Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

SUPPLEMENTAL - City of San Jose

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 11

									                                                                 COUNCIL AGENDA: 01-25-11
                                                                          ITEM: 11.2


                            SUPPLEMENTAL
 CITY OF ~

SAN JOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
                                                             Memorandum
       TO: HONORABLE MAYOR                               FROM: Planning Commission
           AND CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW                                        DATE: January 13, 2011


                                                                  COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3
                                                                      SNIAREA: 13th Street

SUBJECT: FILE NO. PDC08-036, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FROM THE
        A(PD) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO THE A(PD)
        PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE
        REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH UP TO 403 MULTI-FAMILY
        RESIDENTIAL UNITS (INCLUDING 14 LIVE/WORK UNITS), 5,500 SQUARE
        FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES, 8,500 SQUARE FEET OF ARTISIT STUDIO
        SPACE, THE PRESERVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 130,000 SQUARE
        FEET OF INDUSTRIAL USE (BREWERY), AND 0.61 ACRES OF PARKLAND
        ON A 11.4 GROSS ACRE SITE.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed
Planned Development Rezoning as recommended by staff.

OUTCOME

Should the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezoning as recommended by the
Planning Commission and staff, the applicant would be able to move forward with a Planned
Development Permit and subsequent building permits to allow for the construction of a mixed-use
project of up to 403 multi-family residential units (including 14 live/work units), 5,500 square feet of
commercial uses, 8,500 square feet of artist studio space, preservation and restoration of the historic
Continental Can Company building, preservation of approximately 130,000 square feet of industrial
uses (brewery), and dedication of 0.61 acres of parkland on the subject 11.4 gross acre site.

BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2011, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to consider the proposed
Planned Development Rezoning. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
recommended approval of the proposed Planned Development Rezoning.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 13,2011
Subject: File No. PDC08-036
Page 2

Staff provided introductory comments then Don Lapidus, representing the property owner, spoke on
behalf of the project. He explained that the project has gone through many revisions and the final
product includes historic restoration, continued use of the existing industrial uses on the site
(brewery), public and private open space, and a well thought out corner commercial space, with
outdoor patio, that will serve the neighborhood.

Two community members then spoke on the project. Dan Gordon, owner/operator of the
brewery that is to remain on the subject site, indicated that he was supportive of the
redevelopment and wanted to ensure that such redevelopment did not impact his brewery
operation both from a long term viability and short term during the construction phase of the
project. The Planning Commission understood the need to protect the viability of the brewery
and the applicant agreed that the proposed project should have conditions to mitigate and protect
the brewery. Planning Staff pointed out that the zoning specifically included the retention of this
use in the long term and stated that the burden to address issues that may affect the future
residents of the project fall to the residential developer both in the area of construction impacts as
well as noise and other environmental impacts from the brewery, railroad, and general area. The
details of these issues will be addressed at the Planned Development Permit stage. The second
public speaker was concerned about the over saturation of housing development in the current
economy.

The Commission then closed the public hearing and briefly discussed the item. The
Commission’s comments focused on ensuring that the conditions of the zoning are strong
enough to protect the brewery and that the high quality of architecture shown on the conceptual
plans translates to the future development on the site. Planning staff stated that while we do not
zone in architecture, the development standards for the zoning include a requirement varying
roof styles and the use of brick material. The Planning Commission wants to make sure that the
final project has a high quality design at least as good as what was in the conceptual plans that
were presented.

The Planning Commission then voted 7-0 to find the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
recommend to the City Council approval,of the proposed Planned Development Rezoning as
recommended by staff.

ANALYSIS

A complete analysis of the issues regarding this project, including General Plan conformance, is
contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission. This report was provided to the City
Council under separate cover.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

If the zoning is approved, the applicant would be required to file subsequent development permits
with the Planning Division in order to implement the project on the subject site.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 13,2011
Subject: File No. PDC08-036
Page 3


POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Not applicable.

PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST

      Criterion 1: Requires Council action on the use of public funds equal to $1 million or
      greater.
      (Required: Website Posting)
      Criterion 2: Adoption of a new or revised policy that may have implications for public
      health, safety, quality of life, or financial/economic vitality of the City. (Required: E-
      mail and Website Posting)
      Criterion 3: Consideration of proposed changes to service delivery, programs, staffing
      that may have impacts to community services and have been identified by staff, Council or
      a Community group that requires special outreach. (Required: E-mail, Website Posting,
      Community Meetings, Notice in appropriate newspapers)

Although this item does not meet any of the above criteria, staff followed Council Policy 6-30;
Public Outreach Policy. A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants
of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. The
rezoning was also published in a local newspaper, the Post Record. This staff report is also
posted on the City’s website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.

On April 22, 2010, a community meeting was held at the residence located at 711 N. 7th Street.
Those in attendance were supportive of the project, but were concerned that the high quality proj ect
presented to them would not actually be built as the applicant does not intend to build the project
himself. The community especially liked the use of brick and how it was carried from the Gordon
Biersch building through the project.

COORDINATION

This project was coordinated with the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, Building
Division, Environmental Services Department, and the City Attorney.

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT

This project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and City Council approved
design guidelines.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 13, 2011
Subject: File No. PDC08-036
Page 4

CEQA

In accordance with Title 21 of the San Jose Municipal Code, the Planning Commission, as an
advisory body to the City Council considered the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
together with any comments received during the public review period, and the Director’s report
thereon, prior to making a recommendation on the project, and found the MND complete on January
 12, 2011.



                                         /s/
                                         JOSEPH HORWEDEL, SECRETARY
                                         Planning Commission

                For questions please contact Mike Enderby, at 408-535-7843
noise qrdinance)




tpproval does not
   issues.
                 but to maintain tl~e
Sart Jose, Our locating the brewery in
     ~here I worked throughout my
          at great expense, and
       out" buildings to their original
          Please consider our position
Dire Concerns About PDCO8-036                                                                                                       Page 1 of 3



 Xavier,Lesley

  From:        DeadlineNews.Com [broderickperkins@deadlinenews,com]
  Sent:        Thursday, January 06, 2011 t2:08 PM
  To:          Lisa McCabe;’April April Halberstadt; Xavier, Lesley; Buzo, Fred; District3
  Subject:     Dire Concerns About PDCO8-036

Dire Concerns About PDCO8-036
The other glaring problem with thls project Is planned retail space, Another restaurant In ~]apantown? A 5,500 square foot restaurant?
Another 5,500 square feet of ANY kind of retail in this neighborhood? There’s empty retail space on Taylor Street in the Pavona project
that’s been empty since it was built. Other retail space across the street has only been filled for a coupla years and that took forever.
There’s also lots of empty retalt space In Japantown. And five restaurants on every block, How can any one possibly justify another 5,500
square feet of retail space?
Does the city or the developer have the traffic and density numbers to support retail on this site? Has a restaurant actually been na~ed?
Downtown San Jose can barely keep it’s small restaurants full. I’m down there several times a week, and personally enjoy getting seating
quickly but feel for some of the owners. And it’s got thousands of office workers and more residential density these days. -

The retail aspect of this project, alone~ Is out of scope with neighborhood density and traffic and from what I understood what was
supposed to be th~ City’s and Redevelopment Agency’s new look at ground floor retail.
To wit: See page /L4 In the attached file GroundFIoorRetaiLpdf: "All Mixed Up A formula for urban revitalization Is under review as cities
and developers realize the marginal benefits of mixed-use," the edited version of the story I wrote a while back after lengthy discussions
with clty officials. (The origlna| story "Ground Floor Retail Story" as submitted is also attached with comments from city officials, builders,
planners and others on the subject of ground floor retail.)
Here ale some excerpts from the published version.
"The motivation [for mixed-use development] was good, but It has gone awry. There is not an unlimited demand for retail Not every
location can support It. Not every site is the right site," said Anita Kramer, senior director of retail and mixed-use development for the
Urban Land Institute.
"San Jose Planning Director.losepb Horwedel says the city began grappling with the retail Issue before the economy tanked. Six years
ago, it stopped mandating ground-floor retail on all new downtown resldentlal projects. The city also has learned from failures." (Has It
real~y?)
"In .lapantown, retalf dldn’t turn out how we hoped. We pushed to put It on Taylor [Street] rather than Jackson Street (.]apantown’s retail
strip). We learned a lot
dealing with projects like that and by talking with Federal Realty [Investment Trust]," Santana Row’s developer, Horwede{ said.
"The city also Is building more flexible retail spaces and changing zoning to help fill existing space with services such as optometrists,
attorneys, accountants and other small businesses, Including locations that accommodate store fronts, office space and living quarters for
people who work and llve In the same locale."
Only a handful of the nearly 384 homes (a number that appears to keep rising with every new PDC08-036 document) planned for the
PDC08-036 site are live-work.
Save for Gordon BIersch of course, I’d like nothing better to see that Industrial park razed and scraped off the face of the earth. For at
least the past five to six years, It’s been a neighborhood eyesore, the scene of gun fire, rave parties, vehicle stunts, racing, englne
rewing, car alarms and boss-heavy music In the parking lot, car fires, debrls fires, homeless encampments, graffiti, strewn trash and
noise pollution, vagrants, loitering, public drlnklng, public urination and all the Ills associated with the worst of urban living. I’ve actively
worked with management on some of these Issues and have complained to the city. It does need to go.
 But you’ve got a historic building, some neighborhood history and a much much greater opportunity to do something unique Instead of
 building yet another cluster of hastily constructed, vlew-destroying, traffic-Increasing housing with no attention to real, current market
 demand. The housing market Is In the tank. Is there some study that shows we need another 400 homes here? Just to the north of this
 project another development Is already underway.
 The 3apantown project went back to the drawing boards and sltsi partlatly as a day parking lot because there’s just no demand right now
 In this neighborhood or most other neighborhoods for this kind of housing heavy development. Homes where I live In the Markethouse
 Lofts complex have lost half their value due to the market crash. Now you want to destroy the view too? How wilt residents ever stand a
 chance of recovering any lost value?
 Both the city officials and building developers have a really great opportunity to build something of the mixed-reuse and sustalnable
 variety, perhaps as an adjunct to what’s happening In Japantown on a much better conceived building-by-building approach, but the city
 and developers are falltng back on the same old failed formulas. Build to the edge and they will come. Why? Tax revenues. Land sales?
 It’s a failed concept. It reminds me of the devastating "Model Cities" concept back east In the 1960s. Slash and burn to build fllmsy
 homes and unsustalnable projects without regard to historic components, a view of the greenbelt and just plain commor~ sense.

 Brodedck Perkins, Journalist
 Markethouse Lofts HOA President



  1/6/2011
Dire Concerns About PDC08-036                                                                                                  Page 2 of 3


Concerned Citizen
350 E. Mission St. Unit 204
San Jose, CA 95112
408-287-4490
...... Forwarded Hessage
From: "DeadllneNews.Com" <bmderlckperklns@deadllnenews.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:00:19 -0800
TO: <Lesley.Xavier@sanjoseca.gov>, April April Halberstadt <aprllhal@aol.com>
Conversation: Project PDC08-036
Subject: Project PDC08-036
 concur with Lisa McCabe’s comments and have attached a community newsletter on the subject,

One of my concerns Is why they must ruin a (historic) building of Interest here when that was unnecessary over at f~larlanl.

The work on the old train side bricks near tile train station absolutely ruined those historic buildings.

Broderick Perkins
President, Narkethouse Lofts HOA
350 E. NlssIon St, Unlt 20~.
San ~!ose, CA 95112
...... Forwarded Message
From: Lisa HcCabe <lmccabe@gmall.com>
Date: Wed, S ~lan 2011 16:53:01 -0B00
To: Brodedck Perkins <broderlckperklns@deadllnenews.com>
Subject: Fwd: Please do not destroy our view and the light Into our lol~s - Project PDC08-036

HI Broderlck~
t took your advice and shot off an emall to Leslie atthe city of San
_!ose. Please,see my email chain below. Do you have any idea what she
Is referring to when she says "they are adding a 3 story atrium down
the center of the building." do we know exactly where this will fall?
 Is there a visual example of the changes to the brick building? if
not I will ask Lesley. Just thought I would check with you and also
share her comments.
Hope you are keeping well,
Usa i18

.......... Forwarded message
From: Xavier, Lesley <Lesley.Xavler@sanjoseca.g0v>
Date: Wed, Jan 5~ 2011 at 1~04 PM
Subject: RE; Please do not destroy our vlew and the light Into our
lofts - Project PDC08-036
To-’ Lisa Mccabe <Imccabe@gmall.com>


Yes, they are adding a 3 story atrium down the center of the building.


 Lesley


 From: Lisa Mccabe [mallto:lmccabe@_omall.eom]
 Sent: Wednesday, ]anuary 05;~ 2011 !2:57
 To: Xavlerj Lesley
 Subject: Re: Please do not destroy our view and the light Into our
 lol~s - Project PDC08-036


 HI Leslie,


 Thank you for your fast responsel My understanding us that the brick
 will remain but It will be extended upwards. Is this not correct?




  1/6/2011
Dire Concerns About PDCO8-036                                              Page 3 of 3


Lisa

Sent from iLisa



On 3an 5, 2011, at I2:01 Phi, "Xavier, Lesley"
< Lesley.Xavler@sanJoseca.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your comments. They will be Included in the public record.


Please do know that the two existing brick buildings (one being Gordon
61ersch) located at the railroad tracks are to remain as a part of the
project and the new residential building are to be located at 10th and
Taylor In place of the large warehouse buildings that currently exist,


Lesley


From: Lisa McCabe [mallto:lmccabe@amatt,com.]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:55 AN
To; Xavler~ Lesley
Subject: Please do not destroy our view and the light Into our felts -
Project PDC08~036


Dear Lesley,



I was very excited to hear that San Jose is continuing to develop the
area around my loft, I think that only enhances the value of the
area, However, when I read Into the details I was shocked and
saddened that there are plans to put residential units In place that
are up to 5 stories high. One of the reasons I purchased my property
was the stunning 17 foot windows that let In lots of natural light,
The proposed plans will wlpe out all of the natural light that I have
now as they will tower over our untls, Currently I look out onto a 2
story brick building which does not block my light, If the new
bulldlng goes ahead we will have no view and no light, With property
values already at 45% below what we paid for our units this wtll only
add to the pain. Who wants to buy a loft with a large window and no
light?


As I stated In my opening, ! am very excited for the area to be
developed. A pleasant compromise would be to limit the height: of the
new units so that it does not impact our light or view, Please take
my request Into consideration.


 Kind Regards~

 Lisa McCabe

 350 E Mission St Unit 118 San Jose CA 95112


 ...... End of Forwarded Message
 ...... End of Forwarded Message




  1/6/20
                     New board of directors elected
MHL HOA NEWS           Markethouse Lofts Homeowner Association
January 20tt         (MHL HOA) recently elected a new board of
                     directors.
Election               Ann Brady, long-time head of the Landscaping
Results              and Waste Management committees, received
                     23 votes; Sabine Castagnet, 2010 president and
                     MHL HOA building defect claim point person,
Defect Claim         received 18 votes. Broderick Perkins, a past
Update               board member and active committee worker, 18
                     votes.
                      ¯ Previous board members Chris Robinson and
Community            Phil Barros received 14 votes and 6 votes,
News                 respectively.
                       Perkins was named the new President,
                     Castagnet, Vice President and Brady,                                   BEFORE
,MHL HOA ME~TING.    Secretary/Treasurer.
 Wednesday, 6 p.m,
  January 20, 20!1     An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Resolution
            Center   to apply surplus income to next year’s budget
                     was approved by an 18 to 2 vote.

                      Building defect claim update
                        Mediation, scheduled Jan. t9, 2011, is the next
                      step in Markethouse Lofts HOA’s construction-
                      defect claim with Regis Homes, which began in
                      2009.
                        MHL HOA attorney, Robert Hall from Ftynn
                      Williams LLP, met with MHL owners during the
                      Oct. 28, 2010 MHL HOA meeting to answer
                      questions and provide a status report on the
                      claim.
                        MHL HOA Vice President, Sabine Castagnet                              AFTER
                      attended an expert meeting with representatives
                      from both sides on Wednesday Dec. t5, 2010.         There goes the neighborhood view
                      Board members will attend mediation Jan. 19,          No one is going to erect a building with a
                      2011.                                               sheer black surface, but you get the picture.
                        MHL HOA’s construction defect claims                The photos above reveal the view due to
                      procedure follows SB 800 (Civil Code Section        disappear with the proposed "Cannery Park
                      895) as mandated by California law.                 Village" project just across the railroad tracks.
                        MHL BeD is attempting to resolve the claim out      Plans include topping off the historio brick
                      of court. No litigation has been filed.             cannery building with two stodes of housing,
                        Direct any questions about the claim to MHL       removing a value-added view we enjoy. The
                      BeD members or management only.                     project includes 403 resldential units, 5,500
                                                                          sq. if, of retail, 8,500 sq. ft. of adist studio
      MarketHouse Lofts HOA Board of Directors                            space -- some of it five-stories high -- and park
      Broderick Perkins       broderickperkins@deadlinenews.com           land.
      Sabine Castagnet        scastagnet@yahoo.com                          To oppose the view-destroying aspect of the
      Ann Brady                                                           project, contact San Jose’s planning project
      Join MHL HOA Yahool Group for current community news                manager Leslie Xavier for Project]File No.
      htlp d/groups, yahoo.com/group/MarkethouseL oftsHON                 PDC08-036 at lesley.xavier@sanjoseca.gov.
      Contact MHL HOA management for pressing issues                        Act quickly. Your voice matters. A city
      MHL HOA Management," Massingham & Associates                        Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for
                            408.540.5055                                  Jan. 12, 2011; 6:30 p.m., City Council
      Email                 isadob@massingham.com                         Chambers, City Hall, 200 E. Santa Clam St.,
      Diane Harn            408.540.5029                                  followed Jan. 25 by a City Council Hearing,
      Email                 dharn@massingham,com                          Jan. 25, 2011, 7 p.m., same location,
      Off Hours/Emergency 1.866.673.5415
                                                                                                                                Pag~ 1 of 1



 Xavier, Lesley
  From: Yat-Oheong Au [cheong@aec-alarms.cem]
  Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:53 AM
  To:      Xavier, Lesley; Liccardo, Sam
  Cc:      Henninger, Ragan; Cueto, Ruth; Buzo, Fred; Hadnot, Rhonda
  Subject: Rezoning at 357 E. Taylor Street (File No. PC08-036)

Dear Lesley,

1 am writing to strongly OPPOSE the rezoning of officeilight industrial space to a mixed use development including 5500
square feet of commemlal space and up to 384 multi-family units for the following reasons:

(1) Currently, there is an over-production of residential housing in the area, and too many vacancies. There are projects
being built over a three block area on E. Taylor and the corners of 7th, 8th and 9th streets. Another project is already being
built on E. Hedding and 10th Street.

(2) With the area being over-built with housing and no occupants, it will create an atmosphere of "emptiness" where there is
no desire to be in.
(3) I believe there should be more retail, commercial, and restaurant businesses in this area as there is currently nothing in
the area. We often have to drive several miles away to have access to restaurants and retail services. There is no grocery
store nearby either.
(4) The current landowner is planning to sell the "rezoned" space to a potential buildingldeveloper, and this does not give
much credibility to the future of this project.
With all the residential units being built, I don’t believe there are enough services to support an already over-built and low
demand residential housing community.
Please reconsider and DENY this change,

Youm Respectfully,




Yat-Cheong Au

AEC ALARMS
499 E. Taylor St.
San Jose, CA 95112
T (408) 298-8888
C (408} 593-9889
F (408) 298-8899
cheong@aec-alarms.com
www,aec-alarms,com
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is strictly prohibited, tf you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any
attachments thereto.

Have a web alarm system ? Now you can download the iPhone, Blackberry, or Android app! You
can also add web cameras to your system!




 1/13/2011

								
To top