January 3,
2005
Michael Rhoades
Project Manager
City of San Jose -Department
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
801 North First Street, Room 400
San Jose, CA 95110
Subject: Comments regarding Draft EIR - KB Home
Monte Vista (Del Monte Plant #3 Site) Residential Planned Development Zoning
Project - File No. 03-071 (SCH #2004022036)
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association has a
number of concerns with the DEIR evaluating the proposed rezoning and
development of this site. First,
we believe that the proposed development does not clearly conform to General
Plan policy regarding neighborhood compatibility, trails and riparian
corridors. Second, we believe that
the alternative projects set forth in the DEIR to preserve the most Òhistorically
significantÓ cannery buildings, while preferable to the applicantÕs proposed
development, are inadequate and we propose another that is a variation on the
DEIR Alternative ÔBÕ.
We are concerned with the conformance of the
proposed project with general plan policy regarding (1) neighborhood
compatibility and (2) trails and riparian corridors.
The DEIR does not clearly inform us as to the
interface between the proposed project and the surrounding neighborhood. San Jose General Plan (GP) policy
clearly speaks of the need for new development to integrate with the
surrounding neighborhood rather than be isolated from it. GP Policies to that effect are quoted
below.
The development will connect with the
neighborhood along Auzerais Avenue, at the San Carlos overpass, along the
future riparian corridor and trail, at the future Light rail station and along
pedestrian ways between Auzerais and the station. Neighboring residents should find this interface friendly
and not a barrier. Development
along these project boundaries should not consist of bare walls, large garages
or parking lots.
There are examples in the city where
high-density development on a platform above a garage (such as Area B and any
similar approaches in alternative designs) is isolated from the surrounding
community and has a negative impact on neighborhood cohesion. To avoid this detrimental impact on the
neighborhood, we ask that the city require the development conform with the GP
and condition future development under the new zoning to place residential
units (and their individual entrances) between the garage and adjoining pedestrian
areas.
The doors and windows of individual residences
and their inhabitants is the view that should greet the neighbors, not a
monolithic parking garage, no matter how well it may appear screened in the
architectural renderings.
Specific GP Policies related to the objective of
neighborhood compatibility include the following:
Neighborhood
Identity - 3. Public and private development should be designed to improve
the character of existing neighborhoods. Factors that cause instability or
create urban barriers should be discouraged or removed.
Residential
Land Uses - 22. High density residential and mixed residential/commercial development
located along transit corridors should be designed to: Create a pleasant walking
environment to encourage pedestrian activity, particularly to the nearest
transit stop. Maximize transit
usage. Allow residents to conduct
routine errands close to their residence. Integrate with surrounding uses to become a part of the
neighborhood rather than an isolated project. Use architectural elements or themes from the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ensure that building scale does not overwhelm the neighborhood.
24. New residential development
should create a pedestrian friendly environment by connecting the features of
the development with safe, convenient, accessible, and pleasant pedestrian
facilities. Such connections should also be made between the new development,
the adjoining neighborhood, transit access points, and nearby commercial areas.
Urban
Design - 33. All developments should provide pedestrian friendly design
features including, but not limited to, pedestrian pathways connecting public
streets to building entrances and other features of the site. In addition,
street trees and appropriate pedestrian scale lighting should be installed in
developments within Pedestrian Priority Areas. Non-residential development
should include street shade, pedestrian-oriented signage, and building
entrances along the street frontage. Within the public right-of-way, pedestrian-oriented
signage could include "trailblazer" signs.
34. To create a more pleasing pedestrian environment, building frontages should
include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades, and
entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Windows and/or
entries should be provided along sidewalks and pathways.
Land Use/ Transportation Diagram Ð The site has
a GP designation of Transit-Oriented Mixed Use.
Development proposed in these areas should conform to the following policies
respecting neighborhood compatibility:
¥ Building fronts and entrances should be oriented
to transportation facilities and designed to encourage transit use and create a
pedestrian friendly environment.
¥ Parking lots should not be located between
building fronts and entrances and transportation facilities but should be
minimal in size and located to the rear or side of buildings, i.e., away from
transit facilities.
[2] Trails and Riparian Corridors
In our previous letter of 10-9-04, the WGNA
spoke of three goals we would like to see met regarding the trail and riparian
corridor. According to the DEIR,
the developer has agreed to one of these, the planting of native landscaping in
the expanded riparian area. A
second, the construction and maintenance of the trail by the developer is not
clearly committed to in the DEIR.
The third, the grade separated trail segment beneath the bridge is
neither committed to nor shown in any of the project plans. In order to achieve GP conformance, we
believe the second two goals should be agreed to or required as conditions of
the ultimate development approvals.
Pertinent Trails and Pathways Policies from the
General Plan include the following:
1. The
City should control land development along designated Trails and Pathways Corridors
in order to provide sufficient trail right-of-way and to ensure that new
development adjacent to the corridors does not compromise safe trail access nor
detract from the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the corridor.
2. When new development occurs adjacent to a
designated Trails and Pathways Corridor, the City should encourage the
developer to install and maintain the trail.
4.
Bridges and other public improvements within designated Trails and Pathways
Corridors should be designed to provide safe and secure routes for trails,
including grade separation of roadways and trails whenever feasible.
7.
Trails should be built to meet the trail standards established by the
Department of Public Works. Trail design should provide sufficient light,
vertical and horizontal clearance, and landscape setbacks from adjacent
development to ensure a safe and aesthetically pleasing recreational
experience.
The DEIR discusses trail policies #1 & 7,
but not the others. Even regarding
#1, it does not discuss the negative neighborhood safety, scenic and aesthetic
impact of two of the alternative designs due to the placement of a large
surface parking lot next to the trail/riparian corridor. The DEIR needs to confirm that the
developer will install and maintain the trail per policy #2. The plans do not show a grade separated
trail route beneath the bridge per policy #4. The gradual slope of the west bank of Los Gatos Creek at
this location would facilitate the construction of the trail (with sufficient
vertical & horizontal clearance) beneath the bridge with minimal grading
and about 10 feet above the streamÕs normal flow. The creek at this location flows along the east bank. Grade separations where trails cross
streets are crucial to the encouragement of trail use and should be required
wherever feasible.
The DEIR presents a number of alternative
projects that would retain the most significant historical buildings on the
site with their outside walls ÒpunctuatedÓ for windows and doorways. The idea is positive. The way it has been presented is
not. We believe that alternative
project designs could be created that would save the most Òhistorically
significantÓ structures, while enhancing the neighborhood environment and
generating revenue for the developer comparable to their preferred project design.
We were disturbed that all the alternative
project designs presented an unfriendly interface with the community in
conflict with General Plan policy.
Each shows a parking lot between the historical structures and Auzerais
Avenue and larger surface parking areas (in contrast to the preferred
alternative) near the Light Rail station.
Two alternative plans show a large parking area separating the riparian
area and the trail from the development. A 90 foot residential high-rise
shown in some of the alternative scenarios appears isolated and would not
ensure that building scale does not overwhelm the neighborhood.
Presenting alternatives more unfriendly to the
neighborhood than the preferred project is not objective analysis. Neither is it required in order to save
cannery buildings #2,3 & 4.
Instead, plans showing residential uses and/or
landscaping between the redeveloped cannery buildings and Auzerais would
provide a more positive link with the community and at the same time enhance
the livability of the converted cannery buildings. The residents within the redeveloped cannery building should
look out from their windows and doorways in the ÒpunctuatedÓ eastern wall into
the riparian landscape rather than a parking lot.
The WGNA believes that an alternative project
design, which enables the developer to construct the preferred number of 385
residential units with sufficient parking, can be proposed incorporating loft
residences in the most historically significant cannery buildings (#s 2, 3,
& 4) and new residential structures no more than 4 to 5 stories in height
upon a podium. The periphery of
such an alternative development and along internal pedestrian ways can represent
a positive connection with the surrounding neighborhood. The construction of new residential
structures, opening up of the cannery walls, texture of materials, placement of
balconies, windows, doors and entryways and use of landscaping should be
designed with the objective of creating a positive interface with the
neighbors.
If we accept the DEIR
figures in Alternative B showing 196 condo units on one podium and 70 loft
units in the refurbished cannery buildings, this leaves a shortfall of 110
units from the developerÕs preferred project. The area remaining over the footprints of demolished
warehouses #20, #24
and the north portion of #1, plus that over their proposed parking area between
#3 and Auzerais should be sufficient for 110 condos with parking beneath. This assumes construction of a
pedestrian pathway between Auzerais and a small plaza in front of the light
rail station. A below grade auto
passage beneath a pedestrian way separating the condo podiums could provide
access to the parking beneath the second podium.
Under this new alternative,
adequate parking can be provided beneath the condo podiums and below grade
within the new loft units. Such
below grade parking should be considered under some portion of the preserved
warehouse buildings. As stated in
the DEIR, ÒÉ fill and undocumented materials, including an estimated
four to five feet of fill beneath the existing warehouse floors could result in
settlement if left in place. Remediation and/or replacement of warehouse floors
and underlying soil materials may be needed to reduce on-site hazards to an
acceptable level from a geologic and seismic standpoint.Ó Construction of a below grade garage
could fit nicely into the plans for such remediation.
Lastly, we believe that such a new alternative
can provide for an expanded, landscaped riparian area adjoining the punctuated
eastern wall of the refurbished cannery buildings.
Sincerely,
Helen Solinski
WGNA President