The City of San Jose is responding to concerns about the project in question with the following "generic" response:

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted. Staff acknowledges the initial comment, but we must note that we are beholden to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, taking into account the required permit findings (covering land use and environmental matters) only, to form a recommendation on the project.

We acknowledge the description taken from the Character Area definition of the project site (page 20, pdf page 26 of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan); however, the allowable land use is controlled by the Land Use Designation portion of the document. The site has a land use designation of Urban Village within the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the Urban Village Plan (page 26, pdf page 32). This designation is a commercial designation which also supports residential development only on parcels meeting a minimum size of 0.5 acres. While the site is over 0.5 acres once combined, the proposed project still meets the designation in that it is a commercial use. There is no requirement for residential use on the project site.

Staff also acknowledges concerns regarding the form of and parking area provided by the project, but we note that many of the policies of the Urban Village Plan “encourage” certain things, and are not specific requirements. For instance, Policy LU-1.1 encourages new commercial development at an FAR of 0.3 or greater (page 33, pdf page 39); while the project does not have a 0.3 FAR, staff also cannot find the project contrary to the Urban Village Plan because there is no specific FAR requirement for the project. Examples of requirements within the UV Plan are Policy LU-2.3 and Policy LU-2.6, which specifically prohibit surface parking in front of buildings and drive-through uses, respectively.

Staff does recognize Goal UD-6 and subsequent policies (page 57, pdf page 63), but these are goals and action items for the City to implement across the Urban Village. The City believes it has generally accomplished this through the elimination of parking minimums and permit requirements for sharing parking, and cannot apply these policies to individual projects.

Regarding the proposed parking lot, the relevant requirements in the Urban Design Concept (page 66, pdf page 72) are to encourage parking reductions (since defunct) and explore alternative parking solutions, both of which are non-objective policies, and to locate surface parking to the rear of developments, which this proposal does. There is no parking maximum. Generally, staff finds that this project will very likely be able to resolve all conflicts with the policies and elements of the Urban Design Concept.

In short, staff must review the project as submitted, which includes the demolition of the existing commercial building and the construction of a one-story building with a parking lot, and review the project for conformance with City ordinances and plans (and state and federal laws, as necessary). While a larger mixed-use project would be allowed here, and would perhaps be desirable, that is ultimately not the project proposed and is not the project being reviewed. If a proposed project is consistent with and can meet the Site Development Permit findings, then staff must recommend approval. It will ultimately be up to the decision-making body to approve or deny the project.

Staff believes the project as submitted generally conforms with the land use designation and applicable objective standards of the General and Urban Village plans in promoting commercial development at the site. Staff has encouraged the applicant to increase floor area, avoid demolition of the existing building, and decrease the amount of parking, but staff cannot force an applicant to make these changes (or recommend denial of the project) unless they contravene objective policies or the zoning code. I’ll note that even if staff finds that a project does contravene Urban Village or General Plan policies, an applicant can request that staff continue reviewing the project and take it to a decision maker (Director’s Hearing in this case) for a final decision on the project.

In conclusion, while the concerns about this project are heard and understood, staff has not found the project to contravene the Urban Village Plan. Even if the proposed project is not the most intensive use allowed at the site, staff ultimately must review the project as submitted and recommend approval or disapproval based on whether or not the project meets the findings to approve a Site Development Permit.

Please note that we expect to hold a community meeting on this project early in 2025 on a date to be determined.

For those that are interested, the Urban Village Plan was set out by the City as guidelines to help hear residents and come up with a path for redeveloping areas in the City taking feedback from residents as well as making appropriate planning for the Cities future and our neighbors to be.  A copy of the plan is available at:

https://www.bvnasj.org/redevelopment

It is our stance that ignoring these redevelopment plans is not just ignoring the voice of the people but also a monumental waste of peoples time; we spent a decade working with City Staff, architects, community leaders, and residents alike to talk about peoples needs and desires; we made a vision for a walkable neighborhood that was a mix between Willow-Glen and downtown that brought not just space for thousands of new neighbors but created an environment where we can realistically get people out of cars by providing real job opportunities close to peoples homes.  Opportunities not just to work but to shop, to do business, to play, and most importantly to live.

Ignoring these plans sets us back by not creating these opportunities we need to continue to transform our City and our lives in positive ways and to create real potential to move people out of their cars.

We will continue to push for sensible redevelopment that helps us embrace a more positive future for everyone and we thank everyone who has taken the time to sign the petition for your support!