TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Planning Commission
AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: August 11, 2022
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9
SUBJECT: PDC21-011, PD21-012/ER21-135, PT21-034 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF CAMBRIANNA DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET
WESTERLY OF TAPER AVENUE (1975 CAMBRIANNA DRIVE)
(CAMBRIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, OWNER).
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-1 (Garcia Absent) to recommend that the City Council take all of the following actions:
(1) Adopt a resolution adopting the 1975 Cambrianna Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, for which an initial study was prepared, and adopting a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
(2) Approve an ordinance rezoning the Project Site from the R-1-8 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District on a 2.85-gross acre site.
(3) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide
2.85 gross acres (Project Site) from the existing 10.0-gross acre parcel to create 24 lots, including 21 single-family lots, two private street lots, and a lot for the former school site. (4) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to allow the removal of three ordinance-size trees and allow the construction of 21 single-family residences, including four affordable units and 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), on the approximately 2.85-gross acre Project Site, with extended construction hours to include Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
COUNCIL AGENDA: 08/30/22
FILE: 22-1288
ITEM: 10.2
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034, ER21-135
OUTCOME
If the City Council approves all the actions listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant will be allowed to subdivide 2.85 gross acres Project Site from the existing 10.0-gross acre parcel to create 24 lots, including 21 single-family lots, two private street lots, and a lot for the former school site; and remove three ordinance-size trees and allow the construction of 21 single-family residences, including four affordable units and 14 ADUs, on the 2.85-gross acre Project Site, with extended construction hours to include Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the 1975 Cambrianna Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Zoning, Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft resolutions adopting the 1975 Cambrianna Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit, and adopt the draft ordinance for the Planned Development Zoning.
Staff Presentation
Patrick Kelly, Supervising Planner, provided an oral presentation of the proposed project, including an overview of the project’s conformance with the General Plan, the San José Municipal Zoning Code, the Design Guidelines, and the City Council Development Policies.
Applicant Presentation
Mary Gourlay with Robeson Homes, the project applicant, presented the details of the project, including the project history, the inclusion of affordable units, the site layout, and the project design.
Public Hearing
Chair Oliverio opened the public comment portion of the agenda.
Four members of the public spoke in support of the project. The comments of the speakers are summarized below:
• Melissa Ojczjk spoke in support of the project on behalf of the Cambrian School District.
She said the project was important to the district in that revenue from the property exchange would support school district education and programs, which lack adequate public funding. She also said the project would fit in well with the existing surrounding single-family neighborhood.
• Samantha Shiraishi expressed support for the project and said it was important to the school district and the community. She said the homes would fit in well with the
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034, ER21-135
neighborhood, and the school district had selected a reputable builder for the project that took into account all of the recommendations of the district over the two-year planning process, including the affordable housing and ADUs. She said the project would go a long way toward supporting schools in the district that need additional funding. • Beth Erickson said she has been a resident of the school district for fourteen years and her children had been attending the district schools since 2015. She urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project in order to secure a long-term funding source for the school district. She commented on the effectiveness of the project planning process. She said as an active member of the Cambrian Educational Foundation she has seen the difficult choices the district has had to make due to shortfalls in state funding for school districts and said the project should be approved in order to provide funding for programs that help the district attract and retain students. • Randy Scofield said he was a member of the Board of Trustees for the Cambrian School District, and the project was planned for many years to help make up for the shortfall in state funding for the district. He reiterated the comments made by the prior speakers regarding builder selection and the project fit with the community and emphasized the importance of the project as providing an ongoing revenue source for the district in perpetuity and urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project.
Chair Oliverio closed the public comment portion of the agenda and invited the applicants to respond to comments or provide any closing statements. The applicant said she had nothing to add and was available for questions.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise asked if the sports field where the project would be built was used by children for outdoor activities and if the remaining field area would continue to be used for that and asked if there were mitigation measures protecting the health of the children during the construction period. Staff responded that a separation fence was required to be constructed prior to development activities on the project site, and that standard measures were included to reduce dust and noise during construction.
Commissioner Young asked how the project was structured to be financially beneficial to the school district. Scott Sheldon, the consultant representing the Cambrian School District, said the Education Code allows school districts to exchange their property for other properties that generate rent.
Commissioner Barocio asked Mr. Sheldon if the district would be owning the homes and collecting rents. Mr. Sheldon said that Robeson Homes would buy income generating property for the School District of comparable value, and then trade this property for the identified portion of the Elementary School property, allowing Robeson Homes to then build and sell the proposed homes. Commissioner Barocio noted the street for the project would be a private street, and asked staff to explain the difference between a public street and a private street. Staff explained a private street was constructed by the project developer and owned and maintained by the project
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034, ER21-135
homeowners association, and that the street would be built to city public street standards.
Commissioner Barocio asked if homeowner associations could limit access for private streets to those residing in the neighborhood served by the street and establish a parking permit programs.
Public Works staff confirmed HOAs have the ability to control street parking but not limit access to the street.
Commissioner Barocio asked whether the residents of affordable homes being provided with the project would have reduced HOA fees, and could reduced fees be included in the permit, and was that common or rare. Planning staff explained the affordable housing regulations administered by the city controlled the sale price and rental rates and did not extend to HOA fees, and the city required HOAs to be established to ensure property maintenance.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the project as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lardinois, and the Planning Commission approved the motion (8-0-1, Commissioner Garcia absent).
ANALYSIS
The analysis of the proposed CEQA clearance, Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Zoning, and Planned Development Permit, including conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Policies are contained in the attached staff report.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the project was heard at the July 27, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting and the Commission voted (8-0-1, Commissioner Garcia Absent) to recommend the staff’s recommendation for approval to the City Council. As discussed in the attached staff report, the project is consistent with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, the Municipal Code, Residential Design Guidelines, State Density Bonus Law, City Council policies for public outreach, and the requirements of CEQA. Should the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning, and adopt resolutions adopting the Mitigated Declaration, approving the Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit, the applicant would be allowed to proceed with Grading Permits and Building Permits allowing the removal of three ordinance-size trees and the construction of 21 single-family residences, including four affordable units and 14 accessory ADUs on the approximately 2.85-gross acre site.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Should the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning and adopt resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approving the Vesting Tentative
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034, ER21-135
Map, and Planned Development Permit, the applicant would be allowed to carry out the project as described above.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Under City Council Policy 6-30, the project is defined as a “standard development proposal.” Standard development proposals are required to provide early notification by website, email, and by on-site signage. Following City Council Policy 6-30, the required on-site sign has been posted at the site since May 18, 2021, to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on January 6, 2022, via Zoom webinar. Approximately 13 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting. Comments received during the community meeting included concerns about traffic, loss of open space, the potentially lengthy construction timeline, and displacement of wildlife. Public notices of the community meeting and public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
COORDINATION
The preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSÉ
The recommendation in this memorandum aligns with one or more Climate Smart San José sustainability goals. The homes constructed with the project would be subject to the Reach Code requirements for all-electrical service connections and prohibiting the use of natural gas for cooking or heating. Additionally, the homes are required to be solar-ready upon construction, as well as EV-ready.
CEQA
The City of San José, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022050629), for the 1975 Cambrianna Drive Residential Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City San José, California. The IS/MND evaluated the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the implementation of the proposed project.
The IS/MND was circulated from May 27, 2022 to June 15, 2022, and four comments were received during the public review period. One of the comments was from Valley Water which requested that the document include a discussion that the site is located within a designated
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034, ER21-135
groundwater recharge zone, and that any analysis of groundwater impacts should also be taken into consideration. In response to this comment, the text has been revised in the Initial Study to reflect accurate and consistent descriptions of the project site’s location in the Santa Clara Subbasin recharge zone. A second comment asked about when traffic counts were performed to ensure that skewed numbers were not used due to the pandemic. In response to this comment, traffic counts were confirmed to have been performed in 2018-2019, prior to the pandemic, and growth factors were also applied for counts older than two years. The last two comments did not pertain to the project’s environmental impacts and asked about density bonus incentives and affordable housing.
The IS/MND, including responses to comments received during the public review period, can be found at the following link: 1975 Cambrianna Drive Residential Project | City of San José (sanjoseca.gov)
The IS/MND identified relevant mitigation measures for potential impacts to air quality during construction, nesting birds, and construction-related noise and vibration impacts on nearby residential areas and the preschools. In addition, standard permit conditions are made part of the permit approval. These standard permit conditions include best management practices for construction-related air quality impacts, removal of existing trees on the site, compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, compliance with the California Building Code for seismic safety of the proposed building, erosion control during construction activities, protection of unknown subsurface cultural resources and human remains, protection of construction workers from hazards related to contaminated soils, water quality impacts during construction and operation periods, and best management practices to control noise during construction and achieving an interior noise level of less than 45 dBA DNL after construction. The mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and both the mitigation measures and standard permit conditions are made a part of this permit.
The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, with the implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, an EIR is not required, and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of CEQA clearance for the project.
/s/
CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Secretary
Planning Commission
For questions, please contact Planning Official, Robert Manford, at (408) 535-7900.
Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 07-27-22
ITEM: 5.c.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034
& ER21-135
DATE July 27, 2022
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9
Type of Permit Planned Development Rezoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map
Demolition N/A – Vacant land
Proposed Land Uses Single-family residential project with 21 single-family residences, of which four units are reserved as affordable to low-income households, and 14 accessory dwelling
units (ADUs)
New Residential Units 21 units
New Non-Residential Square Footage N/A
Additional Policy Review Items N/A
Tree Removals Three ordinance-sized trees
Project Planner Laura Meiners
CEQA Clearance Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2022050629, for the 1975 Cambrianna Drive Residential
Project
CEQA Planner Cort Hitchens
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to take all of the following actions regarding the project site located on the north side of Cambrianna Drive, approximately 150 feet westerly of Taper Avenue (1975 Cambrianna Drive) (“Project Site”):
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the 1975 Cambrianna Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, for which an initial study was prepared, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and adopting a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2. Approve an Ordinance rezoning the Project Site from the R-1-8 Single Family Residential Zoning District to the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District on a 2.85-gross acre site.
3. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 2.85 gross acres (Project Site) from the existing 10.0-gross acre parcel to create 24 lots, including 21 single-family lots, two private street lots, and a lot for the former school site.
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
4. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to allow the removal of three ordinance-size trees and the construction of 21 single-family residences, including four affordable units and 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), on the 2.85-gross acre Project Site, including extended construction hours to include Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Location North side of Cambrianna Drive, approximately 150 feet westerly of Taper Avenue (1975 Cambrianna Drive)
Assessor Parcel No. 984-45-006
General Plan Designation Residential Neighborhood
Growth Area N/A
Zoning – Existing R-1-8 Single-Family Residential Zoning District Zoning – Proposed R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District Historic Resource N/A
Annexation Date March 31, 1955 (Union No. 1)
Council District 9
Vesting Tentative Map Acreage 10.0-gross acres
Development Project Acreage 2.85-gross acres
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), the Project Site is located on the north side of Cambrianna Drive, approximately 150 feet westerly of Taper Avenue (1975 Cambrianna Drive). The project site is located within the eastern portion of a larger, approximately 10.00-acre parcel that is partially developed with an elementary school facility. The approximately 2.85-gross acre site is currently dirt, grass area and gravel parking lot along the eastern boundary of the school campus.
Existing access to the site is from one gated driveway along Cambrianna Drive, east of Browning Avenue. While the elementary school is no longer operating, the facility is used by the California Sports Center and two preschools (7 Magic Flowers Bilingual Montessori and ATLC).
Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, east, and south. The former school site, currently used by two preschools and a sports center, is adjacent to the project site on the west.
On April 15, 2021, concurrent applications for a Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC21-011, a Planned Development Permit, File No. PD21-012, and a Vesting Tentative Map, File No. PT21-034, were filed with the City by applicant Mark Robson of Robson Homes, LLC, on behalf of the owner, Cambrian School District. The Planned Development Zoning would rezone the site from the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The Planned Development Permit would allow the removal of three ordinance-size trees and the construction of 21 single-family residences, of which four units are reserved as affordable to low-income households, and 14 accessory dwelling units, on an approximately 2.85-gross acre site, including extended construction hours to include Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and density bonus incentives for reduced lot sizes and the construction of a private cul-de-sac. The Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide a 10.0-gross acre parcel into 24 lots, including 21 single-family lots and two private street lots on the 2.85-acre Project
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Site, and a 7.15-gross acre parcel to be retained by the school district.
Saturday construction activities including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Rough grading and demolition shall not be allowed on Saturdays, nor shall roadway construction that includes heavy and noisy equipment. Stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators are required by condition of approval to be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. The purpose for this request is to limit delays from inclement weather and reduce the overall timeframe to complete the project. Saturday work would shorten the schedule by several months. This would benefit the two adjacent preschools that are open Monday through Friday but not open on Saturdays. Therefore, allowing work on Saturdays would reduce the amount of time students are exposed to construction noise.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Planned Development Rezoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map have been analyzed with respect to consistency with:
1. Envision San José 2040 General Plan and Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan
2. Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance
3. Single-Family Design Guidelines
4. State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915)
5. City Council Policies
6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Envision San José 2040 General Plan and Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan Consistency As shown in the attached Proposed General Plan Map (Exhibit B), the project is within the Residential Neighborhood land use designation in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Land Use/ Transportation Diagram Map. The land use designation is for established, single-family residential neighborhoods. The Residential Neighborhood designation typically provides for a density of up to 8
SURROUNDING USES
General Plan Zoning District Existing Use
North Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residential Single-Family Residences
South Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residential Single-Family Residences
East Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residential Single-Family Residences
West Public/Quasi-Public R-1-8 Single-Family
Residential
California Sports Center and
two preschools
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
du/ac, but also allows projects to match the existing neighborhood character if greater than 8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
New infill development within the Residential Neighborhood land use designation should improve and/ or enhance existing neighborhood conditions by completing the existing neighborhood pattern and bringing infill properties into general conformance with the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood. New infill development should be integrated into the existing neighborhood pattern, continuing and, where applicable, extending or completing the existing street network. The average lot size, orientation, and form of new structures for any new infill development must therefore generally match the typical lot size and building form of any adjacent development, with particular emphasis given to maintaining consistency with other development that fronts onto a public street to be shared by the proposed new project.
Analysis: Under State Law SB 330, the City of San José may only apply objective general plan, zoning, and policy standards. The objective maximum density standard for the Residential Neighborhood land use designation is up to 8 du/ac. The project includes 21 dwelling units on 2.85 gross acres, which results in 7.4 du/ac. The project is therefore consistent with the density requirement of up to 8 du/ac.
As to the General Plan requirement to complete the existing street network with average lot size, orientation, and form consistent with adjacent properties, the project is requesting a Density Bonus incentive to create a private cul-de-sac instead of continuing Browning Avenue through the project to complete the existing street network, which would result in an actual and identifiable cost reduction for the affordable homes. The project has been deemed eligible for Density Bonus under State Law (Government Code Section 65915). Therefore, the cul-de-sac is allowed as an incentive as described in the Density Bonus Section below.
The project is consistent with the following key General Plan policies:
Implementation Policy IP-8.5: Use the Planned Development zoning process to tailor such regulations as allowed uses, site intensities and development standards to a particular site for which, because of unique circumstances, a Planned Development zoning process will better conform to Envision General Plan goals and policies than may be practical through implementation of a conventional Zoning District.
Analysis: The project includes 21 single-family homes including four affordable units, and is generally consistent with the surrounding land uses, but requires specific development standards to meet the density allowed by the General Plan, including reduced lot area and width, reduced parking, and reduced setbacks. The setbacks of the PD Zoning Development Standards, compared to the standard R- 1-8 Single-Family Residential Zoning District, would allow the project to achieve a density consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Neighborhood, which allows up to 8 du/ac, while also being compatible with the character and appearance of the adjacent residential development. The rezoning allows the project to minimize the amount of land dedicated to parking, as well as encourage transit ridership at the nearby bus stops for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Routes 37, 61 and Express 101.
Housing Policy H-2.5: Facilitate second units on single-family residential lots, in conformance with our City’s Secondary Unit Ordinance, to take advantage of a potential source of affordable housing.
Analysis: The project includes 14 accessory dwelling units in conformance with Section 20.30.460 of the Zoning Code. The project is consistent with this policy.
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The project includes a rezoning from the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The surrounding parcels are all zoned R-1-8 Single-Family Residence.
Land Use
The base zoning of the R-1-8 (PD) Planned Development Zoning District supports compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The R-1-8 (PD) Planned Development Zoning District also allows accessory dwelling units where appropriate and is designed to support the residential goals and policies of the General Plan.
The City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 79909 on February 23, 2021 changing the land use designation for the project site from Public/Quasi Public to Residential Neighborhood. The Resolution includes a condition requiring any future development on the project site to include at least 15% affordable units with a maximum 80% AMI restriction, and a minimum of 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) pursuant to the General Plan Council Memo (Exhibit M). Based on the 21 total single-family dwelling units proposed, 3.15 affordable units would be required. The project meets this requirement by including four affordable housing units and 14 ADUs.
Development Regulations
Below is a comparison of the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District per Section 20.30.200 of the Zoning Code and the project’s R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards.
Per Section 20.60.040.B of the Zoning Code, when a PD permit has been implemented, the provisions of the permit prevail over the regulations of the base district zoning of the property.
The project includes 17 detached single-family homes and four attached single-family homes. The attached homes are on separate lots with zero lot lines. This differs from a duplex in that a duplex is a two-family dwelling on one lot.
Standard R-1-8 Zoning
District
Requirements
R-1-8(PD) Planned Development
Zoning District Development
Standards
Project Compliance
with PD Standards
Minimum Lot Area 5,445 square
feet
Detached: 4,100 square feet
Attached: 2,500 square feet
Detached: 4,237
square feet
Attached: 2,581
square feet
Minimum Front Setback 20 feet Lots 1 thru 9 and 14 thru 21:
Seven feet
Lots 10 and 13: 15 feet
Lots 11 and 12: 20 feet
Lots 1 thru 9 and 14
thru 21: 7.83 feet
Lots 10 and 13: 15
feet
Lots 11 and 12: 20
feet
Minimum Side Setback
(interior)
5 feet Detached: Five feet*
Attached:
Detached: 5 feet
Attached: Zero
between lots and
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
• Zero feet between Lots 1
and 2 and between Lots 6
and 7
• Minimum 6 feet to
adjacent lot line
Detached Garage/ADU: Minimum
three feet from structure
including eaves
6.5 feet to adjacent
lot line
Detached Garage/
ADU: 4.25 feet to
structure, 3.25 feet
to eave
Minimum Side Setback
(corner)
12.5 feet 10 feet Lot 1: 10 feet
Minimum Rear Setback 20 feet 20 feet, except 10 feet for attached ADUs or ground floor
bedroom, provided that such
shall not occupy more than thirty
percent of the rear yard
Detached Garage/ADU: Three
feet, as measured from the
property line to and wall or
architectural projection,
including eaves
20 feet
10 feet for lots with
attached ADUs
Detached Garage/
ADU: 4.25 feet
Maximum Height 35 feet No change 27.7 feet
*With up to two feet allowed for architectural projections Analysis: As shown on the Planned Development Permit PD21-012 Plan Set, the project conforms with all required setback standards pursuant to the General Development Plan of the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The setbacks of the R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning Development Standards, compared to the standard R-1-8 Single-Family Residential Zoning District, allows the project to achieve a density of 7.4 du/ac, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Neighborhood, which allows up to 8 du/ac, while also being compatible with the chara cter and appearance of the adjacent residential development.
Vehicle Parking:
The following table compares the parking standards of the Zoning Code to those of the Planned Development Zoning Development Standards, and shows project compliance with the R-1-8 (PD) Planned Development Standards:
Parking Zoning Code R-1-8(PD) Planned
Development Zoning
District Development
Standards
Project Compliance
with PD Standards
Single Family Detached Two covered spaces
per unit
No change Two covered spaces
per unit (34 spaces)
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Single Family Attached Two covered spaces
per unit
One covered space per
unit
One covered space per
unit (4 spaces)
Analysis: The project provides parking ratios consistent with the Planned Development Zoning Standards. The Zoning Code would require a greater number of parking spaces than provided. The rezoning allows the project to minimize the amount of land dedicated to parking, as well as encourage transit ridership at the nearby bus stops for VTA Routes 37, 61 and Express 101. Single-family residential uses are not required to provide any bicycle, motorcycle, or loading spaces.
San José Design Guidelines Consistency
The project was analyzed for consistency with applicable Single-Family Design Guidelines. Per Senate Bill 330, effective January 1, 2020, only objective standards and guidelines can be applied to certain affordable housing projects. Objective standards per SB 330 must be measurable and quantifiable. The Single-Family Design Guidelines contain very few objective standards; however, the project does comply with the key guidelines below:
Section 1.C.3. Main entries should be prominent and oriented to the street unless another pattern is well established on the block, and in appropriate scale for the block as well as the individual building.
Analysis: The main entrances of the single-family home designs are prominent and face the street.
None of the single-family home designs have main entryways that are out of scale for the structure. The project is consistent with this section.
Section 2.A.3. Building forms should be varied enough to avoid monotony and to be compatible with surrounding houses but should still be simple and elegant.
Analysis: There are a total of eleven elevations within the Planned Development Permit Plan Set for the 21 single-family homes. This provides variety in design, and along with changes in color and materials provides variety in appearance. The single-family home designs are not overly complex but keep to traditional design features which result in simple and elegant design.
Section 1.E.1. On blocks where single-story houses or small two-story houses are the predominant block pattern, a second story addition or a new two-story house may require some particular attention to keep the perceived scale of the new construction compatible with the surrounding structures. Scale may be minimized by employing one or more of the following techniques:
1. Set the second story back from the front and side s of the first story a distance sufficient to reduce the apparent overall scale of the building.
2. Significantly limit the size of the second story relative to the first story, including any addition to the first story.
3. Significantly increase the front and/or side setbacks for the entire structure.
4. Place at least 60 or 70 percent of the second story floor area over the back half of the first story.
Analysis: This section applies to the two-story homes adjacent to existing single-story homes (Lots 10 thru 13). Upon review and coordination with the applicant, the second stories of the subject lots were reduced to minimize the overall massing of the home in relation to the adjacent homes, to meet this requirement.
The project is consistent with this section.
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
State Density Bonus Law Consistency (Government Code Section 65915) The project includes four units of affordable housing subject to the State Density Bonus Law. Of the total 21 units included in the project, four units (19% of total) are reserved for low-income households, with income limits as defined in California Code Section 65915. The project is therefore eligible for the provisions of the State Density Bonus Law. These incentives have been incorporated into the Planned Development Zoning standards.
Density Bonus
Under State Law SB 330, the City of San José may only apply objective standards. The minimum objective density standard for the Residential Neighborhood land use designation is 8 du/ac. The project includes 21 dwelling units on 2.85 gross acres, which results in 7.4 du/ac. The project is therefore consistent with the density requirement and does not require a Density Bonus.
Incentives
Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue incentives and concessions, such as reductions in development standards to facilitate the economically viable construction of affordable housing, as long as the applicant can show that the requested incentives or concessions result in actual and identifiable cost savings. Based on the percentage of affordable units provided, the project qualifies for two incentives. Based on the percentage of affordable units provided, the project qualifies for two incentives. The project has requested two incentive, as follows:
Incentive 1: Private Cul-de-Sac.
The San José Municipal Code requires new streets in new subdivisions to be designed to make provisions for the continuation of the existing streets adjacent to such new streets into such new subdivisions and for the proper projection of such new streets over adjacent undeveloped property per Section 19.36.020. The applicant is requesting to exempt the project from the requirement to continue Browning Avenue through the project site to intersect with Cambrianna Drive to the south, and instead constructing a private cul-de-sac for access to the development, per the illustration below:
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
As described in the Density Bonus Request letter from the applicant dated December 22, 2021 (Exhibit L), if required to continue Browning Avenue, additional land is needed for the public right-of-way and street design (5,444 square feet). The reduced net residential area results in 18 units, or a loss of three units. Additionally, the larger street section and impervious area increases construction costs for the pavement and stormwater facilities. The requested concession would therefore reduce the average cost per unit from $2,127,057 to $1,891,620, resulting in a total reduction of $235,437 per unit. Without the requested concession, the project is not viable and cannot be constructed.
As a result of the decreased costs, the project would be viable and can be constructed. Cost savings will go toward the affordability of the units. Therefore, the incentive request to construct a private cul-de-sac for access to the development results in actual and identifiable cost reductions and can be granted.
Incentive 2: Reduced Lot Size.
The San José Municipal Code requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for each new lot created within a subdivision per Section 19.36.180. The lot size may be reduced from the 6,000 square foot minimum lot area in all or some of the lots in a proposed subdivision as long as no lots contain a minimum area of less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the minimum lot size to 4,100 square feet for the detached single-family lots and 2,580 square feet for the attached single-family lots.
As described in the Density Bonus Request letter previously referenced, the requirement for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet results in fewer lots on each side of the proposed private street and would result in a loss of four units. The use of smaller lots in key locations decreases the cost per unit that enables construction of affordable homes, while providing back yards, privacy and desirable home sites. The requested concession would therefore reduce the average cost per unit from $2,234,588 to $1,891,620, resulting in a total reduction of $342,968 per unit. Without the requested concession, the project is not viable and cannot be constructed.
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
As a result of the decreased costs, the project would be viable and can be constructed. Cost savings will go toward the affordability of the units. Therefore, the incentive request to reduce the minimum lot size results in actual and identifiable cost reductions and can be granted.
PERMIT FINDINGS
Planned Development Permit Findings
To make the Planned Development Permit findings pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section
20.100.940 and recommend approval to the Planning Commission, staff must determine that:
1. The planned development permit, as issued, is consistent with and furthers the policies of the general plan; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the single-family residential project with 21 homes, of which four units are reserved as affordable to low-income households, is consistent with the Residential Neighborhood land use designation per the General Plan, including relevant goals and policies. The use is allowed within the Residential Neighborhood designation, the project is providing 7.4 du/ac and includes 14 accessory dwelling units per the Council Memo regarding the General Plan Amendment GP20 -003 approved on February 23, 2021.
2. The planned development permit, as issued, confo rms in all respects to the planned development zoning of the property; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the project is consistent with the R -1-8 (PD) Planned Development Zoning District Development Standards. The project is consistent with the parking, set back, and height requirements of the Planned Development Standards and the General Development Plan.
3. The planned development permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable city council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and Analysis: As discussed above, the project is subject to and conforms to the Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals.
4. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, mass and scale of building volume s, and elevations of proposed buildings, structures and other uses on-site are appropriate, compatible and aesthetically harmonious; and
Analysis: The subject single -family residential project provides 21 new single -family homes and 14 accessory dwelling units, including four homes reserved for low-income households. The design of the single-family homes includes architecture styles such as Craftsman, Monterey, and Farmhouse, that provides variety while being compatible with each other. Materials such as board and batten siding, wood columns and trim, and brick are incorporated into the design. The design also includes variations on color, materials, projections, and recessions, which contribute to an interesting and varied design.
5. The environmental impact s of the project, including, but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative eff ect on adjacent property or properties.
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Analysis: As discussed above, the project incorporates measures to address noise, stormwater runoff, drainage and erosion. The project will be required to adhere to all applicable standard permit conditions and mitigation measures related to reducing temporary and operational sources of noise and vibration, dust, and erosion. Residential buildings are not usually considered a source of significant odor and would not impact adjacent properties. The project will be required to comply with all City permits and policies related to erosion and storm water runoff. For these reasons the project is not anticipated to have an unacceptable negative impact on adjacent properties.
Tree Removal Findings
Chapter 13.32 of the San José Municipal Code establishes that at least one of the following required findings must be made for issuance of a Live Tree Removal Permit for ordinance-size trees. Findings are made for the project based on the findings related to General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and CEQA conformance and for the reasons stated below, and subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution.
1. That the location of the tree with respect to a proposed improvement unreasonably restricts the economic development of the parcel in question.
Analysis: As discussed above, three ordinance-size trees will be removed to accommodate the project.
The trees to be removed are located in the area of construction. Based on this reason, the trees to be removed cannot be preserved. The trees will be required to be replaced at the City-required ratio.
All three trees proposed to be removed are non -native species, Deodar Cedar. Per the City’s Tree Replacement ratios per the table below, the trees will be required to be replaced at a ratio of 4:1, resulting in 12 requi red replacement trees. Per Sheet 10.1 of the Planned Development Permit Plan Set, thirty-six (36) 24-inch box size trees will be planted at the project site. The project is consistent with the requirement.
Tree Replacement Ratios
Circumference of
Tree to be
Removed
Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size of
Each
Replacement Tree Native Non-Native Orchard
38 inches or more 5:1 4:1 3:1 15-gallon
19 up to 38 inches 3:1 2:1 none 15-gallon
Less than 19 inches 1:1 1:1 none 15-gallon
x:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratio
Note: Trees greater than or equal to 38-inch circumference shall not be removed unless a Tree Removal Permit, or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees. For Multi-Family residential, Commercial and Industrial properties, a permit is required for removal of trees of any size.
A 38-inch tree equals 12.1 inches in diameter.
A 24-inch box tree = two 15-gallon trees
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
If there is insufficient area on the project site to accommodate the required replacement trees, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee. Changes to an approved landscape plan requires the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Permit Amendment. • The size of a 15 -gallon replacement tree may be increased to 24 -inch box and count as two replacement trees to be planted on the project site.
• Pay Off-Site Tree Replacement Fee(s) to the City, prior to the issuance of building permit(s), in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment. The City will use the off-site tree replacement fee(s) to plant trees at alternative sites.
Vesting Tentative Map Findings
In accordance with San José Municipal Code (SJMC) Sections 19.12.130 and 19.12.220 and California Government Code Section 66474, the Director of Planning of the City of San José, in consideration of the proposed subdivision shown on the Vesting Tentative Map with the imposed conditions, shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if the Director makes any of the following findings:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans as specified in Section 65451.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Analysis: Based on review of the subdivision, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 2.85 gross acres from one existing 10-acre lot to create 24 lots, including 21 single-family residential lots, two private street lots, and a lot at a former school site, the Director of Planning of the City of San José does not make any such findings to deny the subject subdivision. The project is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and land use designation, as analyzed above. The project site is physically suitable for the project and proposed intensity in that single-family residential development is allowed up to 7.97 du/ac. Furthermore, the project site does not contain historic resources or sensitive habitats or wildlife.
The site is not located within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100- year flood plain. The project site, as well as the surrounding area, are currently developed with structures and do not provide a natural habitat for either fish or wildlife. Multiple improvements to the pedestrian network and traffic calming measures are required to be implemented as conditions
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
of approval, such as removing pork chop islands, eliminating uncontrolled right-turn lanes, and the implementation of signal modifications at the Kiely Boulevard intersection. Additionally, a new all- way stop will be required to be installed at the Lopina Way/Albany Drive intersection. The project will be required to provide a monetary contribution ($122 per linear foot) for the future Class IV protected bikeway along the Stevens Creek Blvd project frontage per the San Jose Better Bike Plan 2025.
City Council Policy Consistency
City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals Under City Council Policy 6-30, the project is a standard development. Standard development projects are required to provide Early Notification by website, email, postcard mailed to property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius, and by on-site signage. Following City Council Policy 6-30, the required on-site sign has been posted at the site since May 18, 2021, to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on January 6, 2022 via Zoom webinar. Approximately 13 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting. Comments received during the community meeting included concerns about traffic, loss of open space, lengthy construction timeline, and displacement of wildlife. Public Notices of the community meeting and public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website.
Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The City of San José, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022050629), for the 1975 Cambrianna Drive Residential Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City San José, California. The IS/MND evaluated the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.
The IS/MND was circulated from May 27, 2022 to June 15, 2022, and four comments were received during the public review period. One of the comments was from Valley Water and requested that the document include discussion that the site is located within a designated groundwater recharge zone, and that any analysis of groundwater impacts should also take that into consideration. In response to this comment, text has been revised in the Initial Study to reflect accurate and consistent descriptions of the project site’s location in the Santa Clara Subbasin recharge zone. A second comment asked about when traffic counts were performed to ensure that skewed numbers were not used due to the pandemic. In response to this comment, traffic counts were confirmed to have been performed in 2018-2019, prior to the pandemic, and growth factors were also applied for counts older than two years. The last two comments did not pertain to the project’s environmental impacts and asked about density bonus incentives and affordable housing.
The IS/MND, including responses to comments received during the public review period, can be found at the following link: 1975 Cambrianna Drive Residential Project | City of San José (sanjoseca.gov) The IS/MND identified relevant mitigation measures for potential impacts to air quality during
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
construction, nesting birds, and construction-related noise and vibration impacts on nearby residential areas and the preschools. In addition, standard permit conditions are made part of the permit approval. These standard permit conditions include best management practices for construction related air quality impacts, removal of existing trees on the site, compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, compliance with the California Building Code for seismic safety of the proposed building, erosion control during construction activities, protection of unknown subsurface cultural resources and human remains, protection of construction workers from hazards related to contaminated soils, water quality impacts during construction and operation periods, and best management practices to control noise during construction and achieving an interior noise level of less than 45 dBA DNL after construction. The mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and both the mitigation measures and standard permit conditions are made a part of this permit.
The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, an EIR is not required, and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of CEQA clearance for the project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy to inform the public of the proposed project.
An on-site sign was posted on the property and a noticed community meeting was held on Thursday, January 6, 2022. Approximately 13 members of the public were in attendance. Only one concern was raised during the meeting, in which the neighbors requested that Browning Avenue remain closed to vehicular traffic because there are already traffic issues along surrounding streets Taper Avenue, Geneva Street, and Foxworthy Avenue. Therefore, opening Browning Avenue to through traffic is not desirable.
Staff also received emails from one community member, including all the community comments from General Plan Amendment File No. GP20-003, approved by City Council on February 21, 2021. A summary of the issues relevant to the subject project include the following:
1. There is a concern about the increased traffic that may be caused by this development in conjunction with other developments in the area.
2. There is a concern about the loss of open space to the community provided by the vacant project site.
3. There is a concern about a lengthy construction timeline disrupting the adjacent residents, including impacts to the preschools adjacent to the project site such as noise and dust.
4. There is a concern about the displacement of wildlife caused by the development, including migratory birds.
5. There is a concern that people are moving out of San José due to the flexibility of working from home and building more housing in San José may not be necessary.
In response to the concerns about traffic, a Transportation Analysis was performed for this project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated November 11, 2021. The report concluded that the
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
project VMT estimated by the VMT Evaluation Tool is 9.34 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 10.12 VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a VMT impact.
In response to the concern about the loss of open space, the project site is not public open space. The project site is owned by the school district and the district decided to sell the property. There are multiple other parks in the neighborhood that are open to the public, including the Camden Community Center across the street, Doerr Park, Butcher Park, Houge Park, and Cambrian Park.
In response to the concern about disruptions due to a lengthy construction timeline and impacts to the preschool, the project is subject to environmental mitigation measures and standard permit conditions as described above to ensure no impacts occur during construction. These conditions include best management practices for construction related air quality impacts, erosion control during construction activities, water quality impacts during construction, and best management practices to control noise during construction.
In response to the loss of habitat for wildlife, the project is subject to environmental mitigation measures and standard permit conditions, including the protection of nesting migratory birds and compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.
In response to the concern about additional housing being unnecessary, multiple studies have shown that there is a housing crisis in California, and local jurisdictions are subject to several State Housing Laws promoting housing construction. Additionally, due to economic laws of supply and demand, having an adequate supply of housing helps to balance housing prices in the area.
A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
Project Managers: Laura Meiners
Approved by: /s/ Michael Brilliot, Deputy Director for Christopher Burton, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map, Aerial
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation
Exhibit C: Zoning District
Exhibit D: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-011 Ordinance Exhibit E: Planned Development Permit PD21-012 Resolution Exhibit F: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-034 Resolution
Exhibit G: Environmental Addendum Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit H: Draft PDC21-011 Development Standards
Exhibit I: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-011 Plan Set Exhibit J: Planned Development Permit PD21-012 Plan Set Exhibit K: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-034 Plan Set
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Exhibit L: Density Bonus Request Letter
Exhibit M: General Plan Amendment GP20-003 Council Memo dated February 23, 2021 Exhibit N: Public Correspondence
Development Review Project
Manager
Environmental Project Manager Applicant Representative
Laura Meiners
Laura.Meiners@sanJosé ca.gov
(408) 535-7869
Cort Hitchens
Cort.Hitchens@sanJosé ca.gov
(408) 794-7386
Mary Gourlay
[email protected]
(408) 423-7133
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map/Aerial
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation
File No. PDC21-011, PD21-012, PT21-034 & ER21-135
Exhibit C: Zoning District Map
PDC21-011, PD21-012/ER21-135 & PT21-034
Links to Attachments D-N
Click on the title to view document
Exhibit D: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-011 Ordinance Exhibit E: Planned Development Permit PD21-012 Resolution Exhibit F: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-034 Resolution
Exhibit G: Environmental Addendum Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit H: Draft PDC21-011 Development Standards
Exhibit I: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-011 Plan Set Exhibit J: Planned Development Permit PD21-012 Plan Set Exhibit K: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-034 Plan Set
Exhibit L: Density Bonus Request Letter
Exhibit M: General Plan Amendment GP20-003 Council Memo dated February 23, 2021 Exhibit N: Public Correspondence