To: San Jose City Council
From: Concerned Cory Neighbors
Re: 826 N. Winchester
Date: 6 June 2025
The request for a zoning amendment for the land at 826 N.
Winchester is coming before the Council on June 10, 2025. The matter is being forwarded by the Planning Dept. under Early Consideration as the request does not comply with the current General Plan. We wish to make the following observations:
Summary
1. Request to Amend General Plan
---We agree with the Planning Dept. staff that the amendment should NOT be granted.
2. The proposal itself
---We favor replacing the current blight, but with a plan that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and which protects the legal rights of the neighbors.
We incorporate by reference the emails, communications, photos, and exhibits sent by the various members of Concerned Cory Neighbors.
Discussion:
1. General Plan Amendment
The Cory Neighborhood is not, and should not be, in an Urban Village. The request for rezoning violates San Jose City policy, as set forth in the General Plan. The General Plan should not be lightly modified, as it is the result of long investigations, community input, official considerations. It holds a plan for the future, a guideline for where the City wants to grow and improve, much as a family budget guides spending decisions. The General Plan has proved itself time and again in the 50 years since its adoption, which was a move away from the breakneck expansion of San Jose in the 1950s and 1960s, the unchecked growth which caused streets to be unpaved and unlighted, and caused storm drains, sewers, and other improvements to be built too slowly or improperly.
The land at 826 N. Winchester is zoned Commercial-Pedestrian, which is proper for such a small plot of land (0.6 acre) which has sustained many small businesses. The proposal is to change the zoning to Transit-Residential, which does not fit the area. There is no major transportation hub nearby. There is only one adjacent bus line which runs fitfully down Winchester Boulevard.
To change the zoning would put the area in direct competition with the nearby Urban Village surrounding Valleyfair and Santana Row, and extending to the south along Winchester Blvd. Cory neighborhood operates as a relief valve for the adjoining density: shoppers and employees use the neighborhood for access, anxious to avoid the mall parking fees. The Additional Dwelling Units springing up in Cory supplement the multiplexes of the Urban Village and offer a desirable alternative. The infrastructure of the malls is much stronger than that of Cory neighborhood; Cory would be severely impacted by the suddenly increased demands for utilities, water, emergency response, police and fire, parking, access for cars and bicycles. The Cory neighborhood is simply not conducive to Urban Village status, as it lacks the necessary support system.
The Cory neighborhood struggles under the strain of the commuter traffic along the road diet of Hedding Street, leading to the Apple campus commonly known as “the spaceship”. There is also a construction project just on the other side of Winchester, where Hedding becomes Pruneridge; the entire campus of a former Episcopalian Church is being replaced by twenty-two townhouses.
The burden of the current proposal is more than the neighborhood can reasonably bear. It is out of proportion to the buildings in the neighborhood, the homes, and small businesses; it is out of proportion to other buildings along North Winchester.
2. Comments on the reliability of the developer
We note that the developer, VCI Companies, has never built a building of this size. VCI has experience in buildings of 2-4 stories, while the proposal here is for a skyscraper, easily one of the tallest buildings in town. The materials are different, and the construction requirements are different, with such height. A building of 6-8 stories can use concrete and wood; buildings of 15-17 stories require steel girders. It is not enough for the developer to promise to hire experts. The developer needs to have enough experience and knowledge to properly supervise the construction.
We do not trust that VCI will complete this project. Just a year ago, its alter ego (aka Anjin Capital) abandoned the Delmas Village housing project at 345 Delmas after pouring some of the concrete foundation, leaving behind trash, debris, and rusting metal foundation bars. That neighborhood was not informed of the dates on which concrete pours were to be done, resulting in jammed streets, driveways, sidewalks. The site remains empty and unfinished. There is a fraud suit pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court over the property, case number 24CV438602.
The developer has resolutely refused to compromise with the neighborhood before completion of the Environmental Impact Reports.
We note that any change in the size or structure of the proposed buildings (except to make them smaller) would require revised reports.
The true owner of the property at 826 N. Winchester is a shell company named Winchester Estate LLC. The owner has taken a loan on the property, secured by a Deed of Trust, from the limited liability company Socotra REIT 1 LLC. The Deed provides (page 8): “Borrower shall not initiate or acquiesce in a change in the zoning classification of the Mortgaged Property without Lender’s prior written consent.” There is no proof that the owner has complied with this requirement by the lender, putting the mortgage in jeopardy.
Shadow Study.
We are attaching a copy of the shadow study done by one of our members. It shows the devastating impact of the shadows of the two towers on the surrounding neighborhood.
Success! I found an app that shows building shadows – any month, any time of day. The proposed building can have a very long shadow for a couple of hours a day. Solar owners should evaluate their house for shadows and hours of power generation (from their personal solar meters) to determine the impact of this building..
Using ShadeMap (https://shademap.app/@37.33153,121.94964,17z,1675299532654t,0b,0p,0m ) and setting the location to 826 North Winchester Blvd. , San Jose, CA you can see the shadows cast by existing buildings for any month and time of day. The application allows you to add buildings , so I googled the height of a 17 -story building and it said it was approximately 180ft. Looking at other buildings in San Jose with 17 floors, we find that 160 W Santa Clara is 220 ft tall and the Fairmont Plaza is 260 ft tall. We will conservatively assume that the 17-floor VCI Companies tower is only 180 ft (54.86 meters) tall so the shadow projections generated are the most conservative and could be longer if the building is taller.
Examining a picture in the VCI Companies renderings provided in a neighborhood meeting, I estimated that if the left tower is 17 floors, th en the right tower is approximately 14 floors tall. That means the left tower is approximately 54.86 meters, and the right tower is approximately 45.18 meters tall.
Using these assumptions, I electronically buil t the towers within ShadeMap placed as shown in the picture at the right. I ignored any shadowing effects of the bridge connecting the two towers since it is currently beyond this app’s capabilities. Looking again at the rendering picture, it appears that they intend to allow the right-hand tower to get much closer to the sidewalk than the existing building but again, to be conservative , I did not extend the footprint toward the Hedding Street because there sh ould be setback limitation s, that San Jose enforces. Additionally, it seems that the left tower is wider than the existing building and this seems to have been accomplished by eliminating the driveway for the building that exits onto Winchester Blvd.
Figure 1 shows the proposed VCI Companies towers (in red) as well as the buildings in the neighborhood. Green - shaded houses have visible solar panels on their roofs ( we walked around Kenwood/Cory area looking for solar panels; there are probably other houses with solar panels, but they were not visible from the street).
One of the things the ShadeMap app does is show the shadows from all the buildings for any month and hour of daylight. As expected, at sunrise and sunset (especially in the winter) the shadows cast by buildings are the longest.
The app shows which roofs of buildings would be shaded by taller buildings which helps in determining the impacts of existing solar panel installations.
Figure 2 shows an image from the ShadeMap app for February 1 at 4:58PM. You can see the shadows from all the structures, especially the long shadow from the VCI Companies’ towers that shade numerous house roofs from Hedding Street to Kenwood Street. By drawing the shadows for each hour of daylight in January, Figures 3-14 show the shadows cast by the neighborhood buildings including the newly proposed VCI Companies towers at 826 North Winchester for the first day of every month January – December. The figures don’t show the actual sunrise and sunset building shadows because individual building shadows can only be clearly distinguished after about 30 minutes of daylight.
Figure1: VCI Towers and neighborhood housing structures
Figure 2: Sample Output from ShadeMap app for Feb 1 @ 5PM
Figure 3: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of January 1.
Figure 4: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of February 1.
Figure 5: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of March 1.
Figure 6: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of April 1.
Figure 7: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of May 1.
Figure 8: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of June 1.
Figure 9: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of July 1.
Figure 10: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of August 1.
Figure 11: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of September 1.
Figure 12: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of October 1.
Figure 13: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of November 1.
Figure 14: Shadows cast by the VCI Towers in the daylight hours of December 1.
RE: San José YIMBY supports continuing planning for 826 N. Winchester project Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
We write to express the strong support from hundreds of YIMBY members across San José for the 826 N.
Winchester Boulevard project and to urge the City Council to continue the review process for this much- needed housing development.
As you know, San José faces an immense housing shortage. The city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023–2031 cycle requires us to plan for over 62,000 new homes – about 8,000 per year.
Yet, recent data shows that housing approvals and production remain far below these targets. In 2023, fewer than 2,000 homes were approved in San José, and preliminary results show the results for 2024 are even worse. These numbers show the critical need for new housing and for planning flexibility to meet the need.
We are failing miserably at creating housing in San José. Young adults who grew up here find it nearly impossible to stay in the city they call home, forced to move away from family because they can’t afford to live here. Working families—teachers, nurses, service workers—endure exhausting commutes just to keep their jobs in San José and serve their community. Seniors struggle to downsize. We must do better for our neighbors and our children.
The Winchester project directly addresses these challenges. By adding new homes—including a proposed 20 affordable units—this project will help San José make progress toward its RHNA goals and provide much-needed relief for families struggling to find housing. The project’s location and design will also support transit use and sustainable growth, aligning with the city’s vision for a vibrant, inclusive future.
Housing and Sustainability Goals: Meeting San José’s Needs State-mandated goals require the city to accelerate the production of both market-rate and affordable homes. The Winchester proposal directly supports these goals, delivering 135 new homes—including on-site affordable units—at a density (225 dwelling units per acre, or DU/AC) that is fully consistent with the Transit Residential designation (50–250 DU/AC).
The site is ideally located for high-density housing: it is within walking distance from major commercial centers (Valley Fair and Santana Row), multiple bus lines, and employment hubs. This proximity to transit and jobs not only reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and car dependency, but also aligns with Policy H-4.2 and the General Plan’s Major Strategy #7, which prioritizes compact, infill development to limit sprawl and support sustainability.
Contrary to staff’s interpretation, this is not a loss of employment land; rather, it is an activation of long- vacant property, and an increase to 16,836 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space that will generate both construction and permanent jobs, increased foot traffic for local businesses, and a stronger local economy.
General Plan Interpretation: Flexibility for a Changing City San José’s most successful urban projects, including Downtown high-rises and Santana Row, required General Plan changes. The Council has clear authority to approve General Plan Amendments (GPAs) for projects that advance smart growth, and should not let inflexible interpretations block progress. The General Plan was designed to be a living document, adaptable to changing needs and opportunities.
The General Plan itself does not prohibit development outside designated Growth Areas. Instead, it prioritizes flexibility and allows for a GPA when projects further the city’s overall housing, economic, and sustainability objectives. The North Winchester site is only a quarter mile from the Valley Fair/Santana Row Urban Village—a short walk from one of the region’s premier commercial destinations—and is near transit, schools, parks, and essential services. The General Plan’s intent is to encourage exactly this kind of high-density, mixed-use development near transit and amenities, as envisioned by Goal LU-10.
Objections to the project’s height are fundamentally subjective and do not reflect the evolving character of the area. Both nearby Santana Row and Valley Fair feature mid-rise and high-rise structures, and the General Plan encourages increased density near commercial hubs. This proposal’s height—whether it is finalized at 12- or 17- stories or somewhere in between—is appropriate for a growing urban corridor and helps deliver the housing the city desperately needs.
The city’s own policies—including the Better Bike Plan 2025 and Green Vision—call for reduced parking minimums and increased walkability. The project will include robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, and as proposed would exceed bike parking requirements by 50%.
New transit-oriented housing such as this actually helps reduce car trips by placing residents closer to jobs and amenities, contrary to staff assertions. The required EIR and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) will recommend any necessary mitigations, which the developer is prepared to support We respectfully urge the Council to support the goals of the General Plan and move forward with a study of this project. We hope the Council will not stand in the way of a more vibrant and sustainable San José that works for everyone.
Sincerely,
San José YIMBY
Subject: Santa Clara District 6 Resident Feedback and Opposition to 826 N Winchester Project To: Councilmember Michael Mulcahy, San Jose City Planning Commission, San Jose City Manager’s Office
Dear Councilmember Mulcahy, Planning Commissioners, and City Manager, We are writing to you today as elected representatives of the City of Santa Clara; Vice Mayor Kelly Cox, Councilmember for District 6, and Mayor Lisa Gillmor, to express our strong opposition to the proposed development at 826 N Winchester Blvd. This opposition reflects the overwhelming feedback we have received from Santa Clara residents who live directly adjacent to this site. While this is not an official position of the City of Santa Clara as a whole, we feel it is our responsibility to clearly communicate the unified concerns voiced by our constituents.
Over the past several weeks, we have received a significant volume of input from District 6 residents who would be directly impacted by this project due to its proximity to their homes and to our shared corridors along Winchester, Hedding, and Pruneridge. The comments have been remarkably consistent and nearly unanimous in opposition. Common themes raised by residents include:
Scale and Compatibility: The proposed 17-story structure is entirely out of character with the surrounding 1- and 2-story residential neighborhood. Even Santana Row’s tallest structures are only 8 stories and are situated in a designated urban district. This is neither a transit hub nor an urban village area.
Traffic and Safety: Residents have voiced serious concerns about increased traffic congestion on already burdened corridors, particularly near sensitive populations such as the nearby senior community. Additional concerns include pedestrian and cyclist safety, insufficient parking, and neighborhood cut-through traffic.
Infrastructure Strain: There is significant concern about the strain this project would place on shared infrastructure, including emergency response capabilities, utilities, and parking spillover into Santa Clara streets.
We want to emphasize that Santa Clara is supportive of thoughtful, well-planned housing that enhances the livability and sustainability of our shared region. The need for more housing is clear, and Santa Clara has embraced this challenge by nearly doubling our RHNA obligations and actively working to build balanced communities. Our residents are not opposed to well- integrated housing solutions. However, this particular proposal does not reflect sound, balanced planning for a transitional neighborhood of this type. The proposed height and density are not appropriate for this location and would have direct, negative impacts on adjacent Santa Clara neighborhoods.
Lastly, several residents expressed disappointment that the San Jose Planning Commission meeting record did not include formal input from Santa Clara. While we fully understand that this process falls within San Jose’s jurisdiction, we also believe that collaboration on shared corridors, historically valued between our two cities, should include more intentional dialogue regarding impacts on neighboring communities. We take responsibility for not submitting input ahead of that meeting and want to ensure that Santa Clara’s perspective is now clearly on the record.
In that spirit, we would like to sincerely acknowledge and thank Councilmember Michael Mulcahy and San Jose staff member Jason Lee for engaging in open and collaborative conversations with us on this topic. Their willingness to communicate exemplifies the type of intercity dialogue that can help us all move forward in good faith.
Together, we respectfully ask that you take this collective opposition from Santa Clara’s District 6 residents, and our shared position as elected representatives, into account as you deliberate on this project. The residents we represent are passionate about protecting the character, livability, and safety of their neighborhoods. We stand with them in urging San Jose to deny this rezoning request and high-rise proposal at this location.
We want to be clear that our intent is not to oppose all housing on this site. There is strong interest in working collaboratively with the City of San Jose to support a more context-sensitive, appropriately scaled project that meets both regional housing needs and community compatibility goals.
We remain available for further discussion and sincerely hope to foster a collaborative approach to ensure that future development is compatible with the needs of both of our communities.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cox
Vice Mayor, Santa Clara
Councilmember, District 6
Lisa Gillmor
Mayor, Santa Clara
Cc: Santa Clara City Council