[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6526341,"mediaKeyId","3798737-673a56ce6e8427227b069b8d0c91f80f","parentId",3798737,"title","San Jose council denies early consideration to rezone 826 North Winchester Boulevard; directs study in general‑plan review","audioSeconds",5733,"startMs",4762000,"endMs",10495000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3798737-673a56ce6e8427227b069b8d0c91f80f&start=4762&end=10495","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3798737-673a56ce6e8427227b069b8d0c91f80f/thumbnail_4762000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6526341/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/San-Jose-council-denies-early-consideration-to-rezone-826-North-Winchester-Boulevard-directs-study-in-generalplan-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6526341-c47b597cb8acae392ee3a90d6b02b2c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154776&Signature=U13ypvM3b3FksxcKOMRgb0qnkw0L4XBd5Khw5hgqqHHf3qPMW00tqWjeqFjlnWTFd~p1uz6GQz7JlUrIpxrMSAwm-83622Cm9vhBVEghCVP18L4ojy3drqXrArG~6P9Fzg4TzDN0HoH-3j9cPGffcaVn11xSyIWJ7NMDIW4pHhPEhGw-ilzLIhCngFBbVnsTtdvlJYyZwmRPXy4tifUHlRtGN714nzvXBd7MJ82CFTdcwAI9d0scAfv0zTaPiWdWjIqwl98ZNcYC-A3wyz102Im1E0zkoeCSjup4nst0jhusqo8REYbesqvqD91T1vXH5horv-8ThbDlGhzZtiEwBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Jose, CA","date","2025-06-11T16:41:54Z","article","San Jose City Council voted 10–0 on June 9 to deny early consideration of a privately initiated general‑plan amendment for 826 North Winchester Boulevard that would have reclassified the site from Neighborhood Community Commercial to Transit Residential. The decision halts the applicant’s current path for a proposed 17‑story mixed‑use development and directs the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) department to evaluate the site as part of the city’s upcoming general‑plan 4‑year review.

Planning staff told the council the property, a roughly 0.6‑acre parcel currently developed with a vacant two‑story office building and surface parking, sits in a low‑density mixed neighborhood adjacent to single‑family homes and small commercial properties. Staff said Transit Residential is intended for high‑density mixed‑use sites near major regional transit, urban villages or rapid transit nodes. The site is not within an adopted growth area, and the nearest regional transit station is approximately 1.5 miles away (Santa Clara Caltrain). Staff said converting employment‑generating commercial land to predominantly residential would reduce job capacity and fiscal revenues pursuant to general‑plan economic policies.

Kelly Arardi, the applicant’s entitlements director representing VCI, described the property as a long‑vacant, blighted site and said the proposal would produce 135 residential units and roughly 15,000 square feet of commercial space, including 14–20 affordable units. Arardi said the applicant has already invested in technical studies and community outreach, offered potential reductions in building height (an offered maximum of 11 stories in revised plans), and was prepared to work with the community and signatory labor unions to use union construction labor. “We’d just like the opportunity to do that,” Arardi said, asking council to allow the application to continue processing so environmental review and further outreach could address concerns.

Public comment ran more than an hour and included strong opposition from the Quarry neighborhood association and many nearby residents who described the proposal as out of scale, incompatible with the prevailing single‑family form, and unsafe given seismic and liquefaction concerns. Speakers cited the site’s small footprint (0.6 acre), narrow vehicle access on Winchester, limited nearby regional transit, the potential for increased traffic and parking impacts, noise, loss of sunlight and privacy, and the project’s limited share of affordable units compared with total units. The Quarry Neighborhood Association’s leaders and many residents urged the council to follow the general plan and deny rezoning.

Proponents included construction‑trade union representatives and several housing and YIMBY advocacy groups, who said the project would replace blight, create union construction jobs, deliver new housing (including a small affordable component), and add commercial activity. Representatives from the NorCal Carpenters and Catalyze SV urged council to allow the project to continue through environmental review and design so community concerns could be addressed through that process.

Planning staff outlined three main areas of inconsistency between the proposed Transit Residential designation and the general plan: 1) focused growth principles that concentrate new housing in defined growth areas; 2) economic development policies that prioritize preserving employment lands and city fiscal health; and 3) neighborhood form and compatibility concerns—the proposed 17‑story towers would be materially taller and larger in scale than the surrounding one‑ to two‑story homes and small commercial buildings. Staff also highlighted that transit‑residential areas are intended to be adjacent to major regional transit or identified urban villages; by staff’s count, the site is not within that threshold.

Councilmember Peter Mulcahy, whose district includes the site, moved to accept staff’s recommendation to deny the general‑plan amendment and asked staff to examine Winchester Boulevard in the context of the general‑plan 4‑year review to assess whether targeted changes should be proposed at a corridor level. Mulcahy said he supported study of the corridor in the coming general‑plan review while noting the applicant had offered some compromises on height and that the city needs more housing overall. The council adopted Mulcahy’s motion 10–0 (Councilmember Candelas absent).

The council’s decision denies the specific early‑consideration request and does not itself rezone the property. The PBCE department will retain the applicant’s submitted materials and was asked to evaluate whether the parcel and surrounding corridor are appropriate for a different land‑use designation or mixed‑use treatment during the scheduled general‑plan review. If the applicant wishes to pursue a future amendment before that review or under another statutory pathway, they may file again; otherwise any corridor‑wide recommendation would come through the city’s formal general‑plan update process.

Sources: staff presentation by Ruth Cueto and Chris Burton; applicant statement by Kelly Arardi (VCI); extensive public comment; City Council motion and vote record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUN 10, 2025 | City Council Evening Session","oneSentenceSummary","San Jose City Council voted 10–0 on June 9 to deny early consideration of a privately initiated general‑plan amendment for 826 North Winchester Boulevard, stopping a proposed 17‑story, 135‑unit mixed‑use project and asking staff to study the site in the city’s upcoming general‑plan review.","taxTitle","San Jose , Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2857,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6526346,"San Jose council denies early consideration to rezone 3630 Ketman Road over hillside, traffic and hazard concerns",4052,672000,4724000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3798737-673a56ce6e8427227b069b8d0c91f80f&start=672&end=4724","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3798737-673a56ce6e8427227b069b8d0c91f80f/thumbnail_672000.jpg","/articles/6526346/San-Jose/Santa-Clara-County/California/San-Jose-council-denies-early-consideration-to-rezone-3630-Ketman-Road-over-hillside-traffic-and-hazard-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6526346-ef8f350547c6a1e5ddbbe16961a07ea1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154776&Signature=NLWcpPMnQWYUE4PfEpMcP42eBCE0AZkSy8Xo2Au7xxIBIFG7zxoUBsJytcnoXIS6C6bI5XyMmf7OVOB-odIsj7Ucly~8ZB4zWWXbcpw1GEJoKiVKroRs63n2YDuBAg6DjrDVfeFEXq1qQ9EK6RX1kJY1i-m5kPGuZSLMGknasyCAo5R~2d3FNhgYVDrgYTbLabfOY-3pZlRCHQKXasfpv~YNGJqjhl9rNIr7yesAtfGyQrvZ3t6IHSuDw1mMINOwcAxkL2EPbtNjzst7sfv2uT7lZN35mpCTbMqj6Mm-N9viXsktmBNPMtKKvV4IyHubmzSnT-X02UHQ9pSmIZjM1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Jose City Council voted 10–1 on June 9 to deny early consideration of a privately initiated general‑plan amendment that would have changed the land‑use designation for 3630 Ketman Road (District 8) from Lower Hillside to Rural Residential, a reclassification that applicants said could allow subdivision and construction of up to 13 single‑family homes.

The council’s decision follows a staff presentation that emphasized geologic and transportation inconsistencies with the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan and more than an hour of public comment from supporters and opponents. Councilmember Peter Kondelas moved to adopt the staff recommendation to deny early consideration; Councilmember Kamay seconded the motion. The motion passed 10–1, with Councilmember Dwan recorded as the sole dissent.

City planning staff told the council the 8.29‑gross‑acre site at 3630 Ketman Road is largely above the 15% slope line, is within a geologic/seismic/landslide hazard area with a previously recorded landslide, and is currently designated Lower Hillside (one dwelling unit per five acres). Ruth Cueto, the principal planner on the project, said the applicant’s request to change the designation to Rural Residential (up to two dwelling units per acre) would “facilitate the demolition of the existing single family residence and the subdivision to construct 13 single family residences with 1 new private street off of Casey Way.” Staff noted an informal alternative submitted by the applicant that would preserve the existing home and create six new lots; that alternative had not been formally evaluated.

Staff identified four primary inconsistencies between the amendment and the general plan: the city’s focused‑growth strategy (which concentrates new housing in designated growth areas), policies limiting hillside density and new public improvements in geohazard areas, and transportation policies aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Staff said the subject parcel is in a high‑VMT area and that new development there would likely be automobile dependent. The planning commission had unanimously recommended denial.

Van Tee Hoon, speaking for the applicant, urged the council to allow the application to proceed to full review. “This is a housing project,” Van Tee Hoon said, noting the city’s shortfall against regional housing needs and asking the council to permit the applicant to continue technical studies and community outreach. He added the proposal could qualify as a small infill project for VMT purposes and stressed that any building would require geohazard clearance before new lots could be created: “No geohazard clearance, no project.”

Neighbors and technical experts who opposed the amendment cited flooding, observed fissures, prior landslide activity, steep slopes, soil stability and traffic. A resident who identified herself as living directly behind the site told the council the open land functions as an informal walking area and that flooding occurs at the Ketman/Casey Way corner after rain. A structural engineer, Aktem Almanasir, said the area is in “seismic design category D with slope” and described potential hazards and traffic impacts. Several speakers displayed petitions and said dozens to hundreds of immediate neighbors opposed the rezoning; one speaker presented a petition of more than 80 signatures from people living within roughly 1,000 feet of the site.

Supporters said the parcel is underused, that the project would add modest for‑sale housing and local jobs, and that the owner should be allowed to pursue more housing. Contractors, local business owners and union representatives said the project would create construction jobs and economic activity. Jerry DeYoung, a land‑use consultant working with the applicant, told council that many technical issues raised by staff are typically resolved during rezoning and site‑design review and urged the council to let the process proceed.

Council debate focused on competing priorities: housing supply and job creation versus long‑term public safety, infrastructure and fidelity to the city’s focused‑growth blueprint. Kondelas, who grew up near the site, said he had received petitions both for and against the project and that the “main concern … is the precedent or the bad precedent that we’d be setting for development that goes counter to our city's blueprint for growth and development.” Staff confirmed that if the council adopted the motion to deny early consideration, the applicant would have to withdraw the application; continuing the application would allow the applicant to proceed to the rezoning and tentative map stages.

The council’s denial stops the applicant’s current path to a general‑plan amendment. Staff noted that state law options like SB 9 could remain available to a property owner (for example allowing up to two units per lot under certain conditions), and staff also referenced the applicant’s informal six‑unit alternative that had not been evaluated. The planning commission’s unanimous denial and the council vote conclude the early‑consideration step; the applicant may choose to revise and resubmit or pursue other statutory avenues.

The council’s action was specific to the early‑consideration request for a general‑plan amendment at 3630 Ketman Road; no zoning change or building permits were approved at the meeting. The planning department retains technical records and will be the point of contact for any future filings related to the property.

Sources: staff presentation by Chris Burton and Ruth Cueto; applicant statement by Van Tee Hoon; public comments; City Council motion and vote record.","San Jose City Council voted 10–1 on June 9 to deny early consideration of a privately initiated general‑plan amendment that would have reclassified 3630 Ketman Road from Lower Hillside to Rural Residential, a change that applicants said could enable subdivision and up to 13 single‑family homes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

San Jose council denies early consideration to rezone 826 North Winchester Boulevard; directs study in general‑plan review

San Jose council denies early consideration to rezone 3630 Ketman Road over hillside, traffic and hazard concerns