To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND From: Stephen M. Haase

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7

SNI AREA: N/A

SUBJECT: GP03-07-01: General Plan amendment request to change the San Jose 2020 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation from Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) to Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) on 0.83 acres on a site located on the East Side of McLaughlin Avenue, approximately 100 feet northerly of Candia Drive.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Commission voted 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Levy absent, Commissioner Dhillon abstained) to recommend no change to the General Plan.

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a privately initiated General Plan amendment request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation from Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) to Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) on an approximately 0.83-acre site located on the east side of McLaughlin Avenue, approximately 100 feet northerly of Candia Drive (2492 McLaughlin Avenue).

The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment on the subject site and also recommended that the amendment be expanded to include the two similarly situated parcels to the north. This would result in the amendment area being expanded from 0.83 to 2.41 acres. As explained in the attached staff report, it is staff’s position that the allowance for increased density on the site proposed by the applicant would set a clear precedent for increased density on the two similarly situated, underutilized parcels to the north of the site. Staff therefore determined that a comprehensive assessment of the possibility for a modest increase in density for a larger 2.41-acre site was appropriate. Staff concluded that the proposed Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) was consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan and recommended that the amendment be approved on a larger approximately 2.41-acre area.

ANALYSIS

Commissioner Dhillon, as the property owner of the subject site, excused himself from the public testimony, Commission discussion, and vote on this amendment.

Gary Schoennaeur, representing the property owner, spoke in support of the Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) designation for the 0.83-acre site. He stated he did not have a position on staff’s recommendation to expand the amendment area, as the property owner he represented has no interest in either of the two additional parcels north of the subject site. He presented a proposed plan for eight single-family detached units for the 0.83-acre site, resulting in an estimated density of 9.6 units per acre [i.e., at the lower end of the proposed Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) designation]. He indicated that an 8-unit project would enhance the neighborhood by removing the existing blighted conditions present on the site and provide the area with much-needed new investment. He believed that it would also set a precedent for development at the lower end of the 8 to 16 units per acre density range on adjoining properties.

Three members from the community spoke on the item:

· Scott Miller from the McLaughlin Neighborhood Association indicated that he was opposed to the density increase. He indicated that the existing Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC) was appropriate and should not be changed.

· Mike Zoldak from the McLaughlin Neighborhood Association indicated that he was opposed to the amendment because the it is not consistent with the existing single-family neighborhood character and he felt that the neighborhood was not properly notified of staff’s proposed expansion of the amendment area. He indicated that the association that he represented had voted to not support the amendment.

· Tony Ortiz indicated that he opposed the amendment because he thought this would worsen the parking problem in the neighborhood. He supported the 8-unit project that had been presented by the applicant, but he was concerned that the intent of the owners of the other two parcels was not known and that they could potentially develop a project at the higher end of the 8 to 16 DU/AC density range.

The Commission’s discussion centered around two main issues. They expressed concern with designating this small area as Medium Density Residential (8-16 DU/AC) within a larger area predominantly designated Medium Low Density Residential (8 DU/AC). Some Commissioners considered this as an example of “spot zoning”. They were also concerned with staff’s recommendation for the expansion of the amendment area and the perception that the neighborhood was not properly notified of staff’s intent.

The applicant raised the possibility of only recommending approval of the amendment on the 0.83-acre site that they had originally proposed. Commissioners Platten and Zamora supported this approach while Commissioners Zito and Campos indicated that a change on either the applicant’s or staff’s recommended site would constitute “spot zoning”.

In response to neighborhood concerns regarding two-story development, staff indicated that any homeowner in the existing neighborhood is allowed by the provisions of the Zoning Code to add a second story to a home through the building permit process and that such a project would not require a public hearing.

In regards to the Commission’s concern about the public noticing for the expanded area, staff indicated that the expanded amendment area was described in the Negative Declaration circulated to the public. Although a staff recommendation was not formalized until the release of the staff report on July 21, the potential for an expanded amendment was discussed at the General Plan Community Meeting and at meetings between the City, applicant, and the neighborhood regarding this amendment. Staff concurred that additional effort to notify the public is needed when staff’s recommendation varies from the applicant’s original request.

On a motion from Commissioner Platten, the Commission voted 5-0-1-1 (Levy absent, Dhillon abstained) to recommend to the City Council no change to the General Plan.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

The property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius were sent a newsletter regarding the community meetings that were held on February 24 and 26, and on June 24, 2003. They also received a notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a notice of the public hearings to be held on the subject amendment before the Planning Commission in July and City Council in August. In addition, the Department's web-site contains information regarding the General Plan process, amendments, staff reports, and hearing schedule. This site is available to any member of the public and contains the most current information regarding the status of the amendments.

In various telephone conversations prior to deferral from the spring hearing, approximately eight community members expressed concern regarding increased density in the predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. Concerns were also expressed about more traffic turning off and onto McLaughlin Avenue into the existing neighborhoods and the possibility that a future project may also take access from Culpepper Drive and Loomis Drive.

Two additional community meetings were held with the McLaughlin Corridor Neighborhood Association (MCNA). These meetings were arranged by the applicant and held on May 29, 2003 (attended by Planning Staff) with the MCNA Board and on June 12, 2003 with the general membership of the MCNA. A letter of from this neighborhood association indicating their lack of support for the proposed amendment is attached to the staff report.

CEQA

The proposed change in the General Plan land use designation on the subject site was analyzed in an initial study that resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on March 17, 2003.

STEPHEN M. HAASE, SECRETARY

Planning Commission