Neighbors and tenants clash with developer over 350 San Jose project; commission takes discretionary review and approves revised plan

A highly contested discretionary review at 350 San Jose Avenue dominated the Sept. 24 Planning Commission meeting, with neighbors, tenant advocates and preservationists urging the commission to require major reductions to the sponsor’s plan and to treat the proposal as tantamount to demolition of a Category A historic resource. The commission voted to take discretionary review and approve the revised plans with staff modifications by a unanimous 6–0 vote.

The proposal would significantly alter an existing four‑unit, rent‑controlled building: the sponsor sought to move the building forward on its lot, add upper‑floor massing and create additional units (plan submitted as adding 8–9 units plus an ADU in some iterations). Staff (David Winslow) documented that the project had been revised since the initial notice: the building would be moved forward by 8 feet, a portion of the rear upper floor would be reduced by about 5 feet, and the sponsor proposed replacing on‑site parking with an ADU. Staff recommended taking discretionary review and approving the revised plans with modifications including a 5‑foot Second Floor deck setback and relocation/design of bicycle parking to meet dimensional and access requirements.

Neighbors, tenant organizers and historic‑preservation experts presented a long list of objections: they argued the work would amount to "tantamount demolition" of an individually eligible historic resource, that buyout offers and construction would displace rent‑controlled tenants, and that a projected increase in massing would cast significant new shadows on Jury Commons (a narrow, tree‑lined mid‑block park) and on adjacent yards. Steve Williams, counsel for several doctor‑requesters, characterized the plan as "a project that seems to get it all wrong at once," citing buyout timelines, shadow impacts and lack of meaningful redesign to reduce massing.

The sponsor’s counsel, John Kevlin, and architect representatives said the project retained and reused the historic façade, preserved the existing four rent‑controlled units in place (and the added ADU would be subject to local ADU rules), and included large rear setbacks and other design responses. Sponsor testimony emphasized the units proposed are modest in size (700–1,100 sq ft) and that the changes respond to city policies encouraging infill and density on transit corridors.

After a lengthy exchange among staff, the sponsor and commissioners on technical issues (including where mechanical and refuse storage would be located, bike‑parking access, and deck setbacks), the commission moved to accept staff’s recommendation to take discretionary review and approve the revised plan with the corrections and modifications read into the record. The vote was unanimous, 6–0. The commission recorded in its findings that the existing four units and the ADU are subject to rent control (the findings note this rather than attaching it as a planning-condition enforcement mechanism).