MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAN JOSÉ, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002
The Council of the City of San José convened in adjourned regular
session at 7:20 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, for the 2002 Summer
Hearing of Amendments to the San José 2020 General Plan.
Present: Council Members - Campos,
Chavez, Cortese, Dando, Diquisto, LeZotte, Reed, Shirakawa, Jr., Williams,
Yeager; Gonzales.
Absent: Council Members - None.
Documents
filed: Memorandum from the Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Stephen M. Haase, dated August 14, 2002, transmitting his
memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated August 2, 2002, setting forth
Major Issues in the 2002 Summer Hearing of General Plan Amendments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion
by Vice Mayor Shirakawa, Jr.,
seconded by Council Member Chavez,
and unanimously carried, the Consent Calendar was approved and the below listed
items taken as indicated. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram
designation from Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on 17.9 acres and Non-Urban
Hillside on 3.7 acres to Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) for property
located at the easterly side of U.S. 101 and northerly of Metcalf Road on a
21.6-acre site. (Braddock & Logan Group, Owner/HMH, Inc., Applicant). CEQA:
Pending.
GP
01-02-01 – District 2
(Continued from
8/21/01 – Item 2.3 et al., and 5/7/02 – Item 1.1)
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram from Medium
High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) on 0.36 acre, General Commercial on 0.38
acre, and Public Park/Open Space on 1.0 acre to Transit Corridor Residential
(20+ DU/AC) located at the south side of East Santa Clara Street between Coyote
Creek and 19th Street on a 1.74-acre site. (Green Valley Enterprises, Owner/Applicant). CEQA:
Negative Declaration.
GP
02-03-05 – District 3
(b) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to allow building heights of up
to 150 feet for property located at the south side of East Santa Clara Street
between Coyote Creek and 19th Street on a 1.74-acre site. (Green
Valley Enterprises, Owner/Applicant). CEQA: Negative Declaration.
GPT 02-03-05 – District 3
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002,
1.3 PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to
change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram from General Commercial to Transit
Corridor Residential (20+ DU/AC) for property located on the northwest corner
of Alum Rock and South Jackson Avenues on a 1.0-acre site. (Various,
Owner/Staff, Applicant). CEQA: Housing Opportunity Study General Plan
Amendments Phase II Final Environmental Impact Report, Resolution Number 71009.
GP
01-05-03 – District 5
(Continued from
11/6/02 – Item 1.27 et al., and 6/4/02 – Item 1.4)
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was dropped from the agenda.
1.4 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram from Light Industrial to High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) for
property located at the east side of U.S. Highway 101, at the terminus of South
31st Street on a 2.8-acre site.
(Down & James Hill; Didier DeGery, Owner/2100 Sand Hill Development,
Applicant). CEQA: Pending.
GP
02-05-01 – District 5
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.5 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram designation from General Commercial on 2.5 acres and Medium Low Density
Residential (8 DU/AC) on 1.4 acres to Transit Corridor Residential (20+ DU/AC)
for the property located at the north side of West San Carlos Street, between
Willard and Buena Vista Avenues on a 3.9-acre site. (Various, Owners/Staff, Applicant). CEQA: Housing Opportunity Study General Plan Amendments Phase II
Final Environmental Impact Report, Resolution Number 71009. Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend
approval (6-0-0).
GP 01-06-10
– District 6
(Continued from
11/6/01 – Item 1.32 et al, and 6/4/02 – Item 2.13)
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.6 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram from High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC), Light Industrial, and
Public/Quasi-Public to Transit Corridor Residential (20+ DU/AC) for property
located southeast of the intersection of Almaden Expressway and Curtner Avenue
and north of the terminus of Rinconada Drive and Pebble Beach Drive on a
4.3-acre site. (San José Scottish Rite
Foundation, Owner/T/S Civil Engineering, Applicant). CEQA: Pending.
GP
02-06-03 – District 6
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.7 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Medium High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) (8.6
acres) and Public Park/Open Space (13.1 acres) to High Density Residential
(25-50 DU/AC) (5.0 acres) and Public Park/Open Space (16.7 acres) for property located
at the east side of Senter Road approximately 600 feet southerly of Needles
Drive on a 21.7-acre site. (Carroll
R.L. Trustee et. al., Owner/Silicon Valley Advisors, LLC, Applicant). CEQA:
Pending.
GP
02-07-05 – District 7
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.8 (a) PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation from Campus
Industrial and Public Park/Open Space and Realignment of Major Collector (60-90
feet) (Evergreen Planned Residential Community) located on the north side of
Fowler Road and the terminus of Michelangelo Drive on a 4.6-acre site. (Various, Owner/Staff, Applicant). CEQA:
Pending.
GP
02-08-01 – District 8
[Continued
from 6/4/02 – Item 1.2(a)]
(b) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to amend the text to reflect
proposed changes to the Evergreen Specific Plan and realignment of Major
Collector on 4.6 acres located on the north side of Fowler Road at the terminus
of Michelangelo Drive on a 4.6-acre site.
(Various, Owner/Staff, Applicant).
CEQA: Pending.
GPT
02-08-01 – District 8
[Continued
from 6/4/02 – Item 1.2(b)]
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.9 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to reflect a City Council
adopted Planned Development Rezoning (PDC 02-013) to reduce the aggregate
setback for a portion of site “AA” as identified within the Evergreen Specific
Plan for property located on the northeast corner of Aborn Road and Altamora
Avenue on a 15.1-acre site. (Alliance
Title Company, Owner/Staff, Applicant).
CEQA: Pending.
GPT 02-08-01b
– District 8
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
1.10 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to amend the text to allow
interim sports fields within the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve on a
41.5-acre site for property located at the north side of McKean Road,
approximately 1,500 feet westerly of Fortini Road. (San José Unified School District, Owner/City Council,
Applicant). CEQA: Pending.
GPT
01-10-02 – District 10
[Continued from
11/6/01 – Item 1.37(a) et al., and 6/4/02, Item 1.3]
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
This item was continued to December 3, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) to General
Commercial for property located on the east side of South 10th
Street, approximately 60 feet south of Keyes Street on a 0.3-acre site. (Dung
Ha and Kieu Huynh, Owner/T Square Consulting Group, Inc., Applicant). CEQA:
Negative Declaration. Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and
Planning Commission recommend approval (6-0-1).
GP
01-03-10 – District 3
(Continued from
11/6/01 – Item 1.22 and 5/7/02 – Item 1.2)
Documents
Filed: Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase,
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of
the amendment to change the San José 2020 General Plan Land Use/Transportation
Diagram designation to General Commercial on the
0.3 acre site. (2) Report of the Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement on Project file No. GP 01-03-10 dated July 31, 2002, recommending
approval of the General Plan amendment request to change the Land/Use
Transportation Diagram designation to General Commercial for said property.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no discussion from the
floor. Upon motion by Council Member Chavez, seconded by Council Member Williams, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for General Commercial
General Commercial for property located on the east side of South 10th
Street, approximately 60 feet south of Keyes Street on a 0.3-acre site, was
tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
2.2 (a) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram from Medium High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor
Planned Residential Commu-nity) to High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC)
(Jackson-Taylor Planned Residential Community) for the property located on both
sides of the southeast corner of Mission and 10th Streets on a
2.2-acre site. (Allied Containers Corporation, Owner/Kotansky Properties, Inc.,
Applicant). CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend approval (6-0-0).
GP
02-03-01 – District 3
[Continued
from 6/4/02 – Item 2.4(a)]
(b) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to modify the text to reflect
proposed changes to the Land/Use Transportation Diagram designation from Medium
High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor Planned Residential
Community) to
High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor Planned Residential
Community) for the property located on the southeast corner of Mission and 10th
Streets on a 2.2-acre site. (Allied Containers Corporation, Owner/Kotansky
Properties, Inc., Applicant). CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommends
approval (6-0-0).
GPT
02-03-01 – District 3
[Continued
from 6/4/02 – Item 2.4(b)]
Documents
Filed: (1) Memoranda from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated May 21, and August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the San José 2020
General Plan Amendment request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram
designation to High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor Planned
Residential Community) and the associated Text amendment. (2) Report of the
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, dated May 10, 2002,
recommending approval of the San José 2020 General Plan Amendment request to
change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation to High Density
Residential (25-50 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor Planned Residential Community), and
the associated Text amendment. (3) Proof of
Publication of Notice of Public Hearing, executed
August 2, 2002, submitted by the City Clerk.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no discussion from the
floor. Upon motion by Council Member Chavez, seconded by Vice Mayor Shirakawa, Jr.,
and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and Planning Director for High Density Residential
(25-50 DU/AC) (Jackson-Taylor Planned Residential Community) on said property,
and the associated Text amendment, were tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
2.3 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) to High
Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) for property located on the east side of
Bonita Avenue approximately 85 feet northerly of Herald Avenue on a 1.37-acre
site. (Bonita Condos LLC, Owner/Applicant). CEQA: Negative Declaration.
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission
recommend No Change to the General Plan (6-0-1).
GP
02-03-06 – District 3
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Council Member Chavez dated September 3, 2002,
recommending approval of GP02-03-06 at a level of Medium High Density (12-25
DU/AC), consistent with the 21-unit development approved for the site. (2)
Memo-randum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase dated August
14, 2002, recommending No Change to the General Plan. (3) Report of the
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on Project File No.
GP02-03-06 dated August 2, 2002, recommending No Change to the General Plan.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and Joan Rivas-Cosby, Five
Wounds/Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood Action Committee spoke on the issue.
Council Member Chavez moved approval of the General Plan Amendment, but
proposed a level of Medium High Density of 12-25 units per acre, consistent
with the 21-unit development approved for the site, as specified in her
memorandum. She added that by working with the neighborhood, the City has the
opportunity to develop the park. Upon motion by Council Member Chavez, seconded
by Vice Mayor Shirakawa, Jr.,
and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation
by Council Member Chavez, dated September 3, 2002, recommending Medium High Density
(12-25 DU/AC) for property located on the east side of Bonita Avenue
approximately 85 feet northerly of Herald Avenue on a 1.37-acre site, was
tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
2.4 (a) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Medium Density Residential (8-12 DU/AC) (Berryessa
Planned Residential Community) to Office located on the south side of Murphy
Avenue west of Oyama on a 0.2-acre site.
(Marvin and Merriame Cuaresma, Owner/H. Cuaresma, Applicant). CEQA:
Negative Declaration. Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend No Change to the General Plan (6-0-1).
GP
02-04-01 – District 4
(b) PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to reflect the proposed changes
to the Berryessa Planned Residential Community located on the south side of
Murphy Avenue west of Oyama Drive on a 0.2-acre site. (Marvin and Merriame Cuaresma, Owner/H. Cuaresma,
Applicant). CEQA: Negative Declaration. Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend No Change to
the General Plan (6-0-1).
GPT
02-04-01 – District 4
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending No Change to the General Plan. (2) Report
of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement General Plan
Report on Project File No. GP02-04-01/GPT02-04-01 dated August 1, 2002,
recommending No Change to the Land Use/Transportation Diagram.
Discussion/Action:
This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
2.5 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Light Industrial with Mixed Industrial Overlay to High
Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) and removal of the Mixed Industrial Overlay
for property located on the terminus of Evans Lane, south of the intersection
of Almaden Expressway and State Route 87 on a 6.4-acre site.
(Evans
Lane Apartments, Owner/Staff, Applicant).
CEQA: Negative Declaration.
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission
recommend approval (6-0-1).
GP
02-06-02a – District 6
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the San José 2020 General Plan
Amendment request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation to
High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC). (2) Report of the Department of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on Project File No. GP02-06-02a, dated
August 2, 2002, recommending approval of the San José 2020 General Plan
Amendment request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation to
High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC).
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no discussion. Upon
motion by Council Member Yeager, seconded by Council Member Dando, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and Planning Director for High Density Residential
(25-50 DU/AC) and removal of the Mixed Industrial Overlay for property located
on the terminus of Evans Lane, south of the intersection of Almaden Expressway
and State Route 87 on a 6.4-acre site, was tentatively approved. Vote:
11-0-0-0.
2.6 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land/Use Transportation
Diagram designation from Light Industrial with Mixed Overlay to Transit
Corridor Residential (20+ DU/AC) and removal of the Mixed Industrial Overlay
for the property located at the east side of Evans Lane, approximately 800 feet
northerly of Curtner Avenue on a 6.3-acre site. (Santa Clara County Transit District and City of San José,
Owner/Department of Housing, Applicant). CEQA: Negative Declaration. Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend
High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) and floating Public Park/Open Space
designation (6-0-1).
GP
02-06-02b – District 6
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the San José 2020 General Plan
Amendment to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation to High
Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) and a “floating park” designation on the
subject site. (2) Report of Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement on Project File No. GP02-06-02b dated August 5, 2002, recommending
High Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) and a floating Public Park/Open Space
designation.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no testimony. Upon
motion by Council Member Yeager, seconded by Council Member Dando, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and Planning Director for High Density Residential
(25-50 DU/AC) and floating Public Park/Open Space designation for the property
located at the east side of Evans Lane, approximately 800 feet northerly of
Curtner Avenue on a 6.3-acre site, was tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
2.7 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to amend the text to allow for
exceptions to the 24 DU/AC minimum density on certain blocks within the
Communications Hill Planned Residential Community on a 60.2-acre site. (MTA Properties & Curtner,
Owner/Summerhill Homes, Applicant).
CEQA: Communications Hill
Environmental Impact Report/Resolution Number 63624, Certified 4/7/92. Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend approval (6-0-1).
GPT
02-07-06 – District 7
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to
the Communications Hill Specific Plan. (2) Report of the Department of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement General Plan Report on Project File No.
GPT 02-07-06, dated August 1, 2002, recommending approving the proposed text
amendment.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no discussion. Upon
motion by Vice Mayor
Shirakawa, Jr., seconded by Council Member Dando, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and Planning Director for approval of the General Plan Text
Amendment request to amend the text to allow for exceptions to the 24 DU/AC
minimum density on certain blocks within the Communications Hill Planned
Residential Community on a 60.2-acre site, was tentatively approved. Vote:
11-0-0-0.
2.8 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to amend the text to allow for
attached or detached single-family residential units for property located
northerly of Aborn Road, approximately 1,200 feet westerly of Murillo Avenue on
a 15.1-acre site. (Alliance Title Company & Maxxum Management Company,
Owner/Summer Hill Homes, Applicant). CEQA: Ever-green Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report/Resolution Number 63179, Certified 7/2/91. Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend
approval (6-0-1).
GPT 02-08-03
– District 8
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to
the Evergreen Specific Plan. (2) Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement General Plan Report on Project File No. GPT02-08-03 dated August 2,
2002 recommending adoption of the proposed Text amendment.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no testimony. Upon
motion by Council Member Cortese, seconded by Council Member Dando, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and Planning Director for approval of the General Plan
Text Amendment request to amend the text to allow for attached or detached
single-family residential units for property located northerly of Aborn Road,
approximately 1,200 feet westerly of Murillo Avenue on a 15.1-acre site, was
tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
2.9 PUBLIC
HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation
Diagram designation from Medium Density Residential (8 DU/AC) to General
Commercial for the property located at the west side of Union Avenue,
approximately 120 feet southerly of Woodard Road on a 0.56-acre site. (Kapadia Hitesh and Divya, Owner/MBA
Architects, Applicant). CEQA: San José 2020 General Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report, Resolution Number 65459, Certified 8/16/94. Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend
approval for an expanded 1.5-acre site (6-0-1).
GP
02-09-01 – District 9
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment to
change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation to General Commercial on
the expanded 1.5 acre site. (2) Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement General Plan Report on Project File No. GP02-09-01 dated August 5,
2002, recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment to change the Land
Use/Transportation Diagram designation to General Commercial on the expanded
1.5 acres.
Discussion/Action:
Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing and there was no testimony. Upon
motion by Council Member Diquisto, seconded by Council Member Dando, and
unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and Planning Director for General Commercial for the
property located at the west side of Union Avenue, approximately 120 feet
southerly of Woodard Road on a an expanded 1.5 acres site, was tentatively
approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
Item 2.10(c) heard with Item 4.5 referred from the City Council
Agenda.
2.10 (a) PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN TEXT
AMENDMENT request to reflect additional changes to the Housing Element (Staff,
Applicant). CEQA: San Jose 2020 General
Plan Environmental Impact Report/Reso-lution Number 65459, Certified
8/18/94. Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement and Planning Commission recommend approval (6-0-1).
GP
02-T-03 – Citywide
(b) Adoption of a resolution delegating
authority to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to
continue to work with the California Department of Housing and Community
Development to bring the Housing Element of the San Jose 2020 General Plan into
compliance with State housing element law. CEQA: San Jose 2020 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report/Resolution Number 65459, Certified 8/18/94.
(Planning, Building and Code Enforcement)
(c) Adoption of a resolution approving the
2002-07 Five-Year Housing Investment Plan.
CEQA: Not a Project. (Housing)
(Referred
from City Council Agenda 9/3/02 – Item 4.5)
Documents
Filed: (1) Memorandum from Planning Commission Secretary Stephen M. Haase
dated August 14, 2002, recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to
the San José 2020 General Plan associated with the Housing Element Update. (2)
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement General Plan Report on
Project File No. GP02-T-03 dated August 9, 2002, recommending adoption of the
proposed text amendment. (3) Memorandum from Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement Stephen M. Haase dated August 28, 2002, recommending adoption
of a resolution delegating authority to the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforce-ment to continue to work with the California Department of Housing
and Community Development to bring the Housing Element of the San José 2020
General Plan into compliance with State housing element law. (4) See Item 4.5
in City Council minutes dated September 3, 2002, for documents filed for Item
2.1(c).
Discussion/Action:
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Stephen Haase provided a
presentation on the Housing Element, which represents the City’s statement of
goals and policies relative to maintenance, preservation and development of
housing for all segments of the community. Director of Housing Leslye Corsiglia
presented the Five-Year Housing Investment Plan, and summarized the City’s
affordable housing performance over the last several years and its policies and
goals for the period 2002-2007. She emphasized that it is a draft plan and
there are other changes and corrections to be made, and that she met with the
Housing Advisory Commission who provided additional comments to be included.
She indicated that Council is being asked to provide input through the public
hearing process, to approve the Investment Plan, and approve the Housing
Element.
Mayor
Gonzales stated the City has a commitment to affordable housing and has made
housing one of its top priorities, including the establishment of very
aggressive goals. He indicated that in 1999, the Five-Year housing goal was
established at 3,000 affordable units, and this Council doubled that number
using $300 million in Redevelopment Agency funds; but more importantly, used
these funds to leverage over $800 million from other funders, including the
State and Federal agencies – and achieved all this with great help from the
Housing Department Staff. He stated that it is not enough to say the City
reached its goals; the City is extending its strategy for five more years and
will continue to produce affordable housing at the rate of about 1,200 units
per year, expand its commitment to build 300 homes a year for extremely low
income families, and continue to rehabilitate existing affordable housing to
prevent homes from being converted to market rate units. He stated that over
the next five years, the City will spend over $500 million of City and
Redevelopment funds, estimated to bring in $1.6 billion from other resources to
help accomplish the City’s goals. He explained that Council supported
Proposition 46, the State-wide housing bond measure, which State-wide will
generate $2 billion, and that San Jose will generate the same amount as the
whole State of California.
He
indicated that he had submitted a memorandum to assist the Council in its
decision and highlighted specific recommendations: (1) that Council approve the
Five-Year Housing Investment section of the Plan which outlines the City’s
financing and production targets for the next five years; (2) that Council open
the public hearing for testimony on the Five-Year Plan and hear comments from
the Council, as well as the public; and (3) direct the City Housing Staff to
work with the Mayor’s Office and Council Offices to incorporate concerns and
amendments into the Plan and to bring the amended Plan back for Council
approval in its final format. He stated that the discussion should be an
opportunity for Council to comment on the Housing Policies identified in the
Plan and provide the Housing Department with comments for the final draft of
the Five-Year Plan; for example, he does not agree with Staff’s recommendation
to amend the City’s Dispersion Policy. He explained that this Policy was
adopted in 1997 and encourages the development of affordable housing in
districts throughout the City, and the Policy has produced very well for the
City, has balanced results, and he believes it should remain in place; and the
City’s housing commitment needs to continue to be city-wide because it is a
city-wide solution for a city-wide problem; and this plan already speaks to
that. He stated that the Five-Year Plan already reflects tremendous work,
public input, and Council direction, and now is the time to implement it rather
than add new policies or conduct new studies; and he believes that with action
and teamwork, the City can get results. He added that Council comments should
be taken as comments, not overall Council direction unless the Council
specifically makes such direction when the final draft comes back to Council.
Regarding
the Housing Element document, Council Member Chavez asked that, given the
Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) strategy and the fact that so much of the
City will have an inclusionary zoning element because of the 20% housing, how
does Staff’s plan recognize that new element in terms of the increased opportunity
both for affordable housing and the impact on overall housing goals that
include moderate and market rate housing. Director Haase responded that the Housing
Element looks at the entire housing “pie” for the City and looks at the total
number of units over 26,000 needed in the next five years; the portion that
would be delivered because of State law in the Redevelopment areas would factor
in, but more from a general perspective because Staff does not know where the
actual housing units will be built. He explained that Staff knows what land
there is in the General Plan designated for housing, which will accommodate
over 40,000 units, but does not know over the next five years what specific
parcels will be developed. He added that some will be delivered because of the
Redevelopment area expansion, but he does not know the exact number because
Staff cannot predict the actual number of units that will be built within that
area given this is across the entire city. Council Member Chavez asked that,
given the new designation, can Staff assess whether or not there will be an
impact on the City’s ability to develop all of the housing that is needed; for
example, the City knows that it has a 26,000 unit shortfall – does the City
need to do something different than it is doing now given the new designation.
She stated that she would like Staff to look at this. She stated that with the
opportunity for approximately 40,000 units on the different pieces of property
throughout the city, and knowing what will come forward, she asked whether or
not in an effort to reach overall goals, Staff had looked at the issue around
inclusionary zoning. Director Haase responded that this was a good point with
respect to comparing the price of land within the Redevelopment area today
versus outside the Redevelopment area. He explained that it is more expensive
on a per unit basis today to develop in a Redevelopment area because of the 20%
requirement; if there is an inclusionary requirement and it does not apply
city-wide, it could have a dampening effect within the Redevelopment area for
residential development because there is an additional requirement TO build
subsidized housing at their own cost. Council Member Chavez asked what role
Staff believes the Housing Element of the General Plan should play in terms of
determining quality of life issues, specifically as it relates to new
strategies for increasing density. Director Haase responded that there are
other elements that make up quality of life, such as parks, libraries, and
other infrastructure within our community; and explained that the Housing
Element does not focus on those infrastructure requirements, but when it feeds
into the rest of the General Plan it is looked at as an entire document.
Council Member Chavez stated she
believes somewhere in the Housing Element there should be discussion on what
the City’s goals are as they relate to housing production, and that the Housing
document should discuss the City’s goals not only of overall production but
about building and rebuilding neighborhoods. She added that this has a
different nuance to it as it relates to other goals that the City is trying to
accomplish in communities, and she expressed concern that the document did not
reflect what the City is trying to accomplish in other areas. Director Haas
responded that this was a good point with respect to efforts with California
Department of Housing and Community Development where they are looking at a
piece of the City’s General Plan rather than the entire General Plan; but when
Staff fits it back into the General Plan, all those other policy statements do
come to life. Council Member Chavez stated that she believes even pieces of it should
be reflective of what the City is trying to accomplish.
Council
Member Reed stated that he believes there should be a place in the document
that compares San Jose housing production to the County and other counties, as
San Jose has produced more housing than the rest of Santa Clara County
combined; and over a five or six year period has produced almost as much
housing as the entire County of Alameda. Director Corsiglia responded that on
page 53 there is a chart showing housing development by city and county, but
she believes the document could do better in illustrating that and Staff will
work on additional graphics. Mayor Gonzales asked how other cities are dealing
with the sub-element once the State is approving it. With regard to determining
density, Council Member Williams asked how the City makes the trade-off and are
communities allowed to provide input. Director Haase explained that Staff
considers jobs-housing balances and tries to locate housing where people work;
along transit corridors so it is convenient for people to use transit; where we
have infrastructure to serve that housing, such as where there is no problem
with parks or with other facilities that the City provides. He stated that
Staff is trying to form a better partnership with school districts so the City
will not overburden the neighborhood when housing is added, and when there are
land use changes through the General Plan amendment process those are things
Staff would consider. Council Member Williams asked how Staff determines the
balance between industrial designations and housing. Director Haase responded that the challenge is to ensure the City
has enough employment lands for a vital economy and also finds additional lands
for more compact development. He explained that in its analysis, Staff looks at
the relationship of the surrounding development, what patterns of development
are occurring, where the major industrial corridors are, and what areas the
City needs to protect for the future; and also recognizes as land use patterns
change and the City starts to change land use patterns, it may set a series of
decisions in motion that later on are not supported; and that by approving one
parcel there could be subsequent parcels that might change, and this is not
what the City intended to achieve. Council Member Williams stated that the City
has requested developers to support the housing efforts when usually everything
was going at market rate, and asked if now there is difficulty with developers
coming forth so the City is able to meet its aggressive targets for delivery in
the future; are there still relationships that will allow the City to achieve
its objectives. Director Corsiglia responded that the City has a substantial
amount of interest from developers and has started being more aggressive in
seeking sites.
Mayor
Gonzales stated that as aggressive as the City is in dealing with the housing
crisis, it is important to remember that industrial strength is important in
providing money for services. He explained that the City of San Jose has .8
jobs per household compared to cities in the northern part of the county that
have as much as 2 or 3 jobs per household; in fact, San Jose’s jobs-housing
ratio of .8 is the same as the City of Salinas. He added that he believes this
ratio needs to be higher before the City can look into the future positively.
Referring to page 17 of the report, Council Member Dando asked how housing is
allocated not only for senior independent living housing, but also for senior
assisted living housing and beyond. Director Corsiglia responded that the plan
has very limited funding available for senior housing, as State law has a cap
of 20% of housing funds the City can use for this purpose; however, the Council
took action to ensure that
supplemental
funding from the Agency would not have the same requirements, so additional
funds will be available from that source. Regarding assisted housing, she
explained that the City is limited by State law on how to address that need.
Council Member Dando stated that knowing there is a funding limit, that the
population is living longer, and that individuals are healthier if they can
live independent until they will have to go to assisted at some point, she
believes the City needs to consider the issue of assisted housing in terms of
Redevelopment dollars. Referring to page 104, she noted that although housing
is located in a transportation corridor area, it is not always easy for seniors
to get to the transportation, and it is important that there are connectors
available. Regarding at-risk units, page 93, she indicated that it is not clear
if there is a strategy on how the City deals with these and recommended that if
the plan does not include an action that it be added. She stated that she is
particularly interested in the vouchers, since they are not going to cover what
rent prices are, and asked how the City is going to handle that. Director
Corsiglia responded that Staff would look at expanding action items to address
Council Member Dando’s concerns. Council Member Dando, referring to page 22,
stated that she believes there should be some type of facility developed in San
Jose for deaf seniors and other segments of the population with special needs.
Council Member Diquisto stated that he believes the City should be doing more
for seniors, particularly handicapped seniors, and that he does not see the
private sector involved in this area. Regarding affordable low-income housing,
Council Member Campos asked if the plan addresses how projects would provide an
adequate number of units for low income or extremely low income so they are not
lumped into one project at the end of the fourth or fifth year, and requested
that Staff consider this. Regarding population per household, she asked if the
population is more seniors and if enough housing is being built for this
segment. Council Member Yeager asked how many projects come forward and do not
make it to the final stage of Council approval. Director Haase responded that
approximately 10% of projects are substantially changed or never get to a point
where Staff can support them, and in some cases the proposals are not anything
Staff can support; in other cases, Staff asks for modifications and at that
point possibly reaches a compromise with an alternate design. Council Member
Yeager asked if there were other issues besides design that seem to be the
biggest stumbling block for developers.
Director Haase explained that there are a number of complex issues
involved related to the design of a project, such as parking, relationship to
the surrounding community, height of buildings and density. Council Member
Yeager stated that it might save some time later on if Staff provided
information on problems they know about on some of these developments to the
developers, possibly at the workshops held on affordable housing. Director
Haase responded that the City implemented a preliminary review process for that
purpose.
Regarding
the Mayor’s memorandum, Council Member Cortese stated that he supports the
dispersion policy and asked Staff to explain how it is applied throughout the
City. Director Corsiglia responded that Staff looked at census tracts and
determined where there was a disproportionate number of lower income households
and has used this information as a guide; however, the City has continued to build
housing in those areas, particularly for certain groups of households, but 94%
of the projects have been outside these impacted areas. Council Member Cortese
stated that he believes each district should have a representative amount of
affordable housing, not concentrated in any particular district. Director
Corsiglia responded that the dispersion policy says to disperse the housing
throughout the City, but it is not a requirement that 10% of the funds go to
each district or that 10% of the units are in each district, but Staff tries to
disperse out of impacted areas. Mayor Gonzales opened the public hearing, and
Sal Wachter spoke on the issue. Mayor Gonzales closed the public hearing.
Council Member Chavez moved approval of the Mayor’s memorandum and items
2.10(a) and (b). Vice Mayor Shirakawa, Jr., seconded the motion. Council Member
Chavez, referring to Item 3 of the Production Policy Strategy, noted that she
did not know what an anti-nimbyism (“not in my back yard”) campaign is. She
stated that one of the issues the City has to deal with is to identify how
affordable housing actually improves the quality of life; and if this can not
be done, all the education provided on this will be done for naught because
people are not going to believe adding affordable housing to their neighborhood
will improve their quality of life. Regarding item 6, the granny unit issue,
she stated that the City needs to demonstrate that this type of housing will
improve quality of life and that it would be in neighborhoods that have the
infrastructure to accommodate additional people. Regarding item 11, she
recommended that there be a evaluative component
included to determine whether or not certain kinds of transitional housing
provide better opportunities for people to prepare for home ownership.
Regarding item 17, in-fill development and maximizing scare land, she stated
that she liked the idea of incorporating churches as a potential partnership,
and would like to see an action item that looks at third sector, i.e.,
non-profits, churches. Regarding item 18, streamlining the local approval
process, she recommended that timelines be included when this comes back to
Council. Council Member Reed stated that he agreed with the Mayor’s
recommendation to go slow with the dispersion policy. He noted that downtown
average household incomes are substantially less on a per capita or household
basis than the rest of the City and stated that he believes the City should not
build all of the low income housing downtown; that is why the dispersion policy
was developed. Council Member Dando asked if Council questions and concerns are
included in the motion. Mayor Gonzales explained that all comments will be
reviewed by Staff and they will come back with their recommen-dations.
Upon motion
by Council Member Chavez, seconded by Vice Mayor Shirakawa, Jr., and unanimously carried, the
public hearing was closed, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and Planning Director for a General Plan Text Amendment request to reflect
additional changes to the Housing Element, was tentatively approved; Resolution
No. 71197, entitled: “A Resolution of
the Council of the City of San José Delegating Certain Authority to the Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to Continue to Work with the
California Department of Housing and Community Development to Bring the Housing
Element of the San José 2020 General Plan into Compliance with State Housing
Element Law”; and Resolution No. 71198, entitled: “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San José Approving the Five Year Housing Investment
Plan”; were adopted. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
RECONSIDERATIONS
There were no requests made for
consideration of previous Council actions.
FINAL ACTIONS
4.1 Adoption of a
resolution approving the City Council actions taken pertaining to those General
Plan Amendments considered by the Council during the September 3, 2002 Hearing
of the General Plan.
Documents
Filed: None.
Discussion/Action:
Upon motion by Vice Mayor
Shirakawa, Jr., seconded by Council Member Chavez, and unanimously
carried, Resolution No. 71199,
entitled: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San José Adopting,
Pursuant to Title 18 of the San José Municipal Code, Amendments to the San José
2020 General Plan, San José, California”, was adopted. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
Open Forum
Doug McCusker, Lorilie McCusker and Tracie Stamp commented
on card rooms.
Adjournment
The Council of the City of San Jose adjourned the
General Plan hearing at 8:33 p.m.
The
next-scheduled hearing on the General Plan is December 3, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, City Hall, San José, CA.
RON GONZALES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PATRICIA L. O’HEARN
CITY CLERK