To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND From: Stephen M. Haase[LI1]
CITY COUNCIL
Subject: SEE BELOW Date: November 21, 2003
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
SUBJECT: PDC02-086.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FROM IP INDUSTRIAL PARK TO IP(PD) PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOSSOM HILL AND COTTLE ROADS
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Commissioner Zamora, opposed) to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the subject Planned Development Rezoning with the following conditions of approval:
1. Preserve the majority of Building 025 and involve the Historic Landmarks Commission in the design.
2. Reduce the overall on-site parking from 855 parking spaces to approximately 500 parking spaces.
3. Preserve as many trees as possible.
The Commission also indicated the need for a complete citywide inventory of historically significant high-tech, mid-century industrial buildings.
BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Planned Development Rezoning from IP Industrial Park to IP (PD) Planned Development to allow the development of approximately 222,000 square-feet of commercial uses.
Staff Presentations
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. Planning staff made a brief presentation on the project summarizing information included in the original and supplemental staff reports for the project. Staff indicated that an errata sheet and additional information regarding the original IBM facility at 99 Notre Dame Avenue had been transmitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting.
Paul
Krutko, the Director of Economic Development, made a presentation on the
economic benefits of the project and the City’s ongoing process to develop an
economic strategy. He indicated that
the City of San Jose is 20 percent below it retail sales potential given the
purchasing power of the City’s residents; therefore that share of sales tax
revenue is lost to other jurisdictions.
He clarified the need for a range of jobs and salaries and indicated
that the proposed project would generate $500,000 in sales tax revenue annually
and generate 300 construction jobs and 175 to 200 permanent jobs.
Public
Testimony
James
Manion, representing Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, spoke in favor of the
project. He indicated that the proposed
project would provide 200 new jobs that average $14 per hour. In response to concern expressed by the Commission
that the project’s site plan was inflexible, Mr. Manion indicated that the
proposed store design and associated site layout had evolved over 57 years
resulting in an efficient retail facility that meets the needs of its
customers. He indicated that key
considerations in the store design include the need for product adjacencies,
wide aisles, and convenient access for loading customer purchases without
elevators, escalators or steeply sloped parking garages. He indicated that the size of site needed for
a Lowe’s facility (12 acres) had
resulted in the Company exploring a two-story design in six previous
situations, but in each instance Low’s had rejected two-story option. In response to a question from the
Commission regarding the need for visibility, Mr. Manion clarified that
visibility of the store was an important consideration in regard to tree
removal, but that Lowe’s would replace any trees proposed for removal at a
ratio of 4 to 1.
Mark
Stoner, Senior Real Estate Manager for Lowe’s, stated that Lowe’s had been
looking for a store site in the San Jose area for four years and that the
subject site is the only one that meets the Company’s needs and has an
appropriate General Plan designation.
Don Reiner,
District Manager for Lowe’s responded to the Commission’s question regarding
the number of daily customers and provided additional information regarding the
Lowe’s pay scale and job opportunities.
He indicated that based on review of store receipts at other sites,
Lowe’s would experience approximately 3000 Saturday customers (customers who
make purchases). He clarified that the
$14 per hour is the average hourly pay for all store employees, including 4 key
managers, 4-6 zone managers, 19 department managers and a number of product
specialists.
Craig
Nemson, representing IBM, stated that Building 25 was part of a larger campus
designed by the same architect, John Bolles, and pointed out that a number of
buildings on the site look very much like Building 25.
Alex
Marthews and Judy Henderson spoke on behalf of the Preservation Action Council
of San Jose. Alex Marthews stated that
the Commission should focus on the land use issue and should not take into
account economic issues. He stated that
what happened at IBM Building 25 changed the world and that the building should
be preserved. He noted that the Lowe’s,
with its pre-set, big box design, gave the perception of the
inflexibility. Mr. Marthews stated that
Building 025 could be reused for a community center, school, or possibly
incorporated into the project as part of the garden center. Judy Henderson indicated that Lowe’s needs
to change the way it operates because the world is changing; large parcels of
land are no longer available. She
indicated that Lowe’s should look seriously at an L-shaped alternative to save
Building 25. The Preservation Action
Council presented the Commission with alternative site plans that preserved
Building 25.
Jennifer
Renk, representing Lowe’s, stated that Building 25 is not unique, that there
are twelve similar buildings on the IBM
campus. She pointed out that Lowe’s
efficient business plan, which has influenced the design of the proposed store,
should not be mistaken for inflexibility.
Steve
Polson, Vice Chair of the City’s Historic Landmarks Commission, stated that
historic preservation is not standing in the way of economic development, that
both can be achieved. He pointed out
that Building 25 is not a shrine, but a well-designed, important building that
has a story to tell and should not be destroyed. He also clarified that other buildings on the IBM Campus were not
designed by John Bolles and that, unlike Building 25, they have been modified
over time. He indicated that these
buildings may qualify as “contributing structures”, but were unlikely to
qualify as landmarks.
Jim Cuneen,
representing the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the
project, pointing to the significant sales tax revenue and jobs Lowe’s would
generate and expressing concern that San Jose be viewed as a place where
businesses are welcome, especially given the current economic conditions.
Neil
Struthers, representing the Building and Construction Trades Council, spoke in
opposition to the project, focusing on the project’s impact on Building 25 and
the loss of a significant number of trees and concluding that the project did
not represent smart growth. He stated
that the project had not mitigated it impacts and that Lowe’s should not be
allowed to bully the City.
Several
residents of the Makati Circle neighborhood expressed concern regarding
existing cut-through traffic in the neighborhood and additional traffic that
may be generated by the project.
Residents also expressed concern regarding noise and air quality impacts,
the large number of trees proposed for removal, the 1200-1300 vehicle trips per
day generated by the project and the project’s impact on the freeway on-ramp.
Residents questioned the adequacy of recent traffic counts taken by the
City. Several stated that Bangor Avenue
should be closed. Public Works
responded that traffic counts taken in the neighborhood do not indicate the
need for traffic calming measures at this time but that the prior traffic
counts would serve as a baseline for any future assessment. Staff made a
commitment to the neighbors to review the traffic counter locations used and
assess whether new counts are necessary.
The
Planning Commission then closed the public hearing.
Commission
Discussion
Commissioner
Zito stated that Building 25 is a valuable asset to the City that should be
preserved. He further indicated that
the existing trees should be preserved and commented on the applicant’s
apparent inflexibility in the design of the project.
Commissioners
Zamora and Dhillon stated that the 99 Notre Dame City Landmark is the important
site in the history of IBM in San Jose.
Commissioner Dhillon indicated that Building 25 is important but more
for the memories it evokes than the bricks and mortar. Commissioner Zamora stated that Building 25
is of no value as compared to 99 Notre Dame.
He stated that removal of the trees is beneficial because the 4 to 1
replacement ratio would result in more trees.
He indicated support for the project as proposed by the applicant,
noting that the City needs jobs of all kinds.
Commissioner Zamora made a motion to recommend approval of the project.
Commissioner
James expressed concern regarding the loss of trees and potential for
cut-through traffic. He stated that
Lowe’s had not been flexible and was not treating the neighborhood with
respect. He saw no need to remove trees
on the site and replace with blacktop.
Commissioner
Levy expressed support for Lowe’s coming to San Jose, but indicated that the
Company had not been flexible. He
articulated that it is important to save Building 25 and that both the
historical building and the Lowe’s facility could be accommodated on the
site. He stated that there appear to be
too many parking spaces proposed for the site.
Commission
Platten concurred with Commissioner Levy’s comments. He pointed to the Allen Hess article in the San Jose Mercury News
and stated that Building 25 is a part of our tradition, our heritage. He pointed to the need to achieve economic
development and preserve Building 25 in conformance with General Plan
smart growth principles. He stated that
the City needs to make sure that the proposal addresses all of the General Plan
objectives for preservation of historic buildings and ecological resources. He concurred that too much parking was
proposed on the site and suggested a reduction to facilitate preservation of
Building 25 and existing trees.
Commissioner
Campos identified three issues he felt to be important for the project. He expressed concern regarding the removal
of trees and indicated that this was a loss for the local community, especially
if it takes 20 years for new trees to mature.
He stated that he was not comfortable with the delay in the improvements
to the interchange at U.S. 101 and Blossom Hill Road and questioned what would
happen if the funds were not available.
Finally, he articulated the importance of Building 25 and its
preservation.
The
Commission discussed the possibility of accommodating both Building 25 and the
Lowe’s project on the site; several Commissioners stated that this appeared to
be possible. Commissioners indicated
that they believed that it was not necessary to cut down as many trees to
increase store visibility, and felt that over time customers would know where
the store was located.
Commissioner
Zamora declined a proposal by Commissioner Levy for a friendly amendment to the
motion for approval and called for a vote on the motion. The motion for approval of the project as
proposed by the applicant failed 2-5 with Commissioners Campos, Levy, Zito,
James, and Platten opposed.
Public
Works staff clarified the Edenvale Area Development Policy and the associated
$11,000,000 worth of traffic improvements.
Staff indicated that these improvements are currently under construction
or construction contracts are about to be bid.
He indicated that Lowe’s will be conditioned to contribute its fair
share of the cost of these improvements.
Commissioner
Levy made a motion to recommend approval of the project with the conditions
that parking be reduced to 500 spaces, that additional trees be saved and that
the project design be modified, with input from the Historic Landmarks
Commission, to save the majority of Building 25. He also noted the need for an inventory of significant,
mid-century, high-tech buildings in San Jose.
The motion passed 6-1, Zamora opposed.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Additionally, copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report have been available for public review in both the Martin Luther King Library and the Santa Teresa Branch Library. Staff has received numerous communications from the residents of Makati Circle, located to the southeast of the project site, regarding existing cut-through traffic and a number of letters from historic preservation organizations and advocates emphasizing the historic significance of Building 25 and requesting its preservation. All correspondence received is attached to this report.
A Community meeting was held on February 19, 2003, at the Southside Community Center (across the street from the subject site). Topics and issues discussed at that meeting included the following: traffic, safety, cut-through traffic, frequency of truck deliveries and truck routes, labor practices, alternative land uses, the number of trees being removed, potential impacts to the community center and associated facilities, wildlife, loss of Building 25 and alternatives to avoid or mitigate impacts to the significant historic resource, and project signage. On August 21, 2003, the property owner conducted a tour of the existing IBM Building 25 for the City of San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission and interested members of the public.
COORDINATION
This project was coordinated with the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, Police Department, Environmental Services Department and the City Attorney.
STEPHEN
M. HAASE
Secretary, Planning Commission
c: Jim
Manion, Site Development Manager, Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, 1530
Faraday Avenue, #140, Carlsbad,
CA 92008
Craig Nemson, IBM / Hitachi, Manager,
Space Planning and Engineering, 5600 Cottle Road, San Jose, Ca. 95193
Mark Stoner, Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, Sr Real Estate Manager, 1530 Faraday Avenue, #140, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dave Heinrichsen, Nolte Beyond Engineering, 1731 North First Street, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95112-4510
BRR Architecture, 6700 Antioch Plaza, Suite 300, Merriam, KS 66204
Maurice Abraham, Land Solutions, 4334 Santa Rita Road, El Sobrante, CA 94803
Mirabel Aguilar, City of San Jose, Public Works Department
Vincent Stephens, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Community Projects Review Unit, Main Building, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118
Gloria Sciara, Chair, City of San Jose, Historic Landmarks Commission
Judith Henderson, Chair, Preservation Action Council/San Jose, P.O. Box 2287, San Jose, CA 95109
Mary Daniels, Lecturer in Architecture, Librarian Special Collections, Harvard Design School, Harvard University, George Gund Hall, 48 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Jeff Winkler, Board Member, Terrace Villas HOA, 5707 Makati Circle, #C, San Jose, CA 95123
Marc Joseph, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law, 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900, South San Francisco, CA 94080
Ronald DeChance, President, Board of Directors, Terrace Villas, 5368 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Michael Singer, 5832 Killarney Circle, San Jose, CA 95138
David Vanderslice, 5691-B Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Josue Garcia, Deputy Executive Director, Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council, 2102 Almaden Road, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95125-2190
Susan Conley, 5697 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Juanita Morrow, 5696 Makati Circle, D, San Jose, CA 95123
Brian Massey, 5698 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Brian Maas, 5206 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Geoff Schuller, 5552 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Dawn Axlund, 5226 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
KC Walsh, 5689 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Beth Balog, 5688 Makati Circle # E, San Jose, CA 95123
Raymond Ruhland, 5250 Makati Circle, San Jose, CA 95123
Laura Cunningham, 5705 Makati Circle # G, San Jose, CA 95123