Letters from the Public - 3 of 3 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: Remove topic 10.1.a from 8/18/26 Consent Calendar to Open Discussion From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:23 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Abby Simons
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 2:13 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <Matt [email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>
Subject: Remove topic 10.1.a from 8/18/26 Consent Calendar to Open Discussion [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn whY. this is im12ortant Mayor Mahan & Council Member Casey
To be fair and transparent , you must strongly act on August 18th in Council Chambers to remove the Consent Calendar agenda item 10.1.a regarding re-zoning of the IBM Almaden Research property. This agenda item needs to be discussed openly by the residents of the Almaden Valley and greater San Jose community .

Leadership means thoughtful restraint and respect of others .

Cordially,
Abigail Simons
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council: I am writing regarding Agenda Item

10.1(a), the proposed conforming rezoning of approximately 600 acres at 650 Harry Road, the former IBM Almaden Research Center property. After reviewing the staff mat From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 8:57 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 1:05 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.
strictl
Subject: Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council: I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.l(a), the proposed conforming rezoning of approximately 600 acres at 650 Harry Road, the former IBM Almaden Research Center property. After reviewing the staff mate ...
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.1(a), the proposed conforming rezoning of approximately 600 acres at 650 Harry Road, the former IBM Almaden Research Center property.

After reviewing the staff material and looking through the public correspondence submitted on this item, I believe this matter deserves careful Council consideration.

Because this item is currently on the Land Use Consent Calendar, I respectfully ask that it be pulled for separate discussion. This request should not be interpreted as opposition to the proposed rezoning. Rather, the unusual history of this property, the substantial public interest, and the questions raised in the historical record warrant a public explanation before Council acts.

I am not opposed to a conforming rezoning simply because it changes an older Planned Development zoning designation. Bringing zoning into conformity with the General Plan can be entirely appropriate.

Nor do I believe the volume of opposition, by itself, determines whether a land-use decision is good public policy.

However, the history of this particular property makes the proposed action more consequential than the term "conforming rezoning" might suggest.

The proposal would place approximately 565 acres into the Open Space Zoning District and approximately 35 acres into the Industrial Park Zoning District. There is currently no development application before the City for the property.

The open space designation is certainly reassuring. But the historical record submitted with this item raises an important unresolved question.

In 1999, when IBM sought a General Plan amendment that would have allowed residential development on part of this property, the City Council rejected that proposal. The Council also directed staff to work with IBM and open-space organizations to pursue a legally binding agreement permanently protecting approximately 540 acres surrounding the Almaden Research Center and to develop a process for establishing open-space easements or covenants where appropriate.

Historical City planning documents are particularly important here. They indicate that both the City Council and IBM had expressed an intent to preserve the private open space portion of the property as permanent open space. They also explain that because a permanent easement had not been required, the zoning itself constituted the City's principal legal requirement maintaining that open space use.

That creates a reasonable question for the Council in 2026:

Was the legally binding permanent protection contemplated by the Council in 1999 ever completed, and if not, should that unfinished matter be resolved as part of the current rezoning?
This is not merely a historical technicality. One of the lessons expressed by Councilmembers and the City Attorney during the 1999 proceedings was that intentions can change over time and that commitments intended to be permanent should, where legally possible, be memorialized in a durable legal instrument.

Twenty seven years later, the fact that essentially the same question has returned demonstrates the wisdom of that concern.

The approximately 35-acre Industrial Park portion also deserves clear explanation.

The proposed zoning conforms to the existing General Plan designation, but public correspondence raises a legitimate question about whether replacing the older Planned Development zoning with Industrial Park zoning increases the range or intensity of uses that could subsequently be considered on this portion of the property.

Some correspondence specifically raises the possibility of a future data center. I do not believe Council should treat a hypothetical future project as though it were being approved under this agenda item. It is not.

Nevertheless, if the rezoning materially expands the uses that could later be approved, Council and the public should understand that consequence now—particularly while San José is separately developing policies governing data centers and other large energy users.

The public response also deserves consideration beyond simply counting the number of emails received.

I took the time to look through the public correspondence submitted on this item. I did not read every repeated passage word for word, and it is apparent that a significant number of submissions use similar or identical language. That should be acknowledged. Repetition does not make a factual assertion more accurate, and the number of emails should never substitute for evaluating an argument on its merits.

At the same time, it would be a mistake to dismiss the correspondence simply because some of it resulted from an organized community effort. The sheer number of residents willing to put their names behind a position is itself relevant evidence of the level of public concern, even though it is not evidence that every underlying claim is correct.

More importantly, some of the submissions contain considerable original research. Residents located historical Council minutes, Planning Department records, earlier development applications, and documents concerning the City's and IBM's previous representations regarding permanent open space. Those materials deserve consideration based on their substance, regardless of how many additional residents submitted shorter or similar comments.

The historical record also shows that today's concern did not originate with the current email campaign. In 1999, approximately 1,250 San José residents signed petitions opposing the proposed General Plan amendment, approximately 60 residents submitted emails, and several hundred people participated in public meetings where the future of this property was debated.

I recognize the volume of material Councilmembers receive before a meeting and do not expect every repeated submission to receive individual analysis. But where residents have gone to the trouble of locating historical City records that bear directly on the decision now before Council, I hope those substantive materials—and the questions they raise—receive meaningful consideration.

For these reasons, I believe Council should clearly address three questions before acting:

1. What legally protects the approximately 565 acres of open space today, and how durable is that protection against future land-use changes?

2. What happened to the Council's 1999 direction to pursue a legally binding agreement permanently protecting the open space, and should such an agreement, easement, or covenant be completed now?

3. What additional development rights or permissible uses, if any, result from rezoning the approximately 35-acre portion to Industrial Park compared with the existing Planned Development zoning?
These questions do not necessarily require rejection of the City's recommendation. Staff may have satisfactory answers to each of them.

But given the history of this property, the scale of the land involved, the adjacent open-space resources, and the depth of community concern extending across decades, those answers should be made clear as part of the Council's deliberation and public record.

There is also an opportunity here.

Rather than allowing another generation of residents and a future City Council to revisit the same uncertainty, the City may finally have an opportunity to clarify permanently which portions of this property are intended for development and which are intended to remain open space.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

If approximately 565 acres are genuinely intended to remain open space permanently, the Council should consider whether this is the appropriate moment to make that protection as durable and unambiguous as legally possible.

That would respect the historical record while still allowing reasonable consideration of appropriate economic use of the portion of the property designated for industrial development.

The objective should not be to prevent change simply because the property has a complicated history.

It should be to make today's decision with a full understanding of that history so that San José does not inadvertently repeat an unresolved issue from more than a quarter-century ago.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully,
Brian Darby

Outlook
FW: VOTE ON 8/18/26 REZONING IBM PROPERTY AT 650 HARRY ROAD AGENDA ITEM (10.1.A) From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Erin
Sent: Frida
The Offi ce of Mayor Matt Mahan
City Clerk
Subject: VOTE ON 8/18/26 REZONING IBM PROPERTY AT 650 HARRY ROAD AGENDA ITEM (10.1.A) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is imgortant I'm writing to strongly o~ of the property at 650 Harry Road. This needs to be DELAYED in order to assess it's effect on local residents and the available resources and the environment.

There has been virtually NO transparency about this rezoning to the local residents who may be impacted by the noise, construction, traffic, water and electricity usage and environmental effects. Many of them live in unincorporated Santa Clara County who got no notice at all. Only properties with 500 feet of the IBM property line got anything at all, a simple postcard. There is a small sign at the IBM entrance and that is all.

Please consider delaying this major decision about Almaden Valley and the local parks which it borders until it can be thoughtfully reviewed and not slid under the development radar by an anonymous developer with deep pockets.

Thank you,
Erin Bentley
Singer Park Neighborhood
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Strongly Oppose item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Wen Taur Pang
Sent: Sunday, August 1 ,
To: Ortiz, Peter
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: Strongly Oppose item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am a resident of District 10 and live in Almaden. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property at 650 Harry Road.

The proposal to rezone more than 500 acres of open space on the IBM property conflicts with the original commitment made by the San Jose City Council to preserve this land as open space. It also disregards the significant concerns and opposition expressed by the Almaden community.

While there is currently no easement or other legal restriction protecting this land, I believe the appropriate course of action is to defer any decision on the rezoning until the City Council fulfills and finalizes the 1999 motion calling for permanent protection of this open space.

The same principle should apply to the approximately 35 acres proposed for industrial and parking uses at 650 Harry Road. I urge the Council to pause consideration of this rezoning request until all applicable rules and regulations have been completed and are officially in place. Any future development should occur only with ful l transparency, meaningful community participation, and clear, enforceable guidelines.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that agenda item 10-1(a) be removed from the Consent Calendar to allow for thorough discussion and public comment.

I also urge the Council to postpone any decision on the rezoning until it has had sufficient time to:
· Complete the permanent protections for the open space called for in the 1999 motion. · Finalize the data-center regulations directed by the Council. · Complete the regulations governing large energy projects, which the Council directed several months ago and expects to finalize by December.

Protecting this existing open space is an important responsibility to our community and to future generations. Once this land is developed, it cannot simply be restored to its current condition.

Thank you for taking the concerns of your constituents seriously and for your continued willingness to keep the community informed about matters coming before the City Council. I respectfully ask you to protect this open space and postpone the proposed rezoning until the necessary safeguards are firmly in place.

Sincerely,
A District 10 Resident in Almaden
Andrew Pang

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that agenda item 10-1(a) be removed from the Consent Calendar to allow for thorough discussion and public comment.

Protecting this existing open space is an important responsibility to our community and to future generations. Once this land is developed, it cannot simply be restored to its current condition.

Sincerely,
A District 10 Resident in Almaden
Andrew Pang

Outl ook
FW: Strongly oppose item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space re-zoning ), file# 26-850 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Weixing Zhang
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 2:09 P
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Tordil los, A t o y Cohen, David
I
, Domingo
eorge
ity Clerk
Subject: Strongly oppose item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space re-zoning), file# 26-850 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant I am a long time San Jose and Almaden Valley resident and legal voter. Please vote NO to the item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space rezoning) , file# 26-850 Please consider suspending the rezoning request until after the new data center rules have been established and enforced.

Then any development will be done with full disclosure , community input and clear rules.

Thank you,
Weixing
Outl ook
FW: Strongly oppose item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space re-zoning ), file# 26-850 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Qing Chen
Sent: Saturday, A , .

Cohen, David
I
, Domingo
eorge
ity Clerk
Subject: Strongly oppose item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space re-zoning), file# 26-850 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am a long time San Jose and Almaden Valley resident and legal voter. Please vote NO to the item 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road", IBM 500+ acres Open Space re-zoning) , file# 26-850 Please consider suspending the rezoning request until after the new data center rules have been established and enforced.

Then any development will be done with full disclosure , community input and clear rules.

Thank you,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Monica

Outlook
FW: Strongly Oppose Item #10.1(a) - "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: Strongly Oppose Item #10.l(a) - "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property at 650 Harry Road.

Allowing more than 500 acres of open space on the former IBM land to be rezoned would break the clear commitment the City Council previously made to keep this land protected. It also overlooks the consistent and well-documented concerns raised by the Almaden community. Even though no formal easement currently exists, the responsible step is to hold off on any rezoning decision until the Council completes the work begun in 1999 and permanently secures this open space.

The same principle applies to the roughly 35 acres proposed for industrial and parking uses. I ask the Council to pause consideration of the entire request until the necessary rules and regulations are fully developed and adopted. Development decisions of this scale should only move forward once the community has clear standards, full information, and a genuine opportunity to participate.

For these reasons, I request that agenda item 10.l(a) be taken off the Consent Calendar so it can receive proper discussion and public input . I also urge the Council to defer any final action until two things are finished: the permanent open-space protections first called for in 1999, and the data-center and large energy-project regulations the Council directed several months ago and expects to complete by December.

Keeping this open space intact matters for the long-term health and character of our community.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you for considering the views of residents and for your ongoing eﬀorts to keep the public informed.

Sincerely,
Robert Edwards

Outlook
FW: Strongly Oppose 8/18/2026 Agenda item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Chianfen Huang
Sent: Saturday, August 1 , 2 2
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
ei, Ros
lcahy, Michael
Candelas, Domingo
Casey, George
Subject: Strongly Oppose 8/18/2026 Agenda item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
[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 Honorable Mayor and ~s,
I am a resident of District 10 and live in Almaden. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the
property located at 650 Harry Road.

The request to rezone more than 500 acres of open space on IBM land violates the original commitment
made by the San Jose City Council to preserve this land as open space and ignores the strong opposition
of the Almaden community. Although there is currently no easement or other legal restriction in place,
the best course of action is to defer any decision on the rezoning until the City Council follows through
on and finalizes the 1999 motion to protect this open space in perpetuity.

The same concerns apply to the approximately 35 acres proposed for industrial and parking use at650
Harry Road. I urge the City Council to suspend consideration of this rezoning request until all relevant
rules and regulations have been completed and are in force. Only then can any development This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. proceed
with full disclosure, meaningful community input, and clear guidelines.

I therefore ask that agenda item 10-1(a) be removed from the Consent Calendar so that thorough
discussion and public comment can take place. I further urge the Council to temporarily postpone any
decision on the rezoning, so it has time to complete the permanent land protections requested in 1999,
as well as the data-center and large energy-project regulations that the Council directed several months
ago and expects to finalize by this December.

Preserving this existing open space is essential for our future generations! Thank you for your attention and for listening to the residents who will live with the long-term consequences of this decision.

Sincerely,
Cindy Huang

Outlook
FW: Please Delay Rezoning of 680+ Acres at 650 Harry Road From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:35 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cindy McCarthy
Sent: Monday, August 17,
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
City Clerk
Subject: Please Delay Rezoning of 680+ Acres at 650 Harry Road [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Members of the San Jose City Council,
I am asking you to please delay the proposed rezoning of the 680+ acre IBM property at 650 Harry Road and remove it from the consent calendar.

This is a major decision that could significantly impact Almaden Valley and surrounding communities.

Residents deserve full disclosure about the proposed development, including potential impacts on traffic, noise, water, electricity, wildlife, and the environment.

Please provide adequate notice, environmental review, and meaningful community input before moving forward with this rezoning.

This property is too important to make a decision without giving the surrounding community a real opportunity to be heard.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Cindy McCarthy
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: IBM Almaden Research Center on Harry Road
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 10:52 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.

Subject: IBM Almaden Research Center on Harry Road
Importance: High
strictl
District4
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Honorable Mayor and San Jose City Council:

I understand on August 18th you will be considering a rezoning request for the IBM Almaden Research Center land. I live very close to the IBM research center, and recall when IBM in 1998 tried to change the zoning to build a housing development. At the time, I remember the City Council denied this plan, based on IBM's original promise to preserve the land as open space, and the overwhelming opposition by the Almaden community. After the project was defeated, I believe the city staff was supposed to make sure IBM's open space was permanently protected. If the staff did not follow through, they should now, to protect this open-space.

I read an article today in the August 15th San Jose Mercury News about this property, and the sales pitch Cushman & Wakefield has been making in their real estate brochures. They're suggesting a data center as a possible use of this land. I agree with some of the emails residents have been sending to you about this issue, which were quoted in the newspaper article...J..i!gree that "the consent calendar is an inaP.1:~roP.riate forum for the magnitude of issues that this land use and its historv. reP.resent to the P.Ublic and to the citv.". I believe this item should be removed from the consent calendar. This is a decision that needs to be made with careful consideration, and inP.ut from Almaden Vallev. residents.

I understand there will be a special session on August 19 regarding data centers. If the rezoning request for IBM is granted at your August 18 meeting, the data center application can then be submitted before new rules are announced, which will exempt the data center from the regulatory oversight the city is currently formalizing.

Please susP.end consideration of the rezoning reguest until after new data center rules have been comP.leted and are in force. A development on this property needs to be done with full disclosure, community input and clear rules.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you,

Sue Dileanis

Outlook
FW: AUGUST 18th AGENDA: Item 10.1(a) - IBM Site Conforming Rezoning From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Erik Schoennauer
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2
To: Mahan, Matt
oan, Bien
Foley, Pam
Tordillos, Anthony
Campos,
Tu, John Johnson, Zachary
Subject: AUGUST 18th AGENDA: Item 10.l(a) - IBM Site Conforming Rezoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

We request that the City Council approve this routine Conforming Rezoning of the IBM site to match the existing Envision 2040 General Plan. The Planning Director recommends gJ:.mroval of the reguest.

Below are the key considerations for this Conforming Rezoning request:
1) Preserves Ogen Sgace: This conforming rezoning preserves the existing 565 acres of open space, exactly as required by the General Plan. (see Exhibits A & B below) The open space will remain exactly as it has existed for the past 45 years . Only the City Council can change the open space designation in the General Plan and Zoning. This action will simply replace an antiquated PD Zoning that protects the 565 acres of open space with a new modern Conforming Zoning that protects the 565 acres of open space.
2) Pregares Industrial Park Sgace for Reuse: IBM is moving out now and the property will be sold.

The existing PD Zoning is an antiquated custom zoning from 1980 (see Exhibit C below), designed specifically for IBM operations. The existing zoning on the 35 acres only_ allows "Research" and "Parking". By applying San Jose's modern zoning standards for Industrial Park properties, it will increase the chances that the 35 acres of IP land and the existing buildings can be repurposed for productive economic use in an efficient timeframe .

3) Council Can Reaffirm Commitment to Open Space and IP: By taking action now, the City Council can reaffirm the longstanding commitment to preserve 565 acres of open space and 35 acres of industrial park use, and no residential development. This will send a clear message to future owners what the Council's expectations are. Going forward,
only the City Council can ever change the General
Plan and Zoning.

4) Some Future Uses May Require More Community Engagement and CEQA Review: In the future, any proposed Special Use or Condition Use in the IP Zone would require community engagement, CEQA review, City Department Review, and a public hearing. This is required by the Zoning Code and City Policy.

5) Avoid the Risk of Fire and Vandalism: The goal is to reuse the existing buildings and to repurpose the IBM site as quickly as possible to avoid a long vacancy. Vacant buildings have a pattern of catching fire from homeless or vandals, which would then put the surrounding open space and nearby residents at risk.

6) Zoning Must Match the General Plan: State Law SB1333 requires that the City ensure that the zoning on a property matches the General Plan. This Conforming Zoning will apply the IP Zoning District to the 35 acres of IP General Plan area and the OS Open Space Zoning District to the 565 acres of Open Space, Parklands, and Habitat General Plan area.

For all of the reasons above, we hope that you find the rezoning worthy of your support.

Thank you for your consideration. Please email or call if you have questions or would like to meet.

Best Regards,

ERIK

********

EXHIBIT A: Proposed Conforming Rezoning Matches Existing General Pan

EXHIBIT B: Existing General Plan Preserves Opens Space and Allows IP Uses

EXHIBIT C: (PDC80-165) - Archaic 1980 IBM PDZoning General Development Plan =ne No: C26-008
)!strict : 1 O
Attachment C: Propo...c Zoni g Map ,,.,r.!Sli:~-li
~i"'IWll!.tlill l!,,{%~

PROPOSED ZONING
'"¢a~ -o.i-Dr
CITVOf ~
~g~~
._ ____________________________ P_age,;;__1 _..;,;;_;::;;:;,;.,.:::_ .... _..:'*.c.'c__°'-=...- File No: C26-008
District : 10 GENERAL PLAN ?age t
I) X
;;; doc..-n .... 1 '/H - '.fl\ + G) o) TT ½ @ .!. ~
Erik E. Schoennauer
LEGEND
INT£NDED
USE
•
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting OPPOSE item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:57 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alice Kao- Fullpockets
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 202
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting OPPOSE item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
Importance: High
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To SJ Mayor and city councils,
I am a San Jose Resident. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the property located at 650 Harry Road.

The request to rezone more than 500 acres of open space on IBM land violates the original commitment made by the San Jose City Council to preserve this land as open space for all San Jose residences.

Although there is currently no easement or other legal restriction in place, the best course of action is to defer any decision on the rezoning until the City Council follows through on and finalizes the 1999 motion to protect this open space in perpetuity.

The same concerns apply to the approximately 35 acres proposed for industrial and parking use at 650 Harry Road.

I urge the City Council to suspend consideration of this rezoning request until all relevant rules and regulations have been completed and are in force. Only then can any development proceed with full disclosure, meaningful community input, and clear guidelines.

I therefore ask that agenda item 10-l(a) be removed from the Consent Calendar so that thorough discussion and public comment can take place.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I further urge the Council to temporarily postpone any decision on the rezoning, so it has time to complete the permanent land protections requested in 1999, as well as the data-center and large energy-project regulations that the Council directed several months ago and expects to ﬁnalize by this December.

Thank you for keeping your promise and preserve this existing open space.

Vote NO on Rezoning IBM land!

Alice

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.1a
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Char McAulay
Sent: Monday, August 17, 202612:15
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.la
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
Dear Mayor Mahan,
. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant
I am very much opposed to the re-zoning of the above referenced property and especially upset that an item of such importance to our community would be placed on the Consent Calendar.

This property has long been part of the open space plan and such a change is significant. I am particularly concerned about the proposals to build a data center in this location with little study of the environmental impact to the area and the resultant strain on local utilities and the water supply. To modify the existing plan now, with little input from the impacted constituents is irresponsible and under-handed , further eroding trust in our local government. Please delay the rezoning and remove it from the Consent Calendar so there is full disclosure, community input, environmental protections and clear rules.

Charlene McAulay
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda Item 10.1.a Proposed rezoning of 650 Harry Rd (IBM Research) From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/20 26 10:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Char McAulay
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: District 10
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda Item 10.1.a Proposed rezoning of 650 Harry Rd (IBM Research) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant I am very much oppose~of the above referenced property and especially upset that an item of such importance to our community would be placed on the Consent Calendar.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 10.1a
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sharon Avina
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: 10.la
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear City Clerk,
. Learn why this is im12ortant
Please delay this matter. A delay in the rezoning will help the thoughtful preservation of Ahnaden Valley open space for generations to come.

Residents of the area have not yet been fully infomted.

Sincerely,
Sharon Avina
52 year resident of Almaden
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item Number (10.1.a)
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Sunday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item Number (10.1.a)
[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 Please vote NO on ruining the Almaden Valley community. The IBM property should have additional protections to preserve the land forever! Please think through the ramifications of removing the protection the land has been promised. Once it is ruined by adding data centers or other industrial buildings, it can never be in this state again. Think about the negative impact you will have on the current residents, not to mention future generations.

Additionally, THE CITY COUNCIL TO DELAY THE REZONING AND REMOVE IT FROM THE

CONSENT CALENDAR SO THERE IS FULL DISCLOSURE, COMMUNITY INPUT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND CLEAR RULES. Nothing should be done in secret or to the benefit of a few at the sacrifice of the many.

An Angry Constituent ,
Jennifer Deghuee
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.1(a) - 650 Harry Road/ Former IBM Almaden Property From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 12:58
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Agenda Item 10.l(a) - 650 Harry Road/ Former IBM Almaden Property [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.1 (a), the proposed conforming rezoning of approximately 600 acres at 650 Harry Road, the former IBM Almaden Research Center property.

After reviewing the staff material and looking through the public correspondence submitted on this item, I believe this matter deserves careful Council consideration.

I am not opposed to a conforming rezoning simply because it changes an older Planned Development zoning designation. Bringing zoning into conformity with the General Plan can be entirely appropriate.

Nor do I believe the volume of opposition, by itself, determines whether a land-use decision is good public policy.

However, the history of this particular property makes the proposed action more consequential than the term "conforming rezoning" might suggest.

The open-space designation is certainly reassuring. But the historical record submitted with this item raises an important unresolved question.

In 1999, when IBM sought a General Plan amendment that would have allowed residential development on part of this property, the City Council rejected that proposal. The Council also directed staff to work with IBM and open space organizations to pursue a legally binding agreement permanently protecting approximately 540 acres surrounding the Almaden Research Center and to develop a process for establishing open space easements or covenants where appropriate.

Historical City planning documents are particularly important here. They indicate that both the City Council and IBM had expressed an intent to preserve the private open-space portion of the property as permanent open space. They also explain that because a permanent easement had not been required, the zoning itself constituted the City's principal legal requirement maintaining that open- space use.

Twenty seven years later, the fact that essentially the same question has returned demonstrates the wisdom of that concern.

The approximately 35-acre Industrial Park portion also deserves clear explanation.

The public response also deserves consideration beyond simply counting the number of emails received.

For these reasons, I believe Council should clearly address three questions before acting:

1. What legally protects the approximately 565 acres of open space today, and how durable is that protection against future land use changes?

2. What happened to the Council's 1999 direction to pursue a legally binding agreement permanently protecting the open space, and should such an agreement, easement, or covenant be completed now?

3. What additional development rights or permissible uses, if any, result from rezoning the approximately 35 acre portion to Industrial Park compared with the existing Planned Development zoning?
These questions do not necessarily require rejection of the City's recommendation. Staff may have satisfactory answers to each of them.

But given the history of this property, the scale of the land involved, the adjacent open space resources, and the depth of community concern extending across decades, those answers should be made clear as part of the Council's deliberation and public record.

There is also an opportunity here.

That would respect the historical record while still allowing reasonable consideration of appropriate economic use of the portion of the property designated for industrial development.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The objective should not be to prevent change simply because the property has a complicated history.

It should be to make today's decision with a full understanding of that history so that San José does not inadvertently repeat an unresolved issue from more than a quarter-century ago.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully,
Brian Darby

Outl ook
FW: Strongly Oppose item#10.1 (a) "Conformin g Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:27 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Nzhou Hong <
Sent: Monday, Auqus
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, Rosemar
Casey, Georqe
Domingo
Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Strongly Oppose item#10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [Some people who received this message don't often get email from this is important at httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Learn why
I am a resident of District 10 and live in Almaden. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the property located at 650 Harry Road.

The request to rezone more than 500 acres of open space on IBM land violates the original commitment made by the San Jose City Council to preserve this land as open space and ignores the strong opposition of the Almaden community. Although there is currently no easement or other legal restriction in place, the best course of action is to defer any decision on the rezoning until the City Council follows through on and finalizes the 1999 motion to protect this open space in perpetuity .

The same concerns apply to the approximately 35 acres proposed for industrial and parking use at 650 Harry Road. I urge the City Council to suspend consideration of this rezoning request until all relevant rules and regulations have been completed and are in force. Only then can any development proceed with full disclosure, meaningful community input, and clear guidelines .

I therefore ask that agenda item 10-1 (a) be removed from the Consent Calendar so that thorough discussion and public comment can take place. I further urge the Council to temporarily postpone any decision on the rezoning, so it has time to complete the permanent land protections requested in 1999, as well as the data-center and large energy-project regulations that the Council directed several months ago and expects to finalize by this December.

Preserving this existing open space is essential for our future generations.

I deeply appreciate your willingness to listen to your constituents and to keep us informed about matters before the City Council.

Nalin Z
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: Request to Remove Agenda Item 10.1.a IBM Almaden Rezoning From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 12:41 PM
To Agendadesk
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
City Clerk
Subject: Request to Remove Agenda Item 10.1.a IBM Almaden Rezoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Chair and Members of the Rules Committee,
On the San Jose City Council agenda for August 18, 2026, there is a request for rezoning the IBM Almaden Research Center (agenda item 10.1.a - C26-008 and ER26-088). I respectfully request that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and be placed into a regular public hearing. This agenda item is more nuanced due to past agreements with this land. It would benefit from greater feedback from the public, as well as detailed analysis of the 1998/1999 agreements for permanent open space zoning previously ordered by the San Jose City Council.

Thank you for considering my concerns on this agenda topic.

Sincerely,
Terri Pavlovic
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Pause acceptance and processing of new data center proposals for San Jose.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 12:58 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Erika Murphy
Sent: Monday, August
To: Mahan, Matt
Subject: Pause acceptance and processing of new data center proposals for San Jose. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City Council-members,
Please pause the acceptance and processing of new data center proposals until San Jose's uniform standards and best practices for data centers have been approved and taken effect.

It is my understanding that at least two data center proposals are cmTently moving through San Jose's planning process-one on Silver Creek Valley Road near the Coyote Creek corridor and another off Hany Road on the f01mer IBM Research Center property. Both sites are smTounded by parkland , and the Hany Road property is also adjacent to established neighborhoods.

Although it is a separate land-use issue, I believe the Hany Road property may be better suited for housing that thoughtfully extends the surrounding neighborhoods and helps address the city's housing needs. Any residential proposal should, of course, adequately address parking , infrastructure, neighborhood compatibility, and appropriate building height.

The developing data center standards are intended to mitigate significant environmental impacts, including energy consumption, water use and water quality, air pollution , noise, and other effects on This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. surrounding communities.

Because the standards are not expected to be finalized until the end of 2026, there could be a gap of several months during which new projects are submitted and potentially grandfathered in, exempting them from the new requirements. Continuing to accept and process applications during this period could also create a perverse incentive for developers to rush their proposals through before the standards take effect.

Data centers can have substantial environmental impacts. The enormous amount of electricity required to power AI-related facilities could increase reliance on fossil fuels and contribute to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The large quantities of water used to cool data center systems could strain our local water supply, while chemicals used in the cooling process may affect wastewater quality. In addition, the diesel- powered backup generators needed to maintain uninterrupted operations can increase local air pollution.

San Jose has already expressed its intention to establish standards that address and mitigate these impacts.

It is therefore both reasonable and responsible to ensure that those standards apply to as many future data center projects as possible.

Please pause the acceptance and processing of new data center applications until the city’s uniform standards and best practices have been formally approved and are in effect.

Sincerely,
Erika Murphy
San Jose, CA 95120

Outlook
FW: Remove Item Agenda Item Number (10.1.a) from consent and delay the vote until further notice and outreach on impacted established communities
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 12:58 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Erika Murphy
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: Mahan, Matt
istrict 10
City Clerk
Cc: Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga
Doan, Bien
las, Domingo
Foley, Pam
Subject: Remove Item Agenda Item Number (10.1.a) from consent and delay the vote until further notice and outreach on impacted established communities
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City Council-members,
I am asking the City Council to remove Item 10 .1 (a) from the consent calendar and delay the proposed rezoning until there is full public disclosure, meaningful community input, appropriate environmental protections, and clear standards governing any future proposals for the property.

The City Council works for its constituents-not private developers. Please honor the commitment you made when elected by representing the interests of your community and protecting its future.

The broader Almaden community is familiar with the former IBM Research Center property and reasonably considers it part of our backyard. Many longtime residents who grew up in Almaden also recognize the property's impo1tant role in the development of Silicon Valley, despite its secluded location.

However, very few residents appear to have known about the proposed zoning change affecting this long established site in southern Almaden, adjacent to existing neighborhoods , parkland, and ranches in unincorporated Santa Clara County.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I first learned of the proposal when someone posted a photograph of the small notice at the property on Nextdoor. It is my understanding that notice of the proposed rezoning was otherwise sent by postcard only to property owners within 500 feet of the site, even though the change could affect the broader Almaden community.

Compounding this inadequate public notice, the item has been placed on the consent calendar, where it could be approved without meaningful discussion of its potential effects on the community. It is also my understanding that the rezoning could remove protections adopted in 1982 that were intended to preserve the property as permanent open space when IBM was permitted to develop it. Before taking any action, the City should clearly disclose which protections currently apply and precisely which protections would be altered or eliminated by the rezoning.

What would this rezoning ultimately allow on this long-established property? Could it clear the way for data centers, manufacturing facilities, high-density housing, or any other development considered consistent with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan? The community deserves clear answers before the zoning is changed—not after.

Please remove Item 10.1(a) from the consent calendar and delay the rezoning until the City provides full disclosure, meaningful opportunities for community participation, appropriate environmental review and protections, and clear rules for any future development proposals.

Sincerely,
Erika Murphy
San Jose, CA 95120

Outlook
FW: August 18 Council Meeting Item 10.1(a) - 650 Harry Road Rezoning From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 12:42 PM
To Agendadesk
lo 1 attachment (429 KB)
August 18 SJ Council Meeting, Item 10.1 (a) 650 Harry Road Rezonin.pdf; From: Shani Kleinhaus
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:44
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Kleinhaus
Subject: August 18 Council Meeting Item 10.l(a) - 650 Harry Road Rezoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is importa nt Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Shani
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, Green Foothills, Siena Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley, California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter, and Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, please see the attached letter regarding Item 10.1 ( a), the proposed rezoning of 650 Hany Road.

We respectfully ask the Council to remove the item from the Consent Calendar and defer action until Council has the full inf 01mation needed to discuss and address the concerns identified in om letter.

Thank you for your consideration .

Sincerely,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.

Environmental Advocate

~ green
W foothills
• SIERRA
CLUB

LOMA PRIETA

CHAPTER
~
(\(\
SCVBA
Santa Clara Valley

BIRD ALLIANCE
Santa Clara Valley Chapter

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

MOTHERS
OUT

FRONT I
5i.1i,cnn. Uo.llcy,

SILICON VALLEY

YOUTH CLIMATE ACTION
August 16, 2026
To: Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council City of San Jose
Re: Item 10.l(a) - C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Hany Road (f01mer IBM Almaden Research Center)
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
The undersigned organizations respectfully ask the Council to remove Item 10.l(a) from the Consent Calendar, schedule it for Council discussion, and defer the proposed rezoning of the former IBM Almaden Research Center at 650 Harry Road. Before acting, the Council and the public deserve full disclosure and consideration of the requirements for, as well as the legal, environmental, and land-use consequences of, this rezoning.

There is no development application currently pending for the property. There is therefore no immediate development proposal requiring the Council to replace the existing Planned Development zoning before the consequences of doing so are fully understood.

The proposed rezoning is consequential. It would replace site-specific Planned Development zoning with conventional Industrial Park zoning on approximately 35 acres, allowing a broader range of industrial uses than the existing PD permits. It also raises important questions not adequately addressed in the staff report, such as the adequacy of the City's CEQA determination in light of SB 131 (2025), the loss of existing site-specific PD protections, whether conventional Industrial Park zoning is appropriate for this unusual property, and permanent protection of the approximately 565 acres proposed for Open Space zoning.

1. The City's CEQA Analysis Does Not Account for SB 131 The staff report relies on a Determination of Consistency with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan EIR, Supplemental EIR, and subsequent Addenda to conclude that no new environmental review is needed. But the rezoning would materially change what can be built and operated on this property. The staff report states that it would "allow a broader range of uses than those permitted by the existing Planned Development Zoning District," replacing the PD's specified uses (research, parking, recreation, and open space) with an Industrial Park district intended for "a wide variety of industrial users such as research and development, manufacturing, assembly, testing and offices."
The cited environmental documents predate SB 131, which exempts qualifying advanced-manufacturing facilities on land "zoned exclusively for industrial uses" from CEQA review. This exemption reaches far beyond research or high-tech uses. Under CEQA, the City may rely on a program EIR only for effects it has adequately examined. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15168(c), 15162.

This matters because the rezoning itself may determine SB 131 eligibility. The staff report acknowledges that future development "may also need to be evaluated under CEQA," but does not establish whether the prior environmental review adequately examined all site-specific impacts or instead anticipated later project-level review. SB 131 could eliminate that review for qualifying projects. If the prior environmental review left any impacts for later analysis, the City cannot rely on that anticipated review without addressing whether this rezoning enables SB 131 to eliminate it.

Before approving the rezoning, Council should require staff and the City Attorney to determine:
(1) whether Industrial Park zoning satisfies SB 131's industrial-zoning requirement here; and (2) whether the potential loss of project-level review undermines the Determination of Consistency or requires additional CEQA review now.

2. This Property Should Not Be Treated as a Routine Conforming Rezoning The staff report concludes that "[t]here are no unusual physical characteristics of the site that require special consideration necessitating a Planned Development Zoning District." We strongly disagree. This approximately 600-acre property has development concentrated on a small portion of the site, adjoins Santa Teresa County Park, and sits at the interface of industrial development and extensive natural lands. Its wildfire risk, access, habitat, and land-use compatibility concerns make this anything but a routine industrial rezoning.

The proposed IP and OS zoning boundaries do not even match the General Plan designations; staff is relying on the General Plan's "wavy line" policy to draw new boundaries. This confirms that Council's action involves judgment and site-specific choices, not a mechanical alignment of zoning with the General Plan. Policy IP-8.3 accordingly directs the City, in reviewing rezoning applications, to consider whether the proposed zoning will "avoid adverse land use incompatibilities," along with land-use interfaces, setbacks, and other design standards.

The existing A(PD) district was created specifically for the IBM Almaden Research Center and has governed this property for more than four decades. The staff report neither identifies its development standards and associated approvals nor compares them with the proposed IP standards.

Before eliminating four decades of site-specific PD controls, the City should produce the ordinance approving PDC 80-06-165, its General Development Plan, development standards, and associated recorded approvals; compare them with the proposed IP standards; and identify any protections that would be lost, including requirements governing building height and visibility, grading, lighting, noise, landscaping, fire safety, access, and utility infrastructure.

Without that comparison and site-specific analysis, the record does not support staff’s conclusory finding that the property has “no unusual physical characteristics” warranting special consideration. Council should not approve the rezoning until this work is complete.

3. Open Space zoning is not permanent protection
Rezoning approximately 565 acres to Open Space is welcome, but zoning can later be changed and is not permanent legal protection. The historical record shows that stronger protection was intended. In 1998, Planning Director James Derryberry wrote that the City and IBM intended to preserve this land as “permanent open space.” In December 1999, Council directed staff to “pursue a legally binding agreement to permanently protect the 540 acres of open space surrounding the Almaden Research Center.” A 2000 staff report similarly described the land as “permanent open space.”

The current staff report does not explain whether Council’s direction was carried out or what protection exists today. Before eliminating the PD, the City should disclose any conservation easements, covenants, deed restrictions, or other binding instruments protecting the property.

If permanent protection was never secured, the City should obtain a conservation easement or similar legally binding protection now. OS zoning should not substitute for the permanent protection Council previously directed staff to pursue.

4. The Legal Status of the Eastern Access Road Must Be Resolved The gated Bernal Avenue access road crosses Santa Teresa County Park and lies within County jurisdiction.

City records indicate that IBM initially constructed it for emergency evacuation, that it was later used for daytime commuting but closed at night, and that both the City and County opposed allowing it to become a general route across Santa Teresa Ridge between Almaden and Coyote Valley.

This unusual arrangement (an access road through County parkland) further distinguishes the property from a conventional industrial site, particularly given the road's proximity to freeway and transit connections. Its potential future use bears directly on access, evacuation, traffic, and the suitability of conventional IP zoning.

The staff report does not identify the County approvals, easements, agreements, or conditions governing the road, nor does it explain its legally permitted uses or indicate any communications with the County Parks Department concerning this matter. Unless these restrictions are documented in the rezoning record, future owners, developers, and planners may not understand the limitations governing this access. Before approving the rezoning, the City should determine and disclose the road’s ownership, legal status, permitted uses, and all applicable County conditions and restrictions, and should consult with the County Parks Department concerning this matter.

We therefore respectfully ask Council to remove Item 10.1(a) from the Consent Calendar, defer the rezoning, and direct staff and the City Attorney to do the following.

1. Reconsider the CEQA Determination of Consistency in light of SB 131. Determine whether the proposed IP zoning would satisfy SB 131’s industrial-zoning requirement for qualifying projects on the 35-acre area, whether the General Plan environmental review anticipated later project-level analysis that such a project could now avoid, and whether additional CEQA review is required before approving the rezoning.

2. Provide the ordinance approving PDC 80-06-165, its General Development Plan, development standards, and associated recorded approvals; compare them with the proposed IP and OS zoning; and identify the site-specific protections that would be lost or changed.

3. Reevaluate the conclusion that this property has no unusual physical characteristics requiring special consideration, including its wildfire risk, access, habitat and open-space interfaces, land-use compatibility, and the requirements of General Plan Policy IP-8.3.

4. Disclose all conservation easements, covenants, deed restrictions, and other binding instruments affecting the property; report what became of Council’s 1999 direction to permanently protect the IBM open space; and, if that protection was never completed, secure it now through a conservation easement or similar legally binding mechanism.

5. Determine and disclose the ownership and legal status of the eastern access road through Santa Teresa County Park, including all County approvals, easements, conditions, and use restrictions, and ensure that those restrictions remain enforceable and clearly documented.

6. Consult with the Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation concerning the potential impacts of this rezoning on the eastern access road through Santa Teresa County Park.

7. Ensure a robust community input process before any attempt to rezone this sensitive site Since there is no development application currently pending for this property, Council has the opportunity to resolve these questions before eliminating more than four decades of site-specific zoning controls.

In sum, this is not a routine zoning cleanup. The proposed action would broaden the uses allowed on the developed portion of an unusual property, potentially change the CEQA consequences of future development, and eliminate longstanding Planned Development controls without first determining what protections would be lost or whether the City’s commitment to permanently protect the surrounding open space was ever fulfilled.

Council should defer the rezoning until these concerns are addressed, the existing protections are fully disclosed, the community is adequately consulted, and permanent protection of the open-space lands is secured.

Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D., Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Alice Kaufman, Policy and Advocacy Director
Green Foothills

Susan Hinton, Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Linda Hutchins-Knowles, Co-Founder and Team Coordinator Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley

Judy Fenerty, Conservation Chair
CNPS Santa Clara Valley Chapter

Ze-Kun Li, Executive Director
Silicon Valley Youth Climate action

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you for taking the time to hear from your constituents on this. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,
Eileen Tram

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Remove this item from the consent calendar and hold a full public hearing.

Explain specifically which uses would become permissible that are not allowed today.

Identify any existing open-space agreements, deed restrictions, development conditions, or commitments associated with the original IBM approvals, and explain whether they would remain fully enforceable.

Require meaningful environmental and community review based on a defined development proposal—not merely a determination of consistency with decades-old General Plan environmental documents.

Consider retaining the existing Planned Development zoning until the property owner presents a complete proposal and the public can evaluate the zoning change in its actual context.

Explore permanent protection or public acquisition of the open-space portion, including connections to Santa Teresa County Park and the Bay Area Ridge Trail.

A rezoning of approximately 600 acres should not be treated as routine simply because it conforms to a map. Once broader rights are granted, the community’s ability to shape what follows may be significantly reduced.

Please defer Item 10.1(a) until the City has provided complete information, conducted robust public outreach, and established durable protections for the property’s open-space lands.

Sincerely,
Lisa Lubliner
San José, District 10

Outlook
Fw: Remove from 8/18/26 Consent Calendar== > 10.1.a (C26-008 & ER26-088-Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road) From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 2:59 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 9511 3
Mai n: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: sandra simons
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:54 PM
Subject: Remove from 8/18/26 Consent Calendar==> 10.1.a (C26-008 & ER26-088 - Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and City Council,
I respectfully ask that you remove Item 10.1.a (C26-008 & ER26-088 - Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road) from the August 18 Consent Calendar and postpone action until the public has a meaningful opportun ity to weigh in.

My request is based on three concerns:

1. Adequate time for due diligence by the Mayor, City Council, and the Public. The more than 85-page agenda attachment (Letters 1 of 3 from the Public) outlines decades of conversations between IBM and the City, including what appears to be unfi nished Council direction from 1999 regarding preservation of the undeveloped land owned by IBM. This history warrants careful review before any rezoning decision is made.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2. Clarity and transparency regarding future land use. The Staﬀ Report (26-850 – Memorandum) states that the proposed action “would allow a broader range of uses than those permitted by the existing Planned Development Zoning District, including the base A Agricultural Zoning District.” This signiﬁcantly expands potential future uses of the land. The oﬃcial postcard notice does not clearly communicate this broader scope, creating an impression that the rezoning is minor or purely administrative. That level of obfuscation, even if unintentional, prevents residents from understanding the true implications and does not assure that the land will remain undeveloped in perpetuity.

3. Insuﬃcient public awareness. While the City met the legal requirement to notify residents within 500 feet of the IBM Almaden Research property line, fewer than 100 postcards were sent. This leaves nearly all of Almaden Valley uninformed and therefore unable to provide input on a proposed land-use change that materially aﬀects the broader Almaden Valley and San Jose community.

Leadership requires courage, and I am hopeful you will act accordingly by removing this item from Consent and allowing full public discussion.

Kind regards,
Sandra Simons

Outlook
FW: Comments on C26-008 & ER26-088 - Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:05 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jim Mason
Sent: Monday, Aug
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comments on C26-008 & ER26-088 - Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don 't often get email from
Honorable Council Members,
Learn why this is imP-ortant
I am a resident of the Almaden Valley and part of the City's District 10. I see the role of the City Council as maintain the quality of life for the city's citizens . I oppose any plan to rezone the prope1ty at 650 Hany Road C26-008, in San Jose that would change the protections on the over 500 acres of open space. It is that buffer that made the IBM Research Center a wonderful place to work and to be a good neighbor to the community. IBM maintained the open space which, in part, abuts the Santa Teresa County Park, as a ce1tified wildlife habitat. Nesting boxes were provided for owl, blue bird and bats. The agricultural use of the land was preserved.

I object to the loss of the open space, which IBM promised to protect. IBM or their agent should not be able to change the characterization of the open land to allow development. We live in an environment that allows builders control our fate with minimal local govemment control and without any concem for the environment or the lives of the citizens. I object to the increase in the housing density which will degrade my quality of life. The Almaden Expressway is a traffic nightmare eve1y morning during the school year.

I know there were assurances that the land remain undeveloped and that IBM tried to sell off pa1t of the land (the orchard) to a developer some years ago. That complicates the decision. I understand the desire ofIBM to make the prope1ty more saleable.

I don't think the community should have to suffer.

James Mason
Almaden Valley
Outlook
FW: Agenda item (10.1.a) San Jose City Council meeting Aug 18 at 1:30pm From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jan Uddenfeldt
To: District 10 City Clerk
Subject: Agenda item (10.1.a) San Jose City Council meeting Aug 18 at 1:30pm [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from To Mayor Mahan and Council Member Casey
Learn whY. this is imP-ortant
This regards the agenda item 10.1.a on the Aug 18 meeting about re-zoning of the IBM property at 650 Harry Rd.

I ask that the re-zoning agenda item is removed from the Consent Calendar so that a meaningful discussion of the implications of the environment for residents and the community can be held.

Best Regards,
Jan Uddenfeldt
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item Number (10.1.a); 650 Harry Road
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael Deghuee
Sent: Monday, August 17,
Subject: Agenda Item Number (10.1.a); 650 Harry Road
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City C~,
City Clerk
I am requesting a delay in the rezoning of the empty IBM property at 650 Harry Road and asking that it be removed from the consent calendar for tomorrow's 1 :30 PM meeting. Moving this item to the regular calendar is essential to ensure full disclosure, community input, environmental protections , and clear council discussion.

Placing this item on the consent calendar limits public comment and prevents Council debate on a site that represents a significant portion of the Almaden Valley landscape. Rezoning this 680+ acre property would remove protections adopted in 1982 to keep the land as permanent open space. Notably, the City Council rejected a development attempt by IBM in 1998 based on the original promise to preserve this land, and on December 7, 1999, the Council directed staff to find a permanent protection solution that was never finalized.

The proposed zoning could allow for data centers, manufacturing , and high-density residential development , yet public notice of this vote was extremely limited. No information was provided to nearby homes regarding projected noise, water usage, or electricity sources. Furthermore , because the city has yet to formulate its new data center guidelines, rezoning this property now would exempt it from future regulations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael Deghuee
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.1- 26.850 Oppose General Plan rezoning property next Harry Rd. to 'Industrial'
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Debbie Slater
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.1 - 26.850 Oppose General Plan rezoning property next Harry Rd. to 'Industrial'
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mr. Mayor and San Jose City Council Members:

I am a long-time resident of San Jose. I am absolutely opposed to rezoning property near Harry Rd. to 'Industrial'. This will degrade our neighborhoods for many reasons , including more traffic congestion in and out of Almaden Valley. Furthermore , many Almaden homeowners bought in this area because of it's close proximity to 'the country' and related open spaces. It will likely cause home values to deteriorate.

I urge you all to Vote 'NO'.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Debbie Slater
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda item 10.1.a - Vote No to Proposed Rezoning of 650 Harry Rd.

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Dan Se
Sent: Monda
Cc: Casey, George Taber, Toni
Subject: Re: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda item 10.1.a - Vote No to Proposed Rezoning of 650 Harry Rd. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Hello!
Learn why this is imQortant
Districtl
District3
I am a resident and voter in Almaden Valley. Please vote "No" to a data center at 650 Harry Road (IBM Research Center site in Almaden). We need to protect safe drinking water, not contaminate the soil and keep our neighborhoods quiet.

Thank you, Dan Sell, resident and voter in D-10.

On Monday, August 17, 2026 at 06:48:45 PM PDT, Tami Sell wrote:

Hello!
I am a resident and voter in Almaden Valley. Please vote "No" to a data center at 650 Harry Road (IBM Research Center site in Almaden).

Please vote for No more Data Centers!
We need to protect safe drinking water, not contaminate the soil and keep our neighborhoods quiet.

Thank you, Tami Sell, resident and voter in D-10.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18th City Council Agenda Item 10.1(a)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:49 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Andrew Mattioda
Sent: Monday, Auoust 17, 2026
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18th City Council Agenda Item 10.1 (a)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
Subject: Request to Pull Item 10.1 (a) from the Consent Calendar Dear Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council,
I respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to speak on and pull Item 10.1 (a) from the Consent Calendar. The proposed rezoning should be deferred and scheduled for a future Council meeting with a full public discussion.

Rezoning this property for industr ial use requires careful consideration because it is situated in the middle of an area surrounded by open space, including Santa Teresa County Park. Industrial development in this location could have significant consequences for the surrounding open-space environment , including impacts related to traffic , noise, light ing, air quality , wildlife, viewsheds, water quality, public safety, and the character of the area. These issues deserve thorough public review before the City takes action.

This proposal should not proceed through the Consent Calendar without meaningful inpu t from nearby residents, park users, environmental organizations , and other members of the public who may be affected . Residents need adequate notice, access to the relevant studies and plans, and a genuine opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns.

I urge the Mayor and Councilmembers to:
•       Pull Item 10.1(a) from the Consent Calendar;
•       Defer the proposed rezoning;
•       Schedule a future public hearing and discussion; and •       Provide sufficient notice and information so the community can participate meaningfully.

I vote in San José elections, and I will not vote for elected officials who support moving forward with this rezoning without further public input. I will actively campaign against those who support it, and I will consider organizing or supporting a recall petition drive where legally permitted.

Please respect the public process and ensure that the potential effects of industrial development next to and amid open-space lands—including Santa Teresa County Park—are fully examined before any rezoning decision is made.

Sincerely,
Andrew L. Mattioda, Ph.D.

District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Strongly Oppose item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: TZhang
Sent: Monday, A g s
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: Strongly Oppose item# 10.1 (a) "Conforming Rezoning for Certain Real Property Located at 650 Harry Road"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from Learn why this is imQortant I am a resident of Almaden valley for 28 years. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the
property located at 650 Harry Road.

The request to rezone more than 500 acres of open space on IBM land violates the original commitment
made by the San Jose City Council to preserve this land as open space and ignores the strong opposition
of the Almaden community. Clearly the current road infrastructure does not support any housing development on this land.

It will cause environmental disaster and have major negative effects on the lives of current and future Almaden residents.

I therefore ask that agenda item 10-1 (a) be removed from the Consent Calendar so that thorough
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. discussion and public comment can take place. I further urge the Council to temporarily postpone any
decision on the rezoning, so it has time to complete the permanent land protections requested in 1999,
as well as the data-center and large energy-project regulations that the Council directed several months
ago and expects to finalize by this December.

Preserving this existing open space is essential for our future generations.

Thank you for your attention.

Tony

Outlook
FW: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda Item 10.1.a Proposed rezoning of 650 Harry Rd (IBM Research) From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:53 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Betsy
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:42 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan District 10
Subject: 8/18 SJ City Council Agenda Item 10.1.a Proposed rezoning of 650 Harry Rd (IBM Research) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - Learn whY. th is is imJ;iortant Please do not develop/~he property at 650 Harry Rd.

Please preserve the open space: people and animals in this area! No proper ingress/egress
Sparce utilities
Show some mercy.

Thank you
Bets Johnson
City Clerk
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Almaden Valley Open Space
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:53 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Salman Jiva
Sent: Monday, Aug s
Subject: Almaden Valley Open Space
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
City Clerk
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - Learn whY. this is imgortant I urge the city and coun~oning of the IBM property in Almaden Valley.

Preservation of Almaden Valley open space as one of the last areas in Silicon Valley that is an escape from our digital worlds.

Speaking as a 35-year San Jose resident, working in tech, living in Almaden.

Lets keep our green spaces clean.

Thank You
Salman Jiva
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda number 10.1.a
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:53 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Miche lle Labiaga
Sent: Monday, August 17,
Subject: Agenda number 10.1.a
ce of May
City Clerk
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Good evening,
Learn whY. this is im12ortant
I am writing to voice my concern and to ask the city counsel to delay the rezoning and remove it from the consent calendar so that we may have full disclosure, community input, and environmental protections before voting.

Please delay rezoning.

Sincerely,
Michelle Labiaga
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: rezoning of IBM Almaden Research Center
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Guy Lohman
Sent: Monday, Augus
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: rezoning of IBM Almaden Research Center
[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 City Clerk
I think you owe it to the citizens of San Jose, and especially the residents of Almaden Valley, to have a full hearing on this rezoning, to alleviate concerns that it might not protect the land around the IBM ARC building that IBM promised to keep as open land.

Passing this quickly and quietly via the Consent Calendar smacks of lack of transparency.

And notifying only those residents who are within 100 feet of the property line is insufficient, because loss of this open land potentially affects all residents of San Jose.

Having worked at the IBM Almaden Research Center for almost 29 years, I know the value of this property to the open space immediately adjacent to Santa Teresa County Park. It cannot be lost.

Thank you!
"The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity . The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other." -- Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician , author, Nobel laureate (18 May 1872-1970) This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/ 18 Council Item 10.1(a): 650 Harry Road Rezoning From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (298 KB)
2026 08 18 SJCC ltem10.1 650HarryRd.pdf;
From: Lena Drap
Sent: Monday, A
Burton, Chris Keyon, David
Subject: 8/18 Council Item 10.l(a): 650 Harry Road Rezoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from important
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Learn why this is
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, please see the attached letter regarding Item 10.l(a) , the proposed rezoning of 650 Harry Road.

The Authority respectfully requests that the Council defer this item to a later date in order to address the important matters detailed in this letter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lena Drape
Lena (Eyen) Drape (she/her)
Conservation Policy Specialist
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. openspaceauthority.org
Please print only if necessary.

Conﬁdentiality Notice: This message, including any attachments, is intended to be used only by the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. This message may contain conﬁdential and/or legally privileged information. If the reader is not the in tended recipient of this message or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message, you are hereby notiﬁed that you are prohibited from printing, cop
ying, storing, disseminating, or distributing this communication. If you received this communication in error, please delete it from your computer along with any attachments and notify the sender by telephone or by reply e-mail.

~ PEN
i ~ SPACE
~ AUTHDIUJY
SA UC.lARA'l/,.,LLEY

33 Las Colinas Lane, San Jose, CA 95119 | 408.224.7476 T | 408.224.7548 F | openspaceauthority.org

Page 1 of 2 ends

August 17, 2026
Mayor Matt Mahan
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113

Subject: Item 10.1(a) – C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Harry Road (former IBM Almaden Research Center) Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (Open Space Authority), I write to request that Item 10.1(a) be deferred to a full Council discussion, at a later date, in order to ensure that the full implications of the proposed rezone are understood by the Council and the public.

Due to the significance of this potential action, we respectfully and strongly request the following:

1. Defer this item to a full Council discussion at a later date, and provide clearer disclosure to the public about the potential implications of this decision. If Item 10.1(a) is approved, the following uses would be allowed on this site: “data centers, industrial, research and development, advanced manufacturing, and general office” – as is advertised on the Cushman and Wakefield 650 Harry Road marketing flyer for the sale of the approximately 600-acre property. The Planning staff report acknowledges that the proposed conforming rezone would “allow a broader range of uses,” but it does not detail the advertised future uses for this property. Given the City’s current efforts to solicit community feedback on the future approval of large-scale industrial uses, this item should be deferred to allow that input to be considered.

2. Address the pending permanent protection of the 565-acre portion of open space, as directed by Council in 1999. The Open Space Authority requests the City’s implementation of action directed by the Council in December 1999 to permanently protect the approximately 565 acres of open space.

OS zoning does not equate to permanent protection.

3. Clarify that this action is not a matter of General Plan conformance, as there is no current inconsistency between the onsite development and the A(PD) Zoning District. The proposed action would preemptively enable newly allowable development uses on this site, which is a rezone. The staff report says that the IP Industrial Park Zoning “would allow the project site to be consistent with the Industrial Park and Open Space, Parklands and Habitat designation.” However, the project site is not currently inconsistent with the Industrial Park designation. The current developments on the site (i.e. IBM) strictly conform with the Planned Development Permit that conforms with the A(PD) Zoning District. Therefore, the proposed action is not to resolve a current problem – it would broaden the zoning in order to “allow additional industrial and agriculture/resource uses in conformance with the General Plan designations,” as is stated in the staff report.

Andrea Mackenzie, General Manager
Alex Kennett, District 1
Margie Matthews, District 2
Helen Chapman, District 3
Kathy Sutherland, District 4
Cathryn Ming Hyde, District 5
Lisanna Dominguez, District 6
Kalvin Gill, District 7

~ PEN
~ J SPACE
~ AUTHORITY

SANTA CLARA VALLEY

4. Evaluate the rezone request in tandem with a project application. According to the information available to Counci l and the pub lic, there is no reason that this site must be rezoned before a project application is subm itted . Rezoning the propert y now wou ld increase the perce ived developability and therefore sale value of the site, and it would come at the expense of transparency and the t ype of commun ity engagement that the City is seeking to facilitate for these types of projects .

5. Evaluate the applicability of SB 131 exemptions for this site if rezoned to Industrial Park. Once rezoned to Industria l Park, depending on the use, the site may immediate ly become eligible for SB 131 (2025). SB 131 provides an exempt ion from environmenta l review for certa in developments, overr iding local land use contro ls. However, the rezon ing is not exempt from environmenta l review and must be conducted here . The Genera l Plan EIR did not provide any usefu l or site-spec ific analysis associated w ith a change in zoning or use of the IBM site.

Thank you for you r attent ion to the deta ils of this important decision.

Andrea Mackenz ie
General Manager
Cc: Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Board of Directors 33 Las Colinas Lane, San Jose, CA 95119 I 408.224.7476 T I 408.224.7548 F I openspaceauthority.org

Page 2 of 2 ends

Outlook
FW: Council 08-18-2026 Item 10.1 (a) C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Harry Road (former IBM Almaden Research Center)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
® 1 attachment (105 KB)
Harry Road 2026 08 18 Item 10.1 Conventional Rezoning IBM Almaden Dresden letter.pdf; Fro
Sent
Cc: Burton, Chris
Districts
District 10
Subject: Council 08-18-2026 Item 10.1 (a) C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Harry Road (former IBM Almaden Research Center)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Please find attached a letter
Please post to t he agenda and offici al record.

Thankyou
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 2026-08-17

RE: City Council 2026 -08-18 Item 10.1(a)
C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Harry Road (former IBM Almaden Research Center)

Dear Mayor Mahan and members of the City Council:

Please deny or defer the Harry Road Conforming Rezoning. There are multiple issues to be considered and resolved.

This project is not suitable for conforming rezoning . It is a 35-acre island of developme nt in a sea of open space making it highly unusual. Conforming zoning is meant for the routine, not the unique . The project was designed to reflect its specific location with limited uses itemized in its development standards . The 1975 General Plan Industrial Park designation was much more restrictive than the Envision 2040 version which allows more dangerous and intense uses as well as traffic-inducing retail and restaurant use .

This property is more appropriate for a Planned Development Process due to its unique configuration (Industrial Park within Open Space), h igh fire danger, limited access, and the need to limit the type of industrial activities to conform to the rural area. Implementation Policy I P 1.8 highlights properties, like this one, that need this special zoning.

Implementation Policy IP 1.8 Limit use of the Planned Development Zoning process to unique types of development or land uses which cannot be i mplemented through standard Zoning Districts, or to sites with unusual physical characteristics that require special consideration due to those constraints.

It is not suitable for Imp lementation Policy IP 1-4 “wavy lines”. This policy allows moving the industrial area anywhere on the property at any time in the future. If the property owner needs to re -survey the property , the owner could file for a lot-line adjustment. This is more appropriate than granting permission to move the industrial park to another section of the property which the “wavy line” policy explicitly allows: “designated uses may be relocated on the site”. This “wavy line” policy was designed for urban projects that might have multiple uses on a single large parcel such as Industrial Park, Light industrial, Commer cial and would allow the property owner to move property lines as investors and opportunities evolved during the development process. When written, the “wavy line” policy was never intended to allow an Industrial Park to move into another area of open space and build a n ew Industrial Park. It is not suitable for this subject property; it would destroy additional open space and habitat.

IP 1-4 For contiguous properties in single ownership that have multiple land use designations, the boundary between designations may be undulating or “wavy” line. When such boundary occurs on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram it means that some flexibility may be allowed in the location of the designated uses. The same general land area and allocation of uses should be maintained, but the designated uses may be relocated on the site if they are compatible with surrounding land use designations, and do not impact the viability of developing the rest of the site. This policy also applies to a single property with multiple land use designations.

The 1980 EIR revealed archeology sites next to or within the 35 -acre IP development and extensive serpentine habitat with rare and endangered sp ecies. Some of the s oils were identified as friable. S lopes greater than 15% were barred from development. Lands near the two creeks are subject to seasonal flooding. Current staff documents do not mention these features and their locations. A “wavy line” policy could allow additional grading in these areas— destroying habitat and indigenous sites and increasing the potential for land slides. With the pending changes to CEQA law limiting or eliminating environmental review , will changing the zoning erase the protections and mitigations put in place with the 1980 EIR? Will the full range of modern Industrial Park (IP) zoning authorized uses be compatible with the property and its environmental limitations? How will new information about fire hazards and wildlife migration be considered in permitting a new IP project or administering a “wavy line” and relocating the project.

The property’s A(PD) development standards were negotiated with the community and remain important to individuals who helped negotiate them as well as newer residents . These development standards would be 2 removed if the property were changed to conforming zoning. They are part of the zoning and go with the land , not just the buildings . The development standards restricted certain activities in the Industrial Park and critical design standards were enumerated including not being visible from the Almaden Valley floor and no reflective surfaces, among others. Staff provided a 1980 pre- zoning map labelled with the word EIR but the development standards are illegible. Staff has subsequently acknowledged that the development standards on the PD permit map are the same as the A(PD) development standards. Those restrictive development standards are appended. Staff should clarify exactly what c ame before council as a zoning document and what was recorded at the County Recorder in Official Records before any zoning action is taken .

The A(PD) zoning and the PD permits all reference the open space as permanent ; changing to conventional zoning of OS could remove all permanence . Staff was directed by council in 1999ca to clarify the status with IBM with repeated reports from 1998 to 2000 that this was permanent open space . There is no readily available paper trail to clarify this status. Is there a conservation easement? Some other legal recording? At one point in 19 80, “parcel 6” which was part of the app lication, had a conservation easement, but it was not made clear in the City ’s documents whether this was a permanent conservation easement, a Williamson Act contract, or something that covered the whole property. This should be clarified before going forward .

The property has one primary from Harry Road in a high fire area; the secondary access passes through County governed land and Santa Teresa County park property. At the 1980 pre-zoning, IBM proposed an ancillary road through the park but it was not part of the zoning. Subsequently, the County granted a grading permit.

The City required gated access to this road. By custom, usage was limited to the employees of the IBM Site.

Supervisor Susie Wilson confirmed via letter that the City holds, there was to be NO through travel from Almaden Valley to Santa Teresa Valley over this Santa Teresa ridge property. The status of this road— public, private, restricted or not— should be clarified before moving forward . Exactly what is allowed to traverse a County Park? Was there a MOU between the County , County Parks and IBM? Would an MOU survive a change in ownership or a change in zoning? No rezoning should go through until issues of access in this high fire area is resolved.

With so many unanswered questions about such a unique property, conforming rezoning does not apply.

Please deny or defer to have staff clarify on another day.

Sincerely,

Jean Dresden

Attachment
Development Standards PDC80 -165

3 Development Standards PDC 80-165 as re-posted on PD 82-12-79 Intended use Net Acreage Building Intensity Landscape Intensity Research 19 43% 57%
Parking 17 -- 32%
Recreation 4 10% 90%
Open Space 565 -- --

Permitted Uses
A. Research
Primary Uses
Laboratories devoted to basic and applied scientific research, advanced technologies research, and product development and testing, engineering development, and notes [sic] development Secondary Uses
a. Pilot plants or similar facilities
b. the keeping and maintenance of animals when necessary for laboratory research c. office for professional or business use
d. accessory uses such as central heating plant, storage facilit ies, communication facilities, employee cafeteria, conference facilities, vehicle and equipment repair and storage tanks for utility or process ser vices, portions of employee and visitor parking areas, and landscaped courtyards.

B. Parking
Employee and visitor parking and access roads , service road access and turn -around, and landscaping within iand along perimeter of parking areas.

C. Recreation
Recreation facilities for persons employed on-site and their guests; build ings only as required for incidental uses, locker rooms, etc for ser vice of recreational area
D. Open Space

1. Primary Uses
open space and agriciulture, landcape and/or native vegetation 2 Secondary Uses
a. Utility services necessary for the maintenance of the Research use or its secondary uses including underground lines, overhead electrical substation, valve boxes, etc b. Lving quarters for custodians or caretakers of facil ities or agricultural caretakers; agricultural barns c. Access roads including second fire exit and access to utility services line or facilities; bicycle paths; pedestrian trails
d Archeological sites
e. Communication equipment, microwave tower, etc
f. Security system, fences, gate houses
g. Private and public equestrian and pedestrian trails

Performance Standards
A. Geology/Grading

1. Final design of the project shall incorporate mitigate measures identified in the project Environmental Impact Report

2. Natural grades shall be maintained wherever possible, and all necessary new slopes shall be contoured

3. All cut and fill slopes will be hydroseeded or appropriately replante d directly upon complet ion of the building project

4. Final grade of the public trail shall not exce ed [3?illegible]% B. Vegetation Wildlife

1. Final project design shall follow the r e-vegetation an landscaping recommendations of the California Native Plant Society as contained in the project EIR
a. Cultivated, non-agricultural landscaping will be limited to the “Research”, “Parking” and “recreation” zones; visibility of this landscaping from the Almaden Valley floor will be minimized 4 b. Within the “Open Space” zone will be native plant materials, agricultural crops, or materials which are compatible visually and ecologically with the native plants of the site.

2. The final align of all [illegible] and pathways shall be designed in such a manner as to avoid disturbance of any identifiable Golde eaglen nest
C. Archeology
Final design of the project s hall include specific detailed mitigation me asures for all impact archeological sites consistent with mitigation recommendations in the project specific EIR.

D. Visibility

1. Visibility of buildings from the Almaden Valley floor shall be minimized

2. Parking lot pavement and park ed cars shall be completely invisible from the Almaden Valley floor

3. Materials visible from the Almaden Valley floor shall be non -reflective, except window or skylight glare.

4. Visibility of accessory uses and utility lines from the Alma den Valley shall be minim9ized using landscape screen planning, undergrounding, screen walls, and careful placement on the site

5. Final location and design of the proposed water tanks shall include consideration of partial undergrounding of the tanks to reduce their visibility.

6. Final building design shall incorporate building materials, forms and color which visually integrate the buildlings into the natural site environment

E. Traffic/Noise

1. Consideration shall be given to provision of shuttle bus service from the project site to the nearest County Transit bus stop

2. Specific mitigation of construction related traffic and noise impacts shall be identified at the project PD permi t stage

F Advertising and Directional Signs
One sign announcing the name of the user ma y be erected at the site entrance and at the emergency access road of not more than 30 sq ft with a maximum dimension of 10 ft. Directional signs of 5 sq ft in area maximum may be erected on site as needed.

G. Nuisances Prohibited
No use shall be conducted as to cause the harmful discharge of any waste materials into or upon the ground, into or within any sanitary or storm sewer system, water system or water or the atmosphere; and no use shall be conducted which constitutes a mena ce to persons or property which is dangerous, obnoxious, or offensive by reason of the creation of a fire, explosion or other physical hazard, or by reason of air pollution, odor, smoke, noise, dust, vibration, radiation, or fumes. In addition, no use shall be permitted or conducted where the noise creates a public or private nuisance.

Parking Standards
Off street parking is planned as follows: 630 employee parking spaces; 100 daily visitor parking spaces and 200 conference visitor parking spaces

Building Height Standards
Buildings are planned to be two t o three stores (42 to 60 ft) in height not including penthouses or partially exposed basement levels below the first floor. Height will also be governed by visibility criteria previously stated

SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS
--various road dedication and improvements involving, Harry Rd. Almaden Rd, Camden Ave, Almaden Expressway.

Outlook
FW: Please update letters from the public for todays 8/ 18/ 26 Council Meeting -- letter from environmental organizations is not shown in 10.1(a)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:10 AM
To Agendadesk
® 1 attachment (429 KB)
August 18 SJ Council Meeting, Item 10.1 (a) 650 Harry Road Rezonin (1).pdf; From: Dave Poeschel
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: Agendadesk City Clerk
Subject: Please update letters from the public for todays 8/18/26 Council Meeting -- letter from environmental organizations is not shown in 10.l(a)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. ~ green
W foothills
• SIERRA
CLUB

LOMA PRIETA

CHAPTER
~
(\(\
SCVBA
Santa Clara Valley

BIRD ALLIANCE
Santa Clara Vall ey Chapter
CALIFORNI A NATIVE PL~NT SOCIETY

MOTHERS
OUT

FRONT I
sil.i.con. ualle!I,

SILICON VALLEY

YOUTH CLIMATE ACTION
August 16, 2026
To: Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council City of San Jose
Re: Item 10.l(a) - C26-008 & ER26-088, 650 Hany Road (fonner IBM Almaden Research Center)
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
The undersigned organizations respectfully ask the Council to remove Item 10.l(a) from the Consent Calendar, schedule it for Council discussion, and defer the proposed rezoning of the former IBM Almaden Research Center at 650 Harry Road. Before acting, the Council and the public deserve full disclosure and consideration of the requirements for, as well as the legal, environmental, and land-use consequences of, this rezoning.