SUBJECT: PDC01-02-028.
FOR A
PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY AND VISTAPARK DRIVE.
COUNCIL
DISTRICT: 10
The Planning Commission voted 4-2-1 (James and Zamora opposed, Chun Hoo absent) to recommend that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2001, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider a Planned Development from A(PD) Planned
Development to A(PD) Planned Development
Zoning District to allow up to 357 single-family and multi-family attached
residential units on 15 gross acres.
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement recommended approval of the proposed . The item was considered in conjunction with a protest of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration that the Director of Planning had previously issued for the project. The Commission denied the protest and upheld the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, finding it complete and in compliance with CEQA, thereby allowing the Commission to consider the project.
Project discussion related to the proposal focused on the existing traffic congestion and noise levels in the general vicinity of Capitol Expressway, Narvaez Avenue, and Highway 87. Seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns that adding more housing to the area would exacerbate the existing traffic congestion and ambient noise levels experienced by residents in the area surrounding the project. Several of the comments related to the considerable delays that motorists experience during the peak-hour morning commute when queuing to enter northbound 87. The back-up is caused by the metering lights on the northbound 87 on-ramp, which are not subject to City regulation. One of the speakers, Mr. Dave Fadness, argued that the City’s Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Policy is flawed because it does not take into account the real-world delays, due to the freeway metering lights, experienced by motorists in the current situation.
The traffic analysis prepared for the Initial Study calculated that the Highway 87/Narvaez Avenue on-ramp operates at LOS B. Further field observations of the existing condition indicate the calculated LOS misrepresents the actual LOS, which is LOS F. A copy of the field observation report is attached.
During the course of the traffic-related discussion, Public Works staff explained that the project conforms to the LOS Policy, in that:
A) the Policy does not account for built-in constraints, such as the metering lights, for which no mitigation is available, and
B) the project does not increase the critical movement delay by four or more seconds, or increase the critical volume/capacity ratio by one percent or more for an intersection operating as LOS F.
Therefore, the project is not required to include any mitigation to the northbound Highway 87 on-ramp from Narvaez Avenue. Although the Director of Public Works determined that the project conforms to the City’s LOS Policy, the applicant was nevertheless required to include the project’s operational impact on the nearby, congested intersections in the traffic report. The delay that will be caused by the additional cars from the project is less than what would require additional mitigation if the intersections were calculated to have existing unacceptable LOS, and if any mitigation were possible.
Several of the other speakers argued that additional traffic on Capitol Expressway resulting from the proposed project would increase the existing noise impacts on the single-family houses on Hastings Park Court that back up to Capitol Expressway. The speakers did not present any evidence to support this argument; Planning staff had previously noted in the staff report for the project that the incremental traffic increase from this project would not result in a measurable change in the ambient noise level. However, the applicant indicated a willingness to identify and build appropriate noise attenuation measures (e.g., raising the height of the existing sound wall) at the subsequent Planned Development Permit stage. In response to other concerns, the applicant also voluntarily agreed to provide landscaping along the median island on Capitol Expressway. Because the Expressway is under the permit jurisdiction of the County, both of these provisions would be subject to subsequent County approval and are not included or considered under the proposed rezoning.
The applicant was present at the hearing. The project developer and architect spoke in favor of the proposal’s architectural design and conformance to applicable City policies.
Commissioners Levy and Ross expressed concern over the prospect of adding additional traffic to the existing congestion at nearby intersections, and questioned the adequacy of the way in which LOS is calculated without accounting for built-in constraints such as the metering light on northbound Highway 87. Commissioner Levy also stated a concern over cumulative traffic impacts in light of the already approved and further anticipated residential developments on Communications Hill. Commissioner Zamora acknowledged the existing traffic congestion, but indicated that the City’s priority of providing infill-housing opportunities where they are appropriate should take precedence. Commissioners Godbolt and Levy stated that a project of the proposed density should not be approved, given the existing traffic concerns. Planning staff suggested that the Commission recommend approval of the project, in keeping with the staff report, but include language in its recommendation that the City Council consider this project’s circumstances in the Council’s larger, overall re-examination of LOS Policy in the future. Acting Director Horwedel acknowledged the difficulty faced by the Commissioners considering individual projects where the traffic impacts individually are less-than-significant impacts, but a cumulative analysis of all the past and anticipated projects in an area exceeded the LOS.
Subsequent to discussion of the issues raised by the members of the public and the Commissioners, the Planning Commission then closed the public hearing and reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and found it in conformance with CEQA. A motion was made to recommend approval of the project, which motion failed by a 2-4-1 vote (Commissioners Dhillon, Godbolt, Levy, and Ross opposed; Commissioner Chun Hoo absent). The Commission then voted 4-2-1 (James and Zamora opposed, Chun Hoo absent) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning, based on the concerns identified above.
Apart from the comment made by Commissioners Godbolt and Levy regarding the project’s density, there was no project-level discussion of the proposal’s conformance to the General Plan and Residential Design Guidelines, proposed site design, or conceptual architecture. The project conforms to the General Plan (which was amended last year to allow a project of this density), has environmental clearance, and it is staff’s opinion that the project substantially conforms to the Residential Design Guidelines.
A neighborhood meeting was held on the evening of September 13, 2001, in a meeting room at the senior residential project located across Vistapark Drive from the subject site. Invitations for the neighborhood meeting were sent to owners and tenants of all properties within 1,000 feet of the project approximately two weeks before the meeting. Four members of the public attended the meeting. No attendees expressed opposition to the project. The attendees who reside in the adjacent California-Hawaiian Mobile Home Park suggested that direct pedestrian access to Vistapark Drive across the site would be desirable to the park’s residents. The applicant expressed willingness to make a provision for pedestrian traffic across a portion of the northwest corner of the site. Staff will coordinate with the applicant to identify an appropriate point of access and other necessary details at the Planned Development Permit stage.
Notices of the public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council were published, posted on the City of San Jose web site and distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Additionally, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all properties within 1,000 feet of the project site and posted on the City web site. Staff has been available to discuss the project with members of the public.
As standard procedure in the development review process, this project was coordinated with the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, Police Department, Environmental Services Department, the City Attorney, and VTA.
JOSEPH HORWEDEL
Secretary, Planning Commission