Petition Opposing Proposed Construction for 3630 Kettmann Road, San Jose, CA – Al-Manaseer
1 From: Dr. Akthem Al-Manaseer
June 9, 2025
To: The City Council Members
Via the Office of the City Clerk
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Subject: Violation of GP24-010 and Associated Policies
Petition Opposing Proposed Construction for 3630 Kettmann Road, San Jose, CA
I am writing as a concerned resident of San José. I have been a practicing professor of civil engineering at for the last 29 years, teaching many engineers in this valley how to design and construct safe structures.
I formally oppose the proposed development for 3630 Kettmann Road, San Jose. I urge the City Council members to deny approval of this construction, as it presents significant risks to the local community and environment and appears to contravene the objectives outlined in General Plan Amendment GP24-010 and related policies.
1. Violation of GP24-010 – Hillside and Open Space Protection The proposed project seems inconsistent with the principles established in GP24-010, which emphasizes the preservation of hillside lands, protection of natural open spaces, and limitation of urban sprawl into environmentally sensitive areas. Proceeding with this development could undermine the integrity of the General Plan and set a concerning precedent for future hillside developments.
2. Flood Risk Due to Slope Disruption
Construction on this hillside would significantly alter natural drainage patterns. These slopes already channel runoff during rainstorms, and further development would increase impermeable surfaces and erosion risks, heightening flood potential for properties below— especially during heavy winter rainstorms.
3. Seismic Design Category Risk
The property at 3630 Kettmann Road, San José, falls under the severe Seismic Design Category D (seismicmaps.org). This category is designated for lands located in areas expected to experience severe and destructive ground shaking. This category, combined
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 1 of 22
To: Sylvia Do, hearing officer for the June 11, 2025 Planning Director’s Hearing, other City of San Jose Planning staff, & District 6 Councilmember Michael Mulcahy From: Greg Ripa, nearby resident on Lincoln Ave between Park and San Carlos Re: File No. H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos)
Date: June 11, 2025
As mentioned in my public comment at the public meeting on the evening of March 27, 2025, I oppose this development project. Why? It is not dense; it is auto oriented; and it does not meet various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Staff recommends approving the site plan of February 21, 2025 and the associated site development permit, and are thus ok with a single use low density development. However, this is misguided and the permit should not be approved due to conflicts with the various plans and policies.
Rebuttal to Site Development Permit findings
(https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=122648)
Staff analysis is denoted in italics and my comments are in regular text.
Analysis: This site is located within the Urban Village land use designation in the Mixed- Use Residential Character Area, as shown on the urban village plan, and this designation supports commercial uses, as per the description. This project is a commercial use within a commercial designation and a commercial zoning district. While residential uses would be allowed on this 1.09-gross-acre site after parcel aggregation, the designation does not require residential uses, and also supports standalone commercial development on the site. There is no required commercial density in the designation; while staff recognizes Policy LU-1.1 of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, which encourages new commercial development to be built with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 or greater, this is not a requirement within the designation, and therefore, projects are not required to have an FAR over 0.3. Therefore, as this project proposes the construction of a retail building in a commercial designation and zoning district, on a site which does not June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 2 of 22
require residential uses or have a required minimum FAR, this project is consistent with the Urban Village designation within the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
As noted below is the San Jose General Plan and West San Carlos Urban Village Plan sections, this project does not meet various goals and policies of those plans. City staff fails to discuss the several policies that this project does not meet. This project is not consistent with the Urban Village designation due to its very low FAR of 0.11, which is nowhere near the maximum for Urban Village or even Neighborhood/ Community Commercial of 3.0+. This project is not pedestrian oriented and is thus out of character for an urban village (see more details later).
3. Vision Element 1: A Well-Connected Neighborhood. The West San Carlos Urban Village will be a safe, accessible, and well-connected neighborhood for all people.
Improvements to both the sidewalks and streets of the West San Carlos Urban Village are vital in order to create safer environments for all modes of transportation, especially pedestrians. Activating the sidewalk through higher intensity development and good urban design principles plays a large role in the pedestrian experience and the feeling of safety. Improvements to the sidewalk and street should also allow both residents and visitors better access to neighborhood goods and services.
Analysis: The project will provide a 20-foot attached sidewalk on West San Carlos and a 15- foot attached sidewalk on Race Street. The project also includes a property corner radius dedication at the Race and San Carlos corner, an in-lieu contribution for intersection improvements (including the bulb-out shortening the pedestrian distance across both San Carlos and Race, and in-lieu contributions along both San Carlos and Race for Class IV protected bike lanes). The project also must install red curb along project driveways to ensure adequate sight distance and make bus stop improvements as directed by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). All of these requirements create safer environments for pedestrians and other modes of transportation, increase the feeling of pedestrian safety, and connect future residents of the Bellarmino Place development to the north of the site to neighborhood goods and services across San Carlos.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 3 of 22
I applaud the City for requiring the project to create bulb-outs on the corner of West San Carlos & Race and for widening the sidewalk. However, this alone does not lead to “Activating the sidewalk through higher intensity development and good urban design principles”. Activating the sidewalk requires a pedestrian focus/ orientation. This site plan is not pedestrian focused or oriented (please see my comments below on San Jose General Plan (SJGP) CD-1.9 and CD-1.11, West San Carlos Urban Village Plan (WSCUVP) ground floor interface, and the pedestrian oriented version of the project). Further, since Chick-Fil-A’s are typically closed on Sundays, this closure would also lessen the street activation on every Sunday as compared to a different type of restaurant. Therefore, I feel that this project only partially meets the vision since it does not properly activate the sidewalk.
Ground Floor Interface, Ground Floor Articulation, Guideline 7: Discourage uninterrupted blank walls or façades. Where such blank walls are necessary, apply landscape screens, display boxes/ merchandise displays, light patterns, material variations, or other mitigation measures to enhance visual interest. Analysis: The interior design of the building requires a blank wall on West San Carlos in order to avoid exposing the kitchen to the street. Therefore, the project is conditioned to include a mural as a mitigation to enhance visual interest on West San Carlos.
Here, City staff admits that the site is less pedestrian friendly since they acknowledge the large blank wall along West San Carlos Street. The applicant could have easily flipped their building design to allow for more pedestrian friendliness and more visual interest (see the pedestrian oriented version of the project below) but chose not to so that the site could be auto-oriented. Due to this large wall (with a token mural), this project is not meeting SJGP policies CD1.1, CD1.9, and CD1.11.
Diverse and Innovative Economy Policy IE-6.2: Attract and retain a diverse mix of businesses and industries that can provide jobs for the residents of all skill and education levels to support a thriving community. Analysis: The project provides jobs for residents of all skill and education levels.
This project fails this policy. On the project site were several businesses: a Burger King, a taqueria, and a hair salon. Now, it will be one business if this permit is June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 4 of 22
approved. The hair salon has moved out and the taqueria expended but even with this, there were two businesses (the Burger King and the taqueria) with one of them being a local small business, and if this permit is approved, there would only be one business, a Chick Fil A. This is not attracting and retaining a “diverse mix of businesses and industries”. It is lessening the mix of business from 2 or 3 businesses to 1 business. This project does not meet this criteria since the existing business(es) also “provides jobs for residents of all skill and education levels.”
Fiscal Sustainability Policy FS-3.3: Promote land use policy and implementation actions that increase the ratio of Jobs to Employed Residents to improve our City’s fiscal condition, consistent with economic development and land use goals and policies.
Analysis: The project includes a revenue-generating use and increases the ratio of jobs to employed residents.
The existing and previous buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf compared to the existing and previous building sizes! Reducing the size of commercial square footage may reduce the amount of total employees on the site. Thus, this project would not “increase the ratio of Jobs to Employed Residents” based on previous and existing uses of the site. If the applicant were to not demolish the existing buildings/ businesses and instead only rebuild on the Burger King portion of the site, then the staff analysis would be true, but as of now, it is not true. This project does not meet this policy.
5. Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines
The project conforms with the following key applicable design standards. Note that any Standard which is covered or otherwise in conflict with the Urban Design Guidelines of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan cannot be applied to this project.
The project does not conform with other key applicable design rationales and standards in the document: the rationale of Section 4.1.1 discussing the need for ground floors to have “active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians”, Standard S2 in that June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 5 of 22
same section 4.1.1 discussing the amount of glazing, and Standard S4 in that same section 4.1.1 discussing clear window glazing. This project does not meet any of those rationales and standards; see the Design Standards section below for more details about how the project does not meet those rationales and standards. City staff does not discuss those rationales and standards in the permit findings.
7a. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and Analysis: The permit allows the construction of a commercial building, which is consistent with the Urban Village land use designation, including within the Mixed-Use Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. As the project is a commercial building in a commercial designation with no required minimum commercial density requirement, it is consistent with the General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. It furthers policies of both the General and Urban Village Plans, including policies regarding the retention of commercial lands and pedestrian improvements, as outlined in the General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan Conformance section above.
As noted above in my rebuttal and below in the various other sections below, this project and site development permit is NOT consistent with and will not further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies. For example, it does not place its primary entrances on the street in contradiction to SJGP policy CD 1.9, the entries are not oriented toward the sidewalk in contradiction to SJGP policy CD 1.11, it reduces the amount of previous and existing commercial square footage, it is an auto-oriented/ parking- lot-oriented use in contradiction to the WSCUVP, and it does not maximize transparency between the public sidewalk and the ground floor uses in contradiction to the WSCUVP (since it has a large blank wall). This development permit and project does not further “policies of both the General and Urban Village Plans, including policies regarding the retention of commercial lands and pedestrian improvements” due to the auto-oriented site plan and the reduction in total commercial square footage compared to previous and existing site uses as discussed above and below.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 6 of 22
7e. The orientation, location and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood. Analysis: The project is for a commercial use fronting West San Carlos Street, a commercial street. The proposed new buildings and structures are compatible with the nearby residential uses to the side and rear, as they are located at the front of the site, away from the residences. The buildings are compatible with adjacent commercial development because they are of a similar height, design, and use.
As discussed in this section and in other sections, the proposed site plan is auto- oriented and not pedestrian-oriented. Thus, this project is not compatible with the urban village character of the neighborhood. The project is on San Carlos Street but I would not consider it to “front” San Carlos Street; rather, this building “fronts” its own parking lot (due to the amount of glazing and entrances on each respective side of the building). Since the building does not “front” the commercial street in an urban village, this project and site development permit is incompatible and should be rejected. Further, we should be striving for denser development in an urban village, not a development that is compatible with older “adjacent commercial development” that is “of a similar height, design, and use”, some of which is not even included in the urban village plan (any development across San Carlos Street on the south side such as Safeway). We do not need more 1 story, single use, parking oriented (not street oriented) buildings in our Urban Villages.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 7 of 22
San Jose General Plan
The San Jose General Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents and policies set forth in this document.
This project is located within the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, which is a Local Transit Urban Village. As the general plan states, “Local Transit Urban Villages… are planned for a balanced mix of job and housing growth at relatively high densities with greater emphasis placed upon building complete communities at each Urban Village location while also supporting use of the local transit system.” Unfortunately, this project does not support the intent of the urban villages because it is not a relatively high- density use.
City staff does not discuss many of these policies in the Site Development Permit findings.
IE-1.11 Allow interim development of employment lands with alternative employment uses such as small expansions of existing uses or reuse of existing buildings when the interim development would not limit the site’s ability to be redeveloped in the future in accordance with the long-term plan for the site.
This site is over 1 acre in size. There are relatively few parcels and aggregations of parcels that meet this size. The Urban Village Plan specifically calls out that residential development shouldn’t happen at sizes less than 0.5 acres in size, showing how important large parcels are to the success of the plan. Therefore, we should preserve these large parcel sizes for the best potential uses, not creating new low-density buildings that may stymie future high-density development.
SMR Research Corporation shows that the average lifespan of a chain restaurant is nearly 30 years; thus, approving this permit could stymie the redevelopment of this parcel into a high-density urban village use for nearly three decades! “The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan is part of the first Horizon of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan to facilitate nearterm redevelopment” (WSCUVP Chapter 7). Since approving this permit may limit this site’s ability to redevelop for decades, and since this project is not a small expansion of an existing building or re-use of an existing building, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 8 of 22
FS-3.4 Promote land use policy and implementation actions that improve our City’s fiscal sustainability. Maintain or enhance the City’s projected total net revenue through amendments made to this General Plan in each Review process. Discourage proposed rezonings or other discretionary land use actions that could significantly diminish revenue to the City or significantly increase its service costs to the City without offsetting increases in revenue.
The existing and previous buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf! Reducing the size of commercial square footage may reduce the tax benefits of the area due to the reduction in square footage of commercial space. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
FS-4.1 Preserve and enhance employment land acreage and building floor area capacity for various employment activities because they provide revenue, near-term jobs, contribute to our City’s long-term achievement of economic development and job growth goals, and provide opportunities for the development of retail to serve individual neighborhoods, larger community areas, and the Bay Area.
As mentioned previously, this project reduces the commercial square footage by over 1,800sf as compared to existing and previous uses. Thus, this project neither preserves nor enhances employment (commercial) land. Less commercial square footage may lead to less commercial jobs. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
FS-4.8 Emphasize mixed-use development for most new development, to achieve service efficiencies from compact development patterns and to maximize job development and commercial opportunities near residential development This project is located in an Urban Village and is zones for the Urban Village zoning designation, which is a high-density mixed-use designation. This project proposes a low-density single use development. This land is perfect for high- density mixed-use development due to its zoning, lot size, transit adjacency, etc.
Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 9 of 22
CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.
City staff should reject the project for not meeting the pedestrian-oriented intent of the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and for not meeting various policies, objectives, and standards that reinforce that intent. Staff should apply strong design controls to the site plan and reject any plan that is not pedestrian oriented, which would include this project as currently proposed.
CD-1.5 Encourage incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas or squares, into new and existing commercial and mixed-use developments.
Staff should ask the applicant to make the outdoor patio a privately owned public space (POPS) so that the public can legally use it at times when the restaurant is closed, such as on Sundays.
CD-1.9 Give the greatest priority to developing high-quality pedestrian facilities in areas that will most promote transit use and bicycle and pedestrian activity. In pedestrian- oriented areas such as Downtown, Urban Villages, or along Main Streets, place commercial and mixed-use building frontages at or near the street-facing property line with entrances directly to the public sidewalk, provide high-quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity, including adequate sidewalk dimensions for both circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, a continuous tree canopy, and other pedestrian amenities.
The site is not pedestrian oriented. Only one corner public entrance is located on the corner of Race Street & San Carlos Street whereas two public entrances are located facing the parking lot. There are more transparent windows facing the parking lot and less numerous, and opaque, windows facing San Carlos Street.
Landscaping is placed between the building and the sidewalk in this plan, whereas in a pedestrian oriented building, the building would front directly onto the sidewalk and have multiple entrances. There is a large wall along the pedestrian-oriented San Carlos Street and a mural is supposed to be required, but a mural does not make the sidewalk more vibrant, pedestrian oriented, or
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 11 of 22
CD-1.11 To create a more pleasing pedestrian-oriented environment, for new building frontages, include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades using a variety of materials, and entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Provide windows or entries along sidewalks and pathways; avoid blank walls that do not enhance the pedestrian experience. Encourage inviting, transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays.
Only one public corner entry opens to the sidewalk. Two additional public entries open to the parking lot. There are more windows along the parking lot side and they are all transparent. There are fewer windows on the San Carlos Street side and they have an opaque film on them. There is a large blank wall (which should be reserved for the parking lot, not the streetscape facing the public sidewalk of the commercial corridor). This façade along San Carlos is not inviting nor is it transparent to reveal what is taking place inside of the building to attract customers by revealing active uses. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
CD-1.17 Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas.
There are a total of about 56 to 58 parking spaces (some are unmarked so it is hard to determine an exact number) on the current project site. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new parking lot of 60 spaces. Thus, this project proposes to increase the amount of parking in a pedestrian oriented area. This project does not minimize the footprint of parking areas; rather, this project maximizes the footprint by increasing the number of spaces. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
CD-2.10 Recognize that finite land area exists for development and that density supports retail vitality and transit ridership. Use land use regulations to require compact, low-impact development that efficiently uses land planned for growth, especially for residential development which tends to have a long life-span.
As discussed previously for policies IE-1.11 and FS-3.4, this project is creating a low-density development where we have a finite amount of high-density development potential such as this relatively large parcel. This project does not use the finite amount of land we have in this Urban Village to its fullest potential June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 12 of 22
(or even to the half-full potential). Thus, this project does not support the density intended for an Urban Village so does not efficiently use this land. Thus, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
CD-2.11 Within the Downtown and Urban Village Area Boundaries, consistent with the minimum density requirements of the applicable Land Use / Transportation Diagram designation, avoid the construction of surface parking lots except as an interim use, so that long-term development of the site will result in a cohesive urban form As discussed in Policy CD-1.17, this project proposes to expand the amount of parking on site as compared to the existing amount of parking. Therefore, this project does not meet the spirit of this policy.
CD-7.1 Support intensive development and uses within Urban Villages As discussed previously, this project has a smaller building size than the existing uses. It is a low density use at about .11 FAR and does not even come close to the maximum building FARs allowed in an urban village (3.5 at the low end and 10+ at the higher ends). Therefore, this project is not an intensive use, but is a mild use of the land. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
LU-5.3 Encourage new and intensification of existing commercial development, including stand-alone, vertical mixed-use, or integrated horizontal mixed-use projects, consistent with the Land Use / Transportation Diagram.
As mentioned previously, this project reduces the commercial square footage by over 1,800sf. Thus, this project is not an intensification of existing commercial development. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
LU-10.1 Develop land use plans and implementation tools that result in the construction of mixed-use development in appropriate places throughout the City as a means to establish walkable, complete communities.
The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan is the land use plan and implementation tool to support mixed use development on this site. However, the project is proposing a low-density single use development which will not result in the construction of a mixed-use development in this appropriate part of the city.
Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 13 of 22
LU-10.4 Within identified growth areas, develop residential projects at densities sufficient to support neighborhood retail in walkable, main street type development.
As mentioned previously, the project is proposing a low-density single use development which will not result in the construction of any residential housing units. Thus, a residential project will not be developed at this relatively large Urban Village site. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
LU-10.7 Encourage consolidation of parcels to promote mixed-use and high-density development at locations identified in the Land use / Transportation Diagram.
This project is proposing to consolidate some parcels together, which is actually good! However, it is not being used to promote mixed-use and high-density development, but rather single use and low-density development. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 14 of 22
West San Carlos Urban Village Plan
The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents, objectives, and policies set forth in this document.
The Village is envisioned as an accessible, well-connected neighborhood and vibrant business district. The Mixed-Use Residential Character Area, where this project is located, is an eastern gateway into the Urban Village.
(Chapter 3) The area is envisioned with higher-density mixed-use and residential development... Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active ground floor retail.
This project is proposing a low-density, single story, single use commercial development which will not result in the construction of any residential housing units. As discussed in more detail in the Design Standards section below, the project does not make for an active ground floor experience due to the auto- oriented/ parking-lot-oriented nature of this project, the large blank walls on the primary pedestrian street of San Carlos Street, and the lack of connection between the building and San Carlos Street (due to a lack of additional entrances and landscaping in the way). Therefore, this project does not meet the intent of the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) The Urban Village designation in the Mixed-use Residential Character Area is a commercial designation which supports residential development only on parcels meeting a minimum size of 0.5 acres. Residential development along West San Carlos Street or Meridian Avenue should include pedestrian oriented, ground- floor commercial uses that front the street... Before a site meets the aforementioned development criteria, the uses allowed on parcels with a Urban Village land use designation are those uses allowed within the Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation… Neighborhood/Community Commercial Density: FAR up to 3.5 Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses typically have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the nearby community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 15 of 22
As mentioned previously, this is a relatively large site of about 1 acre but the proposed redevelopment is not pedestrian oriented and is not mixed use. Also, since this could be considered a site before it meets the development criteria, would it meet the use criteria of Neighborhood/ Community Commercial which promotes a form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction? No, this project does not. It is still auto-oriented, not pedestrian oriented (see more information about the auto orientation in the Design Standards section). It is a very low FAR or 0.11, nowhere near the maximum for Urban Village or even Neighborhood/ Community Commercial of 3.0+. Further, as discussed above, the commercial use does not “front” the street but rather “fronts” the parking lot.
Therefore, this project does not meet the intent of the Urban Village designation in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) A primary objective of this Plan is to retain the existing amount of commercial space within the West San Carlos Urban Village area and increase commercial activity and employment opportunities as the area redevelops.
As mentioned in the discussion of General Plan Policy FS-3.4, the existing and previous buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf and this project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf! Thus, this project does not retain the amount of commercial space and may reduce the commercial activity and employment opportunities. Therefore, this project does not meet this primary objective of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) Additionally, since the West San Carlos Urban Village will focus on the pedestrian, new drive through uses are not supported. New auto oriented uses are prohibited.
This project does not focus on the pedestrian due to the proposed large blank walls along San Carlos Street and the auto-oriented/ parking-lot-oriented building (more information in the Design Standards section). Further, the building “fronts” the parking lot and does not “front” the street so this development does not “focus on the pedestrian”. Thus, this project does not meet this text.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 16 of 22
Policy LU-1.1: Encourage new commercial development to be built at Floor Area Ratios of 0.3 or greater.
The project proposes to build at an FAR of 0.11, which is only about 36% of the minimum FAR of this policy. This project does not meet the minimum FAR size.
Therefore, this project does not meet this policy of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. City Staff should reject the project based on this and the other SJGP and WSCUVP policies that it does not meet and encourage the applicant to come back with a project with an FAR of at least 0.3.
(Chapter 5) Ground Floor Interface:
2. Maximize use of non-colored, non-reflective glass windows to increase transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor
3. Provide shade for glass windows and doors along West San Carlos Street to afford climate protection for pedestrians. Incorporate generously-sized awnings, vertical screens, covered arcades, or walkways into buildings.
7. Discourage uninterrupted blank walls or façades. Where such blank walls are necessary, apply landscape screens, display boxes/ merchandise displays, light patterns, material variations, or other mitigation measures to enhance visual interest.
As discussed above under General Plan Policys CD-1.9 and CD-1.11, the project proposes to maximize the use of opaque glass treatments, rather than transparent treatments as required by this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. If shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead. In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Further, there is more glazing and active uses proposed for the secondary street (Race Street) and the parking lot. Further, in the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos Street. Therefore, this project does not meet the three elements described in this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 17 of 22
(Chapter 5) Sustainable Elements:
1. Encourage building development that integrates passive and active sustainable design elements and responds to San José’s climate.
If shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of passive design elements like awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead of vinyl film on the glazing. Due to the use of opaque vinyl glazing rather than integrated passive design elements, this project does not meet the elements described in this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 18 of 22
Design Standards
The San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines do not support this development project because this project does not meet the standards set forth in this document.
Section 4.1.1. Ground floors with active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians.
As discussed previously, this project does not create an active street frontage and is primarily auto oriented with more (transparent) windows and doors facing the parking lot than facing the street. For example, there are 3 sets of doors (1 public double, 1 public single, and 1 employee single) plus 3 sets of windows (2 in public areas and 1 in employee area) facing the parking lot, whereas there is only 1 set of doors (1 public) plus 3 sets of windows (1 in public area and 2 in employee area). Further, the windows along the primary street (San Carlos) are proposed to have “patterned vinyl film” on them, which I would consider an opaque or semi-opaque building element and may obscure viewing in or out of those windows, whereas the parking lot side is proposed to have transparent (clear) glass without any film. This imbalance, particularly with the number and transparency of the doors and windows, makes the building feel more auto oriented/ parking-lot-oriented than pedestrian oriented. Similarly, it could then be said that the building does not “front” the street but rather “fronts” the parking lot. Therefore, this project does not create an engaging street that is visually appealing so the project does not meet this rationale of creating an active street frontage.
S2. Create transparent façades with windows or clear glazing for at least 70 percent of the active frontage length along primary streets or public open spaces and 50 percent of the active frontage length along secondary streets (see Fig 4.3 and 4.5).
In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos Street) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Therefore, this building plan does not meet this design standard of 70% clear glazing along the active frontage of the primary street (San Carlos Street).
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 19 of 22
S4. Windows and clear glazing on the ground floor façade must have no opaque or semi-opaque building elements wider than two inches or spaced more closely than five feet between 3 to 10 vertical feet from the sidewalk.
In the plans, the glazing along San Carlos Street is intended to have “patterned vinyl film”, which is considered an opaque or semi-opaque building element wider than 2”. Therefore, this plan does not meet this design standard of no opaque or semi opaque building elements.
Section 4.1.3. Blank walls make places feel uninviting and sometimes unsafe. Minimizing long stretches of unbroken façades and non-active frontages, such as parking garages and service and utility areas, creates an active and safe public realm. Standards S1. Limit continuous blank walls on the ground floor to less than 30 feet along primary street façades and 50 feet along secondary street façades (see Fig. 4.13).
In the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos, so this plan does not meet this design standard. A mural does not make up for not meeting this design standard of limiting continuous blank walls to less than 30’ along the primary street (San Carlos Street).
This permit should be rejected for failing to meet all of these design rationales and standards discussed above. Failure to meet this design standards leads to a reduction in high-quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity (SJGP CD-1.9), a reduction of commercial building frontages at or near the street-facing property line with entrances directly to the public sidewalk (SJGP CD-1.9), a reduction in inviting and transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays (SJGP CD-1.11), a reduction in pedestrian oriented ground-floor commercial uses that front the street (WSCUVP Ch.3), and a reduction in transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor (WSCUVP Ch.5).
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 21 of 22
Second, all doors and glazing along San Carlos Street would need to be transparent and not have any “patterned vinyl film”. Ideally, the size and number of windows along San Carlos Street would also be increased from even what is shown in the diagram above so that 70% of that frontage is transparent door and window glazing.
Third, all landscaping between the building and the sidewalk would be removed so that all 3 to 4 (or more) building entrances facing the sidewalk are easily accessible and pedestrian oriented.
Fourth, any large blank walls (with or without murals) should face the parking lot, and not the street.
Fifth, the existing businesses/ buildings should be retained and the amount of parking should be minimized.
This shows how much the current site plan does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines due to the current plan’s auto-orientation rather than pedestrian orientation as could be done instead (by showing an example above).
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 22 of 22
Recommendation to Staff
I continually advocated for greater densities and higher building heights in the Urban Village planning process. Thus, I support projects that adhere to the Urban Village Plan, are pedestrian oriented, are mixed use, and are high density. This particular project is none of those things.
We do not need more 1 story, single use, parking oriented (not street oriented) buildings in our Urban Villages. Let’s learn from our low-density mistakes of the past and apply the SJGP, WSCUVP, and the Citywide Design Guidelines discussed above; this will result in denying the permit and project.
If a project were proposed that is mixed use, high density (FAR 6.0+), and pedestrian oriented and also happened to have a ChickFilA in it, then I would support that project since it fulfills the intent and vision of the Urban Village plan. Until such a time comes that this project transforms from low density to high density, from single use to mixed use, and from auto oriented to pedestrian oriented, I will oppose this project. Said another way, the greater the density, pedestrian orientation, and mix of uses, the greater I will advocate for a project. But, since this project is at the low end of those spectrums, I will strongly oppose it.
That said, City staff must evaluate the project as proposed. As discussed previously, this proposed project as-is does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines as described above; therefore, staff should “apply strong design controls to the site plan” (SJGP CD1.1) and reject this plan as currently proposed.
Thank you for your consideration!
Greg Ripa