is being considered. Want to thank staff and hope staff will continue to take concerns into consideration.
• Property owners of 568 North 1st Street do not want their property to be redeveloped.
Concerns about sidewalk widening as trees and landscaping planted on the property is somewhat historic in nature and concerned about how the sidewalk widening would impact the property
o Response to concern: We want to preserve the historic building/character of the area; this building is one of the most eclectic mixes of architecture and we want to preserve that. Sidewalk widening would only be required of new development and existing properties that are not proposed for redevelopment would not be required to do this. Additionally, 568 North 1st Street has been removed from the village boundary.
• Question: What are the setbacks for this area?
o Answer: Setbacks depends on the zoning district the property is located in. There is no proposal to change setbacks as part of the village planning process.
Affordable housing is a little different and is allowed by state law to play by different rules.
• Pretty happy with everything being proposed. Reasonable height limits and the information about the required setback and stepbacks is actually really encouraging to hear.
• Question: What is the timeline for development to begin and conclude? What do we do about blight or properties that don’t develop anything after they’ve been approved? I am concerned about abandoned properties and how that would allow more criminal activity or vagrancy.
o Answer: We do not anticipate immediate development of this area. Typically cannot allow demolition of an existing building until something new is proposed and developed, which might incentivize continued operation of a building. The market controls what private development is pursued on which sites and when these proposals will be submitted to the city for review. • City seems to have an aggressive affordable/supportive housing plan in place. By default it seems to be centered in downtown. While I’m not against some of this, an overconcentration would be detrimental. Is there a guideline about where this can/should be?
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Answer: No, the City’s Housing Department Siting Policy is just about funding, not allowed locations for affordable/supportive housing:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-
offices/housing/developers/affordable-housing-plans-policies/affordable- housing-siting-policy
• Will the slide deck or a version of the slide deck be available? o Yes, the meeting recordings, notes, and slide decks will be posted on the city’s website.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
Virtual Drop-In Office Hours Summaries
Dates: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 and Tuesday, August 30, 2021 Times: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Location: Held virtually on Zoom
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Virtual Drop-In Office Hours Overview
The purpose of the virtual drop-in office hours was to provide an opportunity for quick questions and discussions with Planning staff about the Village Plan, and to provide feedback and comments as well. There were two virtual drop-in office hours held on zoom with the first one occurring on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the second occurring on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
There were three attendees at the August 25th drop-in office hour session and eight attendees at the August 31st drop-in office hour session.
During the virtual drop-in office hour sessions, staff listened to the attendees for feedback and answered questions about the village plan. Below is a summary of the office hour notes:
August 25, 2021 virtual drop-in office hours:
• Everyone liked the presentation at the third workshops and were happy we incorporated a lot of the community feedback
• Questions about building height particularly with 120 feet in the southern section (particularly near Empire and North 1st Street) versus only 50 feet maximum heights at the northern section of the village. Facilitator said that typically builders are building at 5 stories but that is not enough insurance to the public. Public not comfortable with maximum height of 120 feet and want heights lowered. From Fox to Taylor to George Street there are houses. Why are the heights in the northern and southern sections are so different?
o Response: Neighborhood/Community Commercial has lower intensity versus the southern and central areas have more intense land use designations. If we put a lower height on the Transit Residential or other properties, we can’t meet the max dwelling unit/acre (DU/AC) which we can’t do because the planned growth won’t be reached. Context of the northern section is different and market studies and public feedback have created the land use diagram. • Question if staff is stating that the northern section is already zoned for commercial and the southern zoned for residential? Ultimately your recommendation will be approved because of state law? Vendome will be upset about higher heights so be prepared for that.
• Lives on Rankin Ave and there are no other homes along North 1st Street that are impacted as much as Vendome. Hensley is further in from North 1st Street so they are less impacted. Recognize that development is coming and would like to live and retire in this area, but considering traffic and vehicles there will be a lot more people and less parking. This is a big concern.
o Response: Parking is not controlled by the village plan, just controls the land use designations and height. Parking is controlled by San Jose Municipal Code.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Parking should be based upon employees for a business. The Kelsey won’t have enough parking, even though it’s a good cause and there are people living there and employees with not enough parking. Our transit system is not good enough. We are part of the big sprawl so the transit will not catch up. We will likely go down to one car. • Milpitas has a housing project taking state incentives to reduce parking spaces to get some breaks. Understand have to think about this because of climate change but it’s not going to happen any time soon. Don't see how we can change that if we have to drive to get anywhere when light rail is so slow.
• Parking and traffic are concerns, and are surprised that the Village Plan doesn’t control that. Goal is to reduce parking needs and build more. Council member said that we are reducing parking requirements in the village area. Want proactive VTA improvements and ongoing traffic and parking studies.
• Should be cohesive and working together with the city’s parking team. The planning parking group should be part of this Village Plan.
• Frustrating that you have to talk to so many people to get answers. • Noticing pink and purple colored land use designations on south side of Taylor, are those Swenson properties? Are they in the Village? Does Swenson own the Citibank? • In the presentation you showed that some buildings will require stepbacks to existing homes. Because of what happened with the Kelsey, are those rules out the window if an affordable housing comes in? People are in fear that the southern portion of the Village will be a cluster of affordable and supportive housing which the area is already saturated with. Don't want there to be a majority of that kind of housing. Asked at a housing meeting (housing siting policy meeting) if supportive housing could be reduced.
But we were told at your meeting that it is illegal to prevent affordable housing? Our fear is that even though they have a lot of money that we foresee the millions of dollars flooding in.
o Response: Keep in mind that once the village plan is approved, the village plan changes the land use designations, and in some cases allows residential development. Affordable very unlikely to build here because the land prices for residential land are too expensive
• Very frustrating that Housing Department isn’t at these meetings • Very difficult to keep track of and understand Senate Bill 330 • Senate Bill 35 has rubbed people the wrong way. San Jose wasn’t able to reach the affordable housing quota so the punishment was to allow a bigger building built in our backyard.
• Live in northern part in Hyde Park. Missed the workshop meetings. What was the outcome of the meeting? From the slides it appears that Hyde Park is historical and concern is that most are 2 stories houses, if the minimum height of buildings near us are 4 stories tall, how will that work with the interface to the homes? Privacy concerns.
Wants to know about setback and stepback ideas.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Concerned about taller buildings near them. Hyde Park welcomes density, but don’t want to be the housing in the Up movie with impacts to shade and traffic. 135 feet near Hyde Park is too tall. Staff told them about ground floor commercial requirements and the required finished floor to ceiling height requirements and how that means fewer stories.
• Understand we want to increase density but things have to make sense, what is your plan to widen Hedding or North 1st Street. There should be more transitions near single- family homes. Having this idea that people will not have cars because they live near light rail is nonsense. Also light rail hasn’t been running for months, and you are increasing density without implementing infrastructure improvements like San Francisco without having San Francisco public transit. We are okay with up to 5 stories, but not 13 stories.
This will destroy character, our money/investment. and privacy. You should be protecting us, the working class whose home is the only retirement savings we have.
This is a disaster and terrible.
• We need to take the responsibility of upzoning the entire block and eminent domain everything. This is supposed to be like the Rose Garden or The Alameda or Shasha/Hanchett but that is not what we got as promised. This is all absurd. The way we are splitting the blocks is concerning. Half the blocks between Burton Avenue to Hedding Street, have large buildings next to single family homes. Taking properties out the village like we have along North 2nd Street is worse than leaving the single-family homes in the village boundary. Where is the traffic going to go? Keep the existing boundary and lower the height. Build taller townhouses as a transition. We are in favor of density but not this. This was an exercise in futility where we voice our concerns and the plan is not what we want. When I attended the meetings, everyone agreed that the highest height is near Asbury and Taylor and 1st Street. Up north it’s too tall because it’s too narrow and everyone agreed including staff that this was the case and can’t support tall buildings. Doesn't feel like staff took their feedback at all. This plan was flawed from the beginning with too tall heights. Coleman highline is an example where planning is disconnected from reality and say no more traffic will be caused, but there are no bus lines there. Planning is disconnected. Lots of existing traffic and North 1st Street is a bottle neck, and Hedding Street is traffic heavy because of too wide bike lane. Don't see any improvements to traffic and transit infrastructure, which is necessary, so your plan is nonsense. This is a fantasy plan where you are going to have thousands of people without widening the street. All those people on North 2nd Street are working class families where their home is there only asset and the home value will depreciate. The city is doing this to devalue the land so developers can buy up the land for Google development. This is a historically redlined area and you are future contributing to white supremacy and perpetuating those issues. Destroying the value of our property by bad planning and bad decision making.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Response: Current allowed heights are much taller. In the area adjacent to Hyde Park, the current allowed heights are from 120 to 200 feet. Heights from 50 to 200 feet are proposed. Using the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines it greatly restricts the ability to build to maximum heights in the plan due to the stepback requirements.
• What is our recourse to stop this Village Plan as we don’t agree? How can we do this North 1st Street is so narrow and can’t support the traffic. Everyone agreed was to take advantage of aspirational central area to have the height between Mission and Taylor.
That's where the height should go, no where else. Restrict to 50 feet everywhere where it’s a half block width on the east side of North 1st Street. Will city planning realize your mistakes and change the plan per our comments? What are the next steps? How will people get around if light rail is not running, and the bus bridge is not good substitute as it doesn’t run the entire light rail route. East to west traffic already impacted and this going to make this worse.
August 31, 2021 virtual drop-in office hours:
• Individual was at workshop and was wondering about the height reductions and why the northern part of the village is getting reduced? Why not something between 50 and 135 for better scaling?
o Response: Height is responsive to the proposed land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial. Commercial Pedestrian and Commercial Neighborhood are conforming zoning districts to Neighborhood/Community Commercial which allow up to 50 feet in height.
• Want to get it on the record a concern about the proposed maximum height of 120-feet in between Clayton and George street on east side of North 1st Street. Want to know what are the effects on acoustic noise reverb due to height of buildings. Noise pollution will hit those buildings and will create a cumulative effect and bounce around. No study has been done according to the airport because there are not residential neighborhoods near Downtown. Will put a lot of stress over the residents of the Vendome neighborhood. Who is going to study the noise issue that would be caused by the 87 freeway and airplanes? We are creating a hazard. Need a study on quality of life and air pollution. We've invested a lot into our homes.
o Response: CA building code requires a certain interior noise requirements so windows and insulation keep the noise down inside. This doesn’t apply to existing buildings. Would have to analyze under CEQA the noise impacts on the project, not the reverse. Unsure if there are studies to accomplish what is being asked.
• Concerned about the bank on Rankin Avenue has a historic status. What does that mean? Is it more subject to Senate Bill 35? Does it mean it can torn down more easily? EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
o Response: Discussed how candidate city landmarks work versus designated city landmarks and what rules apply. We removed the property in question from the Village boundary because we can identified it as a candidate city landmark and don’t want to plan for development on that site. Senate Bill 35 contains an anti- demolition requirement which states that Senate Bill 35 projects must not require demolition of registered historic structures among other requirements. • Concerns about two 11 stories over Vendome and lack of privacy and noise issues. We have invested a lot of time, money, and love into our homes, and housing values will drop. Want the same as the northern maybe at 50 feet near them too in Vendome.
There is a lot of historic value in the neighborhood at the gateway of downtown San Jose. Has spoken to many residents of Vendome and many feel the same. o Response: In Senate Bill 35 there is an anti-demolition cause that states deed- restricted affordable, rent-controlled house, or historic structure on city historic register cannot be demolished. So a property owner could designate their site as a city landmark. A candidate city landmark does not qualify under these criteria. • Likes the maps and wants to find them on the website (staff will post them on the website). Not a lot of plans for new parks and amenities. Ryland and surrounding parks are nice but we need more to make it more livable. Has concerns about height toward the south (lives in Vendome) with concerns about the creation of a sound or wind corridor. Remediation for a gas station in the northern section off Burton Avenue. o Response: Explained how POPOS and parks ordinance works. If the gas station is redeveloped, applicant will have to remediate per CEQA and the development permit. Have to go through a process with other agencies to close it down to ensure it is safe to develop.
• Based upon preliminary village plan, where are you at the housing and employment numbers under the General Plan for the site? How many jobs and housing units did you need? It seems that the city would be able to meet the quotas without having to put from George Street to Fox Street buildings over five stories. It's coming across that the city is not listening to the neighbors and what they want and the only residential neighborhood in the area. Seems to the public that we do not need the 120 feet of height to reach the jobs and housing goals.
o Response: we provided the jobs and housing units planned. we looked at how much could be accommodated based upon the new boundary. We did a test fit to see what heights we need to accommodate the growth assigned to the village.
• Who changed the village boundary in the Taylor PD parking lot? o Response: Lot E was removed as the City plans to use the property for City purposes. OED and real estate don’t want to use it for non-government run use.
The decision to put interim housing on the site came later from the Housing and Public Works depts to house homeless individuals.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• Comes across that your consultants that don’t live here have removed the properties that could have accommodated this growth out of the boundary, now the growth has to be accommodated on the single-family on health and safety, quality of life, no parking, too much height, impacted parking, traffic, and we have the worse public transit. The grand jury study has shown it’s the worse in the nation and more expensive. We want to find a solution where it doesn’t affect us in the south side. Will this be changed or will it be stamped and moved on to council for approval.
o Response: Staff will consider your public comment and try to see what we can do. We will relook at the height in Vendome, but that is the existing allowed height under the San Jose Municipal Code today. We aren’t increasing it. Talked about Senate Bill 330 up/down zoning.
• How many Senate Bill 35 projects can we get in this village? We would like to see no in- lieu fees for Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Would rather affordable units be integrated.
o Response: Unlikely to see 100% affordable development on residentially designated land as the land prices are typically too high for affordable developers to compete. We simply do not know if there will be more Senate Bill 35 projects coming in as this is controlled by the private market and not by the City.
• What height is on the property on the south side of Jackson? Is it 120 feet? o Response: Yes.
• Noticed that between Jackson and Mission it’s all 50 feet on North 1st Street but not in Vendome? And there could also be a 50-foot building between Rankin and Hopkin. I hope the City finds a way to disperse the intensity and height throughout the village. o Response: the land use designations relate to the max heights. The land use designations require a certain intensity and density so they have higher heights.
Neighborhood/Community Commercial is less intense and therefore the heights are shorter. We have the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines document which will apply here and this Council approved document has a stepback requirement. (Staff showed a visual on screen). A building won’t meet the full height because of this. However, density bonus or Senate Bill 35 projects may be able to override these requirements, but commercial and market rate residential will have to comply.
• The stepback and setback would be helpful for the privacy and light concerns. • What's the process moving forward?
o Response: Next, city staff will look at all the comments at the workshops, at the office hours, and emails, and relook at the draft village plan. See if there will be changes based upon feedback with state law in mind. Then post online for review by public. Then go to Planning Commission for consideration. Then City Council hearing. Likely both virtual meetings.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
• A resident of the Vendome and plans to live here for the next 20 years. Concerned about height and particularly the 120 feet height. It will change the character of the neighborhood. Live here because of the kind of neighborhood it is and the character.
Boundary is changing and we live near a bank (Rankin and North 1st Street) and it used to be in the boundary and now it’s not.
o Response: We are proposing to remove this property from the Village boundary as it is identified as a Candidate City Landmark and we don’t anticipate or want intensive development on this site. It is an excellent example of the “international style” architecture which makes is a candidate city landmark. We want to preserve these historic resources as is.
• There is a large parking lot that services the bank property so what are your thoughts on that lot.
o Response: We are excluding the parking lot as well because it will be so small and not realistically redevelopable in the future.
• What do we envision the bank building could be used for? o Response: It has a land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial and they can look to the zoning code for type of uses. • The pink color is for residential and commercial in the north? How does Senate Bill 35 work?
o Response: The pink color is Neighborhood/Community Commercial which is a commercial land use designation. Staff provided Senate Bill 35 information. • What happened to the outdoor San Pedro area?
o Response: It is currently proposed as the preferred bicycle and pedestrian paseos in the center of the village.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st St Local
Transit Village
July 2019
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Survey Background
• The purpose of the survey was to gather input on the Concept Plans tha
t will refine the features of the North 1st St Local Transit Village • The survey was open to the public from June 10 – Ju ly 17, 2019 • The link to the survey was posted on the project website • 103 participants took the survey; 54 provided additional comments www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to co mmunity and quality of life, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should:
Connect the existing and new residential neighborhoods to the North 1st Street corridor through safe, convenient, and pleasant public spaces.
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to tr ansportation, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should prioritize:
Walking, biking, public transit, and other modes of transportation so people feel healthier and more connected while being less dependent on cars.
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to tr ansportation, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should prioritize:
Parking and driving, even if this means there is less room for public spaces, and pedestrians and cyclists will find it more difficult to travel safely and conveniently. www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to tr ansportation, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should prioritize:
A healthy and sustainable neighborhood. We should improve the streetscape to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the village and to promote public health. www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to villag e layout, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should:
Mix residential and commercial developments as much as possible to make it easier for people to live, work, and find their services close by. www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Concept Plans
• In regard to ho using, the North 1st Street Local Transit Village should:
Be predominantly multifamily buildings, including affordable housing opportunities. www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
1 – Should not
2 3
4 5 – Should
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Summary of Comments
• Of the 103 survey takers, 54 people filled out the comments box. • The majority expressed concern about affordable housing. • 14 respondents are enthusiastic about live/work and mixed-use c oncepts. o “Active ground floors should expand to include more than traditional retail.
Co
mmunity spaces, small businesses, live/work, art studios and some light industrial (like Midtown Arts Mercantile) are beneficial ground floor uses that activate the street. We need more than banks and coffee and food to activate the ground floor.” • 7 respondents want the plan to support local businesses. o “Commercial spaces should be accessible to dedicated local business owners, who gene
rate stronger, more stable neighborhood communities and foster support for new developments [rather] than large national chains.”
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Summary of Comments
• 12 respondents want the design to focus on bike/transit access and other sus
tainable concepts.
o “It should meet the highest ecological standards for landscape and building design, ut
ilizing regenerative landscape methods and integrating regenerative food production along the way (think rooftop gardens for new buildings and pockets for community gardening).”
• 8 respondents are concerned about parking impacts.
o “The main justification for this zoning is that it's close to light rail, but everyone kno
ws that nobody uses it to actually get to work or around downtown... We need to be pragmatic about this and realize that the majority of people coming downtown or to these transit villages are going to be coming by car. That means multi-level garages like the one at San Pedro Square. It's a big part of why that area has been so successful.”
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Additional Information
• Out of 103 respondents, 82 people live within 2 miles of the project limits
• A
ll live within 5 miles of the project limits
• Many comments reflect a desire for a large grocery store • Several respondents would like the village to reflect the multicultural div
ersity of the area
• Many would like the project developers to address the homeless situ
ation in the area
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
Thank You
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
52 Relationship to Other Documents
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
53 The Village Plan relies and builds upon adopted City Council policies, documents, and regulations for guidance and direction. The Village Plan also creates new goals, standards, and guidelines that are unique to the Village boundary and important to the stakeholders within and around the Village boundary. Below is a description of several approved City Council policies, documents, and regulations that this Village Plan relies and builds upon.
General Plan
The Village Plan implements the Envision San José 2040 General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan sets forth a vision and a comprehensive road map to guide the City’s continued growth through to year 2040, establishing 12 Major Strategies to guide the physical development of the City. This Village Plan directly implements Major Strategy #1 Community Based Planning, Major Strategy #5 Urban Villages, Major Strategy #6 Streetscapes for People, and Major Strategy #8 Fiscally Strong City.
Historic Resources Inventory and City Landmarks
The Historic Resources Inventory is the City’s inventory of properties that have historic merit, including those that do not rise to the level of a Historic Landmark. Although the Historic Resources Inventory is not a complete catalogue of potentially historically sensitive properties, it provides information on over 4,000 properties citywide.
City Landmarks are properties that have undergone a historic evaluation and are deemed historically significant. These properties require a recommendation by the Historic Landmarks Commission and City Council approval to be deemed an official City Landmark. These City Landmarks are placed on an inventory and have additional protections to ensure these historic resources remain for the current and future generations.
Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines
This Village Plan relies on the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines for requirements and guidance on urban design. Additional urban design policies, standards, and guidelines are contained in the Village Plan, and provide additional Village-specific urban design concepts and direction. The Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines document was adopted by the City Council on February 23, 2021 and shall inform the urban and architectural design of private development projects in addition to this Village Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance (Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code) implements the Village Plan by containing specific development standards (e.g. setbacks, uses) and permitting requirements development projects must follow.
Complete Streets Design Standards and Guidelines
The Village Plan relies on the Complete Streets Design Standards and Guidelines for requirements and guidance on streetscape improvements. While this Village Plan specifies required sidewalk widths, the Complete Streets Design Standards and Guidelines shall be used for street design standards and guidelines.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
54 Downtown Transportation Plan
As of the date of approval of this Plan by the City Council, the Downtown Transportation Plan was under development and not yet approved by the City Council. The Downtown Transportation Plan is a community-based plan that identifies a prioritized list of transportation improvement projects, programs, and policies for implementation in a 20-year period. The effort aims to reshape the downtown transportation system to one that aligns with the community values and advances the City’s mobility goals. The study area for the Downtown Transportation Plan is roughly bounded by Taylor Street to the north, Keyes Street to the south, Race Street to the west, and 11th Street to the east. A portion of the Village overlaps with the Downtown Transportation Plan boundary (generally between Taylor Street and Hensley Street). The Downtown Transportation Plan, when approved by the City Council, will apply to the small portion of the Village that overlaps with the Downtown Transportation Plan boundary.
Access and Mobility Plan
The future citywide Access and Mobility Plan builds upon the goals contained in Climate Smart and the General Plan and will lay out transportation goals and strategies to shift the mode of travel from single- occupancy vehicles to walking, biking, and taking public transportation. The Access and Mobility Plan tracks progress for the goals and will include metrics (key performance indicators) to provide information on which improvements will provide the greatest values.
Better Bike Plan 2025
The Village Plan relies on the San José Better Bike Plan 2025 for bicycle infrastructure improvements.
Better Bike Plan 2025 updates San José Bike Plan 2020 to create a bicycle network that is safe, comfortable, and convenient. The goals of San José Bike Plan 2025are to eliminate roadway fatalities and major injuries, create a bicycle network that enriches the lives of everyone who lives, works, or plays in San José, and encourage more people to bike. The San José Better Bike Plan 2025 sets the vision for a safe, direct, and connected citywide bike network that supports people’s daily needs.
Climate Smart San José
Climate Smart San Jose (Climate Smart) is a plan approved by the City Council in February 2018 that takes a people-focused approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save water, and improve the quality of life by laying out how San José is addressing climate change over time with metrics to track the progress. Climate Smart uses the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan as a foundation and identifies nine strategies to reduce emissions in San José to reach the State’s target of 80% greenhouse gas emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050, as well as achievement the Paris Climate Agreement goals, including the reduction in carbon emissions required by 2050 to keep the rise in average global temperature to below two degrees Celsius. The Village Plan promotes infill development along a transit corridor, and therefore promotes achievement of the goals contained in Climate Smart.
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
The City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan, approved by City Council in September 2019, addresses how the urban landscape and storm drainage systems will change from reliance on traditional “grey” infrastructure to an integrated approach that includes more resilient and sustainable EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
55 “green” infrastructure systems. The goals of the GSI Plan include: protect beneficial uses of waterways within San Jose, including the Bay, and provide environmental and community benefits; capture, infiltrate, treat, and/or “repurpose” stormwater with multi-benefit projects that can enhance public spaces, water supply, flood control, habitat and green spaces; retrofit public rights-of- way to exhibit complete streets with GSI; reduce pollutants discharging to creeks from the municipal separate storm sewer system; and demonstrate quantitatively the pollutant load reductions that can be achieved through GSI implementation. The Village Plan assists in implementing the GSI Plan.
Greenprint and Activate SJ
The Greenprint is a long-term plan that sets goals and strategies for how San José's parks, trails and community centers will change over the next 20 years. City staff and policy makers use the Greenprint as a guide as they explore the ways the parks system can help people in San José be healthier and happier. ActivateSJ builds upon the work that the Greenprint sets forth. The ActivateSJ Strategic Plan is the City of San José’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services’ (PRNS) plan to maintain, improve and expand our facilities, programs and services. Greenprint, emphasizing the principles of stewardship, nature, equity and access, identity, and public life, guides how the Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services Department cares for and develops a diverse park system, and an abundance of recreation programs and services for San José.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
56 Definitions
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
57 Big box uses: For purposes of this Village Plan, a big box store is a predominantly, but not exclusively, a one-room, single-story building of at least 35,000 square feet that houses a single retailer or grocer and that is surrounded by a large parking lot, or in an urban setting has a large above-or below-ground parking structure. Big boxes are typically stand-alone structures, but may also be located in strip malls and shopping centers.
Mom and pop: “Mom-and-pop” is a colloquial term used to describe a small, family-owned, or independent business that is family-owned, controlled, and operated business. It is typically open for business only in a single location and not franchised.
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
58 Architectural Styles
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
59 This Appendix is used to provide objective guidance on Urban Design and Placemaking Standard UDP-1.
Spanish Colonial Revival Style Character-Defining Features • Low-pitched gable roof usually made of red tile with little or no eave overhang • Prominent arches placed above the door or principal window, or beneath porch roof • Stucco wall cladding
• Asymmetrical façade
• Wall surface usually extends without break into the gable Streamline Moderne Style Character-Defining Features
• Horizontal, cubist massing
• Curved building corners
• Flat or low-pitched roofs
• Smooth stucco or cement plaster finish
• Horizontal banding inscribed into exterior stucco
• Horizontal overhangs or cornice bands often with curved corners • Steel industrial sash windows (earlier examples can display wood-sash windows) • Glass block
• Rounded or “porthole” windows
Contemporary Style Character-Defining Features
• Low-pitched gable or flat roof with widely overhanging eaves • Exposed roof beams
• Windows generally placed in gable ends or just below roofline in non-gabled façades • Built of natural materials (wood, stone, brick, or occasionally concrete) • Broad expanse of uninterrupted wall surface typically on front façade • Entry may be recessed or obscured
• Asymmetrical façade
New Formalism Style Character-Defining Features
• Symmetrical plan
• Flat roof with heavy overhanging roof slab
• Full-height columns of steel or concrete connecting the roof slab to the site • Cast stone or concrete block screens linking the building to its site • Arcade of stylized arches and plain columns at the base of the building • Building tower set back from the street in a landscaped plaza • Building expressed as a tower of steel
• Presence of stylized ornamentation
Minimal Traditional Style Character-Defining Features
• Single-story rectangular plan
• Low-pitched, hipped or gable roof with close (shallow) eaves • Overall lack of architectural detail
• Stucco cladding with clapboard or wood shingle siding • Small front porch supported by square or rectangular columns EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
60 • Overall lack of architectural detail
• Multiple-light windows with shutters
• Prominent attached garage
Beaux Arts Style Character-Defining Features
• Symmetrical articulation
• Lavish and intensive surface decoration
• A single architectural element set as a grand gesture – often an over-scaled archway, triple archway or short but dramatic colonnade as the center of the composition • Coupled columns
• Facades composed around advancing and receding wall planes. The transition from one plane to another is often highlighted with multiple corner elements. • Entablatures that advance and recede to mark the locations of columns below • An active roofline (for a classical style) with dramatic roof-top figure sculpture • Fully and boldly formed ornamental sculpture employed elsewhere on the facades (as opposed to more subtle bas relief)
• Monumental (sometimes multiple) runs of steps approaching a building’s entrance • Floor plans that culminate in a single grand room
• Axial floor plans that establish vistas through different spaces Mission Style Character-Defining Features
• Simple, smooth stucco or plaster siding
• Broad, overhanging eaves
• Exposed rafters
• Low-pitched hipped or gabled tile roof
• Roof parapets
• Large square pillars
• Twisted columns
• Arched entry and windows
• Covered walkways or arcades
• Round or quatrefoil window
• Restrained decorative elements of tile, iron, and wood Craftsman Style Character-Defining Features
• Low-pitched, gabled roof (occasionally hipped)
• Unenclosed eave overhang
• Exposed roof rafters and beams
• Partial- or full-width porches
Colonial Revival Style Character-Defining Features
• Gable or gambrel roofs
• Windows with double-hung sashes and frequently in adjacent pairs • Decorative pediment either supported by pilasters, or extended forward and supported by columns to form entry porch
• Symmetrical façade with balanced windows and center door EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
61 International Style Character-Defining Features
• Blocky massing
• Horizontal bands of flush-mounted windows
• Contrasting spandrels of metal or colored glass
• Flat roofs
• Expressed structural system in steel and concrete
• Lack or absence of applied ornamentation
• Square building corners, often expressed as windows
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)
North 1st Street Local Transit Village Plan
62 NORTH 1ST
STREET LOCAL
TRANSIT
VILLAGE PLAN
EXHIBIT "B" (File No. GP21-016)