REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on Tasman East Specific Plan, Creation of a new General Plan Designation and General Plan Amendment to Transit Neighborhood, Creation of New Tasman East Zoning District and Rezoning of the Tasman East Area to that Zoning District, Environmental Impact Report, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Tasman East Specific Plan on October 24, 2018. The Commission recommended approval, with modifications to the staff recommendation, of the Specific Plan and associated environmental clearance and land use changes. The Tasman East Specific Plan proposes 4,500 residential units and 106,000 square feet of commercial uses in a manner that implements the General Plan vision for the area as a transit-oriented neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing and take four actions related to preparation of a Specific Plan for the City’s Tasman East Focus Area:
1) Determination of the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project;
2) Adoption of the Specific Plan;
3) Adoption of associated General Plan land use diagram and text amendments including the creation of the Transit Neighborhood General Plan Land Use Designation; and
4) Adoption of the Transit Neighborhood zoning district (as well as the establishment of correlating parking standards) into the Zoning Code and application of that zoning district to the Specific Plan project area.
The Tasman East Focus Area is bounded by Tasman Drive to the south, Lafayette Street to the west, the municipal golf course to the north, and the Guadalupe River to the east, and is specifically intended to support new residential development in close proximity to jobs, retail, services and entertainment, and to support alternative travel modes based on its proximity to the Lick Mill and Tasman VTA Light Rail Stations and the ACE Great America station. The City’s General Plan Focus Areas are intended to accommodate a significant amount of the City’s growth and to directly support the City’s quality of life and economic vitality. The General Plan calls for the preparation of a Specific Plan to implement the City’s vision for Tasman East and to implement related General Plan goals and policies (General Plan Policy 5.4.6‐P19).
The Tasman East Focus Area General Plan policies call for the development of robust walking and bicycling infrastructure networks and an amenity rich environment with retail and services to support the livability of residents. The General Plan also calls for the location of ample and deliberately planned new open spaces that connect to each other and existing nearby parks and trails. (e.g., Goals 5.4.6‐G1, and 5.4.6‐G2, Policy 5.4.6‐P1, 5.4.6-P!, 5.4.6-P4, 5.4.6-P7).
Consistent with City Council input from the February 6, 2018 study session, the Specific Plan establishes an ambitious Park Space and Greenways plan to provide 10 acres of open space area consisting of 5 acres of publicly dedicated parkland, along with a mix of publicly accessible private open spaces and private open space. Each individual development project will be reviewed for opportunities to contribute to the public space realm and open spaces areas will be designed so as to support active uses. (Policy 5.4.6‐P12).
Consistent with the General Plan’s vision, the proposed Specific Plan land uses will maximize the value of their adjacency to the Lick Mill Light Rail Station by utilizing a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to minimize vehicle trips. A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction goal of 20% is proposed for the Transit Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. The total reduction includes10% coming from locational advantages (such as proximity to transit), and 10% coming from TDM strategies implemented at an area-wide or project level. As the Specific Plan is implemented, individual development projects will be required to incorporate measures to incentivize transit usage, implement first and last mile connections to transit, and effectively utilize other mobility advancements such as ride hailing and ride sharing technology.
The physical improvements and policy actions established within the Specific Plan are intended to advance the goals set forth in the General Plan for the Tasman East Focus Area, encouraging alternative modes of transportation and reducing the impacts of new development upon the vehicular transportation network (e.g., Goal 5.4.6‐G3, Policy 5.4.6‐P4, 5.4.6‐P7).
DISCUSSION
At the October 24 Planning Commission meeting, staff provided a presentation on the proposed project, and highlighted three letters from the public received prior to the hearing (see Attachment 2). Two letters were received from current business owners within Tasman East, who were concerned about the possibility of their businesses becoming legal-nonconforming as a result of the adoption of the Specific Plan. The third letter, jointly from the Sierra Club and Audubon Society, requested a 300-foot buffer to be imposed along the Guadalupe River to reduce the possibility of bird strike and degradation of habitat along the Guadalupe River and at Ulistac Natural Reserve.
Public testimony at the hearing included two property owners from the Plan Area expressing concern about the ability to maintain the legal status of existing industrial uses, four members of the public advocating that the project include additional measures to accommodate bird movement along the Plan’s eastern boundary and four developer representatives who explained details of their projects and addressed the impacts an additional avian setback would have upon their projects and the need for incentives to offset the higher construction costs for some types of construction. A representative from the Santa Clara Unified School District also spoke, requesting that the Commission consider additional affordable housing within the plan area to help provide housing for school district employees.
In response to the public comments, staff explained that the proposed Transit Neighborhood zoning code amendment includes language that allows existing light industrial uses to continue operation under the provisions of the ML Light Industrial chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, thereby fully maintaining their status as legal activities. Staff also clarified that this status would not change if the property is transferred to a different owner and would only terminate if a parcel is redeveloped with a change of use.
Regarding the bird strike issue presented in the Sierra Club/Audubon Society letter and their testimony, staff summarized the analysis contained in the EIR, which identified bird strikes as a significant impact throughout the plan area and a mitigation measure to require bird-safe design measures for all buildings up to a height of 60 feet and for the entire building if within 300 feet of the Guadalupe River. Staff further noted that the EIR identified conflicting expert opinion regarding the need for increased riparian setbacks to accommodate bird movement; the EIR did not identify a significant impact to wildlife movement with the proposed project including mitigation measures. Staff noted that the proposed 100-foot riparian setback requirement is consistent with riparian setbacks used by other jurisdictions and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.
After public testimony, the Planning Commission discussion and recommendations addressed the following topics.
Bird Strike and Wildlife Movement
The Commission discussed the issue of an increased riparian setback for avian movement as requested by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. Representatives of these two groups proposed that the River District park be reconfigured as native habitat to accommodate this request. The Commission considered an exhibit provided by one of the property owners that indicated a 300 foot setback would require approximately half of their site area. Staff also provided input that the park design was intended to provide flat areas that could be programmed for active use and which would have sufficient frontage onto Lick Mill Boulevard to be inviting to public use. The Commission considered a possible increase in the required setback from 100 feet to 125 feet, but determined not to include this requirement in their recommendations.
Density Incentive and Affordable Housing
The Commission discussed at length the proposed density incentive that would allow an incremental reduction in affordability requirements for units developed above specific densities (e.g., 120 DU/AC and 140 DU/AC). The density incentive as proposed by staff is intended to provide a modest offset in developer costs for the more expensive construction types (e.g., typically Type I or Type III) that support higher density projects. Staff explained that the proposed reduction in affordability only applies to a portion of the project over a particular density, so that if utilized, it would result in greater production of both affordable and market rate units than would otherwise be produced. The incentive would also encourage a mix of construction types and therefore more variety in visual character of the built environment.
Members of the Commission expressed concern that this incentive was in conflict with the City’s critical need for additional affordable housing and inconsistent with policies in other cities which increase affordability requirements for projects as a trade-off for higher density. Commissioner Becker stated that his preference was to not have a density incentive, and to require additional affordable housing. The Commission discussed the possibility of a 20% inclusionary requirement for the Plan area and asked staff to explain the two proposed phases. Staff explained that the eight initial applications were also submitted prior to the cutoff for the City’s new Affordability Ordinance and as rental projects would not technically have been subject to the Citywide 15% requirement, but had voluntarily agreed to a 10% requirement as part of the proposed Specific Plan policy framework. Staff also explained that the extended duration for one year of the Policy Phase 1 in comparison to the Citywide policy was provided to off-set the delay in the Plan’s preparation and the City’s requirement that developers wait until the Plan policies were formulated before submitting project applications. Staff and the developer representatives provided the Commission with additional information on the differences in costs for various construction types.
Commissioner Chahal proposed that the Plan require higher levels of affordability and provide a density incentive directly tied to construction type, rather than project density, with an affordability requirement of 20% for Type V construction, 15% for Type III construction and 10% for Type 1 construction. Commissioner Ikezi later proposed a modified version of this proposal, which the Commission adopted as its recommendation to Council, as described below. Other Commissioners expressed support for connecting the incentive more directly to construction type, expressing concern that the proposed incentive would not be adequate incentive for a developer to modify their development plans.
Minimum Allowable Density
Commissioner Ikezi expressed concern about the proposed minimum density in the plan area, and indicated that the Plan might not achieve the desired production of 4,500 dwelling units, given the proposed minimum density of 85 DU/AC. In response to questions, staff explained that an average density of approximately 120 DU/AC would be necessary to achieve 4,500 units at build-out, but that staff had proposed a minimum of 85 DU/AC in anticipation that some projects would be built at densities greater than 120 DU/AC and that 85 DU/AC would allow for greater variation in building heights and types. Commissioner Ikezi proposed that the minimum density should be 120 DU/AC to insure that the Plan Area achieves 4,500 total units.
Transportation Measures
The Commission also considered strengthening the Specific Plan TDM strategy by increasing the VMT reduction target for the Transit Neighborhood designation, and by proposing additional TDM measures including a Transportation Management Association (TMA), a shuttle service, and by providing additional alternative modes of transportation within the plan area, such as scooter share and e-bikes.
Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Ikezi made a motion, and Kelly seconded, to recommend that the City Council certify the Tasman East program EIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The motion passed (5-1-1, Chair Jain opposed, and Commissioner Williams absent).
Commissioner Ikezi than made a motion to recommend adoption of the Specific Plan, with the following modifications: 1) to increase the required VMT reduction required to 30%, with 20% of the reductions coming from TDM measures; and 2) to increase the minimum density for projects to 120 DU/AC. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jain made a friendly amendment to the motion to 1) include scooter sharing, with scooter corrals, as an additional TDM strategy; 2) Require greenways and other privately owned property to be maintained to the same standard as City parks; and 3) require new construction to meet a sustainability standard of LEED Silver or equivalent.
Commissioner Ikezi made an additional amendment to her motion by proposing an alternative density incentive tied to construction type, as shown in the table below:
Table 1. Proposed Density Incentive based on type of construction
|
Construction Type |
Phase I Through August 1, 2019 |
Phase II After August 1, 2019 |
|
Types IV and V |
15% |
20% |
|
Type III |
10% |
15% |
|
Types I and II |
5% |
10% |
The City Attorney noted that under the recently adopted State legislation, locally adopted inclusionary requirements of greater than 15% are subject to State review and could be rejected if the State determines that they would cause an undue barrier to housing production. The motion, as amended by Commissioners Jain and Ikezi, passed (4-2-1), with Commissioners Chahal and Becker opposed, and Commissioner Williams absent.
Commissioner Ikezi then made a motion (Kelly seconding) to recommend adoption of the Transit Neighborhood General Plan designation with the following modifications: 1) Increasing the minimum density for the designation to 120 DU/AC; and 2) increasing the required VMT reduction in the Climate Action Plan to 30%, with 20% coming from TDM Measures. The motion passed (4-2-1), with Commissioners Chahal and Becker opposed and Commissioner Williams absent.
Commissioner Ikezi also made a motion to recommend adoption of the Transit Neighborhood Zoning District with a modification to raise the minimum required density to 120 DU/AC, and to incorporate a density incentive by construction type, as shown in Table 1, above. Kelly seconded. The motion passed (4-2-1), with Commissioners Chahal and Becker opposed, and Commissioner Williams absent.
The Planning Commission recommendations are shown in the recommendation section below as Alternative 1 and Alternatives 5-7.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommendation is presented below as Alternatives 1-4. In response to the Planning Commission discussion, staff has modified the staff recommendation to address some of the concerns raised by the Commission.
Consistent with the Commission recommendation, staff has incorporated into the staff recommendation the requirement that the Specific Plan include requirements for LEED Silver or equivalent construction, the requirement that maintenance of greenways and other public amenities on private property be at a standard equivalent to City Parks and the addition of shared scooters with scooter corrals as part of the available TDM strategies.
Staff continues to recommend that the Policy maintain the originally proposed incentive for higher density development through a reduced incremental decrease in affordability requirements as was previously reviewed by the City Council at study sessions earlier this year on June 26 and September 18. This approach directly ties the incentive to project density, thereby encouraging the production of more units overall as well as more affordable units. Staff has previously stated that such an incentive would help offset the higher construction costs for Type I construction, in part based on a market analysis prepared for the Specific Plan that indicated that Type I construction was unlikely to be feasible in the near-term and further supported by information on rents and construction costs provided by the Plan Area developers.
The Commission recommendation has the advantage that it more directly ties the incentive to construction type and creates a greater level of incentive for Type I projects. However, the incentive proposed by the Commission is not based on an incremental approach and when applied to the eight projects currently on file would result in a significant lower number of affordable units (453 affordable units instead of 491 units). In order to maintain the same overall affordability within the current projects, while reducing the affordability requirement to 5% for Type I construction, it would be necessary to raise the affordability requirement to 12% for Type III construction projects. The Commission recommendation would also result in a 20% affordability requirement for Type V construction in Phase II and would thus be subject to State review. While it may be reasonable to adopt a higher Citywide affordability requirement for new development, it could be a disincentive to development within the Plan area if it has a more stringent requirement than other parts of the City. Consequently, staff continues to propose the incentive structure set forth in Table 2:
Table 2. Proposed Density Incentive based on density of construction
|
Project DensityPhase I Through August 1, 2019Phase II After August 1, 2019 |
|
|
|
Density ≤ 120 DU/AC |
10% |
15% |
|
120 DU/AC < Density ≤ 140 DU/AC |
8% |
12% |
|
Density > 140 DU/AC |
5% |
10% |
While the Commission recommended that the minimum allowable density be 120 DU/AC, staff is recommending that the minimum required density for the Transit Neighborhood General Plan land use designation be 100 DU/AC. This minimum would allow for more flexibility for the design of projects and as projects over 120 DU/AC are strongly anticipated, still support the overall goal of 4,500 units. A minimum density of 120 DU/AC would likely preclude all wood-frame projects and limit mid-height development to micro units. This minimum would also avoid the creation of a gap in allowable densities between the existing Very High Density Residential designation (51-100 DU/AC) and the Transit Neighborhood designation (120-350 DU/AC as recommended by the Commission).
Staff is recommending that the Project area (Transit Neighborhood designation) VMT reduction target be maintained at 20% as previously proposed, with half of the reduction coming from TDM Strategies (The Planning Commission recommended 30% total VMT reduction). Based on measures currently considered feasible and enforceable, a 20% total VMT reduction is an achievable target that will incentivize alternative modes of transportation without preventing the development of projects that will meet the City’s objectives for the Plan Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Tasman East Specific Plan and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR analyzes program-level impacts of the Tasman East Specific Plan. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from July 30, 2018 to September 13, 2018 in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for Tasman East, including land use compatibility and consistency with floodplain requirements (Policy 5.4.6‐P8, 5.4.6‐P9, 5.4.6‐P10, and 5.4.6‐P18).
The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
• Biological Resources (bird strikes)
• Transportation (intersection and freeway levels of service and transit delays)
The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
• Biological Resources (bird strikes)
• Transportation (intersection levels of service)
• Utilities (landfill capacity)
All of the other potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
The Draft EIR comment period ran from July 30, 2018 to September 13, 2018. A total of eleven comments were received during the comment period, with comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and a joint letter from the Audubon Society and Sierra Club arriving after the close of the comment period.
None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact, or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required.
Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, was made available to the public through the City’s website on October 12, 2018, and have been forwarded on to all commenters on the Draft EIR.
A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Specific Plan have been financed through the City’s permit fee revenue and are anticipated to be significantly recovered following the adoption of a proposed Specific Plan fee that will be brought forward for Council consideration after the adoption of the Specific Plan.
The proposed change in land uses would significantly increase land values as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. The addition of retail services and an increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. While the City has not conducted a fiscal analysis for the Specific Plan, it is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the Plan will include private maintenance of park spaces and a significant private investment for infrastructure that will also provide fiscal benefits. On the whole, implementation of the Specific Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
On October 10, 2018, a notice of public hearing of this item was posted in three conspicuous locations within 500 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. A notice was published in the Santa Clara Weekly on October 10, 2018.
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
In addition to City Council and Planning Commission study sessions, the City held four community meetings to discuss the plan: June 6, 2016, which was a general orientation to the area and the Specific Plan process; July 21, 2016, which presented options for residential density, the street network and character of parks; September 19, 2016, which presented the proposed planning framework; and June 7, 2018, where the draft specific plan was discussed. Attendance at these community meetings ranged from 15 to 40 people.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Tasman East Specific Plan (SCH #2015022059), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding considerations.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Tasman East Specific Plan, a specific plan consistent with Government Code Sections 65450-65457.
3. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment creating the Transit Neighborhood land use designation (100-350 Dwelling Units/Acre), updating the Climate Action Plan to recognize the Transit Neighborhood Land Use Designation with a required VMT reduction of 20%, with 10% coming from location and 10% coming from TDM measures, and amending the General Plan Land Use diagrams for Phases II and III to reflect the land use designations in the Tasman East Specific Plan.
4. Introduce an ordinance amending the zoning code to create the Transit Neighborhood Zoning district, including a minimum density of 100 DU/AC, creating standards for uniformly sized parking spaces (unistalls), rezoning the Project Site to the new district, and establishing an affordability incentive based on density, according to Table 2.
5. Adopt a resolution approving the Tasman East Specific Plan, a specific plan consistent with Government Code Sections 65450-65457, with the following additions, as recommended by the Planning Commission:
a) Increase the required vehicle miles traveled reduction contained in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to 30%, with 10% coming from location and 20% coming from TDM measures;
b) Require a minimum density of 120 Dwelling Units per Acre within the plan area; and
c) Offer a density incentive by construction type per Table 1, above.
6. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment creating the Transit Neighborhood land use designation as recommended by the Planning Commission (120-350 Dwelling Units/Acre), updating the Climate Action Plan to recognize the Transit Neighborhood Land Use Designation, with a required VMT reduction of 30%, with 10% coming from location and 20% coming from TDM measures, and amending the General Plan Land Use diagrams for Phases II and III to reflect the land use designations in the Tasman East Specific Plan.
7. Adopt an ordinance amending the zoning code to create the Transit Neighborhood Zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission, with a minimum density of 120 DU/AC, creating standards for uniformly sized parking spaces (unistalls), and making other clarifying changes, rezoning the Project Site to the new district, and establishing an affordability incentive based on development type, according to Table 1.
8. Adopt a resolution approving the Tasman East Specific Plan, a specific plan consistent with Government Code Sections 65450-65457, with a modified incentive for higher density based upon projects achieving 125 DU/AC and/or 150 DU/AC or with additional modifications as determined by the City Council and with corresponding changes to the General Plan text and Transit Neighborhood Zoning district if required.
9. Direct staff to return to City Council with a modified version of the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternatives 1-4:
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Tasman East Specific Plan (SCH #2015022059), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding considerations.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Tasman East Specific Plan, a specific plan consistent with Government Code Sections 65450-65457.
3. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment creating the Transit Neighborhood land use designation (100-350 Dwelling Units/Acre), updating the Climate Action Plan to recognize the Transit Neighborhood Land Use Designation with a required VMT reduction of 20%, with 10% coming from location and 10% coming from TDM measures, and amending the General Plan Land Use diagrams for Phases II and III to reflect the land use designations in the Tasman East Specific Plan.
4. Introduce an ordinance amending the zoning code to create the Transit Neighborhood Zoning district, including a minimum density of 100 DU/AC, creating standards for uniformly sized parking spaces (unistalls), rezoning the Project Site to the new district, and establishing an affordability incentive based on density, according to Table 2.
Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tasman East Planning Commission Report
2. Letters received prior to the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting
3. Tasman East EIR Resolution
4. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5. Tasman East Specific Plan Resolution
6. Tasman East General Plan Amendment Resolution
7. Transit Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance
8. General Plan Tasman East Goals and Policies (referenced in PC report)
9. Draft Plan Land Use Framework (referenced in PC report)
10. Draft Plan Open Space and Greenways Diagram (referenced in PC report)
11. Draft Plan Tasman East-CityPlace Pedestrian Connectivity Diagram (referenced in PC report)
12. Tasman East EIR files and Specific Plan
Tasman East EIR files are available here:
<http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/152/3649>
The Tasman East Specific Plan is available here:
<http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=62000>
In case either link is broken, please copy and paste the link into your browser.
Paper copies of the documents are also available in the Office of the City Clerk.