Public Comments Received on the Application — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, May 10, 2022

09 March 2020
Regarding: 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project Public Comments: Planning Commission Virtual Meeting 09 March 2020 Dear Santa Clara Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Staff, and City Attorney, The Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on 08/22/2018 (18-708) will show that the Motions to pass the following all FAILED.

1. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1530 - 1540 Pomeroy Avenue Project;

2. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Agriculture (A) and Low Density Multiple Dwelling (R3-18D) to Planned Development (PD);

3. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map to allow development of 8 townhouse units
Of note, the Tentative Subdivision Map for 8 townhouse units was deemed inappropriate for the City at this location. It was recommended to the developer to reduce the number of units to 6. The Planning Commission in 2019 did not approve this plan.

The developer has resubmitted a Tentative Subdivision Map that not only maintains 8 units but increases the total livable space of the project and increases the percentage of square footage to bedrooms. This increase in massing, contrary to the Planning Commission recommendation is made even more unacceptable by increasing the height of the buildings to 36.6 feet compared to 28 feet. The Tentative Subdivision Map has objectively gone from bad to worse- The Planning Commission deemed the project unacceptable for the neighborhood in 2019 and the developer has presented a revision that provides more reason, increased massing and reduced housing accommodation in bedrooms, to deny this project.

The Meeting Minutes of the City Council Meeting on 11/13/2018 (18-1131) will show that the Motions to pass the following FAILED:

1. Adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1530 - 1540 Pomeroy Avenue Project;

2. Adopt a resolution approving the rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Low Density Multiple Dwelling (R3-18D) to Planned Development (PD);

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map to allow development of 8 townhouse units.

POST MEETING MATERIAL
Planning Commission Meeting
March 9, 2022
Item 1.B
Of note, the Tentative Subdivision Map for 8 townhouse units was deemed inappropriate for the City at this location. The City Council DENIED all aspects of the project, including the Subdivision Map.

Again, the new subdivision map only adds objective grounds to deny the project as no changes were made to address the neighbors, planning commission or City Council issues.

At this time, the developer is trying to end around the Planning Commission by claiming protection under AB3194. As stated by the developer, the project will cost $8M and the conservative price of the units will be between $1.75M and $2.5M for a value of ~$15-$16M. I am all for people making their money. I am also pro development and support very local, <1mi, projects like 3155, 3035, and 3402 El Camino Real i.e., The Deck, Laguna, Mariannis, others. However, this project is clearly inappropriate and unnecessary toward addressing housing issues in Santa Clara. The revised project objectively makes the housing less affordable than the original project e.g., more square footage and fewer bedrooms. The law is patently being abused, expecting to pay in lieu, rather than provide affordable housing in Santa Clara. Please don’t let the spirit of the law be broken and the project become precedent for further manipulation and abuse.

To follow on the Developers’ position on affordable housing, albeit on the subjective level, I ask that you listen to the Community Outreach Virtual meeting on August 12, 2021. The second half of the meeting, a live City run public meeting, for almost twenty minutes, the focus is on displacing a local homeless person needing to live in their vehicle. At the 29 minute, 45 second mark, I quote the Developer saying, “The sooner we start this project, the sooner we can get rid of him”. You are entitled to your opinion, but I found this to be disgusting and especially abhorrent with the extreme conditions the Covid-19 pandemic imposed at that time. Clearly, the Developer showed no respect for the people of this neighborhood. I was also disappointed in our City Representatives participation in the discussion- I believe the individual represented the Planning department. It is clear from that discussion the City Representative was pro Developer and not interested in the best interest of the Santa Clara citizen.

As a concerned neighbor, I ask that the City maintains its commitment to responsible development and deny the current project. it is appropriate for this project to be denied by the Planning Commission acting in the best interest of the neighbors and City of Santa Clara.

Thank you,
John Lesnick

Let it be known that all comments, concerns and issues raised against the project plan, communicated in the CEQA/EIR and MND for the Files listed above are maintained and voiced as issues with these projects again at this time of Public Hearing. Of note, the MND contains outdated, inconsistent, and incorrect information at issue with this project. Additionally, the position that the developer is not in standing or authorized to release the city from liability is reasserted. The right to challenge the land use decisions in court can be based on these issues.

RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 2022
MAYOR"
CllY

POST MEETING MATERIAL
Planning Commission Meeting
March 9, 2022
Item 1.B
(")~
--< -Jo ::u -< :0 s:: Oi;,c, m "T1 {") )>
(/) 0 :::0 ()
► c .,_ m Zz ~, -Jo
► ;= ~
< no
C)
I',.)
m >=R
l"'J
::c - 0 ► g en
I •
2006 Denial due to infrastructure, what has improved on the infrastructure lately? I
I
'
t .2..

Infrastructure
4 - previous attempts and they were a~I rejected due to the current Infrastructure 2005: 4 town homes on a lot of 12,423 sqft was denied, now across the street similar lot has 8 2 story town homes? 1575 Pomeroy Why?
2006: Developers attempted to install only 2 town homes, 1 detached and 2 attached town homes. 2008: Again 3 detached town homes, all detached, and it it continued to be denied. Still denied. 2014: Denied again due to infrastructure
I want to point out. The the lot right across the street that is a bigger size, was denied with only 4 town homes homes It was denied again with 2006, 2008, 2014 with only 3 houses instead of 4.

The Point is that We are trying to build 8 homes that are 2 stories on a sm Real Image
Look No business behind it
No Pool Behind it.

Its done just to hood wink people
J
1i,l,t!1{1~~~
• ;
u.J .i:::.t~ -Ga}·
-=--"- •
. ..

Incremental Impact
• Has there been a traffic analysis or an infrastructure_analysis including the Deck Numbers
• Has there been a traffic analysis with inclusion of other recently built properties • The reasons why I ask is because the current traffic analysis does not include a real life analysis of the deck and coming high density homes. • This incremental impact is dangerous and ~s never included accurately El Camino Re-Development
® At the last meeting regarding the redeveiopment of the Ei Camino it was stated that "No single famiiy nomes wili be included in the redevelopment of the El Camino ® 1536 and 1540 are single family and wHi be repurposed from low density family dwelling to high density development.
0 Developments are not only building on El Camino but moving Pomeroy and Crowding the essence of the Single Family Neighborhood.
• Zoning Changes would destroy the area for single family homes down Pomeroy and possibly effect the future of the area.
• Across the street there is a discussion of creating a 5 story building with multiple residents, and that developer is watching this vote. ·
C
0 ·-...,
ta +'
C
cu
V,
cu '-

0. cu a:
"tJ cu N
·-+' n,
E
~
C ... cu > 0
\
\
I
..

Traffic
• Is Jam Packed in the morning and coming home
there is a addition of 20 mins from Pomeroy
to San Tomas daily
• Adding more people to an already crowded road
will only increase accident rates.
• There is definitely a road infrastructure on Pomeroy, it's a small 2 lane street. Adding more housing into
Pomeroy without infrastructure improvements will
Ukey increase accidents, irritation, and death
Stop High Density Housing
We object the changing the zoning of 1540 and 1536 and creating any non single family homes on the property.
• The redevelopment of El Camino does not mean redeve~opment of Pomeroy
• Incremental Impact of redeveloping propert~es
• Traffic analysis does not estimate creation of coming developments • Infrastructure of Pomeroy does not support this creation -
Stop High Density Housing
By Santa Clara '·Neighbors of Pomeroy
LO
Ill LO
-1-l .
·.-1 M
~ I
:::, .-
<:f'

0.
\.0 M
~ ..... /
....I
<(
w a:
0 z
~
<(
u
_J
w
OFfJC E OF COUJITY ASSESSOR - SA.RT4 Cl.AAA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 11 ~rgo 11
PAGE
ij 3
I
EB
J CALABAZAS Bl\/£>. .. ~
TR. JP 29

CALABAZAS
75 PARK
... P. M.338-M-49 -· ~ _ __.:::i,_:~c.:.--·-
4" am ~ "'~ ., .9.'> ...-~ . .,,< ,,
"•~.,,d' " M r------ ·--. .,,~ ~f_ o:~3AC.NET ;J ~' . <P ' ~
~ PCL. •~1 •: -cl.r',: ·-~~-• ______ !!!.'\!!.. _________ , '\~. .ie c.;, ."" . .,.. ,~
~, .... ~~ ~\~ . .
!?I" .. -.. ~
'89. 37
~ 64 - .~
ov•_;_;_;,_______ r -
"~ ,, r ~,

1.595 AC. NET -
1 I 199.Ja
u
PCL.8· I
§!!.
~ \-
~ . ; - ---rj\:oc---
-----7-ri--:

L.D .! .. r- J!2. ~---...J!!!,7..?.-- __ ~ J>CLg ~ 8.
~ , ,i PC1..B ~; Cl)
___ L_-1-.'.! 7 ·~ ............
... ··7 -
f ------,;;:;,. - ---
O~ .k!aU ,
: ~ l§
83 r
~
~1

0..

Cl)
- _., - - !'1..:.'!--r
PCL. O :

Z!! i~
..!!l
~~
O•
~-
~- TRACT Nll 956
-:--sar7.-f7i"" .-·--
• I l •
: 7 : 6 : S ~:
... : :• .. : .
:, 35 ~: 34 i, ~'II /
~: - -. - I~
. .
' : ,,., ,,r, f
VIA 0O.NDERA --- ---- 't. -
'"° I aca 1zf11 ,,.,o ,~ _ nzo 14,0 _
1f f ~ .tT - -ii - : Sl -----.--9--: -~---,-----_-
I
fJ£l . .1 .J!. .:! : ~ · ~ 3 _,_. ~: ~ : ::: s:
-~--Lr--L~--i=-~~-l-~-~ -~ .,J ... ~-·1 '2 • 7 xii 22.::S .;m - ;::

L.. 48 ]·- ··· ---•--· _lil...'l---1 --f-7 r ·-A- - • ... -- : J : 3 ; ... .!!. ;J!
)! 4!1 ~ s, t·· ·· ··----
9f - . ! §: ., !I i ~ , . - :, ::
~ J---·······--
"' ., • ., /0 ::~;, 50 : - =::
u-!;!~ - t·---· ,, ---....
__ ,-:. 1 : ~ - ·:
,f,f 6 -!. I ;i ,_ - ~. ! I ___ ____ .. ___ _
._1:!!-11---r~ 45 w: t /2 :1~
1~ I : f'II - :;:]""'
~ '. 5 I 4 !....... . ... "
,:r:.,1 __ ..;•-~-~-..10---f /3 ....
- • I 9 I •~ • N - ~~,. u u... • ~ ..

I I • ~
~ ±{ .i} t--.S
: ; ~- .!£
1'-4'.?!9!mi 'R.!I
~
1$!1$·!11••,
-'t.-POMEROY
,,,~ . L'" ,,s, ,,,i , tstl7~,
64s
1 · · 1•4S ' - ~ i ;
--P. ~·M,2- · ---- --. . , · -AV. - ...L . ·- ~-\.· 1j 7· P.a.t. 408-t.1· 43 ~ TR. N~2908
KENTWOOD PARK -..narR • -:;;i;nu-
0 .l<: 1/l <:f'
u -1-l LO >,
Q) .,..., .- 0
Cl ~
::,
I 1-1
0 Q) '-
Q) ' M E: ..c: \.D LO 0
E-t I.O
-
Al
~ ~ .........., .......,
I
I
I 1• a 100'
1 ~l ;·r
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Members of the Planning Commission
Regarding Massive Development of the Pomeroy Neighborhood (1530, 1540 Pomeroy Avenue PLN2016-12053
1575, 1577 Pomeroy Avenue PLN 2017-12753)
We the concerned residents of the city of Santa Clara are opposed to the destruction of our neighborhoods. (The proposed demolition of the single- family residence at 1530 and the proposed demolition of the single-family residence at 1540 on Pomeroy.)
We are opposed to the construction of 8 town houses at those addresses.

Of particular concern is the proposed demolition of 1575 Pomeroy, a single-family home, and the construction of a five-story complex with 122 units, and space for 88 cars on Pomeroy Avenue.

PRSRT STD
ECRWSS
U.S.POSTAGE
PAID
EDOM Retail
These single family homes are right across the street from each other. The proposed construction will cause havoc In our single-family neighborhood and we stand opposed to it. The projects will impair the health, safety, and quality of life in our area and are inconsistent with the General Plan and Regional Traffic objectives for the El Camino area. Given each room in the proposed projects can easily be converted into a bedroom, the proposed 100+ bedrooms in these projects could easily attract over 1000 new residents and 100+ additional cars to the area thus defeating all planned traffic reductions. We remind the Council that General Plan and Zoning regulations mandate each new project be evaluated for a reduction in traffic and sustainabilityand these projects fall these objectives and will eliminate our single-family lifestyle in our area. Versions of these projects have consistently been rejected by the City Council for twenty years, and we urge you to continue to uphold our quality of life for our area.

Name
Address
Please sign and send to Mayor and Council Offices
to Oppose these high density proposal
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA. 95050
~ P~~~r ~ ~
~f~~~~~MMA~
~ z;Jud' ~---~-t;;~~ ~~
~74 ::::1::::/:::JP~
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Clara City Council Members of the Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara We, undersigned, are residents and homeowners of the area of El Camino Real, Pomeroy Avenue and Calabazas Boulevard, the landmark thoroughfare of Santa Clara. We have serious questions, concerns, and objections regarding the massive developments of areas around El Camino Real, Pomeroy and Calabazas block-1530-1540, 1575-1577 Pomeroy Avenue and 1370 Calabazas Boulevard. These proposed projects are being submitted by out-of-town developers in sequence and these projects carry serious negative affects to traffic, parking, noises, and safety to our quality of life in our neighborhoods, among the oldest in Santa Clara. The possible impact to traffic patterns of these high-density projects violates the regional goals concerning El Camino traffic. Though state legislation such as Senate Bill 35 and Assembly 167 seem to rob residents from voicing their concerns. We are reminding you all the commitment you have made to us to curtail massive developments around El Camino, and we expect our quality of life guaranteed to us by the General Plan to continue protecting our traditional Santa Clara way of life. It is the Santa Clara way of life to include residents in every aspect of the projects. We expect these planned projects to be severely vetted with our concerns in mind. t>_ 17 ,,; ,. ·""'-1.A,t.,{) t:).n,, tJ -t/lir!...td'/J1/ll~- ~ :314(- :3J'S!:i"' f!.~17ri..1Jltlop/J,\.~,N·t·s lfYL/vL v&Urr~ ll~ Thank you
Affected residents - Pomeroy, Calabazas
1-Hung Le, 1436 Pomeroy Avenue
11-
12-
\.
~~ ~
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Clara City Council Members of Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara
Date:

File No's: PLN2019-13924, 2021-14792
Location: 1530-1540, 1575-1577 Pomeroy Avenue,1370 Calabazas boulevard to be demolished to build massive developments. -t. I(} C!. Ill IJ 1 /U d-- : J 1 ¥ l - a I :rs- 12 1 e /i/t( I/Ii ,,)o R € r> I Dear Sir/ Madam,
lam , homeowner of the property at Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara, writing this letter to voice my disapproval of building proposed massive developments, addresses stated above.

The proposed developments will make neighborhood's problems worse: traffic, safety, parking, and noises. The following are our concerns:
1- Traffic: is very heavy during business hours on this narrow section of Pomeroy- one lane each direction without safety lane between two opposite lanes - people traveling North to get to work during AM time and returning home PM time, DMV's student drivers practicing driving or taking tests, parents dropping off or picking up their kids at Pomeroy Elementary school, a Retirement community and a church adding more travelers to this section. 2- Safety: due to multiple sources of traffics above, school kids, retired and exercise pedestrians and neighborhood residents are not safe.
3- Speeding and failure to stop at the Stop-sign intersection of Pomeroy and Granada are constant thread to serious auto accidents.
4- Parking: Lots of repaired vehicles sitting along street and parking lots of business' nearby are the Professional Auto wrecking 3236 Pomeroy Avenue - take numerous parking spaces of the business nearby and along street, non-moving for weeks and months, so new developments would make parking and traffic problems worse.

Therefore, new developments at this location would turn our neighborhood's bad situation into worst.

We hope to see this project denied.

Sincerely,
Name: ~ tJ-tkvYf3fJ
~l{- ~ Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara CA 95051
Ph: (lf~ fql-- ~ 73'f
N; /!= A,,t ~""" 'i?ob)~
\/4 I J
~ ~ ~k~ - /
~~ ¥,ok (ll~v l(IJV
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Clara City Council Members of Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara
Date:

File No's: PLN2019-13924, 2021-14792
Location: 1530-1540, 1575-1577 Pomeroy Avenue,1370 Calabazas boulevard to be demolished to build massive developments. J/lveLcct-r-1,,,,,.lA r ; :3 I ,/ I' - 3 / 5' S 1 {:t_ &i--rrti,,,JUI /'(! ..e11JZ_
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am , homeowner of the property at Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara, writing this letter to voice my disapproval of building proposed massive developments, addresses stated above.

Therefore, new developments at this location would turn our neighborhood's bad situation into worst.

We hope to see this project denied.

Sincerely,
Name: t-1-.q,,, >-1, 4-
/ 51 J Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara CA 95051
Ph: ~/~~
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Clara City Council Members of Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara
Date:

File No's: PLN2019-13924, 2021-14792
Location: 1530-1540, 1575-1577 Pomeroy Avenue,1370 Calabazas boulevard to be demolished to build massive developments. -r; fl CJt l( l'l/l'J(!~ : 1 L 4 t- '3 i 5 !J- £ I t! 1+m11,Jo 'Rf. fl ( Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am , homeowner of the property at Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara, writing this letter to voice my disapproval of building proposed massive developments, addresses stated above.

Therefore, new developments at this location would turn our neighborhood's bad situation into worst.

We hope to see this project denied.

Sincerely,
Name: cf~ ~
Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara CA 95051
Ph: 1~ 1-'I/ 3 r- 9£i1
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Clara City Council Members of Planning Commission, City of Santa Clara
Date: 11-priL t q· 1 2--o 2--:2.--
File No's: PLN2021-15320

RECEIVED
APR 2 5 2022

PLANNING DIVISION
Location: 1530-1540, 1575-1577 Pomeroy Avenue, to be demolished to build high-density developments.

Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am +i-V rvCr- LS , homeowner of the property at ilf-3,h Pomeroy Avenue, Santa Clara, writing this letter to voice my disapproval of building proposed massive developments, addresses stated above.

The proposed developments will make neighborhood's problems worse: traffic, safety, parking, and noises. The following points are our concerns:
1- Traffic: is very heavy during business hours on this narrow section of Pomeroy - one lane each direction without safety lane between two opposite lanes - people traveling North to get to work during AM time and returning home PM time, DMV's student drivers practicing driving or taking tests, parents dropping off or picking up their kids at Pomeroy Elementary school, a Retirement community and a church adding more travelers to this section.
2- Safety: due to multiple sources of traffics above, school kids, pedestrians and neighborhood residents are not safe.
3- Speeding drivers and drivers fail to stop at the Stop-sign intersection of Pomeroy and Granada are constant dangers to the neighborhood residents 4- Parking: Lots of vehicles and RV to be repaired sitting along street and parking lots of business' nearby are the Professional Auto wrecking 3236 Pomeroy Avenue - occupying numerous parking spaces of the business nearby and along Pomeroy, which are inoperable for weeks and months, therefore new developments would make parking and traffic problems worse.

Therefore, new developments at this location would turn our neighborhood's bad situation into worst. We hope to see this project denied .

Sincerely, j"
C ~ zPZ
Name: +h> rJ q- LiS- ~----_.::::,,,-=-~ J f------- -
1 W-3 6 Pomeroy Avenue Santa Clara CA 95051
Phone: 1-fo g - :S 2--PT - i 57 /

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentMay 10, 2022

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
May 10, 2022