NOTE: To arrange an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to participate in this public meeting, we ask that you call (408) 535-3555 (VOICE) or (408) 998-5299 (TTY) at least two business days before the meeting. If you requested such an accommodation and have not already identified yourself to the technician seated at the staff table, please do so now. If you did not call in advance and do now need assistance, please see the technician.

Notice to the Public

If you want to address the Commission, fill out a card (located on the table as you come in or at the technician's station), and give the completed card to the technician. Please include the agenda item number for reference.

The procedure for this hearing is as follows:

• After the staff report, applicants and appellants may make a 5-minute presentation.

• The chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards in the order received.

• As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the Chamber.  Each speaker will have two minutes.

• After the public testimony, the applicant and appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes.

• Planning Commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.  These questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed and the Planning Commission will take action on the item.  The Planning Commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.

The Planning Commission's action on rezonings, prezonings, and Code Amendments is advisory only to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings on these items. Section 20.120.400 of the Municipal Code provides the procedures for legal protests to the City Council on rezonings and prezonings.

Note: If you have any agenda changes, please contact Linda LaCount linda.lacount@sanjoseca.gov

6:00 p.m. Meeting

1. ROLL CALL

ALL WERE PRESENT

2. DEFERRALS

Any item scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral. A list of Staff-recommended deferrals is available on the Press Table. If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended, or speak to the question of deferring these or any other items, you should say so at this time.

1. CPA01-057-01. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to remove a condition of approval from a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a proposed gasoline service station/car wash facility. The subject condition of approval would require the dedication of an easement for public access over a part of the property that currently extends across a portion of Saratoga Avenue. The project location is a 0.7-acre site in the CG Commercial General Zoning District, located at the southwest corner of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell Avenue (1704 Saratoga Avenue) (Cloyd and JoAnn Smith, owners; Chevron USA, applicant). Council District: 1. SNI.: None. CEQA: Exempt.

   DEFERRED TO 2-25-04.

2. PDC 03-031. Planned Development Rezoning from R-M Multiple Residence District to A (PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow up to 4 detached and 2 attached single-family residences on a 0.46 gross-acre site, located on the northeast corner of Vera Lane and Azucar Avenue (Kawadri Mazen M Trustee & et al, Owner/Developer). Council District 2. SNI: Edenvale/Great Oaks. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration, File No. PDC 03-031.

   DEFERRED TO 2-25-04.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

Notice to Public: The consent calendar items are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public to have an item removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. If anyone in the audience wishes to speak on one of these items, please come to the podium at this time.

1. CP03-026. Conditional Use Permit to construct 15,238 square foot building for church uses on a 1.7 gross acre site in the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District, located on the west side of Jackson Avenue, approximately 150 feet southerly of Berkeley Way (2249 Dobern Avenue) (Epenesa Fou Church Of San Jose, Developer/Owner). Council District 5. SNI: Mayfair. CEQA: Negative declaration and addenda thereto. Deferred from 1-28-04.

   APPROVED (7-0).

2. RCP02-019. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow an existing pawn shop, as incidental to a jewelry store, (R & J Jewelry and Loan) to continue to operate at an existing commercial building on a 0.03-acre site in the CG Commercial General Zoning District, located at 14A South First Street. (Janis Schneider, Owner/Applicant). Council District: 3. CEQA: Resolution No. 68839.

   APPROVED (7-0).

3. CP03-071. Conditional Use Permit to allow a social service agency use in a portion of an existing 52,920 square-foot industrial/office building on a 2.55 gross-acre site in the IP Industrial Park Zoning District, located at/on northwest corner of Trimble Road and Zanker Road (2625 Zanker Road) (The Catholic Charities Of San Jose Owner). Council District 4. SNI: None. CEQA: Exempt.

   APPROVED (7-0).

 The following items are considered individually.

4.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. An Ordinance of the City of San Jose amending Chapter 20.100 of Title 20, the Zoning Code, of the San Jose Municipal Code, to clarify the process of concurrent filing and Review of Planned Development Zoning and Planned Development Permit applications. CEQA: not a project.

   APPROVED (7-0).

2. An Ordinance of the City of San Jose amending Chapter 20.110 of Title 20, the Zoning Code, of the San Jose Municipal Code, to streamline the Williamson Act Contract cancellation process. CEQA: not a project.

   APPROVED (7-0).  THE COMMISSION NOTED A GENERAL SUPPORT FOR STREAMLINING, BUT EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT A CHANGE IN WILLIAMSON ACT CANCELLATION PROCESS COULD RESULT IN MORE CANCELLATIONS.  COMMISSIONERS LEVY AND ZITO QUESTIONED IF THIS CHANGE WOULD ALTER FEE PROVISIONS.  STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY CLARIFIED THAT COUNTY ASSESSOR DETERMINES FEE LEVEL, CITY RUNS PROCESS ONLY WITHIN STATE REGULATIONS.

3. The project being considered is located at/on East side of Booksin Avenue approximately 550 feet southerly of Curtner Avenue (2281 Plummer Avenue) in the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District (Presentation High School, Owner). Council District 6. SNI: None. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration.

   1. CP03-055. Protest of the mitigated negative declaration.

   UPHELD THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (7-0).  COMMISSION HEARD LENGTHY TESTIMONY FROM APPROXIMATELY 50 COMMUNITY RESIDENTS AND SCHOOL STAFF AND STUDENTS WITH LIGHTING, NOISE LEVELS AND AESTHETICS AS THE PRIMARY ISSUES.  THE COMMISSIONERS THANKED THE APPELLANTS FOR BRINGING THEIR ISSUES FORWARD AND NOTED THEIR INPUT WILL RESULT IN A BETTER PROJECT.  STAFF AND CONSULTANTS CLARIFIED THAT THE NOISE ANALYSIS REPRESENTED WORST CASE LEVELS OF LEAGUE COMPETITION PLAY, AND THAT PARKING AND TRAFFIC LEVELS ARE BASED ON STUDENT AND STAFF LEVELS, WHICH WILL NOT CHANGE WITH PROJECT.  STAFF NOTED THE APPLICANT WILL VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE 8 ADDITIONAL ON-SITE PARKING SPACES.  COMMISSIONER DHILLON INDICATED SATISFACTION WITH STAFF RESPONSE TO PROTESTANT'S ISSUES AND THAT NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WOULD RESULT FROM COMPLETION OF AN EIR.

   2. CP03-055. Conditional Use Permit to demolish two residential units and a tennis court and to construct an approximately 2,500 square-foot coach's building, a swimming pool, new playing fields and reconfigured parking on an 8.80 gross-acre private school site.

   APPROVED (7-0).  THE COMMISSION HEARD LENGTHY TESTIMONY FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND SCHOOL STAFF AND STUDENTS.  THE COMMISSIONERS INDICATED CONCERN REGARDING NON-PERMEABLE FIELD TURF DESIGN, DESIGN OF FIELD FENCING AND LANDSCAPING, USE OF FIELDS BY OTHER "FOR FEE" RENTERS, POTENTIAL FOR LIGHTING, HOURS OF POOL AND FIELD USE, AND REQUIRED BALL NETTING.  THE APPLICANT CLARIFIED NO PLAN FOR "FOR FEE" RENTAL, NO FIELD LIGHTS PROPOSED, WITH REDUCED HEIGHT OF POOL LIGHTS DUE TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN, THE NEED FOR A "FORGIVING" FENCE ALONG FIELD FOR PLAYER SAFETY, PORTABLE/REMOVABLE /NETTING TO BE USED FOR GAMES AND INDICATED PARKING RULES AND COURTESIES ARE ENFORCED BY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION.  THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED FOR THE COMMISSION, THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH STAFF TO PROVIDE 3 OPTIONS FOR BOOKSIN SIDE FENCE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT.  APPLICANT CLARIFIED COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN NEW FENCING AND TO REPAIR/IMPROVE EXISTING FENCING.

   COMMISSIONER CAMPOS STATED PRIMARY BASIS OF SUPPORT FOR PROJECT IS THAT IT WILL PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENT SPORTS WITHOUT NEED FOR OFF-SITE TRAVEL.  COMMISSIONER JAMES ECHOED SUPPORT AND COMMENDED STUDENTS FOR ARTICULATE TESTIMONY.  COMMISSIONER PLATTEN INDICATED SUPPORT FOR VOLUNTARY 8 PARKING-SPACE INCREASE ON-SITE, AND NOTED DECREASE IN STUDENT DRIVING WITH ON-SITE FACILITIES AVAILABLE.  COMMISSIONER LEVY PROPOSED AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDED LANGUAGE IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ACKNOWLEDGE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF NO INTENT FOR "FOR-FEE" RENTAL OF FACILITIES.  THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF AND APPLICANT TO WORK WITH NEIGHBORS ON BORDER FENCING AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN, AND TO WORK WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY PREFERRED TURF DESIGN TO MEET URBAN RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS.

4. The projects being considered are located on north side of Forest Avenue approximately 120 feet easterly of Winchester Boulevard (2467 Forest Avenue), in the CG General Commercial Zoning District (Paula Shulman Trustee & et al, Owner). Council District 6. SNI: None. CEQA: Exempt.

1. CP03-073. Conditional Use Permit to allow off-sale of alcoholic beverages at a new mini-mart and associated tenant improvements on a 0.36 gross acre site.

2. ABC04-001. LIQUOR LICENSE EXCEPTION permit to allow the off-sale of alcoholic beverages at a retail store on a 0.36 gross-acre site.

DEFERRED TO 2-25-04.

5. The project being considered is located on the west side of Saratoga Avenue approximately 150 feet southerly of Graves Avenue from CG Commercial General Zoning District to A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District. Council District 1.  SNI: None. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Deferred from 1-28-04.

   1.   PDC03-061. Protest of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

   UPHELD THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (7-0).  The Commission heard from the two appellants to the Negative Declaration and lengthy testimony from approximately 40 community residents as well as the adjacent commercial property owner and an adjacent office owner.  The issues highlighted in the discussion of the Negative Declaration focused on traffic generation, the impacts on fire and water service with the introduction of additional housing in the area, the impacts on the neighborhood schools with the potential increase in students, and the increase in parking in the neighborhood.

   Staff and the environmental consultant clarified that the traffic analysis for the purposes of CEQA focus on the City's LOS policy and impacts at key intersection, and is does not required to address existing operational issues and traffic within the residential neighborhood due to preexisting conditions.  The environmental consultant clarified the ability to asses impact related to services as whether new facilities would be required as a result of this project and what the environmental impact those facilities may have.  It was determined that existing services could serve the proposed project.  With respect to the issue of water service and electrical service, staff responded by stating that this project would tap into the existing services given its infill character and again would not require new facilities thus not creating an environmental impact.

   The issue of student enrollment was discussed and the student generation rates were questioned.  Staff responded that the school district is in the position to estimate the potential student generation rate and indicate if there existing facilities can accommodate the increase.  The Morland School District submitted a letter acknowledging the ability to accommodate the increase in students at the elementary and middle schools.  The Campbell High School District as well indicated an ability to accommodate the additional students generated from this project.

   The issue of parking and its relation to the potential increase in traffic on Graves Avenue was discussed.  Staff responded by indicating that the proposed project is providing fifteen (15) spaces above and beyond what would be required by the Residential Design Guidelines.  In addition, should the City rethink the parking prohibition along Graves Avenue and allow parking, an additional twenty (20) space would be added to the public parking availability.

   Commissioner Platten made a motion to uphold the Negative Declaration and went on to discuss how he did not feel that the deficiencies in the analysis discussed did not support a reanalysis and recirculation.  

   2.  PDC03-061. Planned Development Rezoning to allow: Demolition of two existing commercial buildings (Saratoga Lanes bowling alley and Wolf Camera Center), and construction of up to 79 single-family attached residential units, on a 4.5-acre site (J.D. Molex LLC, Owner; Riding Group, Developer).

   DENIED (4-3; CAMPOS, JAMES, ZAMORA OPPOSED).  The Commission heard from the applicant and heard lengthy testimony from approximately 40 community residents as well as the adjacent commercial property owner and an adjacent office owner.  The issues highlighted in the discussion of project included increased traffic, existing truck traffic on Graves Avenue, traffic safety, land use compatibility, the fiscal impact of loosing commercial land including the loss of jobs, the increase in the need for services, the increase in crime, the impacts on the neighborhood schools with the potential increase in students, the increase in parking in the neighborhood, the increase in the number of dogs in the neighborhood putting a strain on the public park resources, the interface between the commercial and residential uses, the density of the project and the lack of open space for future residents.  

   Public Testimony

   The overwhelming issue of concern was traffic and traffic safety.  The residents are concerned with the increase in traffic that this project would generate and its impact on an already existing traffic problem.  There is an elementary school in the neighborhood and the traffic in the mornings is very heavy.  Additionally, the existing truck traffic on Graves Avenue is already a problem and there is a concern with addition any additional traffic on Graves. Avenue.  In response to these concerns, Henry Servin from DOT has been working with the community to begin to address some of the issues through traffic calming measures.  Mr. Servin suggested that the proposal to reintroduce parking along Graves Avenue could serve to slow traffic down is thus eliminating the current "through-way" effect.

   There was great concern over the loss of commercially designated land that could never be returned.  The residents expressed a desire to see additional commercial and were concerned over the loss of tax revenue generating land uses and job producing commercial uses.  The juxtaposition of the residential within the larger commercial area appears to be trying to "fit a square peg into a round hole." 

   As discussed under item 4.e.1, parking was also a concern of the neighborhood suggestion that the type of units being built would actually have a greater demand for parking that the parking ratios suggest.  The opponents suggest that the typical residents would be young singles or couples that would each have a car as well as have several friends, etc. each having cars.  Again, staff indicated that this projects is above and beyond what is typically required and also suggested the inclusion of on-street parking on Graves to add parking for the neighborhood as well as slow traffic down.  The applicant also indicated that in a project of this type, residents would be required to park in their garages thus maintaining a supply of on-sight parking for guests and overflow.

    Many residents expressed the opinion that commercial is a better fit at that sight and that the density is to high compared to the surrounding neighborhood.  Additionally, there were concerns raised as to the lack of open space for children to utilize should they move into this project.  The additional residents as a result of this project would also put a strain on the existing park resources in the area.  The applicant and staff indicated that this project includes an excess of common open space typically required for a project of this type.

   The issues related to the interface between the residential and the commercial were responded to by staff indicating that the design of the project placed a drive with parking along the shared property line with the commercial use thus allowing the rear of the closest units to be separated from the loading area by 50+ feet.  The units are also oriented away from the commercial use and orient towards the interior of the sight. The issues of services and school impacts are those as discussed under 4.e.1.

   COMMISSION DISCUSSION

     COMMISSIONER JAMES DIRECTED QUESTIONS TO PLANNING STAFF RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION POINTS: THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, THE AVAILABILITY OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, PARKING ON GRAVES AVENUE, THE PUBLIC NOTICING THAT WAS DONE FOR THE PROJECT, THE ADEQUACY OF THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE BEING PROPOSED ON THE SITE, AND THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON EXISTING TRUCK CIRCULATION PATTERNS. COMMISSIONERS ZITO AND LEVY WERE OPPOSED TO CREATING NEW ON-STREET PARKING SPACES ON GRAVES AVENUE, DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS.  STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT RESPONDED TO EACH QUESTION.

   The Commission asked the applicant to explain what he felt this project was giving to the community and what was exceptional about it.  The applicant indicated that the project architecture was exceptional in that it was creating a residential frontage along Graves Avenue that currently has none.  Additionally the two-car garages integral to the units is a plus along with the excess of surface guest and overflow parking.  The applicant also indicated that what this project is giving to the community is a unit type that is not typical of the area.  By doing this the project is supporting a diverse housing stock thus creating housing opportunities for diversity in the neighborhood.  He also indicated that they are taking an underutilized and blighted commercial property in an area with an abundance of commercial land and turning it back to THE COMMUNITY IN THE FORM OF HOUSING.  COMMISSIONER LEVY ASKED THE APPLICANT HOW THE PROJECT MIGHT BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE PROXIMITY OF THE TRUCK LOADING AREA FOR PW SUPERMARKET ON THE ADJACENT WEST VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE. MR. QUAGLIA RESPONDED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SEPARATION, APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET, BETWEEN THE BACKS OF THE PROPOSED UNITS AND THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SUPERMARKET.  

   Commissioner Platten made a motion to deny the proposed rezoning with supporting statements indicating that although infill development for housing is a good thing, he had not seen how the proposed project met the full criteria of the Alternate Discretionary Use Policy for the use of commercially designated parcels along major arterials.  Commissioner Zito acknowledged that although he heard the issues related to traffic and schools, he did not buy them as arguments against the project.  However, he did not see the uniqueness in this site to justify the use of the Alt. Discretionary Use Policy and did not feel that the proposed project meet the test of an exceptional project as required.  Commissioner Dhillon concurred with Commissioner ZITO and also indicated that the findings in the Fiscal Study recently completed by the City indicated a deficiency in commercial land/uses.  

   Commissioner Campos indicated that housing is what would sell on this site and the infill project as proposed supports the need for housing. Commissioner Zamora also indicated that there is a need for housing and that this project is supplying needed for sale housing.

6. PD 03-040. APPEAL of the Planning Director’s decision to approve a Planned Development Permit to allow approximately 222,000 square-feet of commercial uses on a 18.75 gross-acre site. The site is currently occupied by the vacant IBM/Hitachi Research Building 025 that is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The proposed project would demolish IBM/Hitachi Research Building 025 and other existing structures, and remove up to 156 ordinance-size trees from the site located in the IP Industrial Park Zoning District on the northeast corner of Poughkeepsie Road and Cottle Road (5600 Cottle Road) (IBM Corp., Owner; Lowes's HIW Inc., Developer). Council District 2. SNI: None. CEQA: Reso no. 71860.

UphEld the Director's decision to approve (5-2-0; JAMES AND ZITO OPPOSED).  ATTORNEY CLARIFIED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMISSION REVIEW OF PROPOSED PD ZONING, AND THE SUBJECT PERMIT, AND NEED FOR FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE.  DEPUTY DIRECTOR CLARIFIED THAT CITY COUNCIL IS LEGISLATIVE/POLICY-SETTING BODY FOR THE CITY, AND THAT COUNCIL ACTED WITH INFORMATION CONTAINED IN EIR, AND THAT DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE IS AN "OVERALL" CONFORMANCE, NOT WITH EACH POLICY.  COMMISSION QUESTIONED LOWES' REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE DESIGN.  STAFF CLARIFIED PIVOTAL ROLE OF HISTORIC REVIEW AND DISCLOSURE IN REVIEW AND DECISION PROCESS FOR PERMIT AND DEMOLITION FINDINGS.