TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Chris Burton
SUBJECT: PP24-011 - City Streamlined
Review Process for Infill
Housing Development
DATE: December 5, 2024
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 7-1-1 to recommend the City Council take the following action:
(a) Adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 76041), Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 77617), and Supplemental EIR (Resolution No. 77617), and Addenda thereto. (b) Approve an ordinance amending various sections of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code (Zoning Code or Zoning Ordinance) to:
(1) Amend Chapter 20.55 to include amendments to Section 20.55.203, Table 20-138 to allow Streamlined Infill Housing Development and adding Notes 27 and 28. (2) Amend Chapter 20.195 to include amendments to:
(i) Section 20.195.010 to include a local ministerial approval process for Streamlined Infill Housing Developments in the purpose of Chapter 20.195; (ii) Section 20.195.020 to add the definition of Infill; (iii) Section 20.195.070 to allow Streamlined Infill Housing Development to qualify for the Local Ministerial Approvals;
(iv) Section 20.195.080 to amend existing ministerial standards and add a new standard;
(v) Section 20.195.090 to state that projects must comply with Chapter 5.08, as amended;
(vi) Section 20.195.100 to add permit conditions; and
(vii) Add a new Part 4 of Chapter 20.195 to allow ministerial approval for Streamlined Infill Housing Developments.
(3) Amend Chapter 20.200 to add a new definition for Streamlined Review for Infill Housing Development.
(4) Adopt a resolution approving standard environmental planning permit conditions for projects approved under the local ministerial ordinance as described in section 20.195.100.F of the San José Municipal Code.
COUNCIL AGENDA: 12/17/24
FILE: 24-2353
ITEM: 10.3
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
SUMMARY AND OUTCOME
Approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendments will amend various chapters within Title 20, Zoning Code, as described in the Analysis section below, to allow a ministerial approval process streamlined infill housing developments in identified growth areas.
If the City Council approves the actions listed above as recommended by the Planning Commission, projects that typically require a Site Development Permit and heard at a Planning Director’s Hearing would be able to utilize a new ministerial approval process that does not require a public hearing and may utilize the ministerial exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2024, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Code update. The item was heard on the public hearing portion of the agenda. Commissioner Lardinois made a motion to approve the recommendation.
Commissioner Young seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1-1 (Oliverio opposed and Baracio absent). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the adoption of the CEQA Addendum, adopt a resolution for the standard environmental permit conditions, and adopt the ordinance changes.
ANALYSIS
A complete analysis of the Zoning Ordinance amendments is contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 2024 (attached).
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
If the proposed Zoning Code update changes are approved by City Council, the new Ordinance will be effective 30 days after the second reading.
COORDINATION
The preparation of the proposed ordinance, resolution, and this memorandum were coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the December 17, 2024 City Council meeting.
This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the December 17, 2024 City Council meeting. Staff followed
Council Policy 6-30: Public
Outreach Policy r egarding public outreach for this proposal. A notice of the community meeting was posted on the City’s website. Staff conducted various outreach meetings with interested stakeholders and held a community meeting on November 7, 2024. The attached Planning Commission staff report contains a description of stakeholder and community outreach related to this ordinance. The
project webpage has also been
updated with the proposed Zoning Code updates.
A public hearing notice, including the Planning Commission and City Council hearing dates, was published in the newspaper of record (San José Post Record) on November 12, 2024. Staff posted the hearing notice, staff report, and draft ordinance on the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND INPUT
Staff Presentation
Michelle Flores, project manager, provided a presentation on the proposed Zoning Code updates. The presentation included an overview of the existing local ministerial ordinance required and the proposed Zoning Code changes.
Public Hearing
Sandra Delvin asked for more public comment and outreach with neighborhoods. She asked what the City is doing to streamline their review. She asked to wait to hear the project with the new City Council and wait for an appointee for District 3 since the project affects District 3.
Rick Ator, resident of District 9, expressed concerns about the absence of community input is a concern for residents.
Jake Wilde, on behalf of CatalyzeSV, expressed support for the project and stated they would support a project that went beyond the proposed project area. He also stated that the City and community spent years on the City’s Housing Element and CatalyzeSV focused on this Housing Element program during that review process. He also shared that the organization was concerned about community engagement but stated that the only thing worse than no community meeting is a community meeting where the
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
community cannot engage if it is going through a ministerial process and suggested that could be addressed in the update to Council Policy 6-30.
Manuel Salazar, on behalf of SV@home, expressed support for the project as it would help San José meet housing goals in growth areas that have gone through a Planning process. He requested modifications to future iterations, including expanding General Plan land use designation and clearly stating projects may be use State Density Bonus Law. He stated the City has a housing goal of 62,200 new housing units.
Elizabeth Conlin, member of South Bay YIMBY, asked for approval of the proposed ordinance. She stated that San José ranks as one of the least affordable cities in the country. She stated that improving the speed and reliability of homebuilding is needed to end the housing shortage and improve affordability. She expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance is limiting, and the eligibility standards are too narrow. She added the proposed criteria eligibility applies to less than 1% of the City’s land. She asked for an expansion of the policy to apply to all approved urban villages and all major transit areas, expand to all land use designations allowing multifamily housing, and allow limited waivers of the City’s objective design standards for density bonus projects.
Dan Brown expressed concerns about not having neighbor input and stated community meetings are important.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Oliverio asked staff if the presentation included maps of geographic areas where the project applies. Staff responded that the maps are included as attachments to the staff report. Commissioner Oliverio asked how many parcels this project affects. Staff responded that this project is for approximately 600 sites. He also asked if CEQA clearance is attached to ministerial approval and asked how it is different to standard Planning permits. Staff responded that discretionary permits are subject to CEQA and ministerial permits are not subject to CEQA and may utilize a statutory exemption similar to Building permits. Commissioner Oliverio asked if the level of effort for CEQA clearance for two similar projects, one discretionary review and one ministerial review, is different. Staff responded that ministerial permits do not go through CEQA review and may proceed with a Building permit after obtaining a Planning permit.
Staff added that although permits do not go through a CEQA review, they are still subject to conditions and studies similar to discretionary permits after the Planning entitlement. Commissioner Oliverio asked if a private party could sue a ministerial permit for the CEQA clearance. Staff responded that ministerial permits cannot be challenged under CEQA. Commissioner Olivierio also asked the level of effort for the Planning Department to hold a community meeting and the level of effort to take a project to a public hearing, specifically the staff hours. Staff responded that community meetings cannot occur until a project has been under review for 45 days under the outreach policy and that the amount of staff time is reflected in the fee schedule which is for approximately 11.5 staff hours. Commissioner Oliverio asked if there is a difference in time for the preparation of reports for a public hearing. Staff responded that both
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
processes would require a permit, but the difference is ministerial permits wouldn’t include document preparation and review for Planning Commission or City Council and attending those hearings. Commissioner Olivierio asked what occurs the rest of the time. Staff responded the biggest item is the preparation of noticing which includes preparing and mailing notices. This also applies to community meetings. Review times also include the time it takes for an applicant to resubmit. Commissioner Olivierio asked if the 45-day requirement for noticing community meetings is a legal requirement or if it could be reduced. Staff responded that it is an internal policy but clarified that the additional time is the preparation of noticing radius and mailing the notices. Staff also added that hearing calendar such as only two Planning Commission and City Council hearings a month can also add time.
Vice Chair Cantrell asked why a ministerial process. Staff responded we are trying to build housing to meet our housing obligations. As part of the Housing Element, one of the key issues was the length of time it takes to get housing approved. Through a ministerial process, we can speed up the review process. Staff also added that the review time and process is something within the City’s control, unlike other elements such as economics. Vice Chair Cantrell asked staff to confirm that they are not trying to remove public input process and if the City would allow the public to provide public comment through this process. Staff responded that projects would still be required to post an on-site sign, Planning application submittals are posted weekly, projects are posted on SJPermits, project development notifications are emailed to members subscribed for updates, and applications are also updated on City maps. During the Planning review process, the community still has an opportunity to reach out to the project manager in Planning with questions or concerns. Vice Chair Cantrell asked why staff chose 40 DU/AC (dwelling units per acre). Staff responded that the CEQA screening criteria requires a minimum of 35 DU/AC, so staff increased it to a minimum of 40 DU/AC. If staff would have gone to a minimum of 50 DU/AC, it would have required removing Mixed Use Commercial since that has a maximum of 50 DU/AC. Vice Chair also asked if we are expecting only 200 new units from this policy. Staff responded that the metric for performance listed in the housing element is a minimum of 200 entitled units per year.
Commissioner Rosario asked staff to clarify that although the current policy does not require public comment, does staff intend to change that. Staff responded that the program in the Housing Element refers to public hearing, not community meetings. Staff stated that our internal City Council Policy does not address Ministerial Permits so there are no minimum outreach requirements the City can require. As part of the update to the outreach policy, Planning staff wants to look at updating the policy and provide guidelines on what outreach Ministerial Permits would need to follow. Commissioner Rosario asked when the update would occur. Staff responded that outreach and a project webpage should begin in January 2025 and has a goal of going to City Council by the end of 2025. Commissioner Rosario asked if projects can utilize State Density Bonus Law for objective design standards and if they can still go through a ministerial review process. Staff responded that projects requesting to utilize State Density Bonus Law can still go through a ministerial review process. The existing Zoning Code states
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
that local ministerial permit applications requesting to use State Density Bonus Law must include the request as part of their application.
Commissioner Bickford asked for the definition of infill. Staff responded that it is defined in Section 20.195.020.C.3. Commissioner Bickford asked what criteria qualifying sites were meeting. Staff responded that the maps of qualifying sites included sites within the specific growth areas and land use designations, not within the Airport Influence Area, not zoned Planned Development Zoning, and not currently a multifamily residence, and not on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory list. Commissioner Bickford expressed concern about the proximity to single family residences and removing the public input process. Commissioner Lardinois stated that his understanding is that the proposed project only includes areas with approved urban village plans. Staff added that it is also specific plans and station areas and clarified that all the areas have gone through a public input process.
Commissioner Lardinois asked staff to confirm if the process applies to urban villages and station area plans. Staff responded that it also includes the Capitol Caltrain Station Area Plan. Commissioner Lardinois asked if the areas have adopted plans that went through extensive community engagement. Staff responded that urban village plans typically have three sets of workshops and focused group meetings. As an example, the most recent urban village approval also included neighborhood leadership meetings, online surveys, and virtual drop-in office hours. Commissioner Lardinois stated that as an example, the Saratoga Urban Village is going through the Planning process and will have a year and a half of community engagement and would identify sites that may utilize the proposed process. Commissioner Lardinois asked if the urban village plans prepared an EIR. Staff responded that not all urban village plans had an EIR and used the General Plan EIR. Due to staff resources an EIR is not generally prepared for urban villages. It has been done in Downtown, North San José, and it is being done for the Five Wounds Urban Village. Commissioner Lardinois also asked if urban village plans prescribe what type of uses are allowed. Staff responded as part of the urban village process staff will change Neighborhood/Community Commercial properties to new land use designations based on the building size and envelopes determined through the community engagement process.
Commissioner Young addressed correspondence received for the project. He responded to comments about project not going through CEQA review being dangerous to the environment. Commissioner Young responded that the environmental conditions the City will require through this process is comprehensive. Commissioner Young asked staff to confirm the City Council approved the program as part of the Housing Element.
Staff confirmed the program was approved by City Council. He also responded to public engagement comments and stated that requiring community meetings for projects that are ministerial and do not need to respond to community input is not a good option unless it is clear to the community that it is an informational meeting. He added that Councilmembers may ask the developer to voluntarily hold an informational meeting for neighbors and residents may go to their Councilmember to request an informational meeting. He expressed support for the process and the need for additional housing.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
Commissioner Oliverio asked if the City approved ministerial review of residential projects in the Alum Rock Urban Village through the urban village plan. Staff responded that the MS-G and MS-C zoning districts in the Alum Rock Urban Village require a Conditional Use Permit for multifamily and mixed-use so they would not be reviewed ministerially. Commissioner Oliviero stated the public hearing process is an opportunity to explain to the public why the City is approving housing and explain how the state has forced cities to approve housing. He also stated that during the urban village process, we never told the community it was their last opportunity to provide input and they weren’t told the State Density Bonus could be used so the City should provide a public hearing process.
Vice Chair Cantrell expressed the need to remove obstacles to build housing and the proposed ordinance updates would do that.
Commissioner Bhandal stated that he believes in community input and how it can improve projects, but acknowledged the housing crisis and this project would streamline the process.
Chair Tordillos stated that he supported the program when the Planning Commission heard the Housing Element. He also stated that at the Planning Commission retreat, the Cost of Residential Development Report shows that in the current environment, the construction of housing does not pencil out for reasons beyond the City’s control. He supports this project because it focuses on a process that is in the City’s control and can help reduce construction costs and help get more residential projects approved. He expressed that he would like future phases to expand the eligibility criteria to include Downtown and other growth areas that are residential development. He also expressed the desire to allow redevelopment of existing older multifamily residences as long as there are tenant protections in place. He also stated that the HCD letter certifying the City’s Housing Element states that throughout the Planning period, each city will be actively monitored for timely and effective implementation of all programs, including Program P-7, the City Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance. The letter also stated that failure to act on programs would be inconsistent with an adopted Housing Element and HCD may revoke Housing Element compliance. He stated that the proposed update is a good policy that will help speed up housing projects, make them more financially feasible, and get more housing built. He added that the risk of denying the project could lead to the decertification of the Housing Element and open the City to Builder’s Remedy applications.
Planning Commission made a recommendation for the City Council to approve the staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Lardinois made a motion to approve the recommendation. Commissioner Young seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1-1 (Oliverio opposed and Baracio absent).
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 5, 2024
Subject: PP24-011 - City Streamlined Review Process for Infill Housing Development
CEQA
The City of San José, as the lead agency, prepared an Addendum to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 76041), Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report – Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis (Resolution No. 77617), Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Resolution No. 2023-262) and Addenda thereto, for this Ministerial Ordinance.
The Addendum analyzed the proposed Zoning Code changes and found that the project would not result in new or substantial significant impacts not already addressed in the previous documents. Therefore, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c).
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/
CHRIS BURTON
Secretary, Planning Commission
The principal author of this memorandum is Michelle Flores, Planner IV, Supervising Planner, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department. For questions, please contact, at [email protected]
or (408)535-7901.
Attachment
Planning Commission Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 12-4-24
ITEM: 5.b.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: PP24-011 DATE: December 4, 2024
______________
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Citywide
Type of Permit PP24-011
Project Zoning Ordinance Update
Project Description Amending Section 20.55.203 Of Chapter 20.55 Of Title 20, Amending Sections 20.195.020, 20.195.070, 20.195.080,
20.090, and 20.195.100 Of Chapter 20.195 Of Title 20,
Adding a New Part 4 to Chapter 20.195, and Adding a New Section to Chapter 20.200 Of Title 20 Of the San Jose
Municipal Code
Applicability Citywide in applicable Zoning Districts and Growth Areas Project Planner Michelle Flores
CEQA Clearance Addendum to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Resolution
No. 76041), Supplemental Program Environmental Impact
Report – Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis (Resolution
No. 77617), Supplemental Environmental Impact Report –
2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Resolution No. 2023-
262) and Addenda thereto.
CEQA Planner Reema Mahamood
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take all of the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 76041), Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 77617), and Supplemental EIR (Resolution No. 77617), and Addenda thereto; and
2. Approve an ordinance of the City of San José amending various sections of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code (Zoning Code or Zoning Ordinance) to:
a. Amend Chapter 20.55 to include amendments to Section 20.55.203, Table 20-138 to allow Streamlined Infill Housing Development and adding Note 28; b. Amend Chapter 20.195 to include amendments to (a) Section 20.195.020 to add the definition of Infill; (b) Section 20.195.070 to allow Streamlined Infill Housing Development to qualify for the Local Ministerial Approvals; (c) Section 20.195.080 to amend existing ministerial standards and add a new standard; (d) Section 20.195.100 to add permit conditions; and (e) add a new Part 4 of Chapter
20.195 to allow ministerial approval for Streamlined Infill Housing Developments; and Attachment - Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
c. Amend Chapter 20.200 to add a new definition for Streamlined Review for Infill Housing Development.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Zoning Code update would create a streamlined review process for infill housing development projects that meet project and site eligibility criteria. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element identified Strategy P- 7: City Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance. The goal of this program is to adopt and implement a City streamlined review process that would allow ministerial approval of infill housing projects that meet all objective standards. Through a ministerial review process, there would be no public hearing and projects are eligible for the ministerial CEQA exemption.
Housing Element & Reducing Barriers to Infill Development Since 2021, the City has adopted various regulatory changes to reduce the barriers to redevelopment of nonvacant infill properties. In 2021, City Council approved new Urban Village and Mixed Use zoning districts for mixed-use development in growth areas to implement the Urban Village strategy in the General Plan. In December 2022, City Council approved an ordinance to eliminate minimum parking requirements for both commercial and residential and also adopted a policy to eliminate commercial requirements for affordable residential projects.
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by City Council on June 30, 2023. This cycle, the City has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 62,200 units. A key strategy to help fulfill the allocation was to streamline the review of development proposals for multifamily housing on nonvacant infill sites.
This includes sites identified to meet the RHNA through the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory.
Shortening the review periods reduces a project’s risks and costs. The Housing Element further defines this approach in Strategy P-7: City Infill Housing Ministerial Approval Ordinance. This strategy aims to help encourage redevelopment of nonvacant infill properties by providing a ministerial approval process and shortening the timeline for the Planning approval process. The intent of this strategy is to increase predictability in the development review process and support housing construction of projects consistent with the General Plan.
Strategy P-7 outlines a streamlined approval process for infill housing developments that meet objective standards, would not require a public hearing, would qualify for a CEQA ministerial exemption and comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The strategy had a target deadline of December 2024 for City Council approval of the ordinance. The strategy includes the following metrics: (1) evaluate the permit process improvements six months after adoption; (2) ongoing evaluation, reporting, and implementation through the Housing Catalyst Work Plan; (3) entitlement of 200 units per year using the streamlined review process during the first years after adoption; and (4) average 25 percent reduction in the length of time from application to Planning permit issuance.
Planning Process Improvements
The proposed ordinance update would create a streamlined review process for multifamily housing developments in the designated growth areas that currently require a Site Development Permit. The qualifying projects would utilize the existing local ministerial ordinance (Chapter 20.195, Part 3) that is currently used for the housing developments located in the Affordable Housing Overlay, Mixed-Income Housing Overlay, and Housing Element Residential Overlay.
Projects that meet objective standards and meet the site and project eligibility criteria would be able to opt into a streamlined review process through the submittal of a Ministerial Permit application. The projects would need to meet all City objective site, design, and construction standards included in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Title 17 (Building and Construction), Title 19 (Subdivisions), Title 20 (Zoning), Citywide Design Guidelines, and approved urban village or specific plan.
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
As shown in Figure 1, the review process for a ministerial permit is similar to the Site Development Permit, with a few exceptions. The current City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals does not specify outreach protocol for ministerial permits. Currently the policy states the purpose of community meetings is to inform interested parties about proposed development and address project issues before the public hearing. Since ministerial permits do not require a public hearing, the proposed streamlined review process would not require a community meeting as well. Ministerial projects are subject to project notification through the posting of the on-site sign. Council Policy 6-30 was last updated in 2004 before the State created ministerial review processes. The Planning Division is working on updating the policy and will conduct outreach for the update in 2025. This update would allow the City to change the outreach requirements for ministerial projects.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15268, Ministerial Permits are statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Ministerial permit applications are only subject to review against objective standards, state law requirements, and other applicable codes and regulations. Ministerial review does not allow for discretionary and subjective reviews and does not allow for exceptions or variances to objective requirements and regulations, unless they are requested and granted under State Density Bonus Law. The City prepared an Addendum and found the proposed ordinance would not result in new or substantial significant impacts not already addressed in the previous documents. To address environmental concerns, the City is creating standard environmental permit conditions through this ordinance update. These will address concerns typically found during the review of residential projects.
In the last two years, the average processing review time for a multifamily Site Development Permit heard at a Planning Director’s Hearing was approximately 20 months. Projects applying under the proposed ordinance would have a target review time of up to 180 days. The current local ministerial ordinance allows Subdivision and Tree Removal applications submitted concurrently with the Ministerial Permit to be reviewed ministerially. The proposed changes to the local ministerial ordinance would allow expand a streamlined review process to additional sites the City has designated for housing and growth.
As shown in Figure 1 in the section below, the proposed streamlined review process has more restrictions in terms of which sites could be eligible than the Site Development Permit review process. Site Development Permits and the current local Ministerial Permits are routed to the same development review partners and agencies for conformance review with City policies and requirements. Both applications would be subject to Building and Fire code and would be similar permit conditions for public improvements. The Ministerial Permits reviewed under the local ministerial approval ordinance would be subject to standard environmental permit conditions typically included in Site Development Permits.
ANALYSIS
The Zoning Code update to Chapter 20.195, Part 3 Local Ministerial Approvals would expand an existing City ministerial approval process for specific residential projects. This update would create new eligibility criteria for the existing process, create a new section outlining the additional eligibility criteria for this new process, and create new standard permit conditions.
Modifications to Current Eligibility Criteria
The current local ministerial approval process does not apply to sites that:
1. Would require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, or listed as a City Landmark on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory
2. Are designated farmland
3. Contain wetlands
4. Are within a high fire hazard severity zone
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
5. Are a hazardous waste site
6. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone
7. Are within a special flood hazard area
8. Are within a regulatory floodway
9. Are identified for conservation
10. Are a habitat for protected species
11. Under a conservation easement
12. Would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
The proposed update includes expanding on the eligibility criteria regarding demolition of historic structures. Currently, only sites with historic structures listed as a City Landmark on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory list are excluded from the City’s local ministerial approval process. The proposed update would require a historic report be prepared by a certified consultant for the demolition or alteration of any building over 45 years old and for buildings with the classification of Identified Structure on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory List. The historic report would need to evaluate and determine that the building is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, or San José Historic Resource Inventory as a Candidate City Landmark. If the site is eligible for any of those listings, it would not qualify for a ministerial review and would need to go through a Site Development Permit review process. Additionally, all other designations on the Historic Resource Inventory list, besides Identified Structure, would be ineligible for this process and would require a Site Development Permit.
The Council Policy 6-34: Riparian Corridor Protection and Bird-Safe Design applies to any development or activity that is located within 300 feet of a Riparian Corridor’s top or bank or vegetative edge, whichever is greater. This policy provides guidance for how projects near riparian corridors should be designed to protect and preserve the City’s Riparian Corridors. The council policy outlines setback requirements but provides a process to request reductions in setbacks with a report prepared by a qualified biologist. Staff is proposing a new eligibility criterion that states projects within 300 feet of a riparian corridor are ineligible under this ministerial review process. Those projects would need to go through a Site Development Permit.
Proposed Site and Project Eligibility Criteria
As mentioned above, this new streamlined review process would be subject to the existing requirements used for local ministerial approvals. In addition to those requirements, projects would also need to meet the following criteria:
1. Land Use and Zoning:
a. The project must have a land use designation and zoning designation of Urban Residential, Transit Residential, Urban Village, or Mixed Use Commercial.
b. The project must provide a minimum net density of 40 DU/AC (dwelling units per acre) and provide the minimum density required for the land use designation. If the project is located in a General Plan land use designation that allows a density below 40 DU/AC, the project must provide at least 40 DU/AC.
c. The infill housing development project is located in an area in which the per-capita VMT is less than or equal to the threshold of significance for residential or the project meets the screening criteria under the City’s Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Policy 5-1), as amended. If the project includes non-residential uses, the project must the CEQA screening criteria based on the proposed land use in Table 1 of the City’s Transportation Analysis Policy, as amended.
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
2. Location
a. The project is located in an approved urban village (excluding Alum Rock Urban Village), Capitol Station Area Plan, Jackson-Taylor Specific Plan, Martha Gardens Specific Plan, or Midtown Specific Plan.
b. The project is within one-half (½) mile of an existing major transit stop defined by Public Resource Code §21064.3, as amended.
c. Project site is not within the Airport Influence Area. d. Project site is not within 100 feet of a City Landmark or City Landmark District. e. The project is not located on a site known to contain archaeological or paleontological resources, or human remains.
f. The project is not located on a site with a mobile home park. g. The project is not located within three hundred (300) feet of a creek or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is most restrictive.
h. The project site is not located on a hazardous waste site included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
3. Demolition. The project does not:
a. Demolish a unit occupied by tenants in a multi-unit dwelling (three (3) or more units) within the last five (5) years;
b. Demolish a project subject to an affordable housing regulatory agreement; c. Demolish a unit protected under the Ellis Act; or
d. Reduce the total number of existing dwelling units on the site.
4. The project does not include or require the concurrent review of a:
a. Development Exception;
b. Variance;
c. Use Permit; or
d. Planned Development Permit.
The proposed Zoning Code changes would facilitate housing production in areas that have already been identified and designated for growth. The growth areas eligible for this streamlined review process are areas that have gone through a specific plan or urban village planning process. The General Plan has identified growth areas as a major strategy and where the City plans to see growth. The General Plan land use designations proposed support a mid to high densities for residential and allow for mixed-use developments. As part of this phase, properties in Downtown and within the Airport Influence Area are excluded from this process. Staff may explore expanding this process to those sites in the future.
The process would apply to sites that meet the CEQA screening criteria in Council Policy 5-1 for Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). This includes the requirement that projects must be within one-half (½) mile of an existing major transit stop defined by Public Resource Code §21064.3, as amended.
The goal of this strategy is to encourage redevelopment of nonvacant infill properties. To preserve existing housing, this proposed review process is not eligible for projects that request the demolition of multifamily housing or other protected residences. Projects requesting the demolition of multifamily residences would need to go through a discretionary review process.
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
Figure 1: Eligibility Criteria Comparison
Site Development Permit Local Ministerial Permit
Land Use and
Zoning
Urban Residential, Transit Residential,
Urban Village, Mixed Use Commercial,
or Mixed Use Neighborhood
Urban Residential, Transit Residential, Urban
Village, or Mixed Use Commercial
Location No specific restrictions Specified growth area VMT meets Council Policy 5-1 Screening
Criteria
Within ½ mile of existing major transit stop
Demolition No specific restrictions Cannot demolish a unit occupied by tenants in a multi-unit dwelling (three (3) or more units)
within the last five (5) years;
Cannot demolish a project subject to an
affordable housing regulatory agreement;
Cannot demolish a unit protected under the
Ellis Act; or
Cannot reduce the total number of existing
dwelling units on the site.
Concurrent
Review
May include a Development
Exception, Variance, or Use Permit
Cannot include a Development Exception,
Variance, or Use Permit
Exceptions to
City’s Design
Guidelines
May include an exception to
standards in the Citywide Design
Guidelines
Cannot request an exception to the standards
in the Citywide Design Guidelines
Modifications to Standard Permit Conditions
The existing ordinance has standard permit conditions for public improvements, construction clean up, maintenance landscape, hours of construction, and stormwater. Local ministerial permits would be subject to these conditions and new conditions added as part of this update.
Since ministerial permits are not subject to CEQA review, this project proposes a new condition to require local ministerial projects to be subject to environmental permit conditions typically included in multifamily residential projects that require a Site Development Permit. The standard environmental permit conditions would address air quality, nesting bird surveys, hazards, noise, vibration, and tribal cultural resources.
For air quality, the standard permit conditions would address existing sensitive receptors as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) through a health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates that the health risk for exposures for adjacent receptors will be above the BAAQMD project- level thresholds, projects will need to implement measures during all phases of construction and during project operation.
For nesting bird surveys, the permit conditions will include instructions on completing a nesting bird survey if construction cannot be scheduled outside of the nesting season. It will also include instructions if an active nest is found in an area that would be disturbed by construction. This includes consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
For hazards, prior to the start of any demolition or grading activities, the applicant must retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Site Management Plan (SMP) that identifies remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety during project implementation.
For noise, the project will follow best management practices during construction to achieve an exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq at adjacent residential land uses and 90 dBA Leq at adjacent commercial land uses as feasible. Projects will have a condition for material stockpiles and impact pile driving. The project applicant will need to prepare a construction schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. There will also be a permit condition for construction noise complaints and how to address them.
For vibration, prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant will implement a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan to document conditions prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. It will also include measures to ensure that the project-generated vibration levels do not exceed the General Plan thresholds of 0.08 in/sec PPV for historic buildings and 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of normal conventional construction. The applicant will also need to prepare preconstruction documentation of the nearby historic resources as part of the project start-up with a visual conditions study. A Historic Architect will establish a Monitoring Team that will make periodic site visits and monitor substantial adverse impacts related to construction.
For tribal cultural resources, three conditions would be included. The first would be for cultural resources awareness training. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the City shall be required to submit evidence that Cultural Awareness Training has been provided to construction personnel prior to ground disturbance. The training shall be facilitated by a qualified project archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3. The second condition would require a qualified Native American Monitor, registered with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, in Mitigation Measure TR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training, be engaged to be present during all ground disturbing activities. For the last condition, if tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbance of the site, the City would notify the Tribes who have requested consultation on the project of the discovery.
Housing Element Metrics
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element included four metrics for the proposed ordinance. These metrics will be used to evaluate the program’s effectiveness at increasing housing production. They are as follows:
1. Evaluate the permit process improvements six months after adoption;
2. In June 2025, staff will evaluate the streamlined review process and explore future changes. Ongoing evaluation, reporting, and implementation through the Housing Catalyst Work Plan; Through the Housing Catalyst Work Plan, staff will monitor and evaluate the new process and provide annual reports to the Community and Economic Development Committee and City Council.
3. Entitlement of 200 units per year using the streamlined review process during the first years after adoption; and
There are approximately 600 sites that qualify for this proposed process. Staff will monitor and track the production of units towards the RNHA goal as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report.
4. Average 25 percent reduction in the length of time from application to Planning permit issuance.
In the last two years, the average processing time for Site Development Permits for multifamily residences was approximately 20 months. Ministerial permits processed under State law had an averaging processing time of approximately 10 months.
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Conformance
The project conforms to the following key General Plan policies:
Housing Policy H-1.1: Through the development of new housing and the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing, facilitate the creation of economically, culturally, and demographically diverse and integrated communities.
Housing Policy H-1.9: Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San José’s fair share of the County’s and region’s housing needs.
Housing Development Policy IP-19.2: In determining an appropriate Housing Program, maximize City resources towards the area of greatest need and to utilize available State and Federal programs.
Analysis: The City’s housing production toward the RHNA goal has been primarily for affordable housing.
Throughout the 2024 calendar year, no major multifamily residential projects have been issued a Building permit. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element outlined strategies to promote the production of housing. This program would offer market rate projects a streamlined review process to help facilitate moderate-income housing. This program would provide affordable housing projects another permit streamlining review process.
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. Focusing new growth into the Growth Areas will help to protect the quality of existing neighborhoods, while also enabling the development of new Urban Village areas with a compact and dense form attractive to the City’s projected growing demographic groups (i.e., an aging population and young workers seeking an urban experience), that support walking, provide opportunities to incorporate retail and other services in a mixed-use format, and support transit use.
Major Growth Strategy #5 – Urban Villages: Promote the development of Urban Villages to provide active, walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use urban settings for new housing and job growth attractive to an innovative workforce and consistent with the Plan’s environmental goals.
Analysis: The General Plan has identified growth areas and urban villages as the areas for new growth. This policy change is a regulatory incentive that would promote housing and growth in urban neighborhoods. As the City continues to adopt urban village plans, this process would provide additional opportunities to redevelop nonvacant sites that may be underutilized.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The City of San José, as the lead agency, prepared an Addendum to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. 76041), Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report – Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis (Resolution No. 77617), Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Resolution No. 2023-262) and Addenda thereto, for this Ministerial Ordinance.
The Addendum analyzed the proposed Zoning Code changes and found that the project would not result in new or substantial significant impacts not already addressed in the previous documents. Therefore, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d).
The Addendum and supporting Initial Study were not circulated for public review and will be attached to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan FEIR as supplemented pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164(c).
The Addendum is available at the following link: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/activeeirs.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy in order to inform the public of the proposed project. A community was held on November 7, 2024. There were approximately 30 people in attendance.
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No. PP24-011
Meeting attendees primarily expressed concerns about the affect the changes would have on community input. There was concern about State bills that have eliminated local control and neighborhoods have seen the effects on traffic, parking, and noise. There was concern these projects would affect single-family neighborhoods and new housing should be located elsewhere. Some community members said they weren’t aware of the urban village planning process and understood they’d still have time to provide input through individual projects. A community member also added that since the adoption of the urban village plans, there have been numerous changes to State law that didn’t exist then. Staff clarified that the proposed qualifying sites are areas already designated by Council for growth and housing. The presentation and maps presented showing the qualifying site are posted on the project webpage. Staff added that although there wouldn’t be a public hearing and a community meeting would not be required, projects would still go through a Planning review process, and they can reach out to the project manager with concerns and questions. Projects would post and on-site sign according to Council Policy 6-30 and new applications submitted are posted on the Planning website. Staff also mentioned how the proposed updates are required to maintain compliance with the City’s Housing Element.
There were some questions about projects using Density Bonus Law and if that would trigger a public hearing. Staff responded that projects can, under State law, utilize density bonus and request concessions and waivers and the request would not trigger a public hearing. There were questions about why we chose 40 DU/AC, how many units that could create, and excluded properties within 300 feet of a creek. Staff responded that 40 DU/AC were consistent with the proposed land use designations and the CEQA screening criteria for VMT. There are approximately 600 sites that may qualify for this process.
There were concerns about the outreach done for this project. Staff noted that the City has a project webpage and has had the proposed changes posted and is following outreach per the Public Outreach Policy. Additionally, staff conducted outreach as part of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. This program was available for review in the first draft of the Housing Element posted online in August 2022. Outreach meetings were also held with various stakeholders. Staff met with Housing Action Coalition, Preservation Action Council San Jose, Tamien Nation, CatalyzeSV, and developers about the proposed changes. Staff shared the proposed updates as they relate to each organization.
A notice of the public hearing was posted on the project site and 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 Manager: Michelle Flores
Approved by: Jerad Ferguson, Principal Planner for Christopher Burton, Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement.
Please click on the title of each exhibit to view the document:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Ordinance
Exhibit B: Appendix A – Standard Environmental Permit Conditions Exhibit C: CEQA Resolution
Exhibit D: Maps of Qualifying Sites
Planning Commission Staff Report
PP24-011
Links to Correspondence Received After 11/27/24
Click on the title to view document.
Correspondence Received After 11/27/24
Planning Commission Staff Report