TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Planning Commission
AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: August 11, 2022
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
SUBJECT:
PDC20-021, PD20-012/ER21-006, PT21-001 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND
LOPINA WAY (4300 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD) (MPG STEVENS
CREEK OWNER LLC., OWNER).
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-1 (Garcia) to recommend that the City Council take all of the following actions:
(1) Adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) adopted by City Council Resolution No. 30230 on March 12, 2019, in accordance with CEQA.
(2) Approve an ordinance rezoning the Project Site from the CG(PD) Planned Development Zoning District (File No. PDC16-036) to the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District.
(3) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide three parcels into seven parcels with up to 580 condominium units on the Project Site.
(4) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to allow the demolition of three existing commercial buildings, the removal of 104 ordinance-size trees and 92 non-ordinance size trees, and the construction of three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel with 8,500 gross square feet of ground floor retail with associated parking, landscaping, and amenities, on the Project Site.
COUNCIL AGENDA: 8/30/22
FILE: 22-1289
ITEM: 10.3
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
OUTCOME
If the City Council approves all the actions listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant would be allowed to demolish three existing commercial buildings, remove104 ordinance-size trees, and 92 non-ordinance-size trees, and construct three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel with 8,500 gross square feet of ground floor retail with associated parking, landscaping, and amenities on the approximately 10.0-gross acre subject site.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the Addendum to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Zoning, and Planned Development Permit. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft resolutions adopting the Addendum to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 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 that included an overview of the project’s conformance with the General Plan, Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village, San José Municipal Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Development Policies. Cort Hitchens, Environmental Planning Project Manager, provided an oral presentation regarding the environmental review process and project conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Applicant Presentation
The applicant’s representative, Deena Morsilli, presented the details of the project, including the project history, site layout, and project design, provision of affordable housing, and off-site public improvements.
Public Hearing
Chair Oliverio opened the public comment portion of the agenda.
Eleven members of the public spoke on the proposed project, five in support of the project, one against, and five with general comments. The comments of the speakers are summarized below:
• Humberto Nava, a representative of the Nor Cal Carpenters Union, said he had attempted to contact the applicant to discuss the labor standards for the project and had not received a response. He said the project would be positive for the city, and that it was also important to provide construction trade jobs with a livable wage that would enable
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
workers to live and work locally, which would also provide environmental benefits due to reduced commuting from distant areas with lower costs of living. • Brian Darby expressed support for the project for its potential as affordable housing for students.
• Kenneth Do, a member of Local 9144 expressed the need to establish labor standards that would support and sustain local apprentices, and provide living wages and good healthcare.
• Balbir Dhanoa, an apprentice with the local carpenters union expressed support for the project provided that the developers hire locally and provide union labor standards for the project. He said this would help provide a living wage in this area and help ensure a certain number of apprentices would be hired.
• Craig Zercher, a resident on Albany Drive across from the project site to the south, expressed strong concern about the additional traffic generated by the project that would worsen existing congestion along Albany Drive. He said Albany drive connecting to Kiely Boulevard provided only one lane for all traffic in the residential area south of the project to access Saratoga Avenue and then access the 280 Freeway. • Jessica Martin on behalf of SV@Home expressed support for the project for the additional housing it would provide in a transit-oriented, walkable, mixed-use format, consistent with the Urban Village goals.
• Vince Rocha, Vice President for Housing and Community Development with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, expressed support for the project’s provision of housing, a hotel that would provide revenue to the city, and that the project would implement the Urban Village Plan.
• Alex Villalobos, member of the carpenters union, said union workers should be supported by being hired for local projects due to the high cost of living in the area and the benefits it provides.
• Alexander Avila, a member of Local Carpenters Union 405, emphasized the importance of being able to find trades work locally, which would help reduce hours-long commutes that could result in vehicle accidents due to drowsiness at the wheel after a hard day’s work. He said he would support the project if it used union labor and hired apprentices. • Louis Mirante, Vice President for Public Policy with the Bay Area Council expressed strong support for the project, especially with its inclusion of thirty percent affordable units which would help provide much-needed affordable housing. • Rebecca (no last name given), said she was an apprentice with Local 405 and that a job was only good if it could support a family, allow workers to have a good quality of life by reducing commute times, and reduced vehicle emissions that result from long commutes to jobs.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
Chair Oliverio closed the public comment portion of the agenda and invited the applicants to respond to comments or provide any closing statements. Tom deRegt of the applicant team said he had been associated with the project for a long time and was excited about bringing forward a housing and commercial project that will enliven the Stevens Creek corridor. He said the project includes more affordable units than required and felt in the current environment of high construction costs and fluctuating interest rates that the project has been designed so it could be feasibly built.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Oliverio asked if it would be required of the project to construct the hotel simultaneously with the multifamily buildings. Planning Staff responded there was no requirement for simultaneous construction. Chair Oliverio referred to the Bascom Gateway Station project (File Nos. PDC17-047 and PD18-015) adjacent to the VTA Bascom Light Rail Station as having been required to construct the office and residential components of the project simultaneously. He referred to the tendency of the housing portions of mixed-use projects in the city to be constructed, with the commercial portion left unbuilt. He asked why this project is not required to construct the housing and commercial portions simultaneously. Staff explained that the Gateway Station project was an Urban Village Signature Project, which projects are required to provide job growth capacity above the average density of jobs per acre planned for the Urban Village Area per General Plan Policy IP-5.10 and commercial phases to be built before or at the same time as the residential portion. The proposed project is not a Signature Project and therefore simultaneous construction is not required.
Chair Oliverio asked what the restrictions would be for the parcels at the northwest corner of the project block that was not within the project boundary. He asked whether those parcels could be redeveloped with only residential. Staff explained per the Urban Village Plan, at minimum the existing commercial square footage on the site must be replaced as part of a new project. Chair Oliverio commented that this parcel didn’t have a large amount of commercial space.
Chair Oliverio referred to the proposed pedestrian promenade for the project and wanted to be assured that it would be accessible to people in wheelchairs. Staff responded that the Building Department would ensure all ADA requirements would be met for the project. Chair Oliverio referred to the public comment on traffic congestion, and asked staff to confirm whether the traffic impacts of the overall Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan were analyzed as part of the plan adoption process; and that the traffic analysis for the proposed project was consistent with this analysis. Public Works Department Staff answered affirmatively. Chair Oliverio then referred to the concerns raised during the public comment period about long job commutes and said that pre-pandemic, seventy percent of workers in San Jose had to leave the city for work. He noted that the prior project approved for the site (Stevens Creek Promenade by Fortbay, LLC, File Nos.
PDC16-036 and PD17-014), included 280,000 square feet of office space (233,000 square feet for office and 10,000 square feet for ground floor commercial use according to City records). He said the intent of that office was to provide local employment for the residents of San Jose, to reduce the need to commute up the Peninsula or elsewhere for work. He noted an office was no longer a part of this project, and that not every developable commercial parcel in the city was suitable for office development, while this parcel was. He referred to the project site’s proximity
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
to the City of Cupertino and that city having a high number of jobs, which provided for greater tax revenue and as a result, superior city services. He asked if staff denoted this change in the project, in light of San Jose’s jobs/housing imbalance. Staff reiterated the requirements for Signature Projects versus the proposed project, and that a range of uses were allowed, including hotels. Chair Oliverio said staff is in a position to pull levers for projects and asked how staff weighs permitted uses that are proposed against City goals to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance, and also taking into consideration the opportunities for a site based on its geographic location.
Michael Brilliot, Deputy Planning Director, explained the Signature Project policy requires a project to exceed the job growth capacity for a village before a village plan is adopted because it isn’t known before plan adoption how job capacity will be specifically distributed throughout the village area. Commissioner Oliverio asked whether other properties within the village would be required to provide more employment to make up for the lower amount provided by the subject project. Mr. Brilliot responded that the Urban Village Plan looks at jobs in a holistic manner and that each parcel must comply with applicable plan policies, which can require minimum commercial square footage, but not that one parcel would be required to provide a greater number of jobs to compensate for a parcel that provided a lower number of jobs. Chair Oliverio asked Mr. Brilliot whether he considered this site more appropriate for office due to its proximity to Apple and other companies in Cupertino. Mr. Brilliot responded that all types of development are currently challenging, including commercial. He said, however, that West San Jose, including the Stevens Creek Urban Village, is an area of the City where demand for new offices is anticipated in the future due, as Commissioner Olivero noted, to the area’s proximity to Apple and other successful technology companies.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise noted the project provided a significantly greater amount of commercial space than currently exists on the site and asked for confirmation that should the applicants later decide to pursue an office over a hotel, this would be an option. Staff confirmed that an office could be allowed with an amended permit and an updated CEQA clearance.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise also noted the large number of trees proposed to be removed with the project and asked staff what the replacement requirements were. Staff explained the ratios and also stated the project will be charged an off-site replacement fee for any number of trees that could not be physically accommodated on the site. The Commissioner commented favorably on the number of affordable units with three and more bedrooms and then asked about what off-site pedestrian improvements were being included. Public Works Staff responded that twenty-foot-wide sidewalks along Stevens Creek Boulevard and twelve-foot-wide sidewalks were being provided along Albany Drive and relocated Lopina Way, as well as bulb-outs and an all-way stop at the intersection of these two streets. The project was also required to remove the porkchop islands at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Kiely Boulevard and contribute toward the cost of installing class four bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Commissioner asked if there was a playground for children as part of the project. The applicant confirmed there will be a playground. The Commissioner supported the provision of outdoor amenities as part of the project for the benefit of the residents. She also commented that the address numbers for Building A should contrast more with the dark color to be more visible. She also encouraged the use of local union workers for the construction of the project.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
Commissioner Barocio asked for additional information on the traffic analysis and what the projected experience of the additional traffic would be for the residents of the community.
Public Works Staff responded by reiterating the pedestrian improvement being provided by the project, to mitigate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of the project. She explained the project is required to comply with the VMT policy of the city, and that the former criteria of Level of Service (LOS) are no longer applicable for the environmental review of the project. She further explained the City’s policy is intended to focus more on providing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements to reduce personal vehicle trips as a priority over increasing personal vehicle roadway capacity. The Commissioner noted the residents along Albany Drive would likely appreciate that portion of the street being widened to better accommodate traffic. He asked what would trigger a street to be expanded to add lanes and would such a widening at this segment also trigger widening the street further east to the intersection of Kiely Boulevard.
Public Works Staff explained it was no longer the City’s or General Plan policy to widen roads, but instead to fund multi-modal transit and pedestrian improvements to help reduce vehicle trips.
Commissioner Barocio commented that the project has three residential buildings and that the affordable units were all in one building, and not interspersed across all three buildings, and asked if this was typical of projects with multiple buildings. Planning staff explained that because of special financing structures used to fund affordable housing that affordable units are typically constructed separately from the market rate units, which use different funding sources.
The project applicants further explained City affordable housing regulations allow projects exceeding the fifteen percent affordable unit requirement to be built in stand-alone buildings, and this project was providing thirty percent of the units as affordable. This allows them to be financed with tax credits and ultimately results in more affordable units being able to be provided than if the units were interspersed.
Commissioner Cantrell said he appreciated the dialogue and engagement between the Planning Commission, the developer and staff during the hearing. He also supported the employment of apprentices for the project development.
Commissioner Cantrell made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the project as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cassey, and the Planning Commission approved the motion (8-0-1, Commissioner Garcia absent). Chair Oliverio said he was voting to support the project but wanted it noted in the staff report that the project was drastically changed from the original project by eliminating a commercial office building with jobs, and this should be looked at by the City Council, and the Council should also look at the issue of the project not being required to construct the hotel at the same time as the residential.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
ANALYSIS
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 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 Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, approving the Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit, the applicant would be allowed to proceed with Grading Permits and Building Permits allowing the demolition of three existing commercial buildings, the removal of 104 ordinance-size trees and 92 non-ordinance-size trees, and the construction of three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel with 8,500 gross square feet of ground floor retail, and subdivide three parcels into seven parcels with up to 580 condominium units on the approximately 10.0-gross acre site.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Should the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning, and adopt resolutions adopting the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, approving the Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit, the applicant would be allowed to develop the project as described above.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy in order to inform the public of the project. On-site signs were posted on the project frontages on September 3, 2021. 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 also been available to respond to questions from the public.
A community meeting was held to discuss the project on October 18, 2021, via Zoom webinar.
Approximately 15 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting. Comments received during the community meeting included concerns regarding traffic, the possibility of
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
adding bike lanes, height and density, and parking. 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 mobility goals. The project would facilitate mobility choices other than single-occupancy gas- powered vehicles, increase the density of new development (persons/jobs/acre), and facilitate job creation within City limits by providing high-density mixed use residential development with commercial retail in a central location within an identified growth area (Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan).
CEQA
The CEQA Clearance document prepared for this project is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) adopted by City Council Resolution No. 30230 on March 12, 2019. The Addendum was posted for review on the City’s website on June 30, 2022 and can be accessed at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental- planning/environmental-review/active-eirs/4300-stevens-creek-boulevard-mixed-use-project- addendum#!/.
In August 2018, the City of San José certified the 4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR analyzed a Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) for the demolition of all existing buildings and development on the site, and relocation of the public street (Lopina Way); and the development of approximately 315,000 square feet of office/commercial space and up to 582 residential units in three buildings, and associated parking garages.
CEQA recognizes that between the date an environmental document is certified and the date the project is fully implemented, the project may change; the environmental setting of the project may change; laws, regulations, or policies may change; and/or previously unknown information can arise. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that when an Environmental Impact Report has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines that substantial changes to the project occur that will require major revisions to the EIR, or that new information which was not previously known or studied indicates that significant impacts on the environment may arise from development of the revised project.
The Lead Agency shall prepare an initial study tiering from a previously certified FEIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred.
This initial study analyzes the Stevens Creek Promenade Project under CEQA Section 15162 to determine whether any of the proposed project changes would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were previously disclosed in the certified EIR. The proposed modified project would demolish three on-site buildings (APNs 296-38-013, 296-380-14, 296-40-009) and develop three residential buildings composed of 80 units and a mix of affordable and market-rate housing, a 250-room hotel, and open space park area. No office space would be developed, and parking would be provided on podium levels under each of the structures.
Based on the proposed modified project description and knowledge of the project site from the previously-prepared FEIR, the City has concluded that the proposed modified project would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the FEIR and would not result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified in the FEIR.
All relevant best management practices, Standard Permit Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and relevant aspects of Mitigation Measures identified in the approved 4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project FEIR are incorporated by reference and would be required of the proposed modified project. The modified project would incorporate some consolidated mitigation measures derived from the approved mitigation measures. However, no new or expanded mitigation measures have been proposed.
Mitigation measures were developed for the approved project to lessen the following impacts to less than significant levels: exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during construction, disturbance and/or destruction of nesting migratory birds during construction, greenhouse gas emissions during operation of the project, exposure of construction workers to residual contamination from agricultural chemicals in the soil and release of pesticide chemicals from on-site soils into the environment, exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise and vibration, and traffic at nearby intersections.
Standard Permit Conditions and Conditions of Approval are also required to ensure no impacts occur during the construction or operation of the project. These Standard Permit Conditions include best management practices for construction-related air quality impacts, water quality impacts during construction and operation, best management practices to control noise during construction and achieving an interior noise level of less than 45 dBA DNL after construction, protection of nesting migratory birds, compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, protection of unknown subsurface cultural resources and human remains, compliance with the
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 11, 2022
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001, ER21-006
California Building Code for seismic safety of the proposed building, and erosion control during construction activities.
/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.b.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: PDC20-021, PD20-012, PT21-001
& ER21-006
DATE July 13, 2022
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
Type of Permit Planned Development Rezoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map
Demolition Three existing commercial buildings (77,000 square feet) Proposed Land Uses Mixed use project including three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel with 8,500-gross square
feet of ground floor retail
New Residential Units 580 units
New Non-Residential Square Footage 241,873 square feet
Additional Policy Review Items N/A
Tree Removals 104 ordinance size trees, 92 non-ordinance size trees Project Planner Laura Meiners
CEQA Clearance Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Development Rezoning and a
Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014)
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 30230 on March
12, 2019.
CEQA Planner Cort Hitchens
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to take all of the following actions regarding the approximately 10.0-acre project site on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lopina Way (4300-4360 Stevens Creek Boulevard) (“Project Site”):
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) adopted by City Council Resolution No. 30230 on March 12, 2019, in accordance with CEQA.
2. Approve an Ordinance rezoning the Project Site from the CG(PD) Planned Development Zoning District (File No. PDC16-036) to the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District.
3. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide three parcels into seven parcels with up to 580 condominium units on the Project Site.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
4. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to allow the demolition of three existing commercial buildings, the removal of 104 ordinance-size trees and 92 non-ordinance size trees, and the construction of three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel building with 8,500 gross sf of ground floor retail with associated parking, landscaping, and amenities, on the Project Site.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Location Southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lopina Way (4300-4360 Stevens Creek Boulevard)
Assessor Parcel Nos. APNs 296-40-009, 296-38-013 & 296-38-014 General Plan Designation Urban Village
Growth Area Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village
Zoning – Existing CG(PD) Planned Development Zoning District (File No.
PDC16-036)
Zoning – Proposed CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District Historic Resource N/A
Annexation Date December 23, 1971 (Casa View No. 14)
Council District 1
Acreage 10.0-gross acres
Proposed FAR 2.5
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), the Project Site is located at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lopina Way (4300-4360 Stevens Creek Boulevard). The approximately
10.0-gross acre site is currently developed with three two-story commercial office buildings, constructed in 1977. Existing access to the site is from six driveways along both sides of Lopina Way.
The project scope includes the relocation of Lopina Way approximately 300 feet to the east.
To the north across Stevens Creek Boulevard are the Stevens Creek Cadillac and Stevens Creek BMW car dealerships and service centers. To the east of the site are the Stevens Creek Mazda, AutoNation, and Alfa Romeo car dealerships and service centers. South of the project site is a multifamily residential apartment complex, and west of the site is the Stevens Creek Volkswagen dealership.
On January 5, 2021, applications for a Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC20-021, a Planned Development Permit, File No. PD20-012, and a Vesting Tentative Map, File No. PT21-001, were filed with the City by Perry Hariri of MPG Stevens Creek Owner LLC. The Planned Development Zoning would rezone the site from the CG(PD) Planned Development Zoning District (File No. PDC16-036) to the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The Planned Development Permit is to allow the demolition of three existing commercial buildings totaling approximately 77,000 square feet, the removal of 104 ordinance-size trees and 92 non-ordinance trees, and the construction of three multifamily residential buildings with 580 residential units, including 173 units of affordable housing, of which 116 units are subject to the State Density Bonus Law, and a 250-room hotel building with 8,500 gross square feet of ground floor retail with associated parking, landscaping,
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
and amenities; and the Vesting Tentative Map would subdivide three parcels into seven parcels on the project site.
The project consists of four buildings, identified on the development plans as Buildings A, B, C, and the Hotel building. Building A is a multifamily residential building with 173 units of affordable housing, of which 116 units are subject to the State Density Bonus Law with 58 units reserved for very low-income households (up to 50% AMI), 29 units reserved for low-income households (up to 60% AMI), and 29 units reserved for moderate-income households (up to 80% AMI), and is located on the southwest side of the project site; Building B is a multifamily residential building with 191 market-rate units and is located between Buildings A and C on the site; and Building C is a multifamily residential building with 216 market-rate units and is located on the southeast side of the site. The hotel building contains 250 guest rooms with 8,500 gross square feet of ground floor retail.
The project also includes a 14,000-square foot privately owned publicly accessible paseo between Building A and Building B and a 32,500-square foot privately owned publicly accessible promenade between Buildings B and C, extending up to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
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. Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines
4. State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915)
5. City Council Policies
6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SURROUNDING USES
General Plan Zoning District Existing Use
North N/A – City of Santa Clara N/A – City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Cadillac and Stevens Creek BMW
South Urban Residential Urban Residential Multifamily apartments East Urban Village Commercial Commercial General Stevens Creek Mazda, AutoNation & Alfa Romeo
West Urban Village Commercial Commercial General Stevens Creek Volkswagen
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
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 Urban Village land use designation in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram Map and located within the boundary of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan.
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan is a Local Transit Urban Village, and the Urban Village designation is intended to support a wide range of commercial uses, including retail sales and services, professional and general offices, and institutional uses. This designation also allows residential uses in a mixed-use format. A maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) for commercial or mixed residential/commercial development is not established for properties designated Urban Village, but a minimum number of dwelling units per acre is required for the residential portion of mixed-use projects, which is 65 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Residential densities are allowed up to 250 du/acre.
Analysis: The residential component of the project is consistent with the required density as follows:
Lot / Building Acres Units DU/AC
Lot 7 / Building A 1.59 acres 173 units 108.8 du/ac
Lot 6 / Building B 1.63 acres 191 units 117.2 du/ac
Lot 5 / Building C 1.80 acres 216 units 120 du/ac
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 three multifamily residential buildings with 580 residential units, including 173 units of affordable housing, and a 250-room hotel with 8,500-gross square feet of ground floor retail, and is generally consistent with the surrounding land uses, but requires specific development standards to meet the density allowed by the General Plan and Urban Village Plan land use designation.
The setbacks of the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning Development Standards, compared to the standard R-M Multifamily Residential and CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning Districts, would allow the project to achieve a density consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Urban Village, as well as provide flexibility to better suit the project site.
Urban Village Plan Goals and Policies Consistency: The project is consistent with the following key goals and policies of the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan:
Land Use Policy LU-1.2: Within the Urban Village land use designations, existing commercial or industrial square footage shall be replaced with an equivalent commercial square footage in the new residential or residential mixed-use development.
Analysis: The existing commercial square footage proposed to be demolished is approximately 77,000 square feet. The commercial square footage proposed with this project is 241,873 square feet, which is greater than the existing square footage.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Land Use Policy LU-1.3: Require a minimum overall commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the area designated with an Urban Village Land Use Designation of 0.25. New development that includes residential uses should not be developed such that the combined FAR of the area designated Urban Village drops below 0.25.
Analysis: The minimum commercial square footage required to meet the 0.25 FAR for the Urban Village area is 189,000 square feet. The commercial square footage proposed with this project is 241,873 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement the project is consistent with this policy.
Land Use Policy LU-2.1: Strongly encourage mixed-uses and higher intensity development at express bus stops and at future BRT stations/stops to support transit ridership.
Analysis: The project site is located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, directly in front of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Route 23 and within one block of VTA Rapid 523 at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Kiely Boulevard. This is a mixed use, multi-story, high- intensity development including 580 residential units and a 250-room hotel. The project is consistent with the policy.
Land Use Policy LU-5.3: Consider the reduction of required private open space in residential development when public open space is significantly increased, well designed, and usable.
Parks and Plazas Policy P-2.1: Integrate publicly accessible, but privately owned urban plazas into new development that are attractive, vibrant and provides for community activities and space for community members to casually interact with each other.
Analysis for Policies LU-5.3 and P-2.1: The project includes approximately 190% of the required common open space and 50% of the required private open space. The project includes a 14,000-square foot privately owned publicly accessible paseo between Building A and Building B and a 32,500-square foot privately owned publicly accessible promenade between Buildings B and C, extending up to Stevens Creek Boulevard. These public open spaces are
well designed and usable with landscaping, accent paving, benches, and lounge seating. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with this policy.
Building Height: Per the Maximum Height Diagram on page 49 of the Urban Village Plan, this project site has a maximum height of 120 feet.
Analysis: The height of Building A is 77.5 feet, Buildings B and C each are at a height of 89.5 feet, and the Hotel is at 82.5 feet, consistent with the requirement.
Urban Village Plan Design Guidelines and Standards Consistency: Per the Urban Village Design Concept on page 54, the project site is within the Mixed-Use Auto “character area,” which is intended to accommodate new mixed-use development alongside existing automobile dealerships.
Parking Standard 1.b: Adjacent to side or rear property lines: Parking areas for nonresidential uses shall provide a perimeter landscape strip at least five feet wide where the parking area adjoins a side or rear property line.
Analysis: As shown in the landscaping plans, a 14-foot wide planting strip will be installed along Lopina Way in front of the hotel, exceeding the requirement for a five-foot wide landscape strip.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Setback and Stepback Standard 4: Provide a front setback to achieve a minimum 20-foot wide pedestrian environment along the ground floor of a non-residential development fronting onto Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Analysis: The project includes additional right-of-way dedication for the required 20-foot wide sidewalk with street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This dedication includes the entire site along Stevens Creek Boulevard, including the frontage of the existing buildings that are proposed to remain.
Façade Articulation Standard 1: Ensure commercial and mixed-use building facades along Stevens Creek Boulevard consist of clear un-tinted glass or other glazing material on at least 60 percent of the surface area between two feet and seven feet above grade.
Analysis: Per Sheet AH1.15 of the Project Plans, the total percentage of clear glazing along the facade facing Stevens Creek Boulevard is 86% between two and seven feet above grade, exceeding the requirement.
Façade Articulation Guideline 7: Use of stucco shall be minimized and aluminum mesh is prohibited as a balcony material.
Analysis: The façade materials include a combination of plaster, fiber cement panels, brick, and glass fiber reinforced concrete with minimal use of stucco consistently and cohesively throughout the site.
The balcony materials include fabricated metal railings with glass inserts, consistent with this requirement.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The project includes a rezoning from the CG(PD) Planned Development Zoning District per PDC16-036 to the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The surrounding car dealership uses are primarily zoned CG Commercial General, and the multifamily residential use to the south is zoned UR Urban Residential.
Land Use
The CP Commercial Pedestrian base zoning for the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District supports pedestrian-oriented retail activity at a scale compatible with the residential neighborhood to the south, supports mixed residential/ commercial development where appropriate, and is designed to support the commercial goals and policies of the general plan in relation to Urban Villages. This CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District also supports intensive pedestrian-oriented commercial activity and development consistent with general plan urban design policies.
Development Regulations
Below is a comparison of the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and the project’s CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards. Per Section 20.60.040.B of the Zoning Code, when a Planned Development permit has been implemented, the provisions of the permit prevail over the regulations of the base district zoning of the property.
Setbacks
Per the analysis above, the front se tback along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the building height requirements are within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The following is an analysis of all remaining setbacks.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Setback CP Commercial
Pedestrian Zoning
District Requirements
CP(PD) Planned
Development Zoning
District Development
Standards
Provided by Project
Front Setback (Lopina
Way)
No minimum, ten feet
maximum
Commercial Use: Five
feet minimum from
property line
Residential Use: Six
feet minimum from
property line
Commercial: 13.7 feet
Residential: 6 feet
Front Setback (Albany
Drive)
No minimum, ten feet
maximum
Five feet minimum
from property line
Building A: 13.5 feet
Building B: 5.9 feet
Building C: 8.2 feet
Side Setbacks (internal):
0 feet No change to
requirement
Building A west: 21 feet
Building A east: 17 feet
Building B west: 37 feet
Building B east: 10 feet
Building C west: 10 feet
Hotel south: 29 feet
Hotel west: 14 feet
Rear Setback 25 feet Building A: Minimum
15 feet
Building B: Minimum
20 feet
Building C: Minimum
20 feet
Building A: 18 feet
Building B: 23 feet
Building C: 35 feet
Analysis: As shown on the Planned Development Permit PD20-012 Plan Set, the project conforms with all required setback standards pursuant to the General Development Plan of the Planned Development Zoning District. The setbacks of the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District Development Standards, compared to the standard CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District, would allow the project to achieve a density consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Urban Village, as well as provide flexibility to better suit the curved and undulating perimeter lot lines.
Vehicle Parking:
The following table shows a comparison of the parking standards of the Zoning Code, and the parking requirements of the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards:
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Parking Zoning Code, CP(PD) Planned
Development Zoning
District Development
Standards
Provided by Project
Affordable Multifamily
Residential (Building A)
Per Section 20.190.040,
minimum 1 space per
studio and one-
bedroom units
Minimum 1.5 spaces
for two- and three-
bedroom units
Minimum 0.5 spaces
per unit
87 spaces (173 units x
0.5 spaces per unit)
Market-Rate
Multifamily Residential
(Buildings B and C)
Per Chapter 20.90,
Minimum 1.25 spaces
per studio and one-
bedroom unit
Minimum 1.7 spaces
per two-bedroom unit
Minimum 2.0 spaces
per three-bedroom
unit
Minimum one space
per unit
Building B: 191 spaces
(191 units x one space
per unit)
Building C: 216 spaces
(216 units x one space
per unit)
Total Residential Parking Required and Provided 494 spaces Commercial Retail
(Ground Floor of Hotel)
Minimum one space
per 200 square feet of
net floor area (85% of
gross)
Minimum one space
per 400 square feet of
net floor area (85% of
gross)
18 spaces (7,248 / 400)
(85% x 8,527 square
feet = 7,248 square
feet)
Hotel Minimum one space
per guest room plus
one space per
employee
Minimum 0.9 space per
guest room plus one
space per employee
242 spaces (250 guest
rooms x 0.9 = 225
spaces + 17 employee
spaces)
Subtotal Hotel Parking 260 spaces
20% Reduction allowed per Section 20.90.220.A.1* 52 spaces Total Hotel Parking Required 208 spaces
Total Hotel Parking Provided 210 spaces
*Per Section 20.90.220.A.1, the Zoning Code allows a parking reduction of up to 50% with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, or up to 20% without a TDM Plan, provided the project meets the following criteria:
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
1. The structure or use is located within two thousand (2,000) feet of a proposed or an existing rail station or bus rapid transit station, or an area designated as a neighborhood business district, or as an urban village, or as an area subject to an area development policy in the city's general plan or the use is listed in Section 20.90.220 G.; and
2. The structure or use provides bicycle parking spaces in conformance with the requirements of Table 20-190.
Analysis: The project site is located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, directly in front of VTA Bus Route 23 and within one block of VTA Rapid 523 at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Kiely Boulevard, and meets the criteria set forth in ‘a’ above. The bicycle parking provided meets the requirements, as analyzed below, and meets the criteria set forth in ‘b’ above. The hotel parking is therefore consistent with the parking requirements.
The CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District provides parking ratios consistent with the reductions allowed by the Zoning Code and per the State Density Bonus incentive request. The Zoning Code requires a greater number of parking spaces than provided, but the applicant has requested an incentive to reduce the required residential parking, as analyzed below in the Density Bonus Law Consistency section. The rezoning allows the project to reduce the amount of land dedicated exclusively to parking, as well as encourage transit ridership at the nearby bus rapid transit station.
Motorcycle Parking
Since the project qualifies for a density bonus under State la w, the City may not impose parking requirements greater than those set forth at Government Code section 65915(p)(1) (1.0 space for units with 0 to 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces for units with 2 to 3 bedrooms), which are also allowed by Section
20.19.040 of the Zoning Code. Local jurisdictions are prohibited from requiring additional vehicle parking spaces above the State Density Bonus Law parking ratios for the residential units. Per the California Vehicle Code, motorcycles are defined as vehicles. Therefore, no motorcycle spaces are required for the residential portion of the project.
For the commercial portion of the project, Table 20 -250 of the Zoning Code requires one motorcycle parking space per twenty code -required parking spaces for commercial uses. For the h otel and retail uses, the required parking is 260 spaces per the table above. Therefore, 13 motorcycle spaces are required by the Zoning Code. Per the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards, a minimum of ten motorcycle spaces are required.
Analysis: The project includes ten motorcycle parking spaces for the hotel and retail uses and is consistent with the requirement of the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards.
Bicycle Parking
The project is required t o provide one bicycle space per four units for the multifamily residential buildings per Table 20-210 of the Zoning Code, one space plus one per ten guest rooms for the hotel, and one space per 3,000 square feet of ground floor retail area per Table 20-190 of the Zoning Code. A minimum of two short -term bicycle parking spaces and one long -term bicycle parking space shall be provided for each site that has a nonresidential use . This results in 145 bicycle spaces required for the residential use, 26 spaces for the hotel use, and three spaces for the retail use for a total of 174 spaces required. Bicycle parking spaces are required to consist of at least sixty percent long -term and at most forty percent short-term spaces, which results in 114 long-term and 60 short-term spaces required.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Analysis: The project provides 18 short-term spaces and 26 long-term spaces in Building A, 20 short-term and 28 long-term spaces in Building B, 22 short-term and 32 long-term spaces in Building C, and 28 long- term spaces for the hotel and retail use . This results in 60 short-term spaces and 114 long-term spaces provided. The project is therefore consistent with the requirement.
Loading Spaces
Per Section 20.90.410 of the Zoning Code, retail and hotel uses are required to provide off-street loading spaces at a rate of one loading space per ten thousand square feet of floor area plus one additional space per every additional twenty thousand square feet of floor area. With a gross floor area of 241,873 square feet and a net floor area of 205,592 square feet, the project is required to provide a total of eleven loading spaces.
Per the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards, the project is required to provide one loading space for the hotel an d retail use, restricted to Cl ass 4 through Class 6 delivery trucks, since the clear height of the loading space is less than 15 feet.
Analysis: The project is providing one loading space as required per the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards and is consistent with the requirement.
San Jose Design Guidelines Consistency
The project was analyzed for consistency with applicable Commercial Design Guidelines (1990) for the hotel and retail uses and the Residential Design Guidelines (1999) for the multifamily residential uses.
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 updated Citywide Guidelines were adopted on February 23, 2021 and effective March 25, 2021.
These updated guidelines include objective standards in response to the requirements of SB 330. The project had a complete application on file on January 5, 2021, prior to the effective date of the new guidelines and therefore subject to the previous Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines.
The project complies with the following key guidelines below:
Commercial Design Guidelines
Section 2.A.3: Corner buildings should have a strong tie to the setback lines of each street. The primary mass of the building should not be placed at an angle to the corner. This does not preclude angled or sculpted building corners, or an open plaza at the corner.
Analysis: The hotel building is placed within two feet of the Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk and within 14 feet of the Lopina Way sidewalk, consistent with the setback requirements of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan and the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards. The building placement is square to the corner and not placed at an angle. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline.
Section 2.C.2: The exterior building design, including roof style, color, materials, architectural form and detailing, should be consistent among all buildings in a complex and on all elevations of each building to achieve design harmony and continuity within itself and with its surroundings.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Analysis: The design elements of the hotel building are consistent with the three residential buildings on the site. For example, all four buildings have flat roofs. Shared materials include glass railings and metal awnings. Shared colors include white, copper red, orange, and gray. The architectural style is modern contemporary throughout the project, with unique details like laser cut and perforated metal privacy panels. See the rendering of the hotel building below for reference:
Figure 1 – Rendering of Hotel looking Southwest from Stevens Creek Boulevard Section 2.D.1: Roof design should conform to legitimate forms, i.e. hipped, gabled, or flat, etc.
Superficial application of artificial roof elements, such as the mansard style roof to disguise a flat roof should not be used. This does not preclude roof top equipment wells when set behind conventional roof forms.
Analysis: The roof style of all four buildings is flat. The hotel includes a tower element at the corner and varied roof heights. All mechanical equipment is shielded from view from the street.
Residential Design Guidelines
Chapter 11.A Façade Articulation. All building facades containing 3 or more attached dwellings in a row should incorporate at least one of the following:
1. At least one architectural projection per unit. Such a projection must project no less than 2 feet 6 inches from the major wall plane, must be between 4 feet 6 inches and 15 feet wide, or
2. A change in wall plane of at least 3 feet for at least 12 feet every 2 units.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Analysis: The windows, balconies, awnings, and architectural projections and recessions provided with the project design is consistent with the façade articulation guidelines. There is at least one projection, change in wall plane, or architectural feature that meets this guideline on all facades of the project, as illustrated in the project rendering below.
Figure 2 – Rendering of Building B looking Northwest from Albany Drive Chapter 11.E. Changes in Materials. The exterior materials and architectural details of a single building should relate to each other in ways that are traditional and/or logical. Material changes not accompanied by changes in plane also frequently give material an insubstantial or applied. There are, however, exceptions to this principle such as the articulation of the base of a building by a change in color, texture or material.
Analysis: The project includes multiple changes in plane, materials, and color throughout all facades of the project. The project successfully incorporates materials and colors that relate to each other between the four buildings. Some changes to materials and textures are intended as focal points, including the large mural on the north side of the hotel facing the Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project is consistent with this guideline.
Chapter 16.A. Access to Transit Facilities. New residential projects should be designed with a pedestrian circulation element that provides a direct connection from project units to adjacent transit facilities such as bus stops and light rail stations.
Analysis: Per the Site Plan, Sheet A1.2 of the Plan Set, the pedestrian path to the existing but stop along Stevens Creek Boulevard is shown as a dashed line. The project provides a direct connection to the adjacent transit facility and is consistent with this guideline.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Chapter 16.C. Bicycle Parking. Attached unit projects, which do not provide private enclosed garages, should provide secure bicycle parking facilities to encourage the use of bicycles instead of automobiles.
Analysis: Each of the four buildings included in this project have an interior room dedicated to long-term bicycle parking and storage, as discussed in the Zoning Consistency section above.
State Density Bonus Law Consistency (Government Code Section 65915) The project includes 173 units of affordable housing, of which 116 units are subject to the State Density Bonus Law. Of the total 580 residential units included in the project, 58 units (10% of total) are reserved for very low-income households, 29 units (5% of total) are reserved for low-income households, and 29 units (5% of total) are reserved for moderate-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.
Density Bonus
The land use designation of Urban Village allows up to 250 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The project density is 120 du/ac and is consistent with the designation as designed. No additional density is being requested for the project.
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. Based on the percentage of affordable units provided, the project qualifies for two incentives.
The project has requested one incentive, as follows:
Incentive 1: Parking.
The project qualifies for the parking ratios set forth at Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) at one space per 0 to 1 bedroom units and 1.5 spaces for 2 to 3 bedroom units, which results in a total of 687 parking spaces for the residential use. However, the project may use a density bonus incentive to reduce the parking requirement per Gov. Code § 65915(p)(6). This incentive request is to reduce the parking from 687 spaces to 494 spaces per the ratios analyzed above in the Zoning Consistency section.
As described in the Density Bonus Request letter from the Permittee dated March 29, 2022, each parking space costs approximately $55,000 per space. The incentive to reduce the parking requirement by 193 spaces, which would otherwise require the addition of one or more levels of structured or underground parking, would result in $10,615,000 in cost savings, and if required would also result in at least $5 million dollars in additional costs for craning, setting and assembly costs for the modular units. The modular unit efficiency and cost advantage works best with one level of parking. Thus, the concession for reduced parking would result in identifiable and actual costs savings that will contribute to affordable housing costs per Government Section 65915(k)(1).
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 required parking results in actual and identifiable cost reductions and can be granted.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
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 mixed-use project including a hotel and three multifamily housing buildings with 580 residential units is consistent with the Urban Village Land Use Designation per the Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan, including relevant goals and policies. The use is allowed within the Urban Village designation , the project is providing a FAR of 2.5, 120 du/ac, a maximum height of 89.5 feet, and ground floor retail in the hotel building facing Stevens Creek Boulevard.
2. The planned development permit, as issued, conforms in all respects to the planned development zoning of the property; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the project is consistent wit h the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards. The project is required to have 702 vehicle parking spaces and five bicycle parking spaces. The project provides 70 4 vehicle parking spaces, ten motorcycle spaces, and 174 bicycle parking spaces to fulfill the parking requirements. The project is also providing one on - site loading space. Therefore, the project conforms with the municipal code development standards.
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. The on-site sign has been posted at the site since September 3, 2021 to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on October 18, 2021 via Zoom webinar. Approximately 15 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting. Comments received during the community meeting included concerns regarding traffic, the possibility of adding bike lanes, height and density, and parking.
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.
4. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, mass and scale of building volumes, and elevations of proposed buildings, structures and other uses on-site are appropriate, compatible and aesthetically harmonious; and
Analysis: The subject mixed-use project provides a 250-room hotel with ground floor retail and three multifamily residential buildings with 580 residential units. The project design includes modern contemporary architecture including aluminum and glass at the ground floor of the hotel with plaster and fiber cement board on the podium level, and with perforated metal privacy panels, metal awnings, and stucco on the residential buildings. The project design also includes variations on color, materials, projections, and recessions at the pod ium level, which contribute to an interesting and varied design.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
5. The environmental impacts 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 t he California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.
Analysis: The project incorporates measures to address noise, stormwater runoff, drain age 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 o f noise and vibration, dust, and erosion. Residential and hotel 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.
Evaluation Criteria for Demolition
Section 20.80.460 of the San José Municipal Code establishes evaluation criteria for issuance of a permit to allow for demolition. These criteria are made for the Project based on the above-stated findings related to General Plan, Zoning and CEQA conformance and for the reasons stated below, and subject to the conditions set forth in this Permit.
1. The failure to approve the permit would result in the c reation or continued existence of a nuisance, blight or dangerous condition;
2. The failure to approve the permit would jeopardize public health, safety or welfare;
3. The approval of the permit should facilitate a project which is compatible with the surroun ding neighborhood;
4. The approval of the permit should maintain the supply of existing housing stock in the City of San Jose;
5. Both inventoried and non-inventoried buildings, sites and districts of historical significance should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible;
6. Rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building would not be feasible; and
7. The demolition, removal or relocation of the building without an approved replacement building should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Analysis: The project includes the demolition of three vacant commercial office buildings on site with a total floor area of approximately 77,000 square feet. The project includes architectural design that is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which includes car dealerships to the north, east, and west, and multifamily residential buildings to the south. The project would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The demolition would facilitate a mixed-use project including a 250-room hotel with ground floor retail and three multifamily residential buildings with 580 units. Re-use of the buildings would not be feasible to implement the goals of the project. The existing buildings on-site, as well as the adjacent commercial and office buildings and residences, were constructed around 1977, making them approximately 45 years old. However, the buildings are not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, and none meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places based on their age and architectural style. The
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
existing supply of housing would be maintained and exceeded through the provision of the 580 housing units.
Tree Removal Findings
Chapter 13.32 of the San José Municipal Code establishes 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 identified above, 104 ordinance-size trees and 92 non -ordinance trees are distributed within the footprint of the project development and will be removed to accommodate the project .
The trees will be required to be replaced at the City -required ratio. Based on this reason , the trees proposed for removal cannot be preserved.
Five hundred seventy (570) replacement trees at 15-gallon size or 285 replacement trees at 24-inch box size are required to be re planted. Pursuant to the project landscaping plan, the development would plant a total of 286 replacement trees at 24-inch box size or greater, which exceeds the City’s Tree Replacement ratios per the table below.
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
Per Sheet L-6.1 of the Plan Set, o f the 104 ordinance-size trees to be removed, 14 are native and 90 are non-native. The 14 native trees consist of species such as Coast Redwood and Valley Oak and will be required to be replaced at a ratio of 5:1, totaling 70 replacement trees. The 90 non -native ordinance trees to be removed consist of species suc h as American Sweet Gum, Shamel Ash, and
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Canary Island Pine, and will be required to be replaced at a ratio of 4:1, totaling 360 replacement trees.
Of the 92 non-ordinance trees to be removed, one native and 46 non-native trees are sized between 19 and 38 inches in circumference, and the remaining 45 trees are non -native less than 19 inches in circumference. The native tree is Pin Oak species, and the non-native trees are Japanese Maple, Crape Myrtle, and Southern Magnolia species. The replacement ratio 3:1 for the native tree, 2:1 for the non- native trees 19-38 inches in circumference, and 1:1 for all trees proposed to be removed less than 19 inches in circumference, for a total of 140 replacement trees.
The project will provide 286 replacement trees at 24-inch box size or greater at-grade. Therefore, the project is consistent with this requirement.
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 proposed subdivision, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide three parcels into seven parcels on the approximately 10.0-gross acre 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 and Urban Village Plan goals, policies, and land use designation, as analyzed above. The Urban Village land use designation allows for higher-intensity projects. The project site is physically suitable for the project and proposed intensity in that mixed-use commercial/residential development is allowed up to 250 du/ac. Furthermore, the project site does not contain historic resources or sensitive habitats or wildlife.
Additionally, 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. The proposed subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
problems. The project will be required to dedicate a twenty-foot wide sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard and a 12-foot wide sidewalk along Albany Drive, with street trees along both street frontages.
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 considered to be a large development. Large 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 September 3, 2021, to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on October 18, 2021 via Zoom webinar. Approximately 15 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting.
Comments received during the community meeting included concerns regarding traffic, the possibility of adding bike lanes, height and density, and parking. 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 CEQA Clearance document prepared for this project is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) adopted by City Council Resolution No. 30230 on March 12, 2019. The Addendum was posted for review on the City’s website on June 30, 2022 and can be accessed at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code- enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/active-eirs/4300- stevens-creek-boulevard-mixed-use-project-addendum#!/.
In August 2018, the City of San José certified the 4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR analyzed a Planned Development Rezoning and a Planned Development Permit (PDC16-036 and PD17-014) for the demolition of all existing buildings and development on the site, and relocation of the public street (Lopina Way); and development of approximately 315,000 square feet of office/commercial space and up to 582 residential units in three buildings, and associated parking garages.
CEQA recognizes that between the date an environmental document is certified and the date the project is fully implemented, that the project may change; the environmental setting of the project may change; laws, regulations, or policies may change; and/or previously unknown information can arise. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that when an Environmental Impact Report has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines that substantial changes to the project occur that will require major revisions to the EIR, or that new information which was not previously known or studied indicates that significant impacts on the environment may arise from development of the revised project.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
The Lead Agency shall prepare an initial study tiering from a previously certified FEIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred.
This initial study analyzes the Stevens Creek Promenade Project under CEQA Section 15162 to determine whether any of the proposed project changes would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were previously disclosed in the certified EIR. The proposed modified project would demolish three on-site buildings (APNs 296-38-013, 296-380-14, 296-40-009) and develop three residential buildings composed of 80 units and a mix of affordable and market rate housing, a 250- room hotel, and open space park area. No office space would be developed, and parking would be provided in podium levels under each of the structures.
Based on the proposed modified project description and knowledge of the project site from the previously-prepared FEIR, the City has concluded that the proposed modified project would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the FEIR and would not result in a substantial increase in the magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified in the FEIR.
All relevant best management practices, Standard Permit Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and relevant aspects of Mitigation Measures identified in the approved 4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Project FEIR are incorporated by reference and would be required of the proposed modified project. The modified project would incorporate some consolidated mitigation measures derived from the approved mitigation measures. However, no new or expanded mitigation measures have been proposed.
Mitigation measures were developed for the approved project to lessen the following impacts to less than significant levels: exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during construction, disturbance and/or destruction of nesting migratory birds during construction, greenhouse gas emissions during operation of the project, exposure of construction workers to residual contamination from agricultural chemicals in the soil and release of pesticide chemicals from on-site soils into the environment, exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise and vibration, and traffic at nearby intersections.
Standard Permit Conditions and Conditions of Approval are also required to ensure no impacts occur during construction or operation of the project. These Standard Permit Conditions include best management practices for construction related air quality impacts, water quality impacts during construction and operation, best management practices to control noise during construction and achieving an interior noise level of less than 45 dBA DNL after construction, protection of nesting migratory birds, compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, protection of unknown subsurface cultural resources and human remains, compliance with the California Building Code for seismic safety of the proposed building, and erosion control during construction activities.
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 Monday, October 18, 2021. Approximately 15 members of the public were in attendance. Concerns raised during the meeting included:
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
1. Heavy local traffic between I-280 and Lawrence Expressway along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
2. Has Albany Avenue been considered for designation as a bike boulevard to reduce traffic? Would the project improve Albany Avenue for bikes?
3. Would the developer be willing to consider increasing the heights and density of the project?
4. Parking in the existing commercial office park is being removed. There is a concern that the removal of the parking will cause street parking to become more impacted. There is already a concern that people going into the dealership are parking in the residential neighborhood along Albany Avenue.
5. The properties across the street along Stevens Creek Boulevard is within the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction, and the planned heights for those properties is out of scale with the City of San Jose’s plans. There is a concern about the project height not being consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The County of Santa Clara is reducing Pruneridge Avenue to two lanes, which will bring more traffic to Stevens Creek Boulevard. There is a concern that there is no traffic light at Kylie or Lopina, so traffic will turn onto Albany to access the site, causing additional traffic on Albany.
Staff also received emails from community member Randy Shingai. In addition to the concerns raised in the Community Meeting as outlined above, Mr. Shingai’s concerns raised during the review process include the following:
1. The number of residential units seems to have increased from the previous approval on the project site. Will the project be changing the number of affordable/BMR units previously approved?
2. There is a concern about the change in use from office to hotel from the previous approval on the project site. Specifically, there seems to be a lot of other hotel projects being proposed in Cupertino and District 1. Can the area support these new hotels? Does the proposed hotel have economic viability at this location?
As to the concerns about traffic, a Transportation Analysis was performed for this project based on a net new 202 AM and 102 PM peak hour trips. Multiple improvements to the pedestrian network and traffic calming measures are required to be implemented as conditions of approval. 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.
As to the concern about parking, the project meets the required parking ratios per the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning development standards and the Density Bonus Incentive. The rezoning provides parking ratios consistent with the goals and policies of the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan. The Zoning Code parking requirements would require a greater number of parking spaces than the CP(PD) Planned Development Zoning District development standards. The rezoning allows the project to minimize the amount of land dedicated exclusively to parking, as well as encourage transit ridership at the nearby but rapid transit station. Additionally, the applicant has provided an incentive request to reduce the required parking for the residential use, as analyzed above in the Density Bonus Law Consistency section.
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
As to the concern about height, the project is consistent with the height requirements of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Urban Village Plan. Per the Maximum Height Diagram on page 49 of the Urban Village Plan, this project site has a maximum height of 120 feet. The proposed height of Building A is 77.5 feet, Buildings B and C are proposed at a height of 89.5 feet, and the Hotel is proposed at 82.5 feet. The project is consistent with the height requirement.
As to the concern about the project height being inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, the project includes substantial façade articulation, material changes, and landscaping to break down and buffer the building massing, and the project is a distance of approximately 80 feet from adjacent residences.
As to the concern about the increased number of residential units, the previously approved project (PDC16-036, PD17-014, and PT17-023 to be superseded by the subject project) approved 582 residential units including 88 affordable units. The subject project includes 580 units with 173 affordable units. As to the concern about the economic viability of the hotel use, the proposed project was reviewed based on the General Plan, Zoning Code, and applicable policies. Staff based its recommendation after a thorough analysis of the proposed hotel and project as a whole for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and applicable policies.
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 PDC20-021 Ordinance Exhibit E: Planned Development Permit PD20-012 Resolution Exhibit F: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-001 Resolution
Exhibit G: Environmental Addendum Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit H: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-021 Plan Set Exhibit I: PDC21-021 Draft Development Standards
Exhibit J: Planned Development Permit PD20-012 Plan Set Exhibit K: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-001 Plan Set
Exhibit L: Density Bonus Request Letter
Exhibit M: Public Correspondence
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Development Review Project
Manager
Environmental Project Manager Applicant Representative
Laura Meiners
[email protected]
(408) 535-7869
Cort Hitchens
[email protected]
(408) 794-7386
Deena Morsilli
[email protected]
(408) 487-2200
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map/Aerial
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Exhibit B: Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
File No. PDC20-021, PD20-012 & PT21-001
Exhibit C: Zoning District Map
PDC20-021, PD20-012/ER21-006 & PT21-001
Links to Attachments D-M
Click on the title to view document
Exhibit D: Planned Development Zoning PDC20-021 Ordinance Exhibit E: Planned Development Permit PD20-012 Resolution Exhibit F: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-001 Resolution
Exhibit G: Environmental Addendum Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit H: Planned Development Zoning PDC21-021 Plan Set Exhibit I: PDC21-021 Draft Development Standards
Exhibit J: Planned Development Permit PD20-012 Plan Set Exhibit K: Vesting Tentative Map PT21-001 Plan Set
Exhibit L: Density Bonus Request Letter
Exhibit M: Public Correspondence
Correspondence received after July 20, 2022