August 16, 2026
To: Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San José City Council City of San José
Re: 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,
The undersigned organizations respectfully ask the Council to remove Item 10.1(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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