TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Planning Commission
AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: October 17 2022
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
SUBJECT: FI LE NOS. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012. SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, BARN,
AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, THE REMOVAL OF 30 ORDINANCE-
SIZE AND 19 NON-ORDINANCE TREES, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 70
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND NINE COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUMS WITH ONE PODIUM PARKING LEVEL AND ONE
BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND
AMENITIES. TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT WITH UP TO 70 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, NINE COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS, AND ONE COMMON AREA ON THE
APPROXIMATELY 0.93-GROSS ACRE PROJECT SITE, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 460 FEET
SOUTHERLY OF WILLIAMS ROAD (1065 SOUTH WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD).
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 (Ornelas-Wise opposed) to recommend that the City Council take all of the following actions, including a friendly amendment from Chair Oliverio to provide an educational opportunity with the project, such as a historical plaque visible to the public, which the applicant agreed to include as a condition:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1065 South Winchester Boulevard Mixed Use Project and make certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (CEQA).
2. Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Tentative Map to subdivide one lot with up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominium units, and one common area on the approximately 0.93-gross acre Project Site.
3. Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Special Use Permit to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence, barn, and accessory buildings, the COUNCIL AGENDA: 10/25/2022
FILE: 22-1574
ITEM: 10.2
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
removal of 30 ordinance-size and 19 non-ordinance trees, and construction of a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of up to 70 residential condominium units and nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space including one podium parking level and one underground parking level and associated landscaping and amenities.
OUTCOME
If the City Council approves all the actions listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant will be able to demolish the existing single-family residence, barn, and accessory buildings, remove 30 ordinance-size and 19 non-ordinance trees, and construct a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of up to 70 residential condominium units and nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space including one podium parking level and one underground parking level and associated landscaping and amenities, and subdivide one lot with up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominium units, and one common area on the approximately 0.93-gross acre Project Site.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the EIR, Special Use Permit, and Tentative Map. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution certifying the 1065 South Winchester Boulevard Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and approve the subject Special Use Permit and Tentative Map.
Staff Presentation
Laura Meiners, Planning Project Manager, provided a brief presentation of the proposed project.
Staff presentation included an overview of the project’s conformance with the General Plan, San José Municipal Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Development Policies. David Keyon, Principal Environmental Planner, provided a brief oral presentation regarding the environmental review process and project conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including the need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts on Cultural Resources.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
Applicant Presentation
The owner and applicant, Adam Askari of A&Z Development, LLC, provided an oral presentation covering the details of the project, including the project history, the historical aspect of the existing project site, site layout and project design, and public improvements.
Public Hearing
Chair Oliverio opened up the public comment portion of the agenda.
Two members of the public spoke on the proposed project, one with comments on the historic aspect of the site, and one with questions about the rear step down in the project design. The comments of the speakers are summarized below:
• Mike Sodergren, Vice President of the Preservation Action Council of San Jose (PAC*SJ), provided comments on the historic aspect of the project. He stated that the historic elements of the site can be integrated into the project or realigned and retained onsite. He a lso discussed the possibility of relocation off- site. PAC ’s preference is to discuss with the applicant possible ways to preserve the historic elements onsite. • Ines Bibi, adjacent owner of a single-family residence to the rear of the project site, asked that since the recently approved project next door is six stories and steps down to the rear, is this project also six stories, and does it also step down? After the public comment, the applicant Adam Askari responded to the public comments. Mr.
Askari said that the applicant team spent a lot of time discussing retaining the historic buildings on-site, but it didn’t pencil out financially. They are open to relocating the historic buildings off- site if someone is willing to invest in the relocation. He also confirmed that the project is six stories in height and the project steps down with the same setbacks as the recently approved project next door. Staff member Laura Meiners provided a screen share of the elevations showing the height and the stepback plane of the project.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Lardinois expressed concern that the Winchester Urban Village Plan does not address Historic Preservation, given that the existing property was known at the time that the Urban Village Plan was drafted. Robert Manford, Deputy Director, responded that Historic Preservation is something that the Urban Village Planning process does take into consideration when appropriate. Laura Meiners referenced a prior conversation with Michael Brilliot about why this project site wasn’t included in the Urban Village Plan as a historic property and said that at the time the Urban Village Plan was prepared, there were conversations with the community and with the original owner, and the original owner of the property chose not to include it as a historical site. John Tu, Acting Division Manager, confirmed and followed up with the Urban Village Planning process, which includes surveys, multiple community meetings, and discussions with various consultants. Usually, if a project is designated historic or has community interest in the property being designated as historic, there will be specific historic
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
policies within the Urban Village Plan. In this case, the site was not identified as within the Historic Resources Inventory, and it was not a topic of community interest. Therefore, no Historic Preservation policies were included in the Urban Village Plan for the subject project site.
Commissioner Lardinois had a second question for Mark Vanni with the City Attorney’s Office, asking him to briefly give an overview of the relationship between historic preservation and CEQA, in relation to the obligations of the Planning Commission. Mark Vanni replied that the EIR states that there are historic resources on the property, and demolishing them would lead to an environmental impact that could not be mitigated. The Planning Commission will need to provide a recommendation to City Council to approve or deny the project. Approval would mean that despite the impact on the historic resources, the project is still worth moving forward and the merits of the project outweigh the impact, supporting the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chair Oliverio clarified that there was a similar project on Reed Street where the historic structure was relocated. Commissioner Lardinois followed up with a question about why historic issues are considered impacts under CEQA. Mark Vanni responded that historic resources are also considered part of the environment for the purposes of CEQA and a determination will be made as to whether there are any significant impacts.
David Keyon added that there’s a broader range of projects that are considered historic than what is listed in the Historic Resources Inventory. Anytime a project is submitted proposing to demolish a building that is more than 45 years old, we require a DPR form to be prepared by a certified historic consultant to evaluate the historic merits of the property. Based on the DPR form, if the buildings to be demolished have any significance, the City will require a full historic report. If the historic report identifies the structures as Candidate City, State, or National Landmarks, then even if the structures haven’t been designated as landmarks yet, it is treated as if it is a Landmark for CEQA purposes. An EIR is then required and the impacts are analyzed.
Commissioner Young asked why CEQA Alternatives 2 or 3 were not adopted since they were recommended by the Historic Landmarks Commission. David Keyon responded that the EIR is a public disclosure document to show what the project impacts are and alternatives that will reduce the impacts. The Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Commission recommend to the City Council what should be adopted. If the Planning Commission determines that one of the CEQA alternatives should be adopted, it is within its purview to do so. Laura Meiners added that there is a condition of approval written into the Special Use Permit resolution requiring the advertising of the historic structures as available for relocation. John Tu confirmed that the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission are both advisory bodies to the City Council. The Planning Commission makes an independent recommendation to City Council. The Historic Landmarks Commission information was provided as background. Both bodies' recommendations will go to City Council separately for their consideration.
Commissioner Young asked the applicant if they would be willing to move forward with CEQA Alternatives 2 or 3. The applicant responded that what they agreed to do was to place an ad to relocate the existing structures off-site. This property has no significant architect and no
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
significant event occurred here. There are several properties that are older properties within the City of San José, but because the property is old, the applicant doesn’t believe that there is any significance attached to it. Commissioner Young repeated the question of would the applicant be willing to consider moving forward with Alternatives 2 or 3. The applicant responded that those alternatives would not be financially feasible. The cost of construction is too high. Commissioner Young then further asked if the City Council has already reviewed and approved the Statement of Overriding Considerations. David Keyon responded that the City Council will have to review and consider the Statement of Overriding Considerations at the same time as the EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as part of the EIR Resolution, which is included in the Staff Report packet.
Commissioner Cantrell asked about the 30 ordinance-sized trees proposed to be removed and what species of trees are proposed for removal. Laura Meiners responded that more than 50% of the ordinance-size trees to be removed are orchard trees, and the remainder is non-native trees.
The species of orchard trees proposed to be removed is mostly cherry trees. The project is consistent with the Tree Removal Policy and provides replacement trees at the appropriate ratio per the policy.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise had concerns about the rich history of the agricultural past of San José that has been paved over and lost. She stated that the history is significant here. If the project site is eligible for listing as a City Landmark and as a State Landmark, that means there is some significant historical resource here. While she understands that additional preservation measures to keep the structures on-site may not be feasible from a construction cost standpoint, based on the historic report, the structures are intact. She thinks that history is important and should be preserved. She agrees with PAC*SJ that the item should be continued until there is an agreement in place to relocate the structures to an appropriate off-site location. If the structures can’t be preserved on-site, they deserve to be relocated to an area where they will be used for farmhands or an actual family. She stressed that the City needs to take responsibility for preserving the structures. She didn’t understand why the EIR didn’t have an alternative to relocate the structures off-site.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise continued with comments on the project design. The project includes a total of 36 one-bedroom units and 34 two- and three-bedroom units. As more of these mid-rise buildings are proposed within Urban Villages, the City has the opportunity to ensure that at least half of the units are two- and three-bedrooms to accommodate families. This project specifically is close to 34 and 36 units respectively. In addition, when projects are proposing two- and three-bedroom units for families, they should be providing sufficient amenities. She commended the architect for providing additional common open space than what was required, and a pond, but she would have liked to see additional amenities such as a pool, and a playground for children so they don’t have to leave the site to find these amenities.
She stated that the Staff Report indicates that the project would provide VTA SmartPasses to the residents as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure, and asked staff to verify.
Chair Oliverio stated that the TDM measures are usually included when the applicant request
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
reduced parking and asked staff to verify. Laura Meiners replied that the applicant is requesting a parking reduction per the Zoning Code, and they provided a TDM Plan for consideration. The project will provide the following TDM measures:
1. Maintaining an online kiosk of trip-planning resources
2. Providing 100 percent unbundled parking for all residential spaces
3. Providing VTA Smart Passes to residential and commercial tenants.
Commissioner Ornelas-Wise stated she was pleased with the measures provided.
Commissioner Barocio asked how the relocation would work for the barn and the residence and would the structures be donated or sold. Chair Oliverio stated that the structures are typically provided for free, but the interested party has to pay for the relocation of the structure.
Commissioner Barocio replied that if there was such an interested party, where in the process is that advertised? David Keyon responded that one of the mitigation measures within the EIR requires that prior to the issuance of any Demolition Permit, there would be a notification published for the relocation of the structures. If there are interested parties, they would be able to remove and relocate the structures to an off-site location. If there are no interested parties, then the applicant is required to publish a notification for salvage of the historic components of the property, including windows, doors, and lumber. Commissioner Barocio thanked Mr. Keyon and followed up with a question about relocating trees similarly to relocating historic structures.
Specifically, is there an option for residents or parks to take mature trees from the site that would otherwise be proposed for removal? John Tu responded that although the option hasn’t been fully explored, generally mature trees do not survive relocation or transplantation very well, apart from palm trees, since their root systems are not as extensive.
Commissioner Barocio further asked David Keyon if the relocation of trees is usually a part of the notification for the relocation of historic structures. Mr. Keyon responded that trees are not included in the notification for historic structure relocation, since trees are not a part of the historic resource. Mr. Keyon reiterated that tree relocation is often unsuccessful and that the project is consistent with the tree replacement ratios pursuant to the Staff Report. Commissioner Barocio continues that if there was a neighbor or other interested party who might be interested in a tree on the project site, would they be able to ask the applicant for the tree? Chair Oliverio responded that the applicants are not required to offer that, and the City Council would have to request that the relocation of trees be codified in order to require it. Otherwise, it would be a private transaction between the property owner and the interested party. The City cannot add it as a condition of approval unless there’s an ordinance to require it.
Chair Oliverio commented that although the structure is old, there is no significant architect, event, or person associated with the property and that it does not have Landmark status today. He further stated that this is an example of when we don’t have a property on the historic inventory and restated that one of the comments made by Mayor Liccardo is that the Mayor wanted every structure in the City to be surveyed so we don’t have these types of ad-hoc discussions at the last minute. [Reference City Council-Approved Historic Survey Strategy] Chair Oliverio doe sn’t
believe that’s been done comprehensively, so this falls back to the City Council. He understands
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
the requests to delay, but he can’t support delaying the project, and the Planning Commission should vote on it. It ultimately sits with the City Council to decide. The comments about allowing the structures to be moved are good suggestions, especially about public advertising for the move, architectural and agricultural salvage, and also maybe installing a placard with the agricultural history of the site. Most of San José was once farmland, and that’s why we have people living here.
Commissioner Lardinois stated that in terms of responsibilities since historic preservation is a CEQA issue, the Planning Commission should weigh in on it. He asked if it was correct that these are for-sale condominium units. John Tu stated that the applicant’s Tentative Map would allow the subdivision into individual for-sale units, but it does not guarantee that they would be subdivided, or the applicant may choose to subdivide at a later date. The applicant responded that at this point they haven’t decided if the units would be subdivided and that it would depend on the market. He also responded to previous comments that if there is an interested party for the relocation of the structures, the applicant would donate the equivalent amount of funds to the relocation that it would cost for the demolition of the structures. He advertised the structures on Craigslist months ago for relocation to test the waters, and there were several interested parties, although since the permit process was still ongoing, they were not able to move forward with the relocation at the time. Last, there are a lot of developers watching these proceedings, and it is the applicant’s opinion that if this project is denied or delayed due to its historic status, it would send a bad signal to the developers that the City of San José is not willing to negotiate for the redevelopment of historic properties, especially since this project is within an Urban Village.
Commissioner Lardinois replied that he thinks it’s impressive that this project manages to squeeze a lot of use into a relatively small piece of land, and this is exactly the type of project that we are trying to create within Urban Villages in San José. Notwithstanding the historic aspect, this is a good project.
Commissioner Young stated that regardless of what recommendation the Planning Commission makes, the project will be going to City Council. If they want to approve the project, they will have to certify the EIR with the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based on that, he agrees with Chair Oliverio that the Planning Commission should not delay the project. The other point is that the applicant has stated that it’s not financially feasible to proceed with any of the alternatives that would preserve the historic resources on-site. That being the case, he agrees with Commissioner Lardinois that this is a good project, providing housing and employment opportunities on such a small parcel.
Commissioner Young moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation as written.
Commissioner Casey seconded the motion.
Commissioner Cantrell asked if there was an affordable housing aspect to the project. Laura Meiners stated that there is a condition of approval to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but there are no affordable units proposed, and the applicant will most likely be paying the in-lieu fee to comply with the ordinance.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
Commissioner Lardinois stated that the only public correspondence received about the historic issue was the letter from PAC*SJ, and while he believes that the City has to do our due diligence in evaluating structures as historic, the letter provides no specific argument as to why the structures are historic, and he agrees with the applicant and Chair Oliverio that age alone is not a determination as to whether a structure is historic. He is therefore comfortable supporting Commissioner Young’s motion. Also, as far as deferring the approval, he’s not sure what the value would be, since the City Council decision will still be on the same date, regardless of when the Planning Commission makes its recommendation.
Chair Oliverio asked the maker of the motion if they would consider a friendly amendment that this development provides an educational exhibit explaining the agricultural and architectural history of the site and that it be displayed on the site in a manner where pedestrians would be able to see it as they walk by. Commissioner Young indicated that he would accept the friendly amendment. Commissioner Casey also agreed. Chair Oliverio asked staff if there would be any issue with adding this to the project conditions. John Tu asked if the Chair would like to confirm with the applicant if this would be an acceptable condition. The Chair asked the applicant if he would be amenable to installing a placard on the site, at about waist height to a pedestrian, identifying the history of the site, and signifying what was on the site. The applicant agreed. The vote was then taken.
The motion to recommend Council approval of the project was approved 8-1-0 (Ornelas-Wise opposed) with a friendly amendment from Chair Oliverio to include a recommendation that the project includes an educational opportunity, such as a historical plaque on the project that is visible to the public.
ANALYSIS
Analysis of the proposed CEQA clearance, Special Use Permit, and Tentative Map, including conformance with the General Plan, Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Residential Design Guidelines, and City Council Policies, is contained in the attached staff report.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the project was heard at the September 14, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.
The motion to recommend Council approval of the project was approved 8-1-0 (Ornelas-Wise opposed) with a friendly amendment from Chair Oliverio to include a recommendation that the project includes an educational opportunity, such as a historical plaque on the project that is visible to the public. As discussed in the attached staff report, the project is consistent with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, Zoning
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
Ordinance, Residential Design Guidelines, City Council policies for public outreach, and the requirements of CEQA.
Should the City Council adopt the resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and approve the Special Use Permit and Tentative Map, the applicant would be allowed to demolish the existing residence, barn, and accessory buildings, remove 30 ordinance-size and 19 non- ordinance size trees, and construct of a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominiums and approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space with one podium parking level and one underground parking level, and to subdivide one lot with up to 70 residential condominiums and up to nine commercial condominium units on an approximately 0.93-gross acre Project Site located on the west side of South Winchester Boulevard, approximately 460 feet southerly of Williams Road.
The applicant could proceed with an application for Building Permits.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Should the City Council adopt the resolution certifying the EIR, and approve the Special Use Permit and Tentative Map, the applicant would be allowed to demolish the existing residence, barn, and accessory buildings, remove 30 ordinance-size and 19 non-ordinance size trees, and construct a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominiums and approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space with one podium parking level and one underground parking level, and to subdivide one lot with up to 70 residential condominiums and up to nine commercial condominium units on an approximately
0.93-gross acre Project Site located on the west side of South Winchester Boulevard, approximately 460 feet southerly of Williams Road. The applicant could proceed with an application for Building Permits.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Following City Council Policy 6-30, the required on-site sign has been posted at the site since May 1, 2020, to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on, October 13, 2020, via Zoom webinar. There were approximately 27 members of the public in attendance. Concerns raised during the meeting included concerns about the rear setback and concerns about tree replacements. Staff also received emails from community members with concerns regarding construction noise levels and concerns about the project casting shade over the adjacent residential uses to the rear of the project site. 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.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
COORDINATION
The preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
CLIMATE SMART S
AN 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 (Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan).
CEQA
The City of San José, as the lead agency for the project, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was circulated for public review and comment from February 17, 2022, to April 4, 2022. A First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR.
Specifically, the project would result in a cumulative and project-level adverse change to historic resources due to the project’s demolition of the historic resources at 1065 South Winchester Boulevard (Candidates for the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory and the California Register of Historical Resources).
The analysis showed that even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1-a and CUL-3.1-b which would require documentation of the historic structures and the advertisement of the structures’ availability for relocation off-site, the impact would still be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation measures were also developed 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 and roosting special-status bats during construction, potential impacts to unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources, exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, and office employee VMT.
Standard Permit Conditions are also required to ensure no impacts occur during the construction and operation of the project. These Standard Permit Conditions include best management practices for construction-related air quality impacts, 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, erosion control during construction activities, conformance with state and local laws for
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
the appropriate handling of any asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) materials during construction, and water quality impacts during construction.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The EIR identified the following three alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or eliminate these impacts:
Alternative 1 No Project –
No Development Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines [§15126(d)4] require that an EIR specifically discuss a “No Project” alternative, which shall address both “the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” This Alternative would retain the existing land uses on‐site as is. If allowed to remain as is, and no changes are made, the residence, barn, and accessory structures would remain. If the project site were to remain as is, no environmental impacts would occur; however, none of the project objectives would be achieved.
Alternative 2 Retain Existing Structures in Place and Redesign Proposed Project This alternative would retain the Italianate-style cottage and barn in their existing locations and the trees on the eastern half of the site but would demolish the tank house and fruit drying area and shed and remove the trees behind the structures. The project would then be redesigned on the western one‐third of the project site behind the house and barn. According to the applicant, this alternative would require a reduction of about 70 percent of the residential units and commercial square footage, resulting in 21 residential units (instead of 70) and about 6,123 square feet of commercial (instead of 20,410). Additional units would require increasing the height beyond the City’s height limit of 65 feet. This alternative could retain the property’s eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark. While this alternative would result in a smaller project, the construction impacts would be comparable to the existing project due to construction timeframe and specifications and analysis would be required to determine if the construction vibration would have an adverse effect on the existing, historic structures. This project would achieve some but not all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3 Onsite Relocation of Barn and Redesign Project This alternative includes would retain the Italianate-style cottage, tank house, fruit drying area, and shed, and would move the barn to the southeastern corner of the project site. The proposed project would be redesigned on the western half of the project site behind the existing structures. This alternative would retain the existing trees in the vicinity of the structures but remove the trees on the western half. According to the applicant, this alternative would require a reduction of about 60 percent of the residential units and commercial square footage, resulting in about 36 residential units (instead of 70) and about 8,164 square feet of commercial (instead of 20,410). Additional units would require increasing the height beyond the City’s height limit of 65 feet. This alternative would retain the property’s eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark.
While this alternative would result in a smaller project, the construction impacts would be
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
comparable to the existing project due to the construction timeframe and specifications. However, an analysis would be required to determine if the construction vibration would have an adverse effect on the existing, historic structures. This project would achieve some but not all of the project objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Alternative 1 would avoid all project impacts, including the significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources, and therefore, is considered to be environmentally superior. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), when the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the next environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 3. The alternative would retain all of the existing structures in place, as well as many of the on‐site fruit trees, and include a project reduced by about 70 percent. The property would remain eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark.
DEIR Recirculation Unnecessary
As stated above, the DEIR was circulated for public review for 45 days consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 starting on February 17, 2022, and ending on April 4, 2022.
A First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR.
A total of five comment letters were received.
Responses to the comments were presented in the First Amendment and none of the comments raised represents new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). The recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR for public review but before certification. “Information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to a DEIR is not “significant” unless the DEIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
Final EIR
The First Amendment was posted on the City’s website on August 18, 2022, and all commenters were notified via email of the document’s availability. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and First Amendment are available for public review on the City’s website:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/active-eirs. The First Amendment together with the DEIR constitutes
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council will need to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the significant and unavoidable historic resources impact related to demolishing the existing residence, barn, and accessory structures identified in the DEIR, and determined the following project benefits outweigh the impact:
• A
ddition of Housing and Commercial uses within and consistent with the South Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The project will include 70 housing units which would contribute to the City’s need to provide housing units at all AMI levels. The project will also include 20,410 square feet of job -producing commercial space which would contribute to the South Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan commercial goals. This mixed-use development would support General Plan Major Strategy #3, Growth Area Policy LU-2.1, and Commercial Lands Policy LU-4.3, as described above. • Multi-
modal and Public Improvements:
o The improved Winchester Boulevard frontage will include a dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way and the improvement of the public streets including the reconstruction of the half street along the South Winchester Boulevard project frontage including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement sections. o The project’s frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be improved to be consistent with the planned streetscape design features of Grand Boulevard streets and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The frontage will include a 20-foot-wide sidewalk along Winchester Boulevard, which will be designed to accommodate the planned Winchester Boulevard Complete Street improvements including protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety features.
o The project site is adjacent to bus stops and bicycle lanes on Winchester Boulevard and the project’s TDM Plan will encourage the use of these transit options.
o The project will pay a voluntary monetary contribution of $121 per linear foot along the Winchester Boulevard project frontage for Class IV protected bikeways pursuant to San José Better Bike Plan 2025.
o The project will provide a fair-share contribution of $40,000 towards the future pedestrian crossing with improvements at Walgrove Drive as part of the Winchester Boulevard Complete Streets Improvements.
• S
upport Tribal C ultural Awareness. The project will include a commemorative plaque to educate the public about the local Tamien Tribe accessible for viewing by the public.
The overriding considerations set forth above will constitute a separate and independent gr
ound for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental impacts, and are supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Downtown Design Guidelines.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2022
Subject: File Nos. SP21-006, ER21-035 & T21-012
Per the Chair’s friendly amendment, the following has been included in the project conditions of approval:
• A
gricultural and Architectural Interpretation/Commemoration: In consultation with a qualified architectural historian and design professional, and under the direction of the Historic Preservation Officer, the Permittee shall develop an interpretive and/or commemorative placard presenting information regarding the agricultural and architectural history of the site, and that it be displayed on the site in a manner where it is visible to the public. The placard shall be placed at, or as near as possible to, the location where the buildings were historically located. The conceptual interpretive placard shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Officer prior to the issuance of demolition permit(s) for 1065 South Winchester Boulevard and shall be fully installed before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy for the mixed-use project.
/s/
CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Secretary
Planning Commission
For questions, please contact Planning Official, Robert Manford, at (408) 535-7900.
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 09-14-22
ITEM: 5.a.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012 DATE September 14, 2022 ___________
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
Type of Permit Special Use Permit and Tentative Map
Demolition One single-family residence (1,575 square feet), barn, and accessory buildings
Proposed Land Uses One mixed-use building consisting of 70 residential condominium units and nine commercial condominium
units with 20,410 square feet of commercial space
New Residential Units 70 condominium units
New Non-Residential Square Footage 20,410 square feet
Additional Policy Review Items Preservation of Historic Landmarks Tree Removals 30 ordinance-size trees and 19 non-ordinance-size trees Project Planner Laura Meiners
CEQA Clearance Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2021080419 (DEIR) for the 1065 South Winchester
Boulevard Mixed Use Project
CEQA Planner Cassandra Van Der Zweep
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take all of the following actions regarding the project site located west of South Winchester Boulevard, approximately 460 feet southerly of Williams Road (1065 South Winchester Boulevard) (“Project Site”):
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1065 South Winchester Boulevard Mixed Use Project and make certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (CEQA).
2. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Tentative Map to subdivide one lot with up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominium units, and one common area on the approximately 0.93-gross acre Project Site.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
3. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Special Use Permit to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence, barn, and accessory buildings, the removal of 30 ordinance- size and 19 non-ordinance trees, and construction of a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of up to 70 residential condominium units and nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space including one podium parking level and one underground parking level and associated landscaping and amenities.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Location West of South Winchester Boulevard, approximately 460 feet southerly of Williams Road (1065 South Winchester Boulevard) Assessor Lot No. 299-25-037
General Plan Mixed-Use Commercial
Growth Area Winchester Boulevard Urban Village
Zoning District CP Commercial Pedestrian District
Historic Resource Candidate City Landmark Eligible
Annexation Date June 12, 1959 (Cypress No. 8)
Council District 1
Acreage 0.93-gross acres
Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.15
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), the Project Site is located west of South Winchester Boulevard, approximately 460 feet southerly of Williams Road (1065 South Winchester Boulevard). The project site is adjacent to a restaurant to the north, commercial office use to the south, multifamily residential use to the east, and single-family residential use to the west. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a driveway located near the middle of the site along South Winchester Road. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the west and multifamily residential uses to the east, and by commercial uses to the north and south, including a restaurant to the north and office uses to the south.
The approximately 0.93-gross acre site is currently developed with an Italianate Victorian style cottage (1,575 square feet), California style barn, and related agricultural accessory buildings including a tank house/shed and a fruit drying shed with drying tables and remnant orchard trees. The existing buildings and structures were constructed sometime between 1887 and 1900. The property is an example of the agricultural/fruit drying heritage of the City of San José and is eligible for listing as a Candidate City Landmark in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory and in the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, the demolition of the existing buildings and structures at 1065 South Winchester Boulevard would constitute a significant, unavoidable impact to a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a cumulatively considerable impact to the finite historic properties associated with agricultural/fruit drying heritage in San José.
The project therefore requires a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources. The environmental impacts to Cultural Resources are addressed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is discussed in the Environmental Review Section below and the Draft Environmental Resolution.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
On March 18, 2021, a Special Use Permit, File No. SP21-006, and Tentative Map, File No. T21-012, were filed by the owner and applicant, Adam Askari of A&Z Development, LLC. The Special Use Permit is to allow the demolition of existing structures as described above, the removal of 30 ordinance-size and 19 non-ordinance trees, and construction of a six-story, mixed-use building consisting of 70 residential condominium units and nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space with one podium parking level and one underground parking level, a 50 percent parking space reduction, and associated landscaping and amenities. The project provides 104 vehicle parking spaces, 25 of which would be provided on the ground floor and 79 parking spaces provided in the underground parking level. The associated Tentative Map is to allow a subdivision with up to 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominium units, and one common area on the approximately 0.93-gross acre Project Site.
The project was heard at the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) on September 1, 2021 per the Early Referral requirement of the Preservation of Historic Landmarks City Council Policy. Although the structures are not currently on the Historic Resources Inventory, the Commissioners noted that the site is a rare remaining property that represents the important agricultural history of the Santa Clara Valley and rural vernacular architecture, and recommended that the buildings be preserved on site, rather than relocated or demolished. The HLC noted the importance of maintaining the physical relationship between the buildings in order to tell the agricultural story of San José. The HLC also provided comments on the Draft EIR at the HLC meeting on March 2, 2022 and submitted a formal comment letter on the impacts to cultural resources. Commissioners supported Preservation Alternative 2 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage and barn in their existing locations, as well as the trees on the eastern half of the site, and to demolish the tank house and fruit drying area and shed, and to remove the trees behind the structures. The project would then be redesigned on the western one‐ third of the project site behind the house and barn. The HLC also supported Preservation Alternative 3 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage, tank house, and fruit drying area and shed, and to move the barn to the southeastern corner of the project site. The proposed project would be redesigned on the western half of site behind the existing structures. This alternative would retain the existing trees in the vicinity of the structures, but would remove the trees on the western half of the site.
SURROUNDING USES
General Plan Zoning District Existing Use
North Mixed Use Commercial CP Commercial Pedestrian Restaurant South Mixed Use Commercial CP Commercial Pedestrian Commercial Office East Urban Residential A(PD) Planned Development
per PDC89-118 Multifamily Residential
West Mixed Use Neighborhood R-1-8(PD) Planned
Development per PDC74-096 Single-Family Residential
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
ANALYSIS
The proposed Special Use Permit and Tentative Map have been analyzed with respect to consistency with:
1. Envision San José 2040 General Plan
2. Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance
3. Residential Design Guidelines
4. Permit Findings
5. City Council Policies
6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Consistency
As shown in the attached General Plan Map (Figure 2), the subject site has an Envision San José 2040 General Plan designation of Mixed-Use Commercial and is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. This designation supports commercial and residential uses, where residential uses are allowed in a secondary role to commercial uses. The Mixed-Use Commercial designation requires a minimum commercial floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for mixed use projects and allows a density of up to 75 dwelling units per acre (75 DU/AC) for sites larger than 0.7 acre.
Analysis: The project includes a commercial gross square footage of 20,410 square feet, which results in
0.5 FAR, and a residential density of 75 du/ac with 70 units on an approximately 0.93-gross acre site.
The mixed-use project is consistent with the land use, FAR, and density requirements of the land use designation.
The project is also consistent with the following key General Plan policies:
Major Strategy #3 - Focused Growth: Strategically focus new growth into areas of San José that will enable the achievement of City goals for economic growth, fiscal sustainability and environmental stewardship and support the development of new, attractive urban neighborhoods. The Plan focuses significant growth, particularly to increase employment capacity, in areas surrounding the City’s regional Employment Center, achieve fiscal sustainability, and to maximize the use of transit systems within the region.
Analysis: As stated above, the project is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village.
In the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, urban villages are areas identified for housing and job growth in a mixed-use setting. The project includes a mixed-use development with residential and commercial office space, where the commercial use is provided on the ground- floor (first and second floor) along South Winchester Boulevard. This development would increase commercial office square footage on-site and thus would increase employment opportunities. Additionally, the project would add 70 new residential units on-site, to further the mixed-use setting supported by the General Plan. The project would enhance the Plan area’s urban neighborhoods by constructing an updated building with a mix of uses. Additionally, the project is consistent with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan framework and development standards which support and create a safe environment for all modes of travel and a thriving commercial corridor, in a mixed-use setting.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Community Design Policy CD-1.17: Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas. Where parking areas are necessary, provide aesthetically pleasing and visually interesting parking garages with clearly identified pedestrian entrances and walkways. Encourage designs that encapsulate parking facilities behind active building space or screen parked vehicles from view from the public realm.
Analysis: The development includes an underground parking garage to shield most of the parking from view of the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the Attractive City Policy (General Plan Goal CD-1). The pedestrian entrances and walkways are clearly identified on South Winchester Boulevard with an expanded 20-foot wide sidewalk, attractive planters, pedestrian-scaled entrances separated from the main driveway entrances, and the building’s façade is also articulated with projecting balconies for visual interest.
Growth Area Policy LU-2.1: Provide significant job and housing growth capacity within strategically identified “Growth Areas” in order to maximize use of existing or planned infrastructure (including fixed transit facilities), minimize the environmental impacts of new development, provide for more efficient delivery of City services, and foster the development of more vibrant, walkable urban settings.
Commercial Lands Policy LU-4.3: Concentrate new commercial development in identified growth areas and other sites designated for commercial uses on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram. Allow new and expansion of existing commercial development within established neighborhoods when such development is appropriately located and designed.
Analysis for Policies LU-2.1 and LU-4.3: The project includes a mixed-use building with ground- floor and second-story commercial office space which encourages various employment opportunities within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village growth area. The additional square footage on-site and updated building would enhance the City’s building floor area capacity and help to achieve the City’s job growth goals. Furthermore, the mixed-use setting and urban village location promote the viability of new commercial spaces in that they can be accessed easily via multiple modes of transportation and are integrated into the neighborhood and overall urban village plan area.
Urban Village Conformance. The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village is located in western San José and is a 1.5-mile corridor parallel to Interstate 880 and California State Route 17 to the east and San Tomas Expressway to the west. This Urban Village provides a range of commercial services, retail, restaurant and residential uses, and is a connection to several regional destinations. The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan was adopted by City Council on August 8, 2017.
The proposed project is consistent with the following Urban Village Plan goals, standards and policies:
Land Use Policy. Policy 3-8: When a new development replaces an existing development that includes small businesses, it is encouraged to dedicate new/flexible space for small businesses within the new development.
Analysis: The existing site includes a small fruit drying agricultural business, no longer in operation. The 20,410 square feet of commercial space is divided into nine commercial condominium spaces. The project’s commercial space could accommodate three office condominium spaces on the ground-floor with square footages ranging from 750 square feet to 4,570 square feet and six office spaces on the second floor with square footages ranging from
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
715 square feet to 3,190 square feet. The range in commercial square footages would serve a variety of small businesses within the new development.
Complete Streets Policy. Policy 6-50: All future development projects shall provide 20-foot minimum sidewalk width along Winchester Boulevard. Where the sidewalk in front of a development project falls short, the project must make up the difference so that the entire 20 feet is publicly accessible and functions as a sidewalk.
Analysis: The project includes the construction of a 20-foot attached sidewalk street trees along South Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy 6-50.
Urban Design Standard. Standard DS-21: Bicycle parking for visitors shall be located as close to the primary entrance as possible and shall be readily accessible and visible from the street level.
Analysis: The project would include four short-term bicycle parking spaces along Winchester Boulevard which is the where the building frontage and primary project entrances are located.
Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard DS-21.
Vibrant Commercial Corridor Goal. Goal LU-2. The combined commercial FAR of all parcels within the Urban Village boundary should not drop below 0.4 to meet the job capacity identified in this Urban Village.
Analysis: As described above, the project includes a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space meeting the 0.5 FAR minimum requirement and would increase the on-site commercial square footage. The 0.5 FAR would support the overall Winchester Boulevard Urban Village goal of meeting the job capacity envisioned for the area as well as contribute to the combined commercial FAR of all parcels in the Urban Village boundary.
Urban Design Standard. Standard DS-5: The minimum floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor commercial space shall be a minimum of 15 feet and preferably 18 to 20 feet.
Analysis: The project would have a floor-to-ceiling height of 15 feet for the ground-floor commercial space. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard DS-5.
Urban Design Standard. Standard DS-6: The depth of ground floor commercial space shall be 50 feet minimum and preferably 60 feet.
Analysis: The project would provide ground-floor commercial space ranging in depth from 55 feet to 110 feet. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard DS-6.
Building Height Standards DS-10 thru DS-12. The intensity of new commercial development is limited by the maximum height limits established in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and as illustrated on the Height Diagram (Figure 5-2 in the Urban Village Plan). Pursuant to the Building Height Diagram, the project has a 65-foot height limit (5-6 stories typical) with a ten-foot height allowance for non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers.
Height Transition Standard. This standard is applied to sites adjacent to residential uses. As discussed above, there are residential uses located to the west (rear) of the project site. Buildings that are 65 feet or less in height are required to use a 20-foot rear setback and the 45-daylight plane when located adjacent to a property with a Residential Neighborhood Land Use designation.
Front and Side Setbacks. New development with a non-residential ground floor use is required to provide a zero to ten-foot front setback and zero to ten-foot street side setback.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Analysis: The mixed-use building would have a height of 63 feet from grade to parapet. The building includes an 11-foot tall overrun for the elevator shaft, equipment room, and safety railing for a maximum height of 74 feet. In accordance with the height transition standard, the building would have a 21.9-foot rear setback (west) and step back from the property line at 35 feet in height, so that floors four through six are gradually tapered at a 45-degree angle.
The project would provide a 20-foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of South Winchester Boulevard, including a 10-foot wide setback to the front property line. The building would be set back 8.5 feet from the north property line and zero feet to the emergency access easement on the south consistent with the requirements and development standards in the Plan.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The project site is located within the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District. The CP Commercial Pedestrian District is intended to support pedestrian -oriented retail activity at a scale compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. The CP Commercial Pedestrian District encourages mixed residential/commercial devel opment where appropriate and is designed to support the commercial goals and policies of the general plan in relation to Urban Villages. This district is also intended to support intensive pedestrian-oriented commercial activity and development consistent with general plan urban design policies.
The project is consistent with the land use and development standards of the zoning district as follows:
Use. Mixed-use residential/commercial is a permitted use with a Special Use Permit in the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning Di strict. Additionally, commercial condominiums require a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 20.175.040 of the San José Municipal Code.
Minimum Non-Residential Condominium Size. Section 20.175.042.c of the San José Municipal Code requires a minimum 750-square foot commercial condominium.
Analysis: The proposed project includes 20,410 square feet of commercial space, which is divided into nine commercial condominium spaces ranging from 750 square feet to 4,570 square feet. A condition of approval is incorporated into the Tentative Map approval requiring a minimum of 750 square feet per commercial condominium.
Vehicular Parking. Parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 20.90 (Parking and Loading) of the San José Municipal Code for each respective use (residential, office).
Residential parking required:
Unit Size Number of Units Parking Ratio Required Parking 1 Bedroom 36 1.25 space/unit 45
2 Bedrooms 21 1.7 space/unit 36
3 Bedrooms or more 13 2.0 space/unit 26
TOTAL 70 - 107
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Office parking required:
One parking space is required for every 250 net square feet of office space. The gross commercial square footage of the project would be 17,349 square feet (85 percent of the 20,410 gross square feet of commercial floor area) and accordingly 6 9 parking spa ces would be required. In combination with the residential spaces, 176 vehicle parking spaces would be required.
Vehicular parking reduction:
Pursuant to Section 20.90.220(d) of the San José Municipal Code, a project is eligible for up to a 50 percent reduction in required vehicle parking if the project is located in an Urban Village and provides the minimum required bicycle parking, and the project applicant implements Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The project includes a TDM plan that outlines three measures for a parking reduction of 41.2 percent, consistent with the requirements in the Code. The TDM Plan includes the following measures:
1. Maintaining an online kiosk of trip-planning resources
2. Providing 100 percent unbundled parking for all residential spaces
3. Providing VTA Smart Passes to residential and commercial tenants.
Therefore, since the project is located within an Urban Village and provides more than the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces as analyzed below, the vehicle parking requirement is reduced to 104 total vehicle parking spaces.
Analysis: The project provides 104 vehicle parking spaces, 25 of which would be provided on the ground floor and 79 parking spaces provided in the underground parking level. The proj ect is consistent with the vehicular parking requirement with the allowed reduction applied.
Bicycle parking:
Residential: One parking space is required per four living units. Accordingly, 18 bicycle spaces are required. Bicycle parking spac es for residential use shall consist of at least sixty percent long - term. This results in at least eleven long-term spaces required.
Office: One parking space is required per 4,000 square feet. Accordingly, five bicycle spaces are required. When the bicycle parking required for a land use is based solely on square footage, at least eighty percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in short-term bicycle parking facilities. This results in at least four short-term spaces.
In total, 23 bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, including at least eleven long-term spaces and at least four short-term spaces. The remaining eight spaces can be either long -term or short-term.
Analysis: The project provides 59 bicycle parking spaces, with 51 long-term spaces and eight short- term spaces, and is consistent with the bicycle parking requirement.
Motorcycle parking:
Residential: One parking space is required per four living units. Accordingly, 18 motorcycle spaces are required.
Office: One parking space is required per 20 parking spaces. Accordingly, six motorcycle spaces are required.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
In total, 24 motorcycle parking spaces are required.
Analysis: The project provides 24 motorcycle spaces and is consistent with the motorcycle parking requirement.
Noise. Pursuant to Section 20.40.600 of the Municipal Code, the sound pressure level generated by any use or combination of uses on a property shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line adjacent to a property used or zoned for residential purposes or 60 decibels at the property line adjacent to a property used or zoned for a non-residential use.
Analysis: Residential and commercial office uses are typically quiet uses. As described in the Noise Assessment prepared by WJV Acoustics dated July 13, 2021, an ticipated sources of operational noise from the project include parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor human activity, and mechanical/HVAC rooftop systems. Because the project includes two common -use outdoor seating areas on the second floor, the Noise Ass essment also considered this outdoor activity in the analysis and concluded that exterior noise levels at the second floor would be approximately 45 to 50 dB LdN. The project does not propose loading docks or trash compactors and none of the commercial spaces would be 24-hour uses. Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and was determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the project is consistent with the noise requirements.
The project would also be required to implement standard permit conditions during construction to reduce temporary construction noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Project construction would last approximately 20 months and therefore, would also be required to comply with a noise mitigation measure which requires the preparation of a Construction Noise Logistics Plan pursuant to General Plan Policy EC -1.7, which requires a Logistics Plan for construction continuing for more than 12 months.
San José Residential Guidelines Consistency
The project was analyzed for consistency with applicable Residential Design Guidelines (1999). 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 subject project, submitted on March 18, 2021, was submitted prior to the effective date of the new guidelines and therefore subject to the 1999 Residential Design Guidelines.
The project complies with the following key guidelines from the 1999 Residential Design Guidelines below:
Chapter 10.A. Private and Common Open Space. A minimum of 100 square feet of Common Open Space and 60 square feet of Private Open Space, with a minimum 6 feet of width, is required per each unit.
Analysis: Under this section, the project is required to provide 7,000 square feet of common open space and 4,200 square feet of private open space. The project includes 7,112 square feet of common open space and 8,855 square feet of private open space, which exceeds the requirement. Additionally, the widths of the balconies vary from six feet to 13 feet in width, and the open space provided is consistent with the guideline.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
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:
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 A change in wall plane of at least 3 feet for at least 12 feet or every 2 units.
Analysis: The balconies and architectural projections shown in the project design plans 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.
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: As shown in the development plans, the project includes multiple changes in plane, materials, and color throughout the exterior facades of the project. The project is intended to closely relate to the previously approved project next door to the south at 1073 South Winchester Boulevard (SP20-002) and incorporates materials and colors that relate to that approved project. The architectural design of the two structures is compatible and complimentary to each other. The project is therefore consistent with this guideline.
Figure 1 – Project Rendering
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
PERMIT FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 20.100.140 of the Zoning Code, whenever applications for the same site have been filed for one or more development permits or approvals required by this title, such development permit or approvals may be reviewed and acted on in a unified process. Per Section 20.100.220, the Director of Planning is the Initial Decision-Making Body for Special Use Permits. However, in the case where a project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the Planning Commission shall hold a hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning certification of the final EIR; and the City Council shall thereafter hold a hearing to consider making the following certifications: that (1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) the final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the city; and (3) the final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project pursuant to Section 21.07.020 of the San José Municipal Code.
Special Use Permit Findings
To make the Special Use Permit findings pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.820, the City Council must determine that:
1. The special use permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the general plan and applicable specific plans and area development policies; and Analysis: The project is con sistent with the site’s Envision San José 2040 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Mixed -Use Commercial which allows mixed -use residential/commercial projects. The project would further the Winchester Urban Village g oals to enhance the mixed -use setting and promote dense growth and multi -modal opportunities by developing a mixed -use building consisting of nine commercial condominiums with approximately 20,410 square feet of ground-floor and second floor office spaces, 70 residential condominium units, providing short -term bicycle parking along the project frontage, and providing a 20 -foot-wide sidewalk along Winchester Boulevard.
2. The special use permit, as approved, conforms with the zoning code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and
Analysis: As discussed above, the project is consistent with and conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code, including development standa rds, parking standards, and performance standards. With the allowed parking reduction applied per the Zoning Code, the project is required to provide 104 vehicular parking spaces, 23 bicycle parking spaces, and 24 motorcycle parking spaces, and provides 104 vehicular parking spaces, 59 bicycle parking spaces, and 24 motorcycle parking spaces. The project is therefore consistent with the parking requirements with the allowed reduction applied and exceeds the bicycle parking requirements.
3. The special use perm it, as approved, is consi stent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and Analysis: As discussed below, the project is consistent with City Council Policy 6-30 (Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals). On September 13, 2021, the City hosted a virtual community meeting. The hearing and community meeting notices were sent to all owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the project site. Staff contact information was published on the posted Notice of Development sign located on the project frontage and on the mailing notices. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
The project is also consistent with the Preservation of Historic Landmarks City Council Policy. As discussed above, the project was heard at the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) on September 1, 2021 per the Early Referral requirement of the Preservation of Historic Landmarks City Council Policy. The HLC also provided comments on the Draft EIR at the HLC meeting on March 2, 2022 and submitted a formal comment letter on the impacts to cultural resources. Commissioners supported Preservation Alternative 2 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage and barn in their existing locations, as well as the trees on the eastern half of the site, and to demolish the tank house and fruit drying area and shed, and to remove the trees behind the structures. The project would then be redesigned on the western one‐third of the project site behind the house and barn.
The HLC also supported Preservation Alternative 3 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage, tank house, and fruit drying area and shed, and to move the barn to the southeastern corner of the project site. The proposed project would be redesigned on the western half of site behind the existing structures. This alternative would retain the existing trees in the vicinity of the structures but would remove the trees on the western half of the site.
4. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
a. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or
b. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or c. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and Analysis: As discussed above, the project is located within an urbanized area and does not exceed the established noise performance standard during operations. The project includes standard environmental permit conditions for dust control, best management practices during construction, and construction noise an d vibration reduction. The Public Works and Environmental Services Departments reviewed the project to ensure compliance with the City’s stormwater runoff policies.
Finally, the project would allow a mixed-use building site consistent with the Urban Village Plan and its surrounding uses. Neither the commercial nor the residential uses would impair the utility or value of adjacent properties or those in the surrounding area. In addition to the standard permit conditions, the applicant would also adhere to th e MMRP which has more specific actions to reduce the environmental effects related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. Therefore, the project would not be detri mental to public health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use wi th existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and
Analysis: The project site is approximately 0. 93-gross acre in size and is adequate in size and shape to accommodate walls, fences, parking, and loadin g facilities. As discussed above, vehicle parki ng would be accommodated in a covered parking garage which includes one level of below -grade parking. The project would also provide an on -site loading space on the ground -floor within the enclosed garage. The project would be required to replace the 30 or dinance-size and 19 non - ordinance trees proposed for removal and would also be required to integrate low impact development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges, as shown on Sheets 030-L, 031-L, and 050-C of the Project Plans.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
6. The proposed site is adequately served:
a. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improve necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate; or by other forms of transit adequate to carry the kind and quantity of individuals such use would generate; and
b. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
Analysis: The project is served by major highways and roadways, including State Route 17, Interstate 280, Interstate 880 and the San Tomas Expressway. Winchester Boulevard is identified in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan as a “Grand Boulevard.” Grand Boulevards serve as major transportation corridors for primary routes for VTA light-rail, bus rapid transit, standard or community buses, and other public transit vehicles. VTA bus routes near the site include Route 60 along South Winchester, which travels south to Campbell and north to the Milpitas BART Station, and Route 25 along Williams Road, half a block to the north, which travels west to Cupertino and east to the Alum Rock Transit Center. The project is in an urbanized area and is serviced by existing public utilities.
7. 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties.
Analysis: With the consideration of the Statement of Ove rriding Considerations, the project is consistent with CEQA. Demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the six -story, mixed-use project would not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties as it complies wit h the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Village use, standards, and policies. The project was also evaluated per adopted stormwater requirements and has been found in compliance by providing several stormwater treatment measures on the project site. Additionally, the mixed-use development is not anticipated to create odor or unusual noise as the majority of the activity occurs indoors and residential and office uses are not significant odor producing uses. Noise and ground vibration related to const ruction and demolition are the only an ticipated noise impacts and these are expected to be temporary (20 months). Best management construction practices would be implemented to reduce the noise and vibration impact on the neighborhood.
Site Development Permit Findings
To make the Site Development Permit findings pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.630, the City Council must determine that:
1. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable specific plans and area development policies.
Analysis: The project is consistent with this finding, as analyzed for Special Use Permit finding number
1. 2. The Site Development Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and al l other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project.
Analysis: The project is consistent with this finding, as analyzed for Special Use Permit finding number
2. File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
3. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council Policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency.
Analysis: The project is consistent with this finding, as analyzed for Special Use Permit finding number
3. 4. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, and elevation of proposed buildings and structures and other uses on-site are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious.
Analysis: As described above, the subject project includes the construction of one building, a six-story mixed-use building with nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space and 70 residential condominium units. The project design includes modern contemporary architecture with concrete, glass, and metal materials with variations on color , materials, projections, and recessions, which contribute to an interesting and varied design. The orientation and location of the building is well designed and compatible on the site, with the building being designed to be compatible with the recently approved project to the south (SP20-022) and sited close to the public right-of-way to achieve an urban aesthetic.
5. The orientation, location and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthet ically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.
Analysis: As described above, the project front s South Winchester Boulevard , a General Plan - designated Grand Boulevard which serves as a north-south connector. The existing neighborhood is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The architecture and material of the buildings are modern contemporary in style, and the variation in colors and materials provide s an articulated design and helps break up the façade massing. The adjacent single-family homes to the rear of the site would be separated from the development via the 20-foot setback and a short wall. The rear setback includes trees and landscaping which also buffer the project from neighboring uses.
6. The environmental impa cts 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 u nacceptable negative a ffect on adjacent property or properties.
Analysis: With the consideration of the Statement of Overriding Considerations as discussed above, the project is consistent with this finding, as analyzed for Special Use Permit finding number 7.
7. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls, and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.
Analysis: As described above, t he landscaping, irrigation systems, all walls and fences, utility, and trash facilities would improve the project site and enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. The mechanical equipment would be placed behind screening on the rooftop. Additionally, the transparent glazing at the pedestrian level would enhance the public street by providing activity and adding a vibrant feeling to the neighborhood.
8. Traffic access, pedestrian access and parking are adequate.
Analysis: The project area is regionally and locally accessible. The project site is accessible to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians by a driveway off South Winchester Boulevard. There is an additional ground floor entry for pedestrians and bicyclists at the north side of the project site for
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
the commercial office uses and at the south side of the site for the residential uses. The project is required to provide 104 vehicular parking spaces, 23 bicycle parking spaces, and 24 motorcycle parking spaces, and provides 104 vehicular parking spaces, 59 bicycle parking spaces, and 24 motorcycle parking spaces. The project is therefore consistent with the parking requirements and exceeds the bicycle parking requirements. The project is required to widen the public sidewalks to twenty feet wide along South Winchester Boulevard to include street trees within the public right- of-way and pay a monetary contribution toward the installation of a protected bike lane.
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.
a. The failure to approve the permit would result in the creation or continued existence of a nuisance, blight or dangerous condition;
b. The failure to approve the permit would jeopardize public health, safety or welfare; c. The app roval of the permit should facilitate a project which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
d. The approval of the permit should maintain the supply of existing housing stock in the City of San Jose;
e. Both inventoried and non-inventoried buildings, sites and districts of historical significance should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible;
f. Rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building would not be feasible; and g. The demolition, removal or rel ocation of the building without an approved rep lacement building should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Analysis: The project is currently developed with an Italianate Victorian style cottage (1,575 square feet), California style barn, and related agricultural accessory buildings including a tank house/shed and a fruit drying shed with drying tables and remnant orchard trees. The existing buildings and structures were constructed sometime between 1887 and 1900 and were owned by generations of the Ban family for nearly 100 years. The property is a good example of the agricultural/fruit drying heritage of the City of San José and is eligible for listing as a Candidate City Landmark in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory under significance criteria 1, 4, and 6 and it is also eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under significance criteria 1 and 3.
Therefore, the demolition of the existing buildings and structures at 1065 South Winchester Boulevard would constitute a significant, unavoidable impact to a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a cumulatively considerable impact to the finite historic properties associated with agricultural/fruit drying heritage in San José. The project therefore requires a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources. The environmental impacts to Cultural Resources are addressed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is discussed in the Environmental Review Section below and the Draft Environmental Resolution.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
The project includes architectural design that is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which includes single-family residential uses to the west and multifamily residential uses to the east, and by commercial uses to the north and south, including a restaurant to the north and office uses to the south. The project would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The demolition would facilitate the construction of a six-story mixed-use building with nine commercial condominium units with approximately 20,410 square feet of commercial space and 70 residential condominium units. Re-use of the buildings on-site would not be feasible to implement the goals of the project; however, the historic resources on-site would be required to be made available for relocation, salvage or reuse, prior to demolition, consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The existing supply of housing would be maintained and exceeded through the provision of the 70 housing units.
Tree Removal Findings
Chapter 13.32 of the San José Municipal Code establishes required findings that must be made for issuance of a Live Tree Removal Permit for ordinance-size trees. The ordinance-size tree removal meets the following required finding:
That the location of the tree with respect to a proposed improvement unreasonably restricts the economic development of the lot in question.
Analysis: As identified above, the project includes the removal of 30 ordinance-size trees and 19 non- ordinance trees. To construct the project, the trees would need to be removed and replaced at the City- required ratio . The trees to be removed cannot be preserved , since they are distributed within the developable areas of the site in a manner and density that preclude a viable floor plan.
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 the Arborist Report prepared by Nicholas Wages, Certified Arborist with Cord Associates dated March 1, 2021, of the 30 ordinance-size trees to be removed, 26 are orchard trees (citrus and cherry) and 4 are of non-native species, including privet (Ligustrum lucidum), sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and loquat (Eriobotrya japonica). The orchard trees are required to be replaced at a ratio o f 3:1 and
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
the non-native trees are required to be replaced at a ratio of 4:1, resulting in 94 required replacement trees.
Of the 19 non-ordinance trees, 11 are sized between 19 and 38 inches in circumference, and eight are sized less than 19 inches. Of the 11 trees sized between 19 and 38 inches, seven are orchard trees (citrus and cherry) and four are non -native trees such as hackberry (Celtis occidentalis ), privet (Ligustrum lucidum), and spruce (Picea spp). The orchard trees are not required to be replaced, and the non -native trees are required to be replaced at a rati o of 2:1, resulting in eight required replacement trees.
Of the remaining eight trees less than 19 inches in circumference, one is a native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), four are orchard trees (citrus and cherry), and three are non-native trees including privet (Ligustrum lucidum) and buckeye (Aesculus californica). The orchard trees are not required to be replaced, and both the native and non -native trees must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in four required replacement trees.
Therefore, per the table above, the total number of replacement trees for the removal of 30 ordinance-size trees and 19 non-ordinance trees is 106 trees at 15 gallon size or 53 trees at 24” box size. Pursuant to the project landscaping plan, the development would plant a total of 86 replacement trees at 24-inch box size, which exceeds the City’s Tree Replacement ratios. Therefore, the project is consistent with this requirement.
Commercial Common Interest Condominium Findings
In accordance with San José Municipal Code (SJMC) Section 20.175.050, no special use permit may be issued for a commercial common interest condominium development unless and until all of the following additional findings are first made:
1. The proposed common interest development will not adversely impact the economic viability of large-scale commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity of the development, or in the city as a whole;
Analysis: As stated above, there is a restaurant use adjacent to the north and commercial office uses to the south. With nine commercial condominiums totaling approximately 20,410 square feet in size, the will not significantly or adversely impact the economic viability of the surrounding commercial uses. There are no adjacent industrial uses, and the project does not include any industrial use in the development.
2. The proposed common interest development includes sufficient provisions for governance, funding and capitalization, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the common area continues to be adequately and safely maintained and repaired for the life of the common interest development; and
Analysis: Prior to the issuance of a final map, the project applicant must provide sufficient details on the plan for the creation of a Maintenance District for the maintenance and safety of the common area (see Condition No. 30).
3. The proposed common interest development includes sufficient provisions for the retention of such common areas for the use of all owners of separate interests therein.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Analysis: Prior to the issuance of a final map, the project applicant must provide details on how the Maintenance District for the maintenance and safety of the common area would be maintained for all owners of separate interest (see Condition No. 30).
Subdivision Map Act Findings
In accordance with San José Municipal Code (SJMC) Sections 19.12.130 and 19.12.220 and California Government Code Section 66474, the City Council of the City of San José, in consideration of the subdivision shown on the Tentative Map with the imposed conditions, shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if the City Council 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 Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into 70 residential condominium units, nine commercial condominium units, and one common area on the approximately 0.93-gross acre project site, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement 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 discussed above. The project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan such as Major Strategy #3, Community Design policies, and Growth Area policies. The General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Commercial allows for higher-intensity projects. The project site is physically suitable for the project and proposed intensity because all project components are designed within the project site.
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 a single-family residence and accessory structures within an urbanized area, and there are no significant impacts to fish or wildlife per the Environmental Impact Report with implementation of mitigation measures included in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The proposed subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project will be required to provide a 20-foot wide sidewalk along South Winchester Boulevard to include street trees within the public right-of-way and pay a monetary contribution toward the installation of a bike lane.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
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 May 1, 2020, to inform the neighborhood of the project. A community meeting was held to discuss the project on, October 13, 2020 via Zoom webinar. Approximately 27 members of the public were in attendance for the meeting.
Concerns raised during the meeting included concerns about the rear setback and concerns about tree replacements. Staff also received emails from community members with concerns regarding construction noise levels and concerns about the project casting shade over the adjacent residential uses to the rear of the project site. 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.
Preservation of Historic Landmarks City Council Policy
The approximately 0.93-gross acre site is currently developed with an Italianate Victorian style cottage (1,575 square feet), California style barn, and related agricultural accessory buildings including a tank house/shed and a fruit drying shed with drying tables and remnant orchard trees. The existing buildings and structures were constructed sometime between 1887 and 1900. The property is an example of the agricultural/fruit drying heritage of the City of San José and is eligible for listing as a Candidate City Landmark in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory and in the California Register of Historical Resources.
The project was heard at the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) on September 1, 2021 per the Early Referral requirement of the Preservation of Historic Landmarks City Council Policy. Although the structures are not currently on the Historic Resources Inventory, the Commissioners noted that the site is a rare remaining property that represents the important agricultural history of the Santa Clara Valley and rural vernacular architecture, and recommended that the buildings be preserved on site, rather than relocated or demolished. The HLC noted the importance of maintaining the physical relationship between the buildings in order to tell the agricultural story of San José. The HLC also provided comments on the Draft EIR at the HLC meeting on March 2, 2022 and submitted a formal comment letter on the impacts to cultural resources. Commissioners supported Preservation Alternative 2 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage and barn in their existing locations, as well as the trees on the eastern half of the site, and to demolish the tank house and fruit drying area and shed, and to remove the trees behind the structures. The project would then be redesigned on the western one‐ third of the project site behind the house and barn. The HLC also supported Preservation Alternative 3 which proposes to retain the Italianate style cottage, tank house, and fruit drying area and shed, and to move the barn to the southeastern corner of the project site. The proposed project would be redesigned on the western half of site behind the existing structures. This alternative would retain the existing trees in the vicinity of the structures, but would remove the trees on the western half of the site.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The City of San José, as the lead agency for the project, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was circulated for public review and comment from February 17, 2022 to April 4, 2022. A First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR.
Specifically, the project would result in a cumulative and project-level adverse change to historic resources due to the project’s demolition of the historic resources at 1065 South Winchester Boulevard (Candidates for the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory and the California Register of Historical Resources).
The analysis showed that even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1-a and CUL-3.1-b which would require documentation of the historic structures and the advertisement of the structures’ availability for relocation off-site, the impact would still be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation measures were also developed 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 and roosting special-status bats during construction, potential impacts to unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources, exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, and office employee VMT.
Standard Permit Conditions are also required to ensure no impacts occur during construction and operation of the project. These Standard Permit Conditions include best management practices for construction related air quality impacts, 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, erosion control during construction activities, conformance with state and local laws for appropriate handling of any asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) materials during construction, and water quality impacts during construction.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The EIR identified the following three alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or eliminate these impacts:
Alternative 1 No Project – No Development Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines [§15126(d)4] require that an EIR specifically discuss a “No Project” alternative, which shall address both “the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” This Alternative would retain the existing land uses on‐ site as is. If allowed to remain as is, and no changes are made, the residence, barn, and accessory structures would remain. If the project site were to remain as is, no environmental impacts would occur; however, none of the project objectives would be achieved.
Alternative 2 Retain Existing Structures in Place and Redesign Proposed Project This alternative would retain the Italianate style cottage and barn in their existing locations and the trees on the eastern half of the site but would demolish the tank house and fruit drying area and shed and remove the trees behind the structures. The project would then be redesigned on the western one‐third of the project site behind the house and barn. According to the applicant, this alternative would require a
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
reduction of about 70 percent of the residential units and commercial square footage, resulting in 21 residential units (instead of 70) and about 6,123 square feet of commercial (instead of 20,410).
Additional units would require increasing the height beyond the City’s height limit of 65 feet. This alternative could retain the property’s eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark. While this alternative would result in a smaller project, the construction impacts would be comparable to the existing project due to construction timeframe and specifications and an analysis would be required to determine if the construction vibration would have an adverse effect on the existing, historic structures.
This project would achieve some but not all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3 Onsite Relocation of Barn and Redesign Project This alternative includes would retain the Italianate style cottage, tank house, and fruit drying area and shed, and would move the barn to the southeastern corner of the project site. The proposed project would be redesigned on the western half of the project site behind the existing structures. This alternative would retain the existing trees in the vicinity of the structures but remove the trees on the western half. According to the applicant, this alternative would require a reduction of about 60 percent of the residential units and commercial square footage, resulting in about 36 residential units (instead of 70) and about 8,164 square feet of commercial (instead of 20,410). Additional units would require increasing the height beyond the City’s height limit of 65 feet. This alternative would retain the property’s eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark. While this alternative would result in a smaller project, the construction impacts would be comparable to the existing project due to construction timeframe and specifications. However, an analysis would be required to determine if the construction vibration would have an adverse effect on the existing, historic structures. This project would achieve some but not all of the project objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Alternative 1 would avoid all project impacts, including the significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources and therefore, is considered to be environmentally superior. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), when the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the next environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 3. The alternative would retain all of the existing structures in place, as well as many of the on‐site fruit trees, and include a project reduced by about 70 percent. The property would remain eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and in the City of San José Historic Resources Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark DEIR Recirculation Unnecessary
As stated above, the DEIR was circulated for public review for 45 days consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 starting on February 17, 2022 and ending on April 4, 2022.
A First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR.
A total of five comment letters were received.
Responses to the comments were presented in the First Amendment and none of the comments raised represents new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). The recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR for public review but before
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
certification. “Information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to a DEIR is not “significant” unless the DEIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
Final EIR
The First Amendment was posted on the City’s website on August 18, 2022 and all commenters were notified via email of the document’s availability. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and First Amendment are available for public review on the City’s website: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/active-eirs.
The First Amendment together with the DEIR constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council made a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the significant and unavoidable historic resources impact related to demolishing of the existing residence, barn, and accessory structures identified in the DEIR, and determined the following project benefits outweigh the impact:
• Addition of Housing and Commercial uses within and consistent with the South Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan . The project will includ e 70 housing units which would contribute to the City’s need to provide housing units at all AMI levels. The project will also include 20,410 square feet of job-producing commercial space which would contribute to the South Winchester Boulevard Urban Villa ge Plan commercial goals. This mixed-used development would support General Plan Major Strategy #3, Growth Area Policy LU -2.1, and Commercial Lands Policy LU -4.3, as described above.
• Multi-modal and Public Improvements:
o The improved Winchester Boulevard frontage will include a dedication of 10-feet of right-of-way and the improvement of the public streets including the reconstruction of the half street along South Winchester Blvd. project frontage including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement sections. o The project’s frontage along Winch ester Boulevard will be improved to be consistent with the planned streetscape design features of Grand Boulevards and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The frontage will include a 20 -foot-wide sidewalk along Winchester Boulevard, will be designed to accommodate the planned Winchester Boulevard Complete Street improvements including protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety features. o The project site is adjacent to bus stops and bicycle lanes on Winchester Boulevard a nd the project’s TDM Plan will encourage the use of these transit options. o The project will pay a voluntary monetary contribution of $121 per linear feet along the Winchester Boulevard project frontage for Class IV protected bikeways per San Jose Better Bike Plan 2025.
o The project will provide a fair -share contribution of $40,000 towards the future pedestrian crossing with improvements at Walgrove Drive as part of the Winchester Boulevard Complete Streets Improvements.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
• Support Tribal Cultural Awareness. The project will include a commemorative plaque to educate the public about the local Tamien Tribe accessible for viewing by the public.
The overriding considerations set forth above constitute a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project which outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental impacts. These matters are supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Downtown Design Guidelines.
The City Council weighed each of the above benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and determined that those benefits outweighed the risks and adverse environmental effects of the Project and, therefore, further determined that those risks and adverse environmental effects were acceptable and overridden.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 21.07.020.B of the San Jose Municipal Code, for any project for which the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the planning commission shall hold a hearing to make a recommendation to the city council concerning certification of the final EIR. As stated above, the project’s EIR requires a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources.
Therefore, this project is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council accordingly.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy to inform the public of the proposed project.
An on-site sign has been posted on the property since July 23, 2021, and a noticed joint Environmental Scoping and Community Meeting was held on September 13, 2021. Approximately eight members of the public were in attendance. Concerns raised during the meeting included concerns about the rear setback and concerns about tree replacements. Staff also received emails from community members with concerns regarding construction noise levels and concerns about the project casting shade over the adjacent residential uses to the rear of the project site.
Staff Responses
In response to the concerns about the rear setback, the project includes a 20-foot separation between the rear property line and the building. Additionally, there is a 45-degree daylight plane step-back beginning at 35 feet in height, as required by the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. Regarding tree replacements, the total number of replacement trees for the removal of 30 ordinance-size trees and 19 non-ordinance trees is 106 trees at 15-gallon size or 53 trees at 24” box size. Pursuant to the project landscaping plan, the development would plant a total of 86 replacement trees at 24-inch box size, which exceeds the City’s Tree Replacement ratios, as described above.
Regarding construction noise levels, there are conditions of approval included in the resolution for the Special Use Permit to mitigate construction noise, including limited construction hours within 500 feet of residential uses, a requirement for a solid plywood fence between ground-level construction and any residential uses, and the designation of a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise, among other project conditions.
While the 45-degree daylight plane is designed to allow daylight to reach adjacent properties, Shadow Studies were provided in the project plans as Sheets 027-A and 028-A. Due to the configuration of the project site, the deepest shadows would be cast to the northwest of the project site during winter mornings.
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
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/ Robert Manford, 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: Special Use Permit SP21-006 Resolution
Exhibit E: Tentative Map T21-012 Resolution
Exhibit F: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit G: Special Use Permit SP21-006 Final Plan Set
Exhibit H: Tentative Map T21-012 Final Plan Set
Exhibit I: Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Meeting Minutes and Comment Letter Exhibit J: Public Correspondence
Development Review Project
Manager
Environmental Project Manager Applicant Contact
Laura Meiners
[email protected]
(408) 535-7869
Cassandra Vander Zweep
[email protected]
(408) 535-6872
Henry Cord
[email protected]
(408) 307-0166
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map/Aerial
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation
File No. SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Exhibit C: Zoning District
SP21-006/ER21-035 & T21-012
Links to Attachments D-J
Click on the title to view document
Exhibit D: Special Use Permit SP21-006 Resolution
Exhibit E: Tentative Map T21-012 Resolution
Exhibit F: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit G: Special Use Permit SP21-006 Final Plan Set
Exhibit H: Tentative Map T21-012 Final Plan Set
Exhibit I: Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Meeting Minutes and Comment Letter Exhibit J: Public Correspondence
Correspondence received after September 7, 2022