a. GP04-03-01:
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation
from Medium High Density Residential (12-25 DU/AC) to General Commercial for
property located at the west side of Seventh Street approximately 150 feet
northerly of Keyes Street (1083 South Seventh Street) on a 0.12-acre site.
(Brian Lee, Owner/Applicant). CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration, GP04-03-01.
SNI: Spartan/Keyes. Council District: 3.
Staff Recommendation: Propose to change the General Plan designation from
Medium High Density Residential to Office on the 0.12 acre site.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
(5-0-2; ZAMORA & PLATTEN ABSENT).
b. GP04-05-01:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram
designation from Medium Low Density Residential designation (8 DU/AC) to General
Commercial with Neighborhood Business District Overlay for properties located
at the east side of White Road (12,16 and 18 North White Road), approximately
150 feet northerly of Alum Rock Avenue on a 0.51-acre site (The Lawrence Company
and Dr. Michael Torrano, Owner/Applicant). CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration,
GP04-05-01. SNI: None. Council District: 5.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendment.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL (5-0-2;
ZAMORA & PLATTEN ABSENT).
4. Public Hearings
a. GP03-02-04:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram
designation from Industrial Park to Industrial Park with Mixed Industrial
Overlay for property located on the southerly side of Piercy Road (474 Piercy
Road), approximately 300 feet easterly of Hellyer Avenue on an approximately
9 acre site. (Barry DiRaimondo, Owner/Family Community Church, Applicant).
CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration, GP03-02-04. SNI: None. Council District:
2.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the proposed amendment.
NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION (2-3-2; ZITO & LEVY APPROVAL, JAMES,
CAMPOS & DHILLON DENIAL, PLATTEN & ZAMORA ABSENT)
THE APPLICANT, PASTOR BILL BUCHOLZ, PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THE PERMIT HISTORY OF THE FAMILY COMMUNITY CHURCH (FCC) ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT
SITES IN SAN JOSE EXCLUDING THE SUBJECT SITE.
SEVERAL SPEAKERS WHO WERE PARISHIONERS AND NEIGHBORING TENANTS TO FCC SPOKE
IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY
COULD BENEFIT ECONOMICALLY IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL WERE APPROVED.
A REAL ESTATE CONSULTANT REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE APPLICANT
BELIEVES THAT THE SUBJECT SITE WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE, SUITABLE SITE IN EDENVALE
THAT WAS FINANCIALLY COMPETITIVE FOR THE APPLICANT’S CHURCH. A CONSULTANT
REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES NOTED THAT THE SUBSTANCES
USED IN SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ARE HEAVILY REGULATED; THEREFORE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CATASTROPHE RESULTING FROM PROXIMITY TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
STORAGE AND USE WAS MINIMAL.
AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT DISAGREED WITH PLANNING STAFF’S
POSITION THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO A CONVERSION
OF INDUSTRIAL LAND TO NON-INDUSTRIAL USES. THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT THE SITE
HAS NOT BEEN IN USE FOR THREE YEARS AND THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD
STILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE, EVEN
IF THE AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY WERE APPROVED.
THE ATTORNEY ALSO NOTED THAT, ON PREVIOUS SITES OCCUPIED BY FCC, INDUSTRY
HAD GROWN UP AROUND THE CHURCH. THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS
NOT A DETERRENT TO FUTURE USES, AND THAT THERE WERE ALREADY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THEREFORE, THE MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY
WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDINGS.
A NEIGHBOR WHO OWNS APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY NEAR THE SUBJECT
SITE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT “SNOWBALLING.” THE NEIGHBOR STATED
THAT FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES HE WOULD WANT HIS OWN SITE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WERE
APPROVED.
THE APPLICANT THEN SPOKE AGAIN AND STATED THAT AN OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
THAT IS PLANNED ADJACENT TO THE CHURCH WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CHURCH
BECAUSE A SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT IS PLANNED WITH THE CHURCH. THE PARKING
DEMANDS OF THE CHURCH AND THE NEED TO BE IN EDENVALE LIMITED THE APPLICANT’S
CHOICES FOR A SUITABLE SITE. THE APPLICANT ASSERTED THAT THE PROPERTY MET
THE NEW CRITERIA OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND CONVERSIONS.
COMMISSIONER DHILLON ASKED THE APPLICANT HOW WIDE PIERCY ROAD WAS AND CHAIRMAN
JAMES ASKED HOW CLOSE THE NEAREST BUS LINE WAS TO THE SUBJECT SITE. THE APPLICANT
NOTED THAT THE CHURCH CURRENTLY RUNS SHUTTLES FROM BUS STOPS AND LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS AND WOULD CONTINUE THIS PRACTICE IF THE CHURCH WERE ALLOWED TO RELOCATE
ON THE SUBJECT SITE. ANOTHER SPEAKER REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT NOTED THAT
THE HELLYER EXTENSION WOULD BE FOUR LANES.
CHAIRMAN JAMES NOTED THAT SOME OF THE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
IN SUPPORT OF FCC DATED BACK TO 1994, AND THAT THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL WAS UNCLEAR. CHAIRMAN JAMES ALSO DISCLOSED THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY
VISITED THE SITE WITH THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER CAMPOS ASKED PLANNING STAFF WHETHER OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS WOULD
SUPPORT DRIVING INDUSTRIES. PLANNING STAFF RESPONDED THAT THIS QUESTION COULDN’T
BE ANSWERED WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE CITY.
COMMISSIONER DHILLON ASKED PLANNING STAFF TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE
NEAREST EXISTING SITE EAST OF US HWY 101 THAT HAD A MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY.
PLANNING STAFF POINTED OUT ONE SITE APPROXIMATELY 2/3 OF A MILE WESTERLY OF
THE SUBJECT SITE AND ANOTHER SITE APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF A MILE SOUTHERLY OF
THE SUBJECT SITE.
COMMISSIONER ZITO ASKED PLANNING STAFF TO PROVIDE THE ACREAGE OF THE SUBJECT
SITE AND THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE OF EDENVALE. PLANNING STAFF STATED
THAT THE SUBJECT SITE WAS APPROXIMATELY NINE ACRES IN SIZE AND THAT ALL OF
THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATED LAND IN EDENVALE TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 ACRES.
COMMISSIONER ZITO ASKED PLANNING STAFF IF A MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY COULD
BE PHASED OUT. THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE RESPONDED THAT A MIXED INDUSTRIAL
OVERLAY COULD NOT BE PHASED OUT, ALTHOUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COULD BE
TIME-CONDITIONED. COMMISSIONER LEVY NOTED THAT APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
COULD BECOME AN IMPETUS FOR OTHER CONVERSIONS, AND THAT THIS COULD CREATE
LAND USE IMPACTS FROM EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ON NEW POPULATIONS OF
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. PLANNING STAFF NOTED THAT THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT
SITE STILL SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTS OF INDUSTRIAL USES BUT THAT THERE ARE ALREADY
PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES FOR CONVERSION OF NEIGHBORING PARCELS IN ADDITION TO
THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED TONIGHT BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS. PLANNING STAFF ALSO
NOTED THAT A MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY RUNS WITH THE LAND, AND THAT IF THE
PROPERTY BECOMES TOO SMALL FOR THE CHURCH, THEN OTHER USES ALLOWED BY THE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY COULD OPERATE ON THE SUBJECT SITE, ALTHOUGH NEW CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS WOULD BE NEEDED FOR NEW USES.
COMMISSIONER ZITO STATED THAT ALTHOUGH A DOMINO EFFECT WAS POSSIBLE, THE
SITE WAS A MINISCULE PORTION OF THE LARGER INDUSTRIAL AREA, THAT THE PROJECT
WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND THE USE COULD ACT AS A BUFFER TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS. COMMISSIONER ZITO THEN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD THE MIXED
INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION.
COMMISSIONER DHILLON ASKED PLANNING STAFF WHETHER THE CITY COUNCIL CHURCH
LOCATION POLICY CRITERIA WERE MET BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE STATED THAT THE POLICY IS OUTMODED IN SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS AND HAS
BEEN SUPERSEDED BY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING CODE ORDINANCES. OTHER NEWER
POLICIES AND ORDINANCES ARE MORE RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT. PLANNING STAFF ADDED
THAT THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY POLICIES ALLOW OTHER NON-INDUSTRIAL
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO BE USED FOR ASSEMBLY USES.
COMMISSIONER CAMPOS STATED THAT THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE IT WAS BOTH IMPORTANT
AND EASY TO PRESERVE THE 2,000 PLUS ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND, BECAUSE THE
INTEGRITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA HAD NOT YET BEEN COMPROMISED. COMMISSIONER
JAMES THEN ADDED THAT EVEN IF THE CHURCH ONLY OPERATED ON SUNDAYS, THAT THERE
WERE MANY INDUSTRIAL USES THAT NEEDED TO OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS
A WEEK. THEREFORE, THERE COULD STILL BE LAND USE INCOMPATIBILITIES.
THE COMMISSIONERS VOTED 2-3-2 (COMMISSIONERS ZITO AND LEVY APPROVAL, COMMISSIONER
JAMES, CAMPOS, AND DHILLON DENIAL, COMMISSIONERS PLATTEN AND ZAMORA ABSENT)
ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. BECAUSE
A QUORUM WAS NOT REACHED ON THIS MOTION, THE PROJECT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. [See
Section 18.08.100.D of the City of San Jose Municipal Code ~ failure of the
Planning Commission to make a report and recommendation is deemed a negative
recommendation on a proposed General Plan amendment.]
b. The items being considered are located between the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks, Market Street, Julian Street, and Highway 87 on a 9-acre site. (Brandenburg
Staedler & Moore, Owners/Redevelopment Agency, Applicant). CEQA: EIR Resolution
No. 04-019, GP03-03-01a, GPT03-03-01a, and GPT03-03-01b.
SNI: None. Council District: 3.
1. GP03-03-01a:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to change the land use/Transportation Diagram
designation from General Commercial on 6.2 acres, Combined Industrial/Commercial
on 1 acre and Residential Support for the Core Area (25 + Dwelling Units per
Acre (DU/AC)) on 1.8 acres to Core Area.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendment.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL (4-0-2-1; ZAMORA & PLATTEN ABSENT, CAMPOS
ABSTAINED)
2. GPT03-03-01a:
GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT request to redefine the Downtown Core Area and
Downtown Frame Area boundaries.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed text amendment.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL (4-0-2-1; ZAMORA & PLATTEN ABSENT, CAMPOS
ABSTAINED)
3. GP03-03-01b:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT request to realign Julian Street between Market and
Saint James Streets.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendment.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL (4-0-2-1; ZAMORA & PLATTEN ABSENT, CAMPOS
ABSTAINED).
COMMISSION DISCUSSION: CHAIRMAN JAMES REQUESTED THAT ITEMS 4B.1-3 BE HEARD
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ITEM 4.A. THE COMMISSION AGREED. COMMISSIONER CAMPOS RECUSED
HIMSELF FROM THIS ITEM. THE COMMISSION THEN HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT WHO DISCUSSED
THE OPPORTUNITIES RESULTING FROM APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
THESE OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE HELPING TO CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ADDITIONAL
HOUSING IN THE DOWNTOWN. THE APPLICANT ALSO NOTED THAT APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT
WOULD SUPPORT A 24-HOUR CITY. COMMISSIONER ZITO ASKED IF THE PROPOSAL WOULD
COMPLY WITH ALL THE CITY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING THE CITY’S PARKLAND
DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND PARKLAND IMPACT ORDINANCE. PLANNING STAFF STATED
THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY WHEN INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
ARE PROPOSED.
COMMISSIONER LEVY MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT’S
REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. THE COMMISSION VOTED 4-0-2-1 (COMMISSIONERS
ZAMORA AND PLATTEN ABSENT, COMMISSIONER CAMPOS ABSTAINED) ON THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
5. CONTINUE THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2004 SPRING HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO MAY
26, 2004
6.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Public
comments to the Planning Commission on nonagendized items. Please fill out
a speaker’s card and give it to the technician. Each member of the public
may address the Commission for up to three minutes. The commission cannot
take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed
on an agenda. In response to public comment, the Planning Commission is limited
to the following options:
1. Responding
to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
2. Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
3. Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.
DALE WARNER, REPRESENTING A GROUP CALLED SAVE OPEN SPACES IN NORTH
SAN JOSE SPOKE TO THE COMMISSION AND PRESENTED A HANDOUT CONCERNING THE LACK
OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN THE NORTH SAN JOSE.
7. GOOD &
WELFARE
a. Discussion of modification of the North San Jose Area Development Policy
REPORT GIVEN
8. ADJOURNMENT
