New permits have been filed for the suburban expansion at 6591 Woodcliff Court in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The proposal invokes the Builder’s Remedy to develop roughly five acres of hillside land with 16 single-family homes. Michael LaBarbera of Terracommercial Real Estate Corporation, the owner of the vineyard that occupies a portion of 6591 Woodcliff Court, is the project sponsor.
6591 Woodcliff Court site map, illustration by Wood Rodgers
TerraCommercial filed the pre-application for the project in late October last year. The plans have increased from 13 to 16 plots, with the overall unit capacity increased from 17 to 20 units. The new plans will create 16 homes, four of which will have Additional Dwelling Units to be deed-restricted as affordable low-income housing. Assembly Bill 1033, which came into effect at the start of this year, allows ADUs to be sold separately from the main unit.
Anderson Architects is listed as responsible for the design. Concept art for the previous plan shows two-story homes with modern architectural vernacular. The exteriors will be covered with a smooth stucco finish and wood cladding.
6591 Woodcliff Court, elevation by Kurt Anderson Architects
As mentioned, Michael LaBarbera’s family is the longtime owner of the Almaden Mountain Winery at 6591 Woodcliff Court. The new residential expansion would only touch a portion of the nearly 100-acre property owned by the LaBarbera family. The neighborhood enclave would surround a single cul-de-sac extending from Circle Hill Drive.
The estimated cost and timeline for development have yet to be shared.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
gross.
I am fascinated how there’s no neighborhood opposition to projects like these. Isn’t the whole shtick for suburban NIMBYs that they for some reason expect no changes in their neighborhood for eternity? How come people living on the edge of this subdivision don’t complain about houses being built separating them from nature?
We have no choice. Builders remedy does not allow us to object.
Any housing is better than no housing, but it would be better to build something at least a little bit more dense, like townhomes.
Any housing is not better when it’s sprawling into greenspace. There are a million better places to put homes. Urban growth boundaries exist for a reason.
They exist to enrich existing homeowners
“Any housing” excuse makers are parasites.
Mike–I’d be very surprised if the neighbors don’t object. Just give them a little time
It’s thanks to the YIMBY lobby that this kind of suburban sprawl is now possible, they pushed for “builder’s remedy” and here you go. No protection for green space. Channel enough developer dollars to the legislature and it pays off.