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

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.