and other family obligations.
City Council meetings
can also extend for many hours, sometimes well into the evening or even close to midnight. For residents who are trying to participate in the democratic process, it is extremely difficult to plan around such an uncertain schedule. Particularly, when an item
of this importance may not be heard until many hours after the meeting begins.
We believe that scheduling
this item for a reasonably specific evening time would provide a much greater opportunity for working residents, parents, and other community members to participate and have their voices heard.
We respectfully ask
that the Rules Committee consider making this accommodation, so that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in this important decision.
Thank you for your
consideration and for helping ensure that San José residents have equitable access to their City Council.
Gratefully,
Terri Henry
San Jose Resident
On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 3:56 PM brendamcleandohmen via F&H Executive Team < > wrote:
Dear Rules Committee Members,
We respectfully request that the Agenda Item 10.3 or General Plan Recommendations for Tuesday, August 18th be moved to the evening session of the City Council Meeting because the General Plan affects all residents and neighborhoods city-wide and the majority of people are unable to attend during the day starting at 1:30 PM due to work, commuting, child care obligations, etc. Can you please make this accommodation for all of us? Thank you for your consideration.
Gratefully,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Brenda Dohmen
San Jose Resident
Families & Homes Board Member
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F&H Executive Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fhexecutive-team+ .
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fh-executiveteam/8F8CF6CE-4668-4F63-B881-82A4467CBB61%40icloud.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for your consideration and for helping ensure that San José residents have equitable access to their City Council.
Gratefully,
Terri Henry
San José Resident
TERRI HENRY Realtor®
the proposed citywide increase of the Residential Neighborhood designation from 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre as currently framed.
The proposal has not demonstrated that a blanket increase across residential neighborhoods is required by SB 79 or AB 130. SB 79 is directed to qualifying areas near transit and allows several local implementation paths; AB 130 streamlines qualifying actions but does not mandate citywide missingmiddle upzoning. San José’s adopted Housing Element policy P-35 instead calls for a targeted, feasibility-informed missing-middle strategy, generally four to 10 units, in locations near Urban Villages and major streets.
Nor has the City shown that existing higher-density areas are saturated. The more credible concern is that much of the City’s planned capacity is not yet converting into housing because of incomplete implementation planning, slow or customized rezonings, discretionary approvals, financing barriers, and infrastructure constraints. Adding very large theoretical capacity across every Residential Neighborhood before resolving those barriers risks disrupting established neighborhoods without delivering meaningful or affordable production.
We respectfully request that the Council adopt a phased, evidence-based alternative:
1. Prioritize existing growth areas. Complete and streamline rezoning, objective standards, and ministerial permitting in Downtown, transit areas, major corridors, and Urban Villages before applying broad changes citywide.
2. Use a targeted missing-middle program. Implement P-35 with four-to-10-unit typologies near Urban Villages, major streets, and transit, with clear transition, tree-canopy, privacy, parking/curb, emergency-access, and infrastructure standards.
3. Evaluate an SB 79 local pathway. Consider a transit-focused implementation ordinance or HCDreviewable TOD Alternative Plan rather than treating a citywide RN change as the only compliance option.
4. Publish a delivery and feasibility record. Before any broader amendment, provide a transparent, area-by-area accounting of zoned capacity, adopted rezoning status, permits issued, entitled and under-construction units, approval timelines, market-feasible capacity, infrastructure limits, and expected affordability.
5. Phase any expansion based on results. Expand the program only after public reporting shows that targeted implementation and permitting reforms cannot meet the City’s demonstrated housing-delivery needs.
This approach would advance housing production while respecting the City’s adopted Housing Element, meeting state-law obligations, and preserving a meaningful public record for decisions that will shape every neighborhood. We ask the Council to direct staff to return with this targeted alternative and the supporting analysis before adopting the proposed amendments.
Sincerely,
Alain Mowad
President
8/11/26, 8:51 AM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/3
Outlook
FW: Request to Remove from Consent Calendar - IBM Almaden Rezoning 8-18-2026 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 7:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jessica Vernon
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1:29 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
Cc: Jessica Vernon
Subject: Request to Remove from Consent Calendar - IBM Almaden Rezoning 8-18-2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Rules Committee,
. Learn why this is imP.ortant
City Clerk
There is currently a conforming rezoning request for the 600+ acres of the IBM Almaden Research Center land that has been placed on the Consent Calendar as a Land Use item for the August 18th City Council meeting by an unnamed developer. This request is far more complicated and nuanced than it appears on the surface and the Consent Calendar is an inappropriate forum for the magnitude of issues that this land use and its history represents to the pubic and to the City. As a concerned citizen, I request that this be removed from the Consent Calendar and instead, be placed into a regular public hearing so that Council members and the community have the chance to discuss what is at stake in a transparent and thoughtful way.
Thank you so much for considering my concerns on this issue.
Jessica
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Request to Remove Agenda Item 10.1(a) from the Consent Calendar From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk
lo 3 attachments (3 MB)
2000 12 12 Staff Report 20S00 Harry Rd Development Review Zoning Ruling Denial.pdf; 1999 12 07 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL.pdf; 2026 06 11 650 Harry Road Cushman & Wakefield Executive Summary.pdf; From: Evan Brooks
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 10:28 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
Kamei, Rosemary
Doan, Bien
Foley, Pam
Cohen, David
Subject: Request to Remove Agenda Item 10.l(a) from the Consent Calendar [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is
imP-ortant
Dear Chair and Members of the Rules Committee,
City Clerk
I respectfully request that Agenda Item 10.1 (a) (C26-008 & ER26-088 - Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road), currently listed on the August 18, 2026 San Jose City Council consent calendar under Land Use, be removed and placed on the regular agenda for a future City Council agenda, for a full public hearing that allows for discussion amongst the Council Members and feedback from the public.
Far from being an inconsequential conforming zoning that merits no discussion and essentially gets ministerial approval, there are several important issues that will arise as a result of approving the rezoning at this time:
(1) The rezoning would remove the only operative protection on the open space portion of the IBM property. The Staff Report for the December 12, 2000 City Council meeting (attached) states:
"The existing PD Rezoning File No. PDC80-06-165 for the existing IBM Almaden Research Facility designated the subject site as permanent open space." The Council itself recognized that zoning alone could not deliver that permanence. After IBM's 1998 rezoning attempt, the Council on December 7, 1999 directed staff "to work with IBM and open space organizations to pursue a legally binding agreement that will permanently protect the 540 acres of open space surrounding the Almaden Research Center." (See attached) That directive was never carried out — no easement, deed restriction, or other recorded instrument was ever put in place. Rezoning now would strip the 1980 PD instrument without the City ever having delivered the permanent protection its own Council ordered, leaving approximately 570 acres with no recorded encumbrance at all. The Cushman & Wakefield marketing brochure for the property lists residential development as the number one non-commercial use for the space:
"...there is a potential for a zoning change to residential, which would be well suited in this location given the excellent location and views, surrounding residential and access to amenities."
(2) The industrial portion is being marketed with data center use as a primary intended use (Cushman & Wakefield, June 2026, attached). On June 10, 2026 the Rules and Open Government Committee directed the City Manager to develop uniform standards for data centers and large energy-use projects, due back to Council in December 2026. The City's first community listening session on those standards is set for August 19, 2026 — the day after this rezoning is scheduled for action. A data center on IP-zoned land may be approvable at a stafflevel Special Use Permit hearing, creating a four-month window to file applications escaping rules the Council has already found necessary.
In addition, the current PD zoning only allows for R&D activity on 19 of the 35 industrial acres, with only parking being allowed on the remainder. Once the conforming zoning is approved, all 35 acres will be zoned Industrial Park and open to full industrial development, potentially doubling the density of industrial activity on the site.
This rezoning, even though it is conforming, is in fact highly consequential at the current time, given Council's unfinished business of developing permanent protection for the open space and developing rules and procedures to govern the types of development projects most likely to occur on the industrial portion. These issues and consequences affect everyone who lives nearby, as well as everyone who uses the adjacent open space in Santa Teresa County Park for recreation. The issues deserve public comment and Council discussion, and as a result, this agenda item is not appropriate for a Consent Calendar, and I respectfully request that it be moved to the regular agenda in a future City Council meeting, as the The General Plan FourYear Review Policy Framework agenda item already set for August 18 is likely to leave little room for proper discussion of the Rezoning Request.
Sincerely,
Evan Brooks
San Jose CA 95120
---------------------------
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20081114151024/http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/199…
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,
1999
The Council of the City of San Jose convened in adjourned regular session at 7:25 P.M. in City Council Chambers at City Hall for the 1999 General Plan Annual Review.
Present: Council Members - Chavez, Dando, Diaz, Diquisto, Fiscalini, LeZotte, Matthews, Powers, Shirakawa, Jr., Woody; Gonzales.
Absent: Council Members - None.
Mayor Gonzales stated documents relating to the 1999 Annual Review of the General Plan are available for inspection at the Press Table in the Council Chambers, explained the process for the public to address the Council, and stated that Council actions taken are considered tentative pending final adoption of the 1999 General Plan Amendments at the conclusion of tonight’s meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
District 10
The Appeal of the Environmental Impact Report for GP98-10-1 and consideration of the General Plan Amendment requested for Item GP98-10-1 were heard together:
3C(1)(a)/GP98-10-1: Appeal of an Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram for property located on the east side of Harry Road, north of Arroyo Calero Creek from Private Open Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on 36.5 acres. Staff recommends upholding Planning Commission certification of EIR.
3C(1)(b)/GP98-10-1: General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram for property located on the east side of Harry Road, north of Arroyo Calero Creek from Private Open Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on 36.5 acres. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report. Staff recommends No Change to the General Plan.
Planning Commission recommends No Change to the General Plan.
Documents filed: (1) Memorandum from Council Member Dando, dated December 3, 1999, recommending Council: (a) Deny General Plan amendment 98-10-1 which would change 36.5 acres located at Harry Road and Arroyo Calero Creek from Private Open Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC); (b) Direct Staff to work with IBM and open space organizations to pursue a legally binding agreement that will permanently protect the 540 acres of open space surrounding the Almaden Research Center, and (c) Direct Staff to develop a process for establishing open space easements or covenants, where appropriate, on lands that are understood to be permanent private open space. (2) Memorandum from Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, James R. Derryberry, dated December 2, 1999, recommending Council uphold the certification by the Planning Commission of the Environmental Impact Report for the Harry Road Residential Development, finding it adequate and complete under the California Environmental Quality Act. (3) Memorandum from the Planning Commission, dated November 29, 1999, recommending No Change in the General Plan on the requested amendment on 36.5 acres located on the east side of Harry Road north of Arroyo Calero Creek from Private Open Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC). (4) Petitions with approximately 1,250 signatures of San José residents opposed to the General Plan amendment, collected by The Almaden Preservation Committee. (5) Communications sent by E-mail from approximately sixty residents opposing the General Plan amendment.
Discussion/Action: Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement James Derryberry stated the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found a number of significant adverse impacts that were not mitigated with the proposed change in land use, therefore, Staff believes the EIR fully discloses all of the environmental impacts if the project were to go forward and Staff recommends Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR as complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Regarding the proposed amendment, he stated the request is to change the land use designation from Private Open Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on approximately 36 acres which is a portion of the IBM Property that is within the City’s urban service area. He stated Staff believes the amendment goes against a decision made by a previous City Council to preserve the site and all of the remaining site in the IBM laboratory in permanent open space, which is consistent with the current zoning of Private Open space, and the Planning Commission and Planning Director strongly recommend No Change in the General Plan and retention of the site as open space. Charles Davidson, one of the developers of the property, stated the request to develop 17.4 acres of a 36 acre site, a flat parcel which would yield 49 lots, with 21 acres going to creek and riparian corridor, is consistent with the City’s policy of allowing development inside urban service areas where the slope is less than 15% percent. He stated the parcel is separate from the parcel in which the IBM facility is located and one, which IBM had to purchase in order to have an entry road to their property. He maintained the parcel’s General Plan designation of private open space is the same as other parcels, which Council has permitted to be developed. He stated the original EIR did not preclude the possibility of other options in the long term for the 540 acres designated as private open space. He disagreed that IBM had promised the site as permanent open space and questioned the use of the term “permanent open space” in reference to the General Plan. He stated IBM has agreed to grant over 500 acres in an easement to the City for private open space if the request is approved and the Planned Development rezoning could be conditioned in such a way that no subdivision map could be recorded until IBM has recorded an easement to the City of San José. He stated the confusion over the issue centers on the assumption that the hill portion, which is over 15% slope, would remain private open space based on the City’s 15% grade policy. However, he noted that assumption applies to the hill portion and is not applicable to the subject parcel, which is flat land. Based on the shortage of housing and available land in San José, he requested Council approve the amendment. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment: John Mariani; Robert Boydston, Almaden Valley Community Association Board Member; Mike Knefaty; Jillian Rebecca Bruhn; Courtney Ann Klosterman; Diane L. Smith, Almaden Valley Community Association and Almaden Preservation Committee; Hunt Turner, Almaden Preservation Committee; Craig K. Breon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society; Lynne Montalbo; Christopher Mossing; Brian Drygas; Rich Bernardi, Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District; Lee Demit; Glenn Mooty; Robert Hughes; Carl Raud; George Bettisworth, President, Almaden Valley Community Association; Dennis Mulvihill and Bahram Fatemi. The applicant, Charles Davidson, gave a rebuttal to comments made by the speakers. Council Member Dando stated the debate over this General Plan amendment does not revolve around the merits of the proposed project but whether or not it is appropriate to allow housing on the site in light of a clear expectation of the community, City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council of twenty years ago that the 36 acres in question would remain permanent open space. She stated former Mayor Janet Gray Hayes and Council Member Jerry Estruth have confirmed what the public records clearly show, i.e., that the preservation of 540 acres of “permanent” open space was a condition that the public and the City demanded in exchange for approval for IBM to build the Almaden Research Center. She stated IBM’s promise to the community and to the City is well documented and well remembered by everyone involved at the time and the public record repeatedly contains IBM’s intent to preserve the 540 acres as open space. She stated by denying the General Plan amendment Council will protect the integrity of the public process and maintain the public’s trust. Council Member Dando moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR, finding it adequate and complete under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approval of the recommendations in her memorandum dated December 3,1999 to deny GP98-10-1 and direct Staff to pursue a legally binding agreement to permanently protect the 540 acres of open space surrounding the Almaden Research Center and to develop a process for establishing open space easements or covenants as permanent private open space. Council Member Matthews seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Fiscalini stated it is unfortunate Council finds itself in this situation and stressed the importance of finding ways to memorialize and document legally such agreements to avoid future Councils from having to resolve this type of issue. City Attorney Gallo stated she attempted in the past to find a legislative process to make such agreements into permanent commitments and that easements and covenants can be used when they can be legally imposed. She stated this issue is a good reminder that regardless of the intentions of an applicant, things can change over time, and an issue such as this is the result. She advised that Council has no obligation to change the City’s General Plan and is free to deny the amendment even in the absence of a legally binding agreement. Council Member Diaz stated he will support the motion although he shares Vice Mayor Fiscalini concerns and would like to see a process put into place that would avoid similar situations in the future.
Council Member Matthews stated the developer, who has built affordable housing under great opposition to the betterment of San José, has the right to propose a General Plan change.
However, she stated she supports the decision made by the City Council twenty years ago that the subject property is not appropriate for housing. Council Member LeZotte stated she did not blame Mr. Davidson for attempting to develop the land, but the fault lies with IBM for putting him and the Council in this position when IBM’s intent to commit the land to open space is clear and, regardless of the agreement, she would support preserving the land as open space.
Council Member Diquisto expressed concerns about denying a request for low density housing on 36 acres, with 500 acres remaining as open space, stating development of the 36 acres at a higher density could conceivably be approved by future Councils. Director Derryberry stated Council does have the option at some future date to approve an amendment to the General Plan in the absence of some permanent instrument such as an easement as is being recommended by Council Member Dando. He noted, however, that under the Council’s current General Plan and hillside policies, the 500 acres, which are above the 15% slope line, would never be developed. Council Member Chavez stated she would support the motion because there was a definite intent by the Council twenty years ago to protect that community and it is this Council’s obligation to continue that commitment. Council Member Woody agreed that the developer and the merits of his proposal are not at issue, but rather, the issue is one of upholding the intent of the previous Council, and stated she will support the motion. Mayor Gonzales stated the two issues before the Council is whether to allow development within the Greenbelt and whether to hold a company to a promise made in the past. He stated this Council has repeatedly stood firm against development within the Greenbelt and it is important once again to go on record against development with the City’s Greenbelt. As relates to the agreement with IBM, he stated he is convinced given the documentation that a promise was made and Council should hold IBM to that promise by supporting the motion that certifies the EIR but denies the amendment. On a call for the question, the motion carried and Council denied the appeal, upheld the Planning Commission’s certification of the Environmental Impact Report as complete and in compliance with CEQA, and tentatively approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Planning Director for No Change in the General Plan on 36.5 acres. Vote: 10-1-0-0. Noes: Diquisto.
CONSENT CALENDAR
District 8
2A(1) GP99-T-14: Text Amendment to modify the text of the Evergreen Planned Residential Community to reflect changes in the location of the Multi-Family Residential proximate to the Commercial Village Center. (Staff). CEQA: Resolution No. 65459. Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval.
Discussion/Action: Upon motion by Council Member Powers, seconded by Council Member Dando, and unanimously carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for approval of proposed amendment to modify the text of the Evergreen Planned Residential Community was tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS TO BE DEFERRED
Citywide
3B(1)(a)/GP96-UGB: General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram to create a long term Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary delineating the extent of urban development.
CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pending. Staff recommends deferral for completion of the environmental review.
Discussion/Action: Upon motion by Council Member Powers, seconded by Council Member Dando, and unanimously carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for deferral for completion of the environmental review was tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0. 3B(1)(b)/GP96-T-03: General Plan Text Amendment to describe and support the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary. CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pending. Staff recommends deferral for completion of the environmental review.
Discussion/Action: Upon motion by Council Member Powers, seconded by Council Member Dando, and --- -- --------
unanimously carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for deferral for completion of the environmental review was tentatively approved.
Vote: 11-0-0-0.
District 8
3B(2)(a)/GP99-8-2: General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram for property located at the northeasterly side of Murillo Avenue, opposite Groesbeck Hill Drive, from Non-Urban Hillside, outside the Urban Service Area and outside the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary to Public/Quasi-Public, inclusion in the Urban Service Area, and minor modification to the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary on 7.95 acres. (MacKay & Somps). CEQA: Negative Declaration. Staff recommends deferral until after consideration of GP96-UGB and GP96-T-03.
Discussion/Action: Upon motion by Council Member Powers, seconded by Council Member Dando, and unanimously carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for deferral until after consideration of GP96-UGB and GP96-T-03, was tentatively approved. Vote: 11-0-0-0.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
3C(2) Reconsiderations – None were requested.
3C(3) Adoption of a resolution finalizing the tentative actions made by the Council on the 1999 Annual Review of the General Plan and amending the General Plan in conformance therewith.
Discussion/Action: Planning Director Derryberry read a correction to Text Amendment GP99- T-1 which was adopted on the Consent Calendar on November 8, 1999, and recommended adoption of a resolution finalizing the tentative actions made by the Council on the 1999 Annual Review of the General Plan and amending the General Plan in conformance therewith.
Upon motion by Council Member Diaz, seconded by Vice Mayor Fiscalini, and unanimously carried, Item GP99-T-1 as described on Page T-10, Item 11, was amended to read: “Nonresidential building height, including all elements of a building whether occupied space or decorative feature, but not including roof equipment or screening, …”; and Resolution No. 69261, entitled: “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San José Adopting, Pursuant to Title 18 of the San José Municipal Code, Amendments to the San José 2020 General Plan, San José, California”, was adopted. Vote: 10-0-1-0. Absent: Dando. 3C(4) Review and approval of the Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan.
Documents filed: Memorandum from Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, James R. Derryberry, dated November 23, 1999, recommending acceptance of the Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan required pursuant to Assembly Bill 1678.
Discussion/Action: Upon motion by Council Member Diaz, seconded by Vice Mayor Fiscalini, and unanimously carried, the Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan was accepted. --- -- -------
Vote: 10-0-1-0. Absent: Dando.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council of the City of San José adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
RON GONZALES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PATRICIA L. O’HEARN, CITY CLERK
City of San Jose - PBCE —_Planning Division - Imaging Index Cover Sheet Category Document Type Sub Document Type
0 (EF) Envifonmental Files
(203)
LI (PP) Public Project Files
(203-03)
0 0
0 0
0 Li
C:1
U
U
(EN) EIR
(DA) Approved Document
Correspondence
Correspondence
Reports
Reports
(EM) Maps
(AE) Application
(AG) Agency
(EG) General
(TR) Technical
(RE) Archaeological
(EP) Plans
0 0 (GA) General Plan Amendments
(204-02)
0 D
0 (AM) Amendment
(GP) General Plan (AA) Application
(204) (CG) Correspondence
0 (GE) Environmental Review
(for 204 series GP Amendments)
0 LI
n
!--i
0 LI
(GD) Approved Document
(GI) EIR
(GS) Supporting Documents
(GT) Technical Reports
(OR) Archaeological
R) Development Review *D(207)
11PR) Projects
(207-02, 207-03, etc.)
(ZN) Zoning
Correspondence
Correspondence
(PE) Permit
0 0
LI
LI
LI
(MP) Maps
(AP) Application
(AC) Agency
(GC) General
(PL) Plans
0 (ER) Environmental Review
(for 207 series Project Files)
0 (EA) Approved Document
0 (EI) EIR
0 (ES) Supporting Documents
0 (ET) Technical Reports
C:I (AR) Archaeological
0 (AD) Adjustments (207-12) U (DO) Documents
0 (PA) Plans
0 (LE) Letter
0 (LS) Supporting Docs
0 (PI) Public Info Letters (207-29)
Address/Location: The southeast corner of Henwood and Harry Roads (20500
HARRY RD)
Permit/Project No.: PDC99-012 Issuance Date: na
Prepped By: RJEDDOW Closed By: LXAVIER RSN: 915928
City of San Jose - PBCE~ Elanning Division - Imaging Index Cover Sheet Address/Location:
Permit/Project No.:
The southeast corner of Henwoo-d and Harry Roads (20500
HARRY RD)
PDC99-012 Issuance Date: na
Prepped By: REDDOW Closed By: LXAVIER RSN: 915928
Category Document Type Sub Document Type
□ (EN) EIR
□ (EF) Environmental Files □ (PP) Public Project Files □ (DA) Approved Document (203) (203-03) □ (EM) Maps
□ (AE) Application
□ (AG) Agency Correspondence
□ (EG) General Correspondence
□ (TR) Technical Reports
□ (RE) Archaeological Reports
□ (EP) Plans
□ (AM) Amendment
□ (GP) General Plan □ (GA) General Plan Amendments □ (AA) Application (204) (204-02) 0 (CG) Correspondence □ (GD) Approved Document
□ (GE) Environniental Review □ (GI) EIR
(for 204 series GP Amendments) □ (GS) Supporting Documents □ (GT) Technical Reports
□ (GR) Archaeological
~
:(ZN) Zoning
~
R) Development Review
~
PR) Projects (PE) Permit
(207) (207-02, 207-03, etc.) 0 (MP)Maps
□ (AP) Application
□ (AC) Agency Correspondence
□ ( GC) General Correspondence
0 (PL) Plans
□ (EA) Approved Document
0 (ER) EnviroilIIlental Review 0 (El) EIR
(for 207 series Project Files) □ (ES) Supporting Documents □ (ET) Technical Reports
□ (AR) Archaeological
□ (AD) Adjustments (207-12) □ (DO) Documents
□ (PA) Plans
□ (Pl) Public Info Letters (207-29) □ (LE) Letter
□ (LS) Supporting Docs
4*:
99-02-012 PDC Ordinance Rezoning
2000 19, December on Council City by considered
ADOPTED NOT 8.a. No. Item under
•
Rezoning Ordinance PDC 99-02-012
considered by City Council on December 19, 2000
under Item No. 8.a. NOT ADOPTED
7g (Coned.)
refer the issue to- the Administration for review, and refer to the Mayor's Budget Office and the Education, Neighborhood and Seniors Committee full discussions on the items being brought forw4rd. Upon motion by Council Member Woody, seconded by Vice Mayor Fiscaliru, and unanimously carried, Council accepted the Annual Report of the Mayor's Aging Leadership Council, referred the Aging Leadership Council's recom- mendations to the Administration for analysis; referred to Staff, to the Mayor's Budget Office and the Education, Neighborhoods, Youth and Seniors Committee the discussion and review of the establishment of a Department on-Aging, in conjunction with the strategic plan of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, as outlined in Council Member Woody's memorandum of December 15, 2000. Vote:
10-0-0-0-1. Vacant: District 5.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
8a PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING of the property located at the southeast corner of ilenwood and Harry Roads adjacent to 1°1014 Arroyo Calero Creek, from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District, to allow up to 54 single-family detached residential units on 17.3 gross acres. (IBM Real Estate Services, Owner; The Riding Group, Developer). CEQA: Resolution No. 69261. Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement recommends denial.
PDC 99-02-012 - District 10
Documents filed: (1) Report of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforeemient, dated November 29, 2000, reconithending denial of the applicant's request for Planned Development Rezoning for PDC 99-02-012: (2) Public Hearing Notice dated November 17, 2000 and proof of publication executed December 8, 2000, -- submitted by the City Clerk.
Discussion/Action: Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, James R.
Derryberry, stated this rezoning should be denied because Council denied the General Plan amendment required for this proposed project. Upon motion by. Council Member Dando, seconded by Council Member Fiscalini, and unanimously carried, Council approved the Staff recommendation for denial of PDC 99-02-012
Absent: Woody. Vacant: District 5.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
9a Acceptance of the Marketing Feasibility Study which recommends an upgraded/expanded Convention/Conference Center to meet the high tech needs of 3-509 Silicon Valley; and direction to the Administration to begin a financial feasibility analysis and project scope study. (Conventions, Arts and Entertainment) - 30 - December 19, 2000
• •
7g (Cont'd.)
refer the issue tci the Admimstration :for review, and refer t~ the Mayor's Budget Office and the Education, Neighborhood and Seniors Com:rmttee full discussions on the items being broughtJorwa,rd. Upon motion by Council Member Woody, seconded by Vice Mayor Fiscalini, and unanimously carried, Council accepted the Annual Report of the Mayor's Aging Leadership Council, referred the Aging Leadership Council's recommendations to the Administration for analysis; referred-to Staff, -to the Mayor's Budget Office arid the Education, Neighborhoods, Youth and Seniors Committee the discussion and review of the establishment of a Department on Aging, ·in conjunction with the strategic plan of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, as outlined in Council lVfember Woody's memorandum of December 15, 2000. Vote:
10-0-0-0~ l. Vacant: District 5. • • " •
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Sa PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING of the property located at the southeast corner of Henwood and Harry Roads adjacent to Arroyo Calero Creek, from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District, to allow up to 54 single-family detached residential units on 17.3 gross acres. ([BM Real Estate Services, Owner; The Riding Group, Developer). CEQA: Resolution No. 69261. Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement recommends deniaJ,
PDC 99-02-012- District 10
Documents filed: (I) Report of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enrorcerrient, dated November 29, 2000, reconnnencimg denial of the applicant's request for Planned Development Rezoning for PDC 99-02-012i (2) Public Hearing Notice dated November 17, 200"0 and proof of publication executed December 8, 2000, submitted by the City C!erk. • •
Discussio1i/Action: Dir~to;r of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, James R.
Derryberry, stated this rezoning should be denied because Council" denied the General Plan amendment required for this propo-sed project. Upon motion by Council Member Dando, seconded by Council Member Fiscalini, and unanimously carried, Council approved the Staff recolll.1;11~dation for denial of PDC 99~02-012.~15,;Q,;!lil-:-];J:!
Absent: Woody. Vacant: D1stnct 5. . - • • • ··--·
GE:r-."ERAL GOVER~MENT
9a Acceptance of the :Marketing Feasibility Study which recommends an npgraded/expanded Convention/Conference Center to meet the high tech needs of Silicon Valley; and direction to the Administration to begin a rmancial feasibility . analysis and project scope study. (Conventions, Arts and Entertainment) December 19, 2000
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
8_01 North First Street, Room 400
San Jose, California 95110-1795
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date/Agenda Number CC 12/12/00 Item
File Number - PDC 99-02-012
Application Type Planned Development Rezoning
Council District
10 Planning Area Almaden
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 701-31-003 & 005
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Completed by: Ron Eddow
Location: Southeast corner of Henwood and Harry Roads adjacent to Arroyo Calera Creek Gross Acreage: 17.3 Net Acreage: 12..23 Net Density: 4.4 DU/AC Existing zoning: A (PD) Planned Development Existing Use: Open space Proposed Zoning: A(PD) Planned Proposed Use: 54 single-family detached residential units Development
GENERAL PLAN •
-4
•
Completed. by: RE
Land Use/Transportation Diagram Designation Private 0-pen Space
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Project Conforrnance:
[ IYes f x ] No
[ x 1 See Analysis and Recommendations
North: Open Space_
Completed by: RE
4 • • •••• • County & A(PD) Planned Development
East: Open Space A(PD) Planned Development
South: Open Space County
West . Single-family detached residential (very low density) County ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Completed by: RE
[ x Environmental Impact Report found complete [ Negative Declaration
FILE HISTORY
[ Exempt
[ ] Environmental Review Incomplete
_ Completed by: RE
Annexation Title:. Castillero No. 4
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION
Date: December 23, 1980
[ ]Approval
[ ] Approval with Conditions
x ] Denial
Date: Approved by:
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER/OWNER
I x1 Action
[ ] Recommendation
Victor Weinstein, IBM Real Estate Services
New Orchard Road
Armonk., New York 10504
CITY OF SAN JOS~, CALIFORNIA •
Department of Planning, Buildlllg and Code Enforcement
ao1 North FiisfSliee~ Room 400 - •
San Jose, califomla 95110-f79s·
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hearing Date/Agenda Number
C.C . 12/12/00 Item
FIie Number
PDC 99-02-012
Application Type
Planned Development Rezoning
Council District
10 Planning Area
Almaden
Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
701-31-003 & 005
Completed by: . Ron Eddow
Location: Southeast corner of Henwoo_d and Harry .Roads adjacent to Arroyo Calero Creek ... -~ .. -- ... - . • . . .,_ Gross Acreage: 17.3 Net AcreaQ<>: 1223 - Net Densily: 4,4 DU/ AC Existing Zoning: A (PD) Planned Development Existing Use.: Open space Proposed Zoning: A(PD) Planned
Development
Proposed Uso: 54 single-family detached residential units
GENERAL PLAN
Land Use/Transportation Diagram Designation
Private Open Space
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
North: Open Space
East Open Space
South: Open Space
West:. Single-family detached residential (very low density) - - .. ' . ' . ~
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
[ x ] Environmental Impact Report found complete
[ ] Negative Declaration
FILE HISTORY
Annexation Ttlle: Castillero No. 4
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REC0~1M!':NDATIONS AND ACTION •
[ J Approval
[ ] Approval with Conditlons
[ x] Denial
APPLICANT /DcVELOPERIOWNER •
Victor Weinstein, IBM Real Estate Services
New Orchard Road
Armonk.,NewYork 10504
Compl~ted by: RE
Project Conformance:
[ )Yes [x]No
[ x ] See Analysis and Reoommendaoons
Complet!lil by: RE
. County<%. A(PD) Planned Development
A(PD) Planned Development
County.
CW,pleled by: RE.
[ 1 Exempt
[ ] Environmental Review Incomplete
_ Completed by: RE
0ate: December 23, 1980
Approved by: ----------~ [ x] Action
. I Recommendation
•
File No. PDC 99-02-012 Page 2
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED Completed by: RE
Department of PublicWorks
See attached memorandum. 1.6
Other Departments and Agencies See attached memorandum from Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services Department and letter from County of Santa ClariParks and Recreation Departinent.
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
See attached letters
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND
On Februafy 9, 1999, the applicants, IBM Real Estate Services and The Riding Group, requested a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning from A(PD) Planned Development to A(PD) Planned Development to allow 54 single-family detached residential units on 17.3 gross acres. The existing PD Rezoning File No. PDC80-06-165 for the existing IBM Almaden Research Facility designated the subject site as permanent open space. In February, 1998, the applicantstrequested a General Plan amendment from Private Open Space and Major Collector (60-90 ft.) to Low Density Residential_ (5 DU/AC) and relocation of the Major Collector on 36,5 acres That includes the subject site. On November 17, 1999, the Planning Commisskin certified an EIR that covered the General Plan Amendment and_the proposed PD Rezoning. In December, 1999, the City Council upheld an appeal of the HR and voted 10-1-0 (Diquisto opposed) not to change the General Plan (see attached General Plan Annual Review Report).
The rectangular shaped site, comprised of two parcels, has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Harry Road. The subject site currently_ contains an orchard and open space east of Harry Road adjacent to Arroyo Calero Creek. Surrounding land uses consist of open space and Alamitos Creek to the north; open space to the east and south; and very low density single-family detached residential to the west. On March 25, and May 5, 1999, public meetings *ere held to discuss the scope of the E1R for the project. Persons in atendance expressed overwhelming opposition to the project based primarily on their belief that the applicant failed to abide by a commitment to maintain the property as permanent open space. The project has been inactive for one year.
Project Description
The pro-posed single-family detached residential project takes access from Harry Road at the entrance to _ the IBM Almaden Research Facility. A frontage public street traverses the site from west to east adjacent to Arroyo -Calero Creek. Six culs-de-sac located perpendicular to the frontage street provide access to 49 lots. Lots sizes average approxinarely 8,000 square feet. An "L" shaped private street provides access to five lots located north of the entrance to the site. A setback of approximately 100 feet is provided •
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED
Department of Public Works
See attached memorandum.
Other Oepartmen!S and Agencies
Fi,No. PDC 99-02-012
Page2
See attached memorandum from Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services Department and letter from County of Santa Clarii1'arks and Recreation Department. ••
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
See attached letters
ANALYSIS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1999, the applicants, IBM Real Estate Serviceiand The Riding Group, requested a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning from A(PD) Planned Development to A(PD) Planned Development to allow 54 single-family detached residential units on 17 .3 gross acres. The exis!Jng PD Rezoning File No. PDC 80-06-165 for the exisffrig IBM Almaden Research Facility designated the subject site as permanent open space. In February, 1998, the applkants requested a General Plan amendment from Private Open Space and Major· Collector @0-90 ft.) to Low Density Residential (5 Dt:/AC) and relocation of the Major Collector on 36~ acres that includes the subject site._ On November 17, 1999, the Planning Commission certified an ElR that covered the General Plan Amendment and the proposed PD Rezoning.
In December, 1999, the City Council uphelct ari appeal of the EJR and voted io.'."1-0 (Diquist~ opposed) not to change the General Plan (see attached General Plan Annual Review Report), The rectangular shaped site, Comprised of two parcels, has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Harry Road. The subject site currently contains an orchard and open space east of Harry Road adjacent to Arroyo Calero Creek. Surrounding land uses consist of open space and Alamitos Creek to the north; open space to the east and south; and very low density single-family detached residential to the west. On March 25, and May 5, 1999, public meetings were held to discuss the i,cope of the EJR for the project. Persons in attendance expressed overwhelming opposition to the project based primarily on their belief that the applicant failed to abide by a commitment to maintain the property as permanent open space, The project has been inactive for one year. •
Project Description
The proposed single-family detached residential project takes access from Harry Road at the entrance to the IBM Almaden Research Facility. A fronfage public street traverses the site from west to east adjacent to Arroyo Calero Creek. Six culs-de-sac located perpendicular to the frontage street provide access to 49 lots. Lots sizes average approximaTely 8,000 square feet. An "L" shaped private street provides access to five lots located north of the entrance to the site. A setback of approximately 100 feet is provided • File No. PDC 99-02-012
adjacent to the riparian corridors of Arroyo Calero Creek to the south, and Alamitos Creek to the north.
The two-story homes would contain approximately 3,500 square feet of floor space.
ENVIROIVIENTAL REVIEW
On Novel-fiber 17, 1999, the Planning Commission certified an ER for General Plan Amendment File No.
GP 98-10-1 and the proposed rezoning. On Decerfiber 7, 1999, the City Council considered an appeal of the DR and adopted findings to uphold the HR.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The subject site is designated Private Open Space on the General Plan Land Use/Transportation. Diagram. The proposed residential project does not conform to the General Plan in that the Private Open Space category designates privately owned lands used for low-intensity, open space activity primarily within the Urban Service Area. Further, appropriate uses in this category include cemeteries, salt ponds, and land which is restricted to agricultural use and private buffer lands. In addition, the project may not be found in conforrriance under any General Plan Discretional)/ Alternate Use Policy. •
ANALYSIS
The primary issues discussed are (1) General Plan -conformance, and (2) lack of activity of the proposed project.
The proposed project for 54 single-family detached residential units does not conform to the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Privite Open Space. This category designates privately owned lands used for low-intensity, open space activity primarily within the Urban Service Area.
Appropriate uses in this category include cemeteries, salt ponds, and land which is restricted to agricultural use and private buffer lands. Also, the project may not be fouridin_conformance under any General Plan Discretionary Alternate Use Policy. The City's longstanding policy has been to not support projects that do not conform to the General Plan.
The proposed project has been inactive for one year since the City Council voted 10-1-0 (Diquisto opposed) in DecenTher, 1999 not to change the General Plan Land Use Transportation Diagram from Private 001-ISpace to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on the subject site. The PD Rezoning application was filed in February, 1999 and has well exceeded the processing time goal of 120 days. The applicant has not withdrawn the project despite written requests from Planning staff to do so (see attached letters).
The Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement is making a concerted effort to complete inactive arid unresolved projects in order to concentrate on active pending projects. Denial of the proposed project is consistent with City Council action to deny General Plan Amendment file no. GP 98- 10-01. Further, denial would enable Planning staff to resolve this PD Rezoning application in order to concentrate on active pending projects.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A notice of the public hearing was published on local and community newspapers and distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 300 feet of the project site. The project was discussed • F!No. PDC 99-02-012
adjacent to the riparian corridors of Arroyo Calero Creek toth~south, anci_Alamitos Creek to the north.
The two-story homes would contafo approxlmately-3,500 square feet of floor space.
ENVIR01\,1E::'1.'T AL REVIEW
On November 17, 1999, tl:ie PlanniniCom:anssfon certified~ an EIR for General Plan Amendment File No.
GP 98-10-1 and the proposed rezoning. On Decemoer 7, 1999, the City Council considered an appeal of the EIR and adopted findings to uphold the EIR.
GEN'ERAL PLAN CONFORi-VIANCE
The subject site is designated Private Open Space on the General Plan Land Usetrransportation Diagram.
The proposed residential project does not conform to the General Plan in that the Private Open Space category designates privately owned lands used for low~intensity, open space activity primarily within the Urban Service Area. Further, appropriate uses in this category include cemeteries, salt ponds, and land which is restricted to agricultural us.e .and private buffer lands. In addition, the project may not be found in conformance under any General Plan Discretionifry Alternate Use Policy. • •
ANALYSIS
The primary issues discussed are (1) General Plan conformance, and (2) lack-of activity of the proposed project.
The proposed project for 54 single-family detachec! residential units does not c~nform to the General Plan Land Usetrransportation Diagram designation of Priva:ie Open Space. This category designates privately owned lands used for low-intensity, open space activity primarily within the Urban Service Area.
Appropriate uses in this category include cemeteries, salt ponds, and land which is restricted to agricultur_al1JSe and private buffer lands. Also, the project may not 1::)e founcfin_conformance under any General Plan Discretionary Alternate Use Policy. The City's longstanding policy has been to not support projects that do not conform to the General Plan.
The proposed project has been inactive for one year since the City Council voted 10-1-0 (Diquisto opposed) in December, 1999 not to change the General Plan.Land Use Transportation Diagram from Private Open.Space to Low Density Residential (5 DU/AC) on the subject site. The PD Rezoning application was filed in February, 1999 and has well exceeded the processing time goal of 120 days. The applicant has not withdrawn the project despite written requests from Planning staff to do so (see attached letters).
The Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement is making a concerted effort to complete inactive arid unresolved projects in order to concentrate on active pending projects. Denial of the proposed project is consistent with City Council action to deny General Plan Amendment file no. GP 98- 10-01. Furfrier, denial would enable Planning staff to resolve this PD Rezoning application in order to concentrate on active pending projects.
PUBLIC OlJ'TREACH
A notice of the public hearing was published on local and community newspapers and distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 300 feet of the project site. The project was discussed • •File No. PDC 99-02-012 Page 4
at community meetings for the _General Plan Annual_Review in 1998 and_1999. Iii addition, public scoping meetings for the EIR were held on March 25 and May 5, 1999. Public opposition to the General Plan amendment was overwhelming, particularly at the EIR scoping meetings. Several hundred people attended these meetings and expressed their strong opposition-I6 the proposal based primarily on their belief that the applicant failed to uphold an original commitment to the neighborhood to keep the site in permanent open space. Other concerns included project density; overall deterioration of quality of life in the neighborhood; and impacts to local traffic, schools, wildlife/riparian corridors, and visual resources.
In addition to the issues -described above, they raised questions regarding policy conformance, growth inducement, and feasibility of conservation or open space easements.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the City CouriCil to deny the subject rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram-designation of Private Open Space. 2. Denial of the proposed project is consistent with City Council action to deny General Plan Amendment file no. GP 98-10-01
3. Denial would enable Planning staff to resolve this PD Rezoning application in order to concentrate on active pending projects.
• Fi,l'.fo. PDC 99-02-012
at community meefings fodhe General Plan Annua!,Review in !998 and 1999. In addition, public scoping meetings for the EIR were held on March 2:5 and May 5, 1999. Public opposition to the General Plan amendment was overwhelming, particularly at the BIR scoping meetings. Several hundred people attended these meetings and expressed their strong opposition lo the proposal based primarily on their belief that the applicant failed to uphold an original commitment to the neighborhood to keep the site in permanent open space. Other concerns included project density; overall deterioration of quality of life in the neighborhood; and impacts to local traffic, schools, wildlife/riparian corridors, and visual resources.
In addition to the issues described above, they raised questions regarding policy conformance, growth inducement, and feasibility of conservation or open space easements.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the City Council to deny the subject rezoning for the following reasons:
L The project is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Private Open Space.
2. Denial of the proposed project is consistent with City Council action to deny General Plan Amendment file no. GP 98-10-Dl.
3. Denial would enable Planning staffto resolve this PD Rezoning application in order to concentrate on active pending projects.
SAN JOSE, CA
RARE, VALUE-ADD OR REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY OF SCALE
±35 ACRES NESTLED IN BEAUTIFUL OPEN PRESERVE LAND
THE OFFERING
Cushman & Wakefield, as exclusive advisor, is pleased to present the opportunity to acquire 650 Harry Road (the “Project”) which comprises ±544,495 square feet of office space on ±687 acres, ±35 of which are zoned Industrial Park. The Project will be delivered vacant.
IBM constructed and has owned and occupied the Project since it was developed in 1985, utilizing the Property as part of its Silicon Valley Research and Development operations. The Project sits in the Almaden Valley area of South San Jose, proximate to desirable executive housing, golf courses, convenient transportation options, and retail centers including Westfield Oakridge.
This offering provides investors the unique opportunity to reposition or redevelop a property of significant scale within Silicon Valley.
Note: The total acreage owned is ±687 acres; Ownership will consider selling the total acreage or just the ±35 acre-IP zoned portion of the site.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Address 650 HARRY RD Totals
APN 701-30-003 701-30-002 701-29-019 701-31-005 70-31-003 708-01-013 708-01-012 6 Parcels* Total Net Rentable Area 544,495 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 544,495 Acres 509.96 54.55 1.13 27.99 8.59 55.25 30.00 687.47
Year Built 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1985
Stories 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3
General Plan
Zoning*
Industrial Park
(IP)/
Open Space,
Parklands and
Habitat (OSPH)
Open Space, Parklands and Habitat (OSPH) -
*Approximately 35 acres is zoned Industrial Park (IP)
2 RARE REDEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY
Situated on a total of ±687 acres, the Project offers
±35 acres that are zoned Industrial Park, allowing
for a wide variety of uses, including data centers,
industrial, research and development, advanced manufacturing, and general office. The Industrial Park (IP) General Plan designation allows for this variety of uses as well significant variation in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR). There is a lack of large redevelopment sites throughout Silicon Valley and demand from tenants for new, state-of-the-art buildings remains high. In addition to commercial development, there is a potential for a zoning change to residential, which would be well suited in this location given the excellent location and views, surrounding residential and access to amenities.
INVESTMENT
HIGHLIGHTS
VALUE-ADD OR OWNER/USER
OPPORTUNITY
The site will be delivered vacant, allowing an
investor the opportunity to renovate and lease up
buildings in one of Silicon Valley’s most dynamic
submarkets. Alternatively, the Project allows for
an owner/user to purchase the site for their own
occupancy. There are limited opportunities for users
to purchase quality office/R&D buildings on a site
of this scale in Silicon Valley.
±35 Acres Zoned IP
SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN MAP SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN MAP 3 '("#$%&
!!"#$%&
!)"#$%&
*+"#$%&
,("#$%&
*'"#$%&
*'"#$%&
,("#$%&
')"#$%&
'("#$%&
,("#$%&
*+"#$%&
'("#$%&
!!"#$%&
!)"#$%&
*+"#$%&
,("#$%&
*'"#$%&
*'"#$%&
,("#$%&
')"#$%&
'("#$%&
,("#$%&
*+"#$%&
'("#$%&
!!"#$%&
!)"#$%&
*+"#$%&
,("#$%&
*'"#$%&
*'"#$%&
,("#$%&
')"#$%&
'("#$%&
,("#$%&
*+"#$%&
BENEFICIAL REVERSE COMMUTE,
AMENITY RICH
The Project offers convenient access to major transportation arteries (Highways 85 and 101, Almaden Expressway),
ensuring efficient connectivity across the Bay Area and a favorable reverse commute for employees. Within a 15-minute drive of the Project are numerous shopping centers including Westfield Oakridge, Almaden Center, and Orchard Town &
Country. Additionally, San Jose International Airport is just 25 minutes away, enhancing regional and national accessibility. 4 Sunnyvale
San Jose
PROXIMITY TO EXECUTIVE AND
WORKFORCE HOUSING
The Project is ideally located for both executive and workforce employees. Executive housing in West Silicon Valley (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, Santa Clara) offers a convenient reverse commute, while the Project provides immediate access to more affordable workforce housing in areas like Morgan Hill and South San Jose. This dual access ensures efficient commutes for all employee tiers, enhancing the Project’s appeal for long-term tenancy.
ACCESS TO A DEEP LABOR POOL
Approximately half of Silicon Valley’s workforce of 1.7 million are employed in technology. In addition to the abundance of technology workers, there are 180,000 manufacturing professionals, primarily focused in advanced manufacturing, in Silicon Valley. The Project’s location allows tenants to draw from a significantly deep and welleducated labor pool (54% with bachelor’s degree or higher). 5 CONTACTS
RYAN VENEZIA
Lic. #01864838
ph | 415.658.3602
[email protected]
COURTNEY TRUNNELL
Lic. #01968825
ph | 415.677.0464
[email protected]
SETH SIEGEL
Lic. #01493953
ph | 415.773.3580
[email protected]
SCOTT PROSSER
Lic. #01104754
ph | 408.464.2278
[email protected]
JACK DEPUY
Lic. #01796176
ph | 408.615.3417
[email protected]
The proposals are to rezone from Neighborhood Commercial to either Urban Residential, with a height limit of 85 feet, or to Mixed Use Neighborhood. This would affect all the small businesses between Beechwood and Fernwood, and a smattering of other properties from Fernwood to Kenwood. The Planning Commissioners were deadlocked on these recommendations. Two of the commissioners, who had made the effort to visit our area, made different and lesser proposals.
We do not favor the neighborhood being ringed by eight-story buildings. We favor keeping the functioning and profitable small businesses which contribute to the tax base. We do not see why the City should create a temptation for commercial landowners to evict small business owners in the hopes of selling to a developer who may erect housing. This is a long-range idea, dependent on the feelings of the current landowner. It is not designed to meet any state deadlines. It is haphazard, and not worthy to be called a plan.
There are vacant and unused properties along the corridor which should be rezoned for housing. We favor Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning for these. That designation is consistent with other developments along Winchester. Plus, we favor a lesser zoning change to start --- once a higher zoning change is granted, it cannot be rescinded in favor of a lesser zoning.
We would point out the obvious: this is earthquake country, where the height of buildings is a serious concern. We pointed out in 2025 that the Winchester corridor is in a liquefaction zone. We have numbers of neighbors who have tried to be good citizens by putting solar panels on their roofs, and who would lose the afternoon sun to large buildings.
The densification of all residential neighborhoods
The proposals are to redefine R-1 zoning, to permit 32 dwelling units per acre and 35 feet of height. The current limits are 8 DU/A and 25 feet.
We think that this is unnecessary. We agree with Planning Commissioner Pierluigi Oliviero, who said on June 24:
I just want to summarize my No vote. I think that what is being proposed, once neighborhoods actually catch on, I think it’s going to potentially generate a lot of mistrust of City Hall, since this is not being done around the country, it’s rare and infrequent, the results are not clear from Minnesota and Oregon that it actually provides affordability and other factors. I think if we were in a situation where the State was doing nothing, never passing a law on housing, that’s a different story. But we have a State that is passing laws left and right, more coming, and I think 8/11/26, 3:57 PM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. if we just simply implement State law, we will actually generate more units and in a way that is better for transportation, for the environment, that kind of goes with the basic precepts of the General Plan 2040 where the planning and building of the City is intentional rather than haphazard. Thank you.
There are other parts to the proposal which we vehemently disagree with, particularly the By Right provision. We view this as a Stealth Proposal, which is not in the best interests of the City Council to adopt now. Despite the efforts of the Task Force, most neighborhoods are unaware of the proposed changes and will be outraged to find such changes taking place in their area.
If the Council is persuaded that some densification is necessary, we suggest that the figure be twice rather than quadruple, that the height remain similar, and that other planning processes should be followed. Again, once a higher zoning is granted, it cannot be reduced.
It would be better to start out with a lesser standard. We would point out that the ADU provision, granted previously, has been very popular and useful in the Cory neighborhood.
Lindy Hayes, Concerned Cory Neighbors
8/11/26, 3:57 PM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 3/3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. update the current city plans for housing to add this detrimental proposal. Please rethink and reject this proposal.
Respectfully,
Maribet Mason
A concerned citizen
8/11/26, 3:57 PM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/2