TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Planning Commission
AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: July 17, 2023
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
SUBJECT: FILE NOS. PDC20-017, PD20-010 & PT20-031. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON AN
APPROXIMATELY 0.443-ACRE SITE ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF
ELM STREET, APPROXIMATELY 105 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF
MCKENDRIE STREET (972 ELM STREET)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-2 (Garcia and Ornelas-Wise absent) to recommend that the City Council take the following action:
(a) Adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 972 Elm Street Villas Project, and adopt an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended; (b) Approve an ordinance rezoning certain real property of approximately 0.443 acre located on the northeast side of Elm Street, approximately 105 feet northwesterly of McKendrie Street (972 Elm Street) from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the MUN(PD) Planned Development Zoning District;
(c) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 0.443-gross-acre site into nine lots, including eight single-family residential lots and one common lot; and
(d) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to effectuate the Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC20-017, and to allow the demolition of the existing 1,900-square-foot single-family residence, the removal of seven ordinance-size trees and four non-ordinance-size trees, and the construction of eight three- story single-family detached residences on an approximately 0.443-gross-acre site.
COUNCIL AGENDA: 08/08/23
FILE: 23-1003
ITEM: 10.2
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2023
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-017, PD20-010, & PT20-031
SUMMARY AND OUTCOME
If the City Council approves the actions listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant would be allowed to subdivide the approximately 0.443-gross-acre site into nine lots, including eight single-family residential lots and one common lot, demolish one 1,900-square-foot single-family house, remove seven ordinance-size and four non- ordinance-size trees, and construct up to eight three-story single-family detached residences on the subject site.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2023, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) determination, Planned Development Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft resolutions adopting the 972 Elm Street Villas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Vesting Tentative Map, and the Planned Development Permit, and adopt the draft ordinance for the Planned Development Zoning.
Staff Presentation
Planning staff provided an oral report of the proposed project, including an overview of the project’s conformance with the General Plan, San José Municipal Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Development Policies.
Applicant Presentation
Three property owner representatives from CN One Investment, LLC, stated that the development entity consists of eight families and the main purpose of the proposed development is to build eight single-family houses for them to live in. They also stated that the application was submitted almost three years ago, the Planning process is unexpectedly long, and they are eager to move the project forward to the next step.
Public Hearing
Chair Oliverio opened the public comment portion of the agenda.
Two members of the public spoke for the project. One member of the public asked a question about parking. Commissioner Lardinois responded that the project would provide 20 parking spaces, including two spaces in each unit’s garage and four surface parking spaces for guests.
The other member of the public, who resides near the project site, stated that he and his wife would like to welcome the project applicant/owner(s) to the neighborhood. The owner’s representative expressed appreciation for the welcome from the neighbor and stated they wanted to build a good community and be a good neighbor.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2023
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-017, PD20-010, & PT20-031
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Oliverio asked the staff if the project is considered a flag-lot project and whether the project is subject to Council Policy 6-19, Flag Lot Development in Single Family Neighborhoods. Staff responded that the project did not result in a flag lot and explained that Flag Lot Policy usually applies to projects creating lots that do not have street frontages at the rear. The project includes two units fronting on the public street and six units fronting on the proposed private streets. The site layout is designed efficiently to accommodate the proposed compact development and achieve the allowed density.
Commission Lardinois stated that he lives in a mixed-density neighborhood, and he likes the project in that it gently densifies an existing single-family residential lot.
Commissioner Cantrell expressed strong support for the project.
Commissioner Lardinois made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the project as recommended by staff. Commissioner Casey seconded the motion, and the Planning Commission approved the motion (8-0-2, Garcia and Ornelas-Wise absent).
ANALYSIS
Analysis of the proposed CEQA clearance, Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Zoning, and Planned Development Permit, including conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Policies are contained in the attached staff report.
The recommendation in this memorandum aligns with one or more Climate Smart San José sustainability goals. The homes constructed with the project would be subject to the Reach Code requirements for all-electrical service connections and prohibiting using natural gas for cooking or heating. Additionally, the homes are required to have solar photovoltaic systems installed and EV-ready.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Should the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning and adopt resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approving the Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit, the applicant would be allowed to carry out the project as described above.
COORDINATION
The preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2023
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-017, PD20-010, & PT20-031
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the August 8, 2023 City Council meeting.
Additionally, staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy in order to inform the
public of the proposed project. An on-site sign with updated project information was posted on the project frontage on January 8, 2021. A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Staff has also been available to respond to questions from the public.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND INPUT
As discussed in the Background section above, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project (8-0-2, Garcia and Ornelas-Wise absent) on the June 14, 2023 meeting.
CEQA
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared by the Director of the City of San José’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for the subject Planned Development Zoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map Permit.
The document was circulated for public comment between September 21, 2021, and October 22, 2021. Two formal comments/emails were received from PG&E and Valley Water during the public circulation period. PG&E requested that additional information be made available in the document regarding the Public Utility Easement, and this has been added to the Text Edits section. Valley Water clarified that they have no facilities on the parcel and confirmed that there are no records of wells located within the project’s boundaries. The comments received did not result in any substantial changes to the project description, analyses, and/or impacts that were previously disclosed in the IS/MND. These comments are addressed by staff in a formal Response to Comments document.
The IS/MND concluded that with the implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The IS/MND analysis found impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration.
The project includes mitigation measures presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is not required, and an IS/MND is the appropriate level of CEQA clearance for the project.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2023
Subject: File Nos. PDC20-017, PD20-010, & PT20-031
The entire IS/MND, Reponses to Comments, and other related environmental documents are available on the Planning website at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental- planning/environmental-review/negative-declaration-initial-studies/972-elm-street-villas-project
PUBLIC SUBSIDY REPORTING
This item does not include a public subsidy as defined in section 53083 or 53083.1 of the California Government Code or the City’s Open Government Resolution.
/s/
CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Secretary
Planning Commission
For questions, please contact Deputy Director for Planning, Robert Manford, at (408) 535-7900.
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 06-14-23
ITEM: 5.a.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031
& ER20-246
DATE June 14, 2023
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9
Type of Permit Planned Development Rezoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map
Demolition One 1,900-square-foot single-family residence Proposed Land Uses Single-family residential project with eight detached three-story single-family detached residences.
New Residential Units 8 units
New Non-Residential Square Footage N/A
Additional Policy Review Items N/A
Tree Removals 7 ordinance-size trees and 4 non-ordinance-size trees Project Planner Angela Wang
CEQA Clearance 972 Elm Street Villas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
CEQA Planner Kara Hawkins
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take all of the following actions regarding the project site located on the northeast of Elm Street, approximately 105 feet northwesterly of McKendrie Street (972 Elm Street) (“Project Site”):
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 972 Elm Street Villas Project, for which an Initial Study was prepared, and adopting an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended;
2. Approve an Ordinance rezoning the Project Site from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to MUN(PD) Planned Development Zoning District;
3. Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide a 0.443- gross-acre site into nine lots including eight single-family residential lots and one common lot;
4. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Planned Development Permit to effectuate the Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC20-017, and to allow the demolition of the existing 1,900-square-foot single-family residence, the removal of seven ordinance-size trees and four non- ordinance-size trees, and the construction of eight three-story single-family detached residences on an approximately 0.443-gross-acre site.
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Location Northeast of Elm Street, approximately 105 feet northwesterly of McKendrie Street (972 Elm Street)
Assessor Parcel No. 230-41-025
General Plan Designation Mixed Use Neighborhood
Growth Area N/A
Zoning – Existing A(PD)
Zoning – Proposed MUN(PD)
Historic Resource N/A
Annexation Date December 8, 1925 (College Park/Burbank Sunol No. 8) Council District 6
Vesting Tentative Map Acreage 0.443 (gross)
Development Project Acreage 0.443 (gross)
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As shown on the attached Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), the Project Site is located on the northeast of Elm Street, approximately 105 feet northwesterly of McKendrie Street (972 Elm Street). The approximately
0.433-gross-acre site is currently developed with a 1,900-square-foot, one-story single-family residence. There are eleven trees on site. Vehicular access to the site is provided via one driveway along Elm Street. The site is surrounded by a two-story apartment building to the north, an industrial building to the east, single-family residences and a community care licensed home to the south, and single-family residences to the west across Elm Street.
On November 20, 2020, concurrent applications for a Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC20- 017, a Planned Development Permit, File No. PD20-010, and a Vesting Tentative Map, File No. PT20- 031, were filed with the City by applicant Fahed Hbayed, on behalf of the owner, CN One Investment, LLC. The Planned Development Zoning would rezone the site from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to a MUN Planned Development Zoning District. The proposed MUN based zoning district will conform with the site’s MUN Mixed Use Neighborhood General Plan Land Use Designation.
The Planned Development Permit would allow the demolition of the existing 1,900-square-foot single- family house, the removal of seven ordinance-size trees and four non-ordinance-size trees, and the construction of eight single-family detached residences on a 0.443-gross-acre site. The Vesting Tentative Map would subdivide this 0.443-gross-acre site into nine lots, including eight single-family residential lots and one common lot.
The project would provide 20 parking spaces including two covered garage spaces for each unit and four surface parking spaces for guests. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from Elm Street via a new driveway located at the south corner of the project site.
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
ANALYSIS
The proposed Planned Development Rezoning, Planned Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map have been analyzed with respect to consistency with:
1. Envision San José 2040 General Plan
2. Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance
3. Residential Design Guidelines
4. City Council Policies
5. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Consistency
As shown in the attached General Plan Map (Exhibit B), the subject site has an Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood. This designation is applied to areas intended for development primarily with either townhouse or small lot single-family residences. This designation should be used to provide transition between higher-density and lower-density neighborhoods, and allowable density may be up to 30 dwelling units/acre.
Analysis: Multifamily residences immediately adjacent to the north of the subject site are developed at an approximate density of 50 dwelling units per acre and the single-family residences immediately adjacent to the south is developed at a density of approximately 8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would include eight small-lot single-family detached residences on a 0.443-acre site with a density of approximately 18 dwelling units per acre. The project would provide a transition between the apartment and the traditional single-family detached homes as required by the Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation, and does not exceed the maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Mixed Use Neighborhood General Plan Land Use Designation.
The project is also consistent with the following key General Plan policies:
Implementation Policy IP-8.5: Use the Planned Development zoning process to tailor such regulations as allowed uses, site intensities and development standards to a particular site for which, because of unique circumstances, a Planned Development zoning process will better conform to Envision General Plan goals and policies than may be practical through implementation of a conventional Zoning District.
SURROUNDING USES
General Plan Zoning District Existing Use
North Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood Apartment South Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence
Single-family residences and a
community care licensed home
East Light Industrial Light Industrial Industrial
West Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence Single-family residences
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Analysis: The project includes eight small-lot three-story single-family detached residences and would provide a transition between traditional single-family homes and apartments as discussed above.
Implementing this residential development would require specific development standards deviating from the conventional R-1-8 Single-family Residence District development regulations including reduced lot area and width, zero/reduced setbacks, and a greater number of stories. As described previously, the Planned Development Rezoning results in a transitional development form between the single-family homes to the south and the higher density multifamily development to the north, and therefore better conforms to the General Plan goals and policies than the conventional zoning districts.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The project includes a rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to a MUN(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. The base zoning district is MUN Mixed Use Neighborhood given the site’s MUN General Plan Land Use Designation.
Land Use
The Rezoning would allow all permitted, Special, and Conditional Uses of the R-1 Single-family Residence Zoning District of Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code (as may be amended). The proposed single-family residential use is a permitted use in R-1 Zoning District therefore is allowed.
Development Regulations
Below is the proposed development standards and the project compliance with the specific development standards:
The project shall be consistent with the development regulations of the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence District, as amended, except as modified below:
Standard* Proposed Planned
Development Zoning District
Development Standards
Project Compliance with PD
Standards
Minimum Lot Area 1,180 square feet
1,182 (Lot 7) to 2,010 square
feet (Lot 8)
Property boundary setbacks
(Front, Elm Street)
1st and 2nd Floors: Minimum
15 feet
3rd Floor: Minimum 20 feet
Unit 1 1st Floor: 15 feet
Unit 1 2nd Floor: 15.1 feet
Unit 8 1st Floor: 15 feet
Unit 8 2nd Floor: 15.4 feet
3rd Floor (Units 1 & 2): 20 feet
Property boundary setbacks
(Side, northwestern property
line)
Minimum 6 feet 6 feet
Property boundary setbacks
(Side, southeastern property
line)
Minimum 25 feet and
minimum 20 feet at the east
end
25 feet and 22 feet at the east
end
Property boundary setbacks Minimum 8 feet 8 feet
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
(Rear)
Interior Property Line
(proposed lot lines)
None 0/6 feet
Minimum Building separation 6 feet 6 feet
Maximum number of stories 3 3
Maximum Height 35 feet 33.5 feet
Private Open Space Minimum Area: 200 square
feet
Minimum Dimension: 6 feet
except Lot 1; Minimum 5.5
feet for Lot 1.
212 to 700 square feet
Units 2 to 8 OS dimension:
minimum 6 feet
Unit 1: minimum 5.5 feet
Fence Height Maximum 3.5 feet within 15-
foot front setback area along
Elm Street; Maximum 7 feet
at the rest of the site.
6 feet (outside of the 15-foot
front setback area) and 3 feet
within the 15-foot front
setback area along Elm Street
* The development standards for patio covers and mechanical equipment are not listed in this table as the project design does not include these components at the Planning entitlement stage. For the entire list of the development standards, please refer to Exhibit I, Draft PDC20-017 Development Standards.
Analysis: As shown on the Planned Development Permit PD20-010 Plan Set, the project conforms with all the above standards pursuant to the General Development Plan of the proposed MUN(PD) Planned Development Zoning District.
Vehicle Parking:
Parking Proposed Planned Development
Zoning District Development
Standards
Project Compliance with PD
Standards
Single Family Detached Parking spaces shall meet the size and number of space requirement as
stated in Chapter 20.90 of the San
José Municipal Code as may be
amended.
Two covered spaces per unit and
four surface parking spaces for
guests for the entire development
Analysis: The project was submitted in 2020 and was evaluated under the old Parking Ordinance, which required two covered spaces for each single-family detached residence. Per the current Parking Ordinance, the project is not required to provide parking spaces and would also be exempt from TDM requirement since fewer than 16 single-family detached units are created. Project complies with both the old and current Parking Ordinance.
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
San José Design Guidelines Consistency
The project was submitted in 2020 before the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines were adopted in 2021. Hence the project was analyzed for consistency with applicable Residential Design Guidelines (adopted in 1999). Per the State Law, only objective standards can be applied to housing development projects. The Residential Design Guidelines do not contain objective standards.
While subjective design standards cannot be applied to housing development projects, staff notes that the project has been designed to meet the subjective criteria of the design guidelines, in that the design is compatible with the surrounding buildings. As discussed previously, the project provides a transition between single-family homes and apartment buildings. Although the proposed buildings have three stories, the height does not exceed 35 feet. In addition, the two buildings along Elm Street include stepbacks on the 3rd floor so that the buildings appear more compatible with the surrounding one to two-story buildings. The main entrances of these two single-family homes along Elm Street are prominent and face the street. The entire development has a consistent architectural style while having slight color variations. The building design also incorporates special treatment to the blank walls that are sitting on the proposed property lines to provide visual interest. The project also includes a landscape buffer along the southern property line abutting existing single-family houses.
PERMIT FINDINGS
Planned Development Permit Findings
Pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.940, the City Council may issue a planned development permit only if all of the following findings are made. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the findings be made as follows:
1. The planned development permit, as issued, is consistent with and furthers the policies of the general plan; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the single-family residential project with eight homes is consistent with the Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation per the General Plan, including relevant goals and policies.
2. The planned development permit, as issued, conforms in all respects to the planned development zoning of the property; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the project is consi stent with the proposed MUN (PD) Planned Development Zoning District Development Standards. The project is consistent with the parking, lot size, setback, and height , and private open space requirements of the Planned Development Standards and the General Development Plan.
3. The planned development permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable city council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and Analysis: As discussed below, the project is subject to and conforms to the Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals.
4. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, mass and scale of building volumes, and elevations of proposed buildings, structures and other uses on-site are appropriate, compatible and aesthetically harmonious; and
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Analysis: The project would include eight three-story single-family detached homes with consistent architectural styles. All buildings include hipped shingle roofs, metal gutters, stucco walls, wood trims, and wrought iron railings while incorporating some color variations. The elevations of these buildings are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with the consistent design treatment.
5. The environmental impacts of the project, including, but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.
Analysis: The project incorporates standard mitigation measures (See Exhibit H, MMRP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address air quality and noise due to constr uction, as well as stormwater runoff, drainage and erosion control measures. The project will be required to adhere to all applicable standard environmental permit conditions and mitigation measures related to reducing temporary and operational sources of noise and vibration, dust, and erosion. Residential buildings are not a sou rce of significant odor and would not impact adjacent properties. The project will be required to comply with all City permits and policies related to operational erosion and storm water runoff. For these reasons the project would not have an unacceptable negative impact on adjacent properties.
Evaluation Criteria for Demolition
Chapter 20.80.460 of the San José Municipal Code establishes evaluation criteria for issuance of a permit to allow for demolition. These criteria are made for the Project based on the above-stated findings related to General Plan, Zoning and CEQA conformance and for the reasons stated below, and subject to the conditions set forth in this Permit.
1. The failure to approve the permit would result in the creation or continued existence of a nuisance, blight or dangerous condition;
2. The failure to approve the permit would jeopardize public health, safety or welfare;
3. The approval of the permit should facilitate a project which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
4. The approval of the permit should maintain the supply of existing housing stock in the City of San Jose;
5. Both inventoried and non-inventoried buildings, sites and districts of historical significance should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible;
6. Rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building would not be feasible; and
7. The demolition, removal or relocation of the building without an approved replacement building should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Analysis: The existing on-site structure is over 45 years old, and the historical evaluation conducted by Archaeological Resource Management dated February 12, 2021, concluded that the structure on site would not qualify for listing in any of the historic resource inventories, and the site and its features and the immediate surroundings would not meet the definition of “historical resources” under CEQA.
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
The demolition of the existing single-family residence on-site would facilitate the construction of eight single-family residences providing a transition between the conventional single-family detached homes and the apartment buildings. Re-use or rehabilitation of the building would not be practical given the small size of the building, and the project would reduce one residential unit from the existing housing stock, but in turn will add eight units to the housing stocks, providing a net increase of seven residential units.
Tree Removal Findings
Chapter 13.32 of the San José Municipal Code establishes that at least one of the following required findings must be made for issuance of a Live Tree Removal Permit for ordinance-size trees. Findings are made for the project based on the findings related to General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and CEQA conformance and for the reasons stated below, and subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution.
1. That the location of the tree with respect to a proposed improvement unreasonably restricts the economic development of the parcel in question.
Analysis: As discussed a bove, seven ordinance-size trees and four non -ordinance-size trees will be removed to accommodate the project. These trees are dispersed throughout the interior of the site.
The project requires comprehensive re-grading of the site and a compact form of development across the entire property to achieve the density and urban form allowed by the General Plan. Retaining the existing trees would result in a less efficient site layout, preventing the allowed residential form and density. The trees will be required to be replaced at the City-required ratio below.
Tree Replacement Ratios
Circumference of
Tree to be
Removed
Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size of
Each
Replacement Tree Native Non-Native Orchard
38 inches or more 5:1 4:1 3:1 15-gallon
19 up to 38 inches 3:1 2:1 none 15-gallon
Less than 19 inches 1:1 1:1 none 15-gallon
x:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratio
Note: Trees greater than or equal to 38-inch circumference shall not be removed unless a Tree Removal Permit, or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees. For Multi-Family residential, Commercial and Industrial properties, a permit is required for removal of trees of any size.
A 38-inch tree equals 12.1 inches in diameter.
A 24-inch box tree = two 15-gallon trees
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
The 11 trees include one ordinance -size native tree (Tree #9) , six ordinance -size non -native trees (Trees #2,3,5,6,8,11), and four non -native trees (Trees #1,4,7,10) with sizes ranging from 19 to 38 inches in circumference. The removal of these 11 trees will require 37 15-gallon (1 x 5 + 6 X 4 + 4 x 2) replacement trees. See the tree removal list below:
Tree # Common Name Circumference
(inch)
Ordinance-size
tree?
# of Required 15-Gallon
Replacement Tree
1 Holly Tree 18.8 No 2
2 Almond Tree 119.4 Yes 4
3 Grapefruit 47.1 Yes 4
4 Orange 18.8 No 2
5 Pomegranate 113.1 Yes 4
6 Willow Species 56.5 Yes 4
7 Loquat Tree 22 No 2
8 Olive 94.2 Yes 4
9 California Bay
Laurel (Native
Tree)
119.4 Yes 5
10 Plum 37.7 No 2
11 Orange 31.4 No 2
One 24-inch-box tree can be replaced in lieu of two 15-gallon trees. The project would include 10 24- inch-box trees (three Smoke Tree, two Japanese Maple, three Crape Murtle, and two Ornamental Pear) on site, which equals to 20 15-gallon trees. The applicant will pay the in-lieu fees for 17 off-site replacement trees (17 x $7 75). Condition #10 is included in the draft Plann ed Development Permit Resolution (Exhibit F) to ensure the fees to be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The City will use the off-site tree replacement fees to plant trees at alternative sites.
Vesting Tentative Map Findings
In accordance with San José Municipal Code (SJMC) Sections 19.12.130 and 19.12.220 and California Government Code Section 66474, the Director of Planning of the City of San José, in consideration of the proposed subdivision shown on the Vesting Tentative Map with the imposed conditions, shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if the Director makes any of the following findings:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans as specified in Section 65451.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
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 this subdivision, the Director of Planning of the City of San José does not make any such findings to deny the subject subdivision. The project is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and land use designation, as analyzed above. The project site is physically suitable for the project and proposed intensity in that the residential development is allowed up to 30 du/ac. The residential development would not cause serious public health problem with the Standard Permit conditions to regulate the construction activities and minimize the construction impact. Furthermore, the project site does not contain historic resources or sensitive habitats or wildlife. The site is not located within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood plain. The project site, as well as the surrounding area, are currently developed with structures and do not provide a natural habitat for either fish or wildlife.
City Council Policy Consistency
City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals Under City Council Policy 6-30, the project is a standard development. Standard development projects are required to provide Early Notification by website, email, postcard mailed to property owners and tenants within a 500-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 January 8, 2021, to inform the neighborhood of the project. Public Notices of the community meeting and public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City’s website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
An Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Director of the City of San José’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for the subject Planned Development Zoning, Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map Permit. The document was circulated for public comment between September 21, 2021, and October 22, 2021. Two formal comments/emails were received from PG&E and Valley Water during the public circulation period.
PG&E requested that additional information be made available in the document regarding the Public Utility Easement, and this has been added to the Text Edits section. Valley Water clarified that they have no facilities on the parcel and confirmed that there are no records of wells located within the project’s boundaries. The comments received did not result in any substantial changes to the project description, analyses, and/or impacts that was previously disclosed in the IS/MND. These comments are addressed by staff in a formal Response to Comments document.
The IS/MND concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Analysis in the IS/MND found impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration. The project includes mitigation measures presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is not
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
required, and an IS/MND is the appropriate level of CEQA clearance for the project.
The entire IS/MND, Reponses to Comments, and other related environmental documents are available on the Planning web site at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental- planning/environmental-review/negative-declaration-initial-studies/972-elm-street-villas-project
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy to inform the public of the proposed project.
An on-site sign was posted on the property. A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 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.
During the project review staff received comments from the two neighbors at 984 Elm Street and 895 McKendrie Street.
Staff has been informed about a legal dispute over the location of the fence separating the apartment building to the north of the site (984 Elm Street) and the subject site in relation to the property line.
As the proposed project would replace the current fence with a new fence at or close to the surveyed location of the property line, the issue would not affect the findings and analysis of the proposed project.
The other comment staff received is from the owner of the existing single-family house to the south of the property (895 McKendrie St). According to the owner, this house is being operated as an Adult Residential Facility for Persons with Special Healthcare Needs (ARFPSHN) and there were five individuals being taken care of in this house when the owner reached out to staff. The owner was mainly concerned that these five individuals are especially vulnerable to the impact of air quality due to the construction. Staff explained to the owner about how the air quality impact is evaluated/analyzed in the Initial Study, and the project would be required to implement three mitigation measures to mitigate the air quality impact during the construction (See Exhibit H, MMRP) prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, a grading permit, or a building permit. The owner requested to be notified about the hearing date. Postcard notice has been sent to the owner’s mailing address.
Project Manager: Angela Wang
Approved by: /s/ Robert Manford, Deputy Director for Christopher Burton, Planning Director
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map, Aerial
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation
Exhibit C: Existing Zoning District
Exhibit D: Proposed Zoning District
Exhibit E: Draft Planned Development Zoning PDC20-017 Ordinance Exhibit F: Draft Planned Development Permit PD20-010 Resolution Exhibit G: Draft Vesting Tentative Map PT20-031 Resolution Exhibit H: Draft Environmental Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit I: Draft PDC20-017 Development Standards
Exhibit J: Planned Development Zoning PDC20-017 Plan Set Exhibit K: Planned Development Permit PD20-010 Plan Set Exhibit L: Vesting Tentative Map PT20-031 Plan Set
Development Review
Project Manager
Environmental Project
Manager
Owner Applicant
Angela Wang
Angela.Wang@sanJosé
ca.gov
(408) 535-6870
Kara Hawkins
Kara.Hawkins@sanJosé
ca.gov
(408) 535-7852
CN One Investment, LLC
[email protected]
(408) 423-7133
Fahed Hbayeb
[email protected]
(408) 483-0302
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map/Aerial
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Exhibit C: Existing Zoning District Map
File No. PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Exhibit D: Proposed Zoning District Map
PDC20-017, PD20-010, PT20-031 & ER20-246
Links to Attachments E - L
Click on the title to view document
Exhibit E: Draft Planned Development Zoning PDC20-017 Ordinance Exhibit F: Draft Planned Development Permit PD20-010 Resolution Exhibit G: Draft Vesting Tentative Map PT20-031 Resolution Exhibit H: Draft Environmental Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Exhibit I: Draft PDC20-017 Development Standards
Exhibit J: Planned Development Zoning PDC20-017 Plan Set Exhibit K: Planned Development Permit PD20-010 Plan Set Exhibit L: Vesting Tentative Map PT20-031 Plan Set