|
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ, CALIFORNIA Department of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 801 North First
Street, Room 400 San José,
California 95110-1795 |
Hearing Date/Agenda Number PC 11-14-01
Item No. 4.j. |
|
|
|
File Number PDC 01-02-028 |
|
|
STAFF REPORT |
Application Type Planned Development Rezoning |
|
|
|
Council District 7 |
|
|
|
Planning Area South San Jose |
|
|
|
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 462-19-005 |
|
|
PROJECT DESCRIPTION |
Completed by:
Darren McBain |
|
|
Location:
Northeast corner of Capitol Expressway and Vistapark Drive |
||
|
Gross Acreage:
15.0 |
Net Acreage:
15.0 |
Net Density:
23.8 DU/AC |
|
Existing Zoning:
A(PD) |
Existing Use:
Golf course driving range |
|
|
Proposed Zoning:
A(PD) |
Proposed Use:
Up to 357 single-family and multi-family attached residential units |
|
|
GENERAL PLAN |
Completed by:
DM |
|
|
Land Use/Transportation Diagram Designation Medium High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) |
Project Conformance: [x] Yes [ ]
No [ ] See
Analysis and Recommendations |
|
|
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING |
Completed by:
DM |
|
|
North: Mobile
home park R-MH
Residence |
||
|
East: Mini-storage facility
A(PD) Planned Development |
||
|
South: Apartments R-1-8(PD) Planned Development |
||
|
West: Senior citizen apartments A(PD)
Planned Development |
||
|
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS |
Completed by:
DM |
|
|
[ ] Environmental Impact Report found complete [X] Negative Declaration circulated on October 22, 2001 [ ] Negative Declaration adopted |
[ ] Exempt [ ] Environmental Review Incomplete |
|
|
FILE HISTORY |
Completed by:
DM |
|
|
Annexation Title:
Edenvale No. 6 |
Date: May 13, 1964 |
|
|
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION |
||
|
[ x] Approval [ ] Approval
with Conditions [ ] Denial [ ] Uphold
Director's Decision |
Date:
_________________________ |
Approved by:
____________________________ [ ] Action [X] Recommendation |
|
APPLICANT/ DEVELOPER |
OWNER |
|
|
Pinn Brothers Construction 1475 Saratoga Avenue #250 San Jose, CA
95129 |
Capitol Vista Oaks LP 150 Almaden Blvd. #600 San Jose, CA
95126 |
|
|
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED
Completed by: Darren McBain |
|
Department of Public Works See attached memorandum. |
|
Other Departments and Agencies See attached memoranda. |
|
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE |
|
See attached letter from Debbie Santos. |
|
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS See attached notes, to be placed on the face of the
General Development Plan prior to final approval by City Council. |
The applicant, Pinn Brothers Construction, is
proposing a Planned Development Rezoning to allow up to 357 residential units,
including a mix of single-family attached units and multi-family attached
apartments. The parcel is currently
developed with a golf course driving range, which includes a clubhouse building
and a surface parking lot in addition to a large, open grassy area for golf
practice. The driving range was
approved under a previous Planned Development Zoning, File No. PDC93-10-052.
The irregular, roughly triangular-shaped site is
bounded by Vistapark Drive to the west, the Californian-Hawaiian Mobile Home
Park to the north, and by Capitol Expressway to the east and south. The surrounding area is characterized by a
mix of multi-family residential and commercial shopping center uses. The scope of the project includes the
vacation of a portion of the Baroni Avenue right-of-way along the northerly
property line. Approval of a subsequent
Planned Development Permit and Public Works Clearance for the project will be
subject to the City Council’s final approval of the vacation of Baroni
Avenue. The street vacation is
supported by the Directors of Planning and Public Works.
The proposed project, referred to as Bella
Villagio, consists of 126 single-family attached garden townhouse units and
four podium cluster buildings containing a total of 231 apartments. The townhouses are arranged in small
clusters of up to 12 units, such that the unit entrances face outward toward
common open space areas and the garage doors are placed on the less-visible
backs of the units. The apartment
buildings are generally three stories tall over a partially depressed parking
garage.
The proposed townhouses contain two- and
three-story elements, with two floors of living area and a semi-sunken garage
level on the units’ rear elevations, most of which are located inside the
clusters of townhouses. Each of the
townhouses has an enclosed two-car garage.
The apartment buildings are generally three stories high, situated over
a podium parking level. One of the
apartment buildings includes a two-story element on the side that is closest to
the property line shared with the adjacent mobile home park.
Open space is provided in the form of large
“usable” common landscaped areas that are fairly evenly distributed around the
project, and numerous areas of open landscaping will be provided along the
walkways that provide access to the units’ front entrances. Preservation of a large existing Valley Oak
tree near the project’s Capitol Expressway entrance forms a significant
landscape feature and pocket of open space.
Other amenities include swimming pools, pool houses, and an indoor recreational
facility. Private open space is
provided for each living unit in the form of patios and decks.
The project’s common driveway roughly bisects
the site and provides access to all units.
The driveway is lined with landscaped surface parking spaces and
pedestrian walkways. An additional
surface parking lot is located in the northwest corner of the site. The project takes vehicular access from an
entrance on each of the abutting public streets.
The
proposed project, with a density of 23.8 DU/AC, conforms to the site’s General
Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Medium High-Density
Residential (12-25 DU/Acre).
An
Initial Study was prepared for this project and a Negative Declaration was
circulated for public review by the Director of Planning on October 22,
2001. The key issues that were
addressed in the environmental review for the project are discussed below. The project includes standard mitigation
measures that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a
less-than-significant level.
A noise report prepared by Edward L. Pack
Associates, Inc. and dated April 23, 2001, found areas of the project site to be exposed to substantial
noise impacts from vehicular traffic.
Recommended measures to attenuate noise impacts were included in the
report and will be incorporated into the construction of the project to ensure
a living environment in accordance with established General Plan noise
standards. This mitigation reduces the
potential noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The
tree survey for this project identified seventy (70) trees on the site. There are two ordinance-size Valley Oak
trees. All of the remaining trees are
smaller than ordinance-size (i.e., smaller than 56” in circumference). Most of the trees on the site are non-native
specimens that were planted within the last several years, subsequent to approval
of the existing driving range.
The
applicant is proposing removal of all of the trees on the site with the
exception of one of the Valley Oaks, which is to be preserved within an area of
common open space in a highly visible area of the project near the entrance on
Capitol Expressway. Staff is reluctant
to support the removal of native trees, such as Valley Oaks. However, the Valley Oak tree that is
proposed for removal appears to be more severely decayed and in danger of
failing in the foreseeable future. For
this reason, staff supports removal of this tree.
Three
Coast Live Oak trees (smaller than ordinance-size) that were identified in the
tree survey were removed from the site at some time subsequent to the filing of
this application. The developer has
indicated that the current property owner relocated the trees to a country club
in Los Gatos.
Mitigation
at established replacement rates has been included in the project to offset the
loss of the trees that are proposed for removal. Additional mitigation in the form of replacement native specimens
will be required at the Planned Development Permit stage to compensate for the
removal of the Oak trees. The
feasibility of retaining several of the smaller existing trees in areas of the
site to be used as open space will be evaluated and implemented to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning at the Permit stage. Standard conditions related to the
protection and maintenance of the tree(s) to be preserved, such as providing
appropriate grading and landscaping near the base of the trees, will be
included in the Planned Development Permit.
The primary issue concerned in the proposed
rezoning is conformance to the City’s
Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs), including site design and
architecture.
The proposed project is in full or substantial
conformance with the development standards recommended in the RDGs for garden townhouses and
podium-cluster apartments with regard to setbacks, parking, and open
space. Please refer to the subsections
below for more detailed discussion of the project’s conformance to specific
aspects of the RDGs. The site layout is well-designed, with areas
of building mass appropriately distributed in relation to the streets, the
adjacent property, and areas of common open space within the site.
Perimeter
Setbacks: The
design of the proposed buildings includes a front setback varying from 25 to 34
feet from Capitol Expressway and Vistapark Drive, and 20 to 40 feet from the
property line that is shared with the adjacent mobile home park. While the proposed setbacks from the public
streets are slightly less than the 35-foot setbacks that are recommended by the
RDGs, they are comparable to the
setbacks of the existing multi-family residential buildings that are located on
the opposite sides of the two streets.
For purposes of the project’s appearance from the street, the quality of
the building façade’s detailing and articulation will substantially mitigate
the building’s reduced front setback.
The units are generally set back a minimum of 20
feet (two-story elements) and 30 to 40 feet (three-story elements) from the
adjacent mobile home park. Three-story
elements form a relatively small portion of the project’s interface with the
mobile homes. While the RDGs do not directly address setbacks
from mobile home units as a specific housing type, it is staff’s opinion that
the proposed setbacks comply with the RDGs’
intent to provide an appropriate amount of separation between adjoining
residential projects. The site layout
has been designed to minimize the visual impacts of having taller, new
residential buildings near the property line that is shared with the one-story
mobile home units. A portion of one of
the three-story apartment buildings is reduced to two stories in height, in
order to lessen the potential impact of this relatively tall structure. The other proposed apartment building that
is near the shared property line is angled so that a minimal portion of the
building’s mass is placed near the mobile homes. Elsewhere on the site, the interface with the mobile home park is
formed by less-tall building elements, areas of common open space, and
secondary driveways.
Internal
Setbacks: Each
of the residential units is separated from the project’s driveways and parking
spaces by the minimum 10 feet of landscaping recommended by the RDGs, and typically well in excess of
that amount. Likewise, the
building-to-building separations of 25 to 40 feet exceed the RDGs’ recommended minimums, which are
intended to reduce potential impacts on the privacy of future residents of the
project. Separation between clusters of
townhouse units is augmented by the placement of the units along the curving
edge of the project’s Capitol Expressway frontage. The private patios in front of the units have a minimum of 15
feet of separation (formed by a landscaped walkway), increasing to
approximately 27 feet as it approaches the front property line. In addition to providing more light and air
between the units, this arrangement maximizes the opportunities for landscaping
and creates an inviting sense of openness along the project’s primary
frontage.
Parking: Parking is provided on-site at the ratios
recommended in the RDGs. For the
apartments, which all have common-access parking garages, the RDGs require 1.5
parking spaces for a one-bedroom unit, 1.8 spaces for a two-bedroom, and 2
spaces for a three-bedroom. The
three-bedroom townhouses, each of which has a private two-car garage, require
2.6 spaces per unit. This reason for
this slightly higher requirement is that private garages tend to be partly used
for personal storage rather than parking, generating a higher demand for
outdoor parking spaces.
An appropriate amount of guest parking will be
available in surface parking spaces and within the podium parking levels under
the apartment buildings. In keeping
with the RDGs, the project’s surface
parking spaces, garage doors, and podium level entrances are, to a great
extent, screened from view from outside the project.
Open
Space: Areas
of common open space are provided in excess of the minimum amounts recommended
by the RDGs for podium cluster
housing and garden townhouses.
Significant areas of common open space include two relatively large
sections of the site that are each centered on a swimming pool. The central courtyards within the podium
apartment buildings and the area around the large Valley Oak tree to be
preserved also represent significant elements of common open space. Private open space that meets or exceeds the
RDGs is also provided. Each of the townhouse units has an
approximately 300-square-foot front patio that is enclosed by a low wall while
the apartments each have a smaller patio or balcony of approximately 60 square
feet in size.
This project consists of two- and three-story
buildings with stucco siding and tiled roofs.
The style, materials, scale, and character of the proposed structures
have a high level of compatibility with recently approved residential
development in the nearby area. The
building facades are well detailed and articulated, and include numerous
changes in plane and building materials in order to maintain a lively and
varied appearance. With only a few
minor exceptions (e.g., the parapet roof elements that seem to emphasize the
apartment buildings’ height), staff is supportive of the project’s
architectural design. As is customary
with a rezoning, the design depicted on these plans is conceptual and will
undergo further review and refinement at the Planned Development Permit
stage.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notices of the Negative Declaration and the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council were
distributed to owners and tenants of all properties within 1,000 feet of the
subject site. A notice of the rezoning
was also published in the San Jose Mercury News, in accordance with the City
Council’s Public Outreach Policy. Staff
has been available to discuss the project with interested members of the public.
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.
Based
on the above analysis, staff concludes that the project is in substantial
conformance with the Residential Design Guidelines, is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and supports the City’s goal of providing a variety of
housing types to meet the needs of a range of household incomes within the
community.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development
Prezoning for the following reasons:
1. The
project conforms to the site’s General Plan Land Use Transportation Diagram
designation of Medium High-Density Residential (12-25 DU/Acre).
2. The
proposed project further the objectives of the City’s infill housing
strategies.
3. The
proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
4. The
proposed project substantially conforms to all applicable policies of the
City’s Residential Design Guidelines.
5. The
proposed project conforms to the requirements of CEQA.