POST MEETING MATERIAL — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, August 22, 2023

FREMONT STREET FRANKLIN STREET

LEWIS STREET WASHINGTON STREET
98 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 98
POLICY 5.1D: REQUIRED

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE

PUBLIC REALM
New development will be required to
make contributions that improve public
infrastructure and the public realm in ways
that promote alternative transportation
modes (walking, biking & transit),
promote environmental sustainability
(green infrastructure and green building
performance), and provide for the
orderly and attractive transformation of
Downtown.

New development is expected to improve
adjacent streets, dedicate land for the
creation of new streets and public
spaces, and make fair-share contributions
through an Infrastructure Impact Fee for
Downtown improvements to create and
improve streets and public spaces, as
indicated in Figure 3-2: Downtown Streets
and Public Spaces.

New development is also expected
to make fair-share contributions to
infrastructure needed to support
Downtown development. This may include
the need for an additional fire station; a
district stormwater capture system; an
additional transformer at an existing SVP
substation; extension of the recycled water
system; and underground piping and
ducting.

Table 5-1

BONUS PROVISIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS
POLICY 5.1E: MAXIMUM

BUILDING HEIGHTS
In keeping with the conceptual urban form
framework for Downtown, allow buildings
to achieve maximum heights as shown on
Figure 5-4: Maximum Building Heights.

Height is regulated by the number of
stories as well as the maximum number
of feet. Buildings must not exceed either
metric.

Two levels of parking may correspond with
one level of tall ground-floor retail space,
counting as one floor. Within each height
district, maximum building heights in feet
are intended to allow for tall ground-floor
spaces and typical office floor-to-floor
heights. For typical residential buildings,
maximum height would not be expected to
be achieved.

Floor area is not directly governed, but is
limited based on what can be achieved
within a building envelope described in
more detail in the Form-based Code.

POLICY 5.1F: MAXIMUM

BONUS HEIGHTS AND

COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Grant additional floor area and building
height for the following community
benefits: Arts Commons cultural
destinations that include Santa Clara
Theater, the Cultural Arts Center and the
Market Hall; a public parking garage that
can support these venues; visual and
performing art venues or movie theaters
in locations other than the Arts Commons
(but Downtown); conservation of historic
resources or contributing buildings to
historic districts; land dedication for public
realm that exceeds the District average;
pr enhanced public realm or transit
infrastructure contributions beyond those
required, as summarized in Table 5-1.

Floor area bonuses will be calculated
based on the amount of floor area that
could be achieved with maximum (base)
building heights and massing limits
established in the Form-based Code.

Bonuses may be combined but not beyond
maximum height indicated in Figure 5-5:

Maximum Bonus Building Heights.

Bonuses may be granted to Downtown
buildings for community benefits provided
off-site but within Downtown.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS BONUS1
Each cultural venue on Arts Commons (including but not
limited to Santa Clara Theater, Cultural Arts Center, and Market Hall), if consistent with locations on Figure 2-8.

F.A.R. bonus up to 60%
Height bonus up to
maximum bonus height
Public parking garage that can support Cultural Arts Center and Theater. This may be provided in addition to providing required parking for other residential and office uses.

F.A.R. bonus up to 60%
Height bonus up to
maximum bonus height
Visual and performing art venues or movie theaters in
location other than the Arts Commons.

F.A.R. bonus up to 40%
Height bonus up to
maximum bonus height
Conservation of resources listed on the Historic Resources Inventory, buildings in the Historic Combining District, or the post office.

Public land dedication, with bonus amount based on extent to which dedication requirement exceeds District average.

Enhanced contributions to public realm improvements
above fair-share development impact fee, including
infrastructure, paving, planting, furnishings, public art and interpretation elements.

Enhanced contributions to district transit infrastructure and operations.
1 Bonuses are provided at City discretion. Bonuses should be commensurate with the level of community benefit contribution.

PUBLIC ROOM/ COMMUNITY SPACE/ ART SPACE
98 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 98
POLICY 5.1D: REQUIRED

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE

Table 5-1

BONUS PROVISIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS
POLICY 5.1E: MAXIMUM

BUILDING HEIGHTS
In keeping with the conceptual urban form
framework for Downtown, allow buildings
to achieve maximum heights as shown on
Figure 5-4: Maximum Building Heights.

Height is regulated by the number of
stories as well as the maximum number
of feet. Buildings must not exceed either
metric.

Floor area is not directly governed, but is
limited based on what can be achieved
within a building envelope described in
more detail in the Form-based Code.

POLICY 5.1F: MAXIMUM

BONUS HEIGHTS AND

Floor area bonuses will be calculated
based on the amount of floor area that
could be achieved with maximum (base)
building heights and massing limits
established in the Form-based Code.

Bonuses may be combined but not beyond
maximum height indicated in Figure 5-5:

Maximum Bonus Building Heights.

Bonuses may be granted to Downtown
buildings for community benefits provided
off-site but within Downtown.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS BONUS1
Each cultural venue on Arts Commons (including but not
limited to Santa Clara Theater, Cultural Arts Center, and Market Hall), if consistent with locations on Figure 2-8.

F.A.R. bonus up to 60%
Height bonus up to
maximum bonus height
Visual and performing art venues or movie theaters in
location other than the Arts Commons.

F.A.R. bonus up to 40%
Height bonus up to
maximum bonus height
Conservation of resources listed on the Historic Resources Inventory, buildings in the Historic Combining District, or the post office.

Public land dedication, with bonus amount based on extent to which dedication requirement exceeds District average.

Enhanced contributions to public realm improvements
above fair-share development impact fee, including
infrastructure, paving, planting, furnishings, public art and interpretation elements.

Enhanced contributions to district transit infrastructure and operations.
1 Bonuses are provided at City discretion. Bonuses should be commensurate with the level of community benefit contribution.

FIGURE 6-1 | MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS WITHOUT BONUSES
LEGEND—Figure 6-1
4 stories (up to 59')
5 stories (up to 72')
6 stories (up to 85')
7 stories (up to 98')
3 stories (up to 40')
2 stories (up to 28')
LEGEND—Figure 6-2
4 stories (up to 59')
5 stories (up to 72')
6 stories (up to 85')
7 stories (up to 98')
9 stories (up to 124')
3 stories (up to 40')
2 stories (up to 28')
FIGURE 6-2 | MAXIMUM BU
- FROM DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN
PAGE 23

PROJECT SITE
LEGEND—Figure 6-2
9 stories (up to 124')
7 stories (up to 98')6 stories (up to 85')5 stories (up to 72')4 stories (up to 59') 3 stories (up to 40')2 stories (up to 28')
2 TO 3 STORIES
2 TO 3 STORIES
4 TO 5 STORIES 2 STORIES
2 STORIES
FIGURE 6-1 | MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS WITHOUT BONUSES
LEGEND—Figure 6-1
4 stories (up to 59')
5 stories (up to 72')
6 stories (up to 85')
7 stories (up to 98')
3 stories (up to 40')
2 stories (up to 28')
LEGEND—Figure 6-2
4 stories (up to 59')
5 stories (up to 72')
6 stories (up to 85')
7 stories (up to 98')
9 stories (up to 124')
3 stories (up to 40')
2 stories (up to 28')
FIGURE 6-2 | MAXIMUM BU
LEGEND—Figure 6-2
9 stories (up to 124')
7 stories (up to 98')6 stories (up to 85')5 stories (up to 72')4 stories (up to 59') 3 stories (up to 40')2 stories (up to 28')
- FROM DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN
PAGE 23

PROJECT SITE
2 TO 3 STORIES
4 TO 5 STORIES 2 STORIES
2 STORIES
72’-6” APPROX. 72’-6”
TOTAL APPROX. 145’-0”
image taken from the City of Santa Clara Project Listing https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/243/2495 image taken from the City of Santa Clara Project Listing https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/243/2495

72.5’
145’
Project
Site
85’ HEIGHT 85’ HEIGHT
85’ HEIGHT
70’ 70’
70’
72’-6” APPROX. 72’-6”
145’-0”
APPROX.
39 | Chapter 2: Downtown Framework
Figure 2-11

URBAN FORM FRAMEWORK (MAXIMUM BONUS BUILDING HEIGHTS)
Building form, as shown in the model,
represents general building “envelopes”
that the Precise Plan and its implementing
form-based code will seek to maintain.

Actual buildings will have varied massing
and façades, providing human scale, visual
interest, and design features that the Plan
should guide but leave room for creative
response.

The diagrams shown here represent
building form that could occur “as of
right” under the Plan—the base maximum
building envelopes—and the building
form that could occur with the provision
of additional community benefits (bonus),
including aordable housing, cultural
catalyst uses, and enhanced public realm
features.
72’
40’
72’
945 Madison St.
124’
100 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 100
GOAL 5.2:

HISTORIC

BUILDINGS AND

CHARACTER
Conserve Downtown’s historic resources
and sense of history, while allowing use
of buildings to change over time. The
old Post Oice is a building of notable
character and the blocks west of Monroe
have properties designated as historic, as
indicated in Figure 5-6: Historic Resources
and Areas of Historic Sensitivity (2022).

POLICY 5.2A: HISTORIC

PRESERVATION
Preserve Downtown’s historic buildings
and sites as described by the City’s
Historic Preservation and Resources
Inventory and consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Preservation and Treatment of
Historic Properties and with the City’s
regulations for Historic Combining
Districts (see Chapter 18.58 of the Santa
Clara Municipal Code). Encourage the
continued assessment of buildings and
sites with potential but undetermined
historic significance. In particular, the City
should study the potential eligibility of
Figure 5-6

HISTORIC RESOURCES

AND AREAS OF HISTORIC
SENSITIVITY (2022)
Figure 5-7

BUILDING HEIGHTS

ADJACENT TO HISTORIC

BUILDINGS AND AREAS OF

HISTORIC SENSITIVITY
Architecturally Significant & Historic Sites
100ft buer around Historic Sites
Historic Combining District (HT)
Further study needed
Architecturally Significant & Historic Sites
Historic Combining District (HT)
100ft Buer around Historic Sites
Further study needed
POST
OFFICE

POST OFFICE
40’
72’
40’
945 Madison
18 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 18
C. DEVELOPMENT
MARKET

CONSIDERATIONS
A plan for downtown will remain just that –
a plan – unless individual property owners
decide to develop. An understanding of
development realities and the market is an
important part of creating a plan that will
be realized. This section provides a brief
overview of development considerations
for Downtown Santa Clara. Conditions will
continue to evolve with time.

Development feasibility is affected by
the costs of land acquisition, design and
permitting, infrastructure development,
and building construction; by regulatory
limits on height and density and
requirements for parking and community
benefits; by technical issues of life and
safety requirements in the Building Code
and the capacity of utilities; and by market
demand: the rent per square foot that can
be achieved.

When all of these factors are accounted
for and residual value remains that makes
development a competitive investment,
then we can say that the project “pencils”
in the context of the market (See Figure
1-16).

The Downtown Precise Plan process
included analysis of all of these factors.

We had to make certain assumptions.

For simplicity, the analysis assumes
development would take place on a site
with an existing low-density retail use. In
fact, feasibility will differ parcel by parcel
based on the cash flow of existing uses.

We assumed parking would be provided
at lower ratios than is typical today (taking
advantage of transit proximity), but within
a range that is market-acceptable. We
assumed that residential development
will be required to include 15% affordable
housing, per City policy. (On City-owned
land, that will be higher.) And we assumed
that while demand for retail Downtown
is limited today, a catalyst such as a food
hall, theater, or robust public programming
may help retail potential expand. The team
came to the following conclusions.

Residential
The statewide housing shortage has had
magnified effects in Silicon Valley. While
Santa Clara has increasingly offered highdensity housing, the ongoing economic activity in Silicon Valley and additional
jobs in Santa Clara have intensified the
Figure 1-16

MARKET/PROJECT VALUE AND DEVELOPMENT COST

A PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN WILL REMAIN JUST THAT - A PLAN - UNLESS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS DECIDE TO DEVELOP. AN UNDERSTANDING OF DEVELOPMENT REALITIES AND THE

MARKET IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF CREATING A PLAN THAT WILL BE REALIZED 18 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 18
C. DEVELOPMENT
MARKET

The Downtown Precise Plan process
included analysis of all of these factors.

We had to make certain assumptions.

PRELIMINARY

BENCHMARKS FOR

DENSITY
These summary diagrams illustrate the
density threshold at which certain building
types become feasible based on market
conditions at the time of writing.

WE ARE @ 65.5 DUA
- ADDITIONALY WE

HAVE RETAINED

THREE ORIGINAL
HOMES :
- 906 MONROE ST
- 930 MONROE ST
- 1341 HOMESTEAD RD

DEVELOPMENT MARKET CONSIDERATION
22 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 22

FEASIBLE

IMPLEMENTATION
Financial Feasibility. The Downtown
Precise Plan’s land use pattern and urban
form reflect community priorities as well
as the planning team’s best understanding
of market economics for downtown
development. Aspects of financial
feasibility that have informed the Plan, in
particular, include the following:
• Today, there is a relatively limited
demand for retail space at this location.

Retail success will require attracting
users from surrounding areas, design
attention, curation and flexibility. Retail
is necessarily focused where it is most
desired, along Franklin Street.
• Residential development is likely to
be feasible as Type III construction,
and may be most feasible in the
range of 5 to 7 stories. Townhomes
are also feasible and may be ideally
suited for liner uses facing adjacent
neighborhood edges.
• Small-floor plate urban office buildings
may be successful downtown, but this
is not yet proven int he current market
environment.
• Lower than typical required
parking ratios will lower the cost of
construction and can work in the
market while supporting City goals
to shift travel patterns and leverage
transit.

State Regulations. There are also
some important State-level regulatory
conditions which the Plan needed to
take into account. First, the State’s
density bonus program has grown more
generous in recent years in response to
the ongoing housing affordability crisis. As
of the time the Precise Plan was written,
the State density bonus allows housing
developments up to 80% more floor area
than allowed by local code, depending
on the extent of deed-restricted units and
the level of subsidy provided. Second, the
Surplus Land Act (as amended) requires
that jurisdictions that wish to dispose
of property first offer the property to
other public agencies and to affordable
housing developers. Since the City owns
key parcels in the Downtown area, this
requirement will likely apply.

City and Property Owner Objectives.

Downtown development, from the
creation of streets and public spaces
to the building of retail, cultural venues,
housing and offices, will only occur if
and when downtown property owners,
including the City, want to develop. The
City has stated its interest in making
its downtown property available for
development, but (as of this writing)
expects that development to pay for public
improvements. Santa Clara University
(also a downtown parcel owner) has also
expressed interest in being a partner in
creating a new downtown; one possible
partnership could involve co-development
of cultural arts spaces. Relocation of the
County courthouse may be achievable,
but will require a financial strategy and
willing participants. Some private property

SANTANA ROW
The Downtown Precise Plan reflects both community priorities and our best understanding of market economics. Source: Visit San Jose

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS LIKELY TO BE FEASIBLE AS TYPE III CONSTRUCTION, AND MAY BE MOST FEASIBLE IN THE RANGE OF 5 TO 7 STORIES.

POLICY 4.1B: PEDESTRIAN- ORIENTED BUILDING DESIGN
1 POLICY 4.1B: PEDESTRIAN- ORIENTED BUILDING DESIGN
1 POLICY 4.1B: PEDESTRIAN- ORIENTED BUILDING DESIGN
1 This bill would prohibit a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project, as dened, that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit, as dened. The bill, notwithstanding the above-described prohibition, would authorize a city, county, or city and county to impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a housing development project if the public agency makes written ndings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on the public agency’s ability to meet its share of specied housing needs or existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the housing development. The bill would create an exception from the above-described provision if the housing development project (1) dedicates a minimum of 20% of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities, (2) contains fewer than 20 housing units, or (3) is subject to parking reductions based on any other applicable law. The bill would prohibit these provisions from reducing, eliminating, or precluding the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a housing development project that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities. By changing the duties of local planning o
cials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Assembly Bill No. 2097
CHAPTER 459
An act to amend Section 65585 of, and to add Section 65863.2 to, the Government Code, relating to land use. [ Approved by Governor September 22, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 22, 2022. ]

REQUIRED PROVIDED NOTE
TOWNHOME NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0
CODOMINIUM NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0
1341 HOMESTEAD RD NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0
TOTAL FOR RESIDENTIAL 69
VAN ACCESSIBLE 11
ACCESSIBLE 11
REQUIRED LEVEL 2 EV READY (TOTAL 55 UNITS) 1 FOR EACH FIRST 20 UNITS 20 20 1 FOR 25% OF 35 UNITS 9 9
1 LOW POWER LEVEL 2 FOR 75% OF 35 UNITS 27 27
TOTAL NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 EV READY 29 29
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV READY 27 27
930 MONROE ST NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0 2 2-CAR GARAGE ON GROUND 906 MONROE ST NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0 1 1-CAR GARAGE ON GROUND REQUIRED CLASS I PER CITY ACTION PLAN 54 54 PROVIDED IN BASEMENT with 110V OUTLETS REQUIRED CALSS II PER CITY COMMENTS 46 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR

REQUIRED PROVIDED NOTE
TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING PROVIDED NOT REQUIRED PER AB 2097 0 9 5 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR, 4 IN BASEMENT VAN ACCESSIBLE 11 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR
CLEAN AIR VEHICLES 11 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR
VAN HC EVCS 11 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR
REQUIRED CLASS I PER CITY COMMENTS 12 GROUND FLOOR NEXT TO PARKING REQUIRED CALSS II PER CITY COMMENTS 44 PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR COMBINED TOTAL AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES 81
COMBINED TOTAL BIKE PARKING SPACES 66
NOTES

3. ELECTRIC BIKE CHARGING WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE AT BOTH THE CLASS I AND CLASS II BIKE PARKING AREA ON THE GROUND FLOOR FOR AN

1. OF THE AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES 56 OF THE 81 PARKING SPOTS ARE EV READY .

2. ELECTRIC BIKE CHARGING IS AVAILABLE IN THE BASEMENT BICYCLE PARKING AREA WHICH CONTAINS 54 BIKES.

ADDITIONAL 12 BIKE PARKING SPACES.
67 PROVIDED IN BASEMENT, 2 HC PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR, TOTAL 68 PROVIDED. 7 OF THE 69 SPACES ARE ALLOCATED FOR GUEST PARKING.
69 PARKING ANALYSIS

REQUIRED BIKE PARKING

COMMERCIAL

REQUIRED BIKE PARKING

RESIDENTIAL

PROVIDED ON GROUND FLOOR AS PART OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE

PROVIDED BY AUTOMATED PARKING SYSTEM IN BASEMENT

PARKING PROVIDED
81 PARKING SPACE - 66 BIKE PARKING
DEIR PAGE 52
) gggp
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

3.5.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact)
There are three single-family houses and one commercial building on the project site. Of the structures on-site, the two-story residences facing Monroe Street are eligible for listing or are listed on the local, state, and/or national historic inventories. The project proposes to retain these residences on the project site. The significance of the resources is not linked to the surrounding structures and the proposed development project would not alter the character-defining features of these historic structures. Therefore, the proposed development project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of these resources as a result of the proposed development project. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact CUL-2: As mitigated, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
As stated above, the project site is moderately to highly sensitive for archaeological resources due to its proximity to archeologically significant sites. The proposed development project would require the excavation of the project site for the underground parking, which could result in the disturbance FINAL EIR PAGE 3

MONROE ST

NO BALCONIES FACING BACK OF PROPERTY

FIXED OBSCURED GLASS

96 | City of Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan 96
POLICY 5.1C: DOWNTOWN
FORM
Locate taller buildings at the eastern
end of Downtown, within a half-mile
walk of Santa Clara Station, and near
the geographic center of Downtown
(Main & Franklin Streets). Transition
building heights to shorter buildings in
the direction of residential neighborhoods
to the north, south and west to respond
to scale and shade, and shape allowable
building height to reduce shading on
public open space. These strategies are
depicted in Figure 5-1: Downtown Urban
Form Illustrated, which models a potential
future Downtown buildout, and Figure 5-3:

Building Height Transitions, which shows
critical relationships between Downtown
building heights, Downtown public
spaces, and the adjacent neighborhood.

Maintain street wall continuity, while
providing visual interest through building
modulation, such as bay windows, and
building articulation, such as to express
structural bays. See Figure 5-2: Urban
Form Qualities.

Figure 5-3

BUILDING HEIGHT TRANSITIONS
Figure 5-2

URBAN FORM QUALITIES
Strong horizontal banding and vertical
articulation items create scale and break up
monotony.

SCU LAFAYETTE WASHINGTON MAIN
Stepped massing helps respond to lower scale
neighborhood edges.

72’-0” ALLOWED FOR 5

STORIES PER PRECISE PLAN
NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY ALLOWS 4 TO 5 STORIES ON ADJACENT SITE TO THE WEST OF

OUR PROJECT SITE PER PRECISE PLAN
LEGEND—Figure 6-2
4 stories (up to 59')
5 stories (up to 72')
6 stories (up to 85')
7 stories (up to 98')
9 stories (up to 124')
3 stories (up to 40')
2 stories (up to 28')
- FROM DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN
PAGE 23

HOMESTEAD ROAD

950 MONROE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRECISE PLAN GOALS.

1. Community benefits
A. Providing for conservation of resources listed on the historic resources inventory.

B. Community meeting room and Art space of 871 sqft.

2. We are retaining 1341 homestead rd as a one story house rather than a two story which is allowed in the precise plan recomendations.

3. Townhomes are all two story at 25 feet height where 28 feet and 40 feet is allowed per the precise plan recomendations.

4. 2 Townhomes adjacent to 945 Madison St. are designed at 25 feet height which is the same as a single family home where,per the precise plan recomendations, 3 stories and up to 40 feet height would be allowed with community benefits.

5. We are moving this extra floor to monroe @ franklin st. to allow for a density of 65.5 DUA which is consistent with the development market consideration of the precise plan. Furthermore the 6 story height is substantially consistent with the 5 story 72 foot max height per the precise plan recomendations.

6. Because we have chosen “by design” to preserve 906 and 930 Monroe and keep 1341 Homestead as an one story home and keep the townhomes at 2 story rather than 3 story. The 6th floor is needed to acieve the essential density as outlined in the downtown precise plan recomendations.

7. We proposed 20% or 11 affordable units as part of the project. 3 will be very low income. We will have the first af fordable units ever in the history of downtown Santa Clara. To accomplish these goals the 6 stories at the corner of Monroe and Franklin is necessary to allow the required density per the precise plan recomendations.

8. No significant impacts per the E.I.R. We have designed a project which meets the spirit and intent of the precise plan as authored by WRT including the needed density.
39 Community Input
Q&A

THANK YOU

From: Narayana Myneni
To: Clerk
Subject: 2323 Villa Place Santa Clara CA 95054
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:40:51 PM
I am the owner of the property and it is vacant from today 8/21/2023.

Please send all billing to the address given below
Narayana Rao Myneni
Executor
281 E Angelina Ave, Tracy, CA 95391
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Mark Kelsey
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 8, 23-810, 906-950 Monroe Street and 1341 Homestead Road Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:43:18 PM
Mayor and Council,
We are writing you to oppose approval of the project and the general plan amendment for 906-950 Monroe Street.

The project is another case of an individual project plan that does not conform to the larger development plan. It will result in another lackluster building that enriches the developer and does not enrich the community. In addition, the general plan amendment proposed for this project opens the door for unplanned development that is not in conformance with the Downtown Plan. At the very least, this project should be asking for an amendment specific to the project, not to a larger area.

A general plan amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which affect the larger area by increasing density of parcels, exempting projects from having an appropriate transition to the neighborhood, changing architectural guidelines and raising building heights significantly.

The 950 Monroe Street project is asking for all the above. Why do we have a general plan at all? We are in the process of completing the Downtown Specific Plan. At least this project should be asked to conform to the guidelines of this plan. The city has complete discretion in approving this plan and should exercise the discretion NOT to approve it.

This developer knows what they got when they purchased the property, and what they could build. The city council is not required to grant them anything different.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Mark & Kathy Kelsey
From: Patty Costantini
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 8:45:44 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

From: Noah MacDonald
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:30:00 AM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

From: Michael Prioste
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 8:23:17 PM
Dear City Council, I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Most importantly an amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which: • More than double the allowed density of a parcel. • Exempt a property from a requirement that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. • Change architectural guidelines such as removing requirements for buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses. • Raise building heights above what was done through an area or city-wide planning process. The 950 Monroe Street project is asking for all the above. Such an ask is the most extreme of variance in that we’re rewriting the general plan to make exceptions. If we’re willing to grant this sort of exception, why not exceptions to build 10-story towers in all the other single-family neighborhoods? Why do we have a general plan at all? This developer knows what they got when they purchased the property, and what they could build. The city council is not required to grant them anything different. Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

From: Tim Thompson
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 8:11:49 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Listen to the citizens who live in the surrounding area this doesn't fit in our city.

Please don't approve this it's WRONG LURN TO SAY NO.

TIM THOMPSON
From: Anne King
To: Mayor and Council; Anthony Becker; Clerk; [email protected]; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; Public Comment; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 7:32:42 PM
Dear Council Member,
Please, please vote AGAINST amending the general plan. Do not allow a change to the general plan for the downtown area. Please vote against the amendment before the Council on August 22, 2023.
1). The city has invested time and money in polls and discussions with City residents, and residents have asked for a consistent plan to create a vibrant downtown that the City can be proud of.
2). This amendment will allow a piecemeal approach that years from now will be condemned as being as harmful for the City as the original decision to destroy the old Downtown.
3). It also allows higher buildings which will significantly overshadow the historic homes that define the wider downtown area.
4). The downtown precise plan may be approved soon and will create a consistent vision that developers can use to design projects that won't alienate the residents of this historically significant area.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON ANY AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE

DOWNTOWN
Thank you,
Anne and Dennis King
From: MARIA Barnard
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 6:12:24 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Get Outlook for Android
From: Judy Ross
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 5:13:45 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Judy Ross
Old Quad Resident since 1978
Sent from my iPhone
From: Paul
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 5:00:45 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m not pleased that this developer is shoehorning in changes to the downtown general plan. I understand that we need more housing in Santa Clara, but the changes in density and exemptions for appropriate transitions isn't fair to local residents and only benefits the developer.

It was my impression that the neighborhood was going to work together with the city council and to create a fair plan, NOT have the developers dictate their extreme needs. Additionally, I’m shocked to see there are variance requests for properties outside of the marked downtown general area (like the Wells Fargo building and the Franklin strip near the Convent.)
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

I appreciate your time and all your hard work.

Paul Rebello
Old Quad resident
From: Carol Parkinson
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:48:08 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

We moved to Santa Clara from San Jose, 8 years ago, because their city government disregarded the voted upon requirements for city planning and made a mess, which resulted in reduced quality of living for residents.

I implore you all not to make the same mistakes and comply with Santa Clara voters in regards to our city planning.

Kind regards,
Carol Parkinson and Jim Wilhelm
465 Jefferson Street, Santa Clara 95050
Sent from my iPhone. Please forgive any grammatical errors or misspellings.

From: Noreen
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:34:59 PM
Dear City Council,
Our historic neighborhood needs your support in saying no to this development. All you need to do is drive down Monroe going north from El Camino and see the one story houses that back the data center. Despite the 146’ setback from the residence, that 85’ building with the metal mess that is inset on roof making it 99’ looms as a giant wall. I feel for those residence. Although it was legal since it was built on commercial space.

This proposed plan will be 84’ tall with a 73’ setback to residence and barely 5’ set back to building next to it on Franklin.

This will look like a skyscraper. These allowances they are asking for are honestly ridiculous, and it will not be affordable housing to boot.

In the past I and neighbors met and worked with The Gateway developer and Prometheus. We supported their developments and they went before counsel without anyone opposing from our group.

I am not against development. What they are asking for is unreasonable and will set a president that will hurt our neighborhood adversely.

Below is more from our group and I’m thankful to have neighbors who care what happens to the OLd Quad.

Neighbors that are in the industry and understand development and use that knowledge to help our city get the most for our residence.

We have a vested interest, we live here and love our neighborhoods.

This developer does not live here and would never approve this project in his city. His voting record proves it over and over. Please stand up for the people.

Thank you,
Noreen Carlson
1159 Madison St.

I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Noreen
Sent from my iPhone
From: charlotte evans
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:22:39 PM
Dear City Council,
My home is next door to the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot. A high density building at the corner of Benton and Lafayette is totally inappropriate. This plan completely ruins the charm of the old quad area. I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Charlotte Evans
Sent from my iPad
From: Linda Pascoal
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:59:16 PM
Dear Mayor & Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Regards,
Linda
From: Rodger Waldorf
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 8:44:44 AM
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the new housing project 950 Monroe that is being proposed in our neighborhood. We believe that this project is premature and should not proceed until the city's comprehensive plan is approved. I also have concerns about the proposed demolition of two 100 year old homes in our neighborhood. These homes are part of our heritage and have historical and architectural value.

They should be preserved and protected, not torn down to make way for new developments.I urge you to reconsider your plans and to respect the wishes of the residents who want to keep these homes intact. These homes are not only beautiful, but also provide a sense of community and identity for our area. They are irreplaceable and should not be sacrificed for short-term profit.

The project would increase the density and height of the buildings in our area, creating traffic congestion, noise pollution and reduced quality of life. The project would also undermine the character and identity of our neighborhood, which is known for its historic charm and diversity.

We urge you to reject this project until the city's plan is finalized and adopted. We believe that any development in our city should be aligned with the plan and respect the wishes of the people who live here.

Rodger Waldorf
1745 Market Street
Old Quad resident
From: KYLA
To: Anthony Becker; Clerk; [email protected]; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; Mayor and Council; Public Comment; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:41:28 PM
Dear City Council, I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole. Most importantly an amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which: • More than double the allowed density of a parcel. • Exempt a property from a requirement that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. • Change architectural guidelines such as removing requirements for buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses. • Raise building heights above what was done through an area or city-wide planning process. The 950 Monroe Street project is asking for all the above. Such an ask is the most extreme of variance in that we’re rewriting the general plan to make exceptions. If we’re willing to grant this sort of exception, why not exceptions to build 10-story towers in all the other single-family neighborhoods? Why do we have a general plan at all? This developer knows what they got when they purchased the property, and what they could build. The city council is not required to grant them anything different. Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

From: Julie Roedell
To: Mayor and Council; Anthony Becker; Clerk; [email protected]; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; Public Comment; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:28:59 PM
Dear City Council, I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street.

A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole. Most importantly an amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which:
• More than double the allowed density of a parcel.
• Exempt a property from a requirement that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods.
•Change architectural guidelines such as removing requirements for buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses.
• Raise building heights above what was done through an area or city-wide planning process.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Most sincerely,
Julie Roedell
1420 Lexington Street
1410 Lexington Street
--
Take Care,
Julie
From: Julie Roedell
To: Mayor and Council; Anthony Becker; Clerk; [email protected]; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; Public Comment; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:31:40 PM
Dear City Council,
I am writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street.

Most importantly, an amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which:
• More than double the allowed density of a parcel.
• Exempt a property from a requirement that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods.
• Change architectural guidelines such as removing requirements for buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses.
• Raise building heights above what was done through an area or city-wide planning process.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Sincerely,
Julie Roedell
1420 Lexington St, Santa Clara, CA 95050
1410 Lexington St, Santa Clara, CA. 95050
--
Take Care,
Julie
From: Julie Roedell
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:48:36 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Julie Roedell
1420 Lexington Street
1410 Lexington Street
Sent from my iPad
From: Dawn Thompson
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:19:46 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Sincerely,
Dawn Thompson
Resident of Santa Clara for over 43 years
From: Jane DeRosa
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:02:44 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

The proposed amendment would allow a development that would be dramatically different from what is currently allowed.

This developer knew what they were buying when they purchased the property, and what they could build. Any development at 950 Monroe should compliment the existing buildings and blend pleasingly into the neighborhood.

I hope you will deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Sincerely,
Jane De Rosa
From: Donna West
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:08:41 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Sincerely
Donna West
Research with
Reclaiming Our Downtown
408-489-4651
3561 Homestead Rd No 483
Santa Clara CA 95951
Sent from my iPhone
From: Helen Ostrander
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:44:02 PM
Dear Santa Clara City Council,
I oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a single request to ask for the most extreme of variances. You will be rewriting the general plan to make exceptions, with no citizen approval. I know that I do not want a 10 story tower next to my single family home and neighborhood You need to remember who your constituents are, why they voted for you, and their interest in saving a little bit of Santa Clara that our forefathers mistakingly tore down. The Old Quad area would be changed permanently! A pure example of the Santa Clara Spirit was on Aug. 4 when the Annual Street Dance occurred. Citizens enjoyed meeting, seeing, talking with other citizens. If you permit the variance, how many more will you approve. The person who purchased the property new in advance what the restrictions were and now they want to change them. For their personal gain, not that of Santa Clarans!! Please keep the Old Quad area alone from high rises, high density parcels, and away from the citizens' back yards and front yards.

As a long time citizen of Santa Clara, a granddaughter of a 1926 councilman, as a daughter of the first police woman in Santa Clara, I urge you to keep a little of what is left of downtown Santa Clara.

Sincerely,
Helen Mirrione Ostrander
626 Los Padres Blvd.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
From: ANTHONY MUSUMECI
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:11:05 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Sent from my iPhone
From: randy roedell
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:49:28 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Randy Roedell
From [email protected]
From: Becca Fung
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:32:16 PM
Dear City Council,
As a Santa Clara resident and home owner so close to this development, I oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

The 950 Monroe Street project is asking for all the above. Such an ask is the most extreme of variance in that we’re rewriting the general plan to make exceptions. If we’re willing to grant this sort of exception, why not exceptions to build 10-story towers in all the other singlefamily neighborhoods? Why do we have a general plan at all? This developer knows what they got when they purchased the property, and what they could build. The city council is not required to grant them anything different. PLEASE DO NOT! Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the longterm planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown!
Rebecca and Andrew Fung
834 Main Street
From: Jonathon Evans
To: Clerk; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; Old Quad Residents Association; Planning Public Comment Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:56:43 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. The City council has full discretion to deny the amendment and it should use that discretion.

If you got this far let me explain why.

The Old Quad Residents Association, and many other members of the community have been working tirelessly to create a vibrant downtown in our neighborhood. We recognize that with a vibrant downtown comes density and more people to the neighborhood to make the place sustainable. We have been willing to make this tradeoff, but in doing so we want the downtown to respect the historic nature of the Old Quad and have a transition between the downtown core and the surrounding historic homes.

The proposed 950 Monroe Street development falls far short of meeting the goals and needs of the community and is the same “Old Santa Clara” parcel-by-parcel development. Rather than respecting the open professional planning process by which we’ve been developing a downtown precise plan and working with the community to meet the community’s vision for downtown this is a developer insisting their way is the only way, and that they need a “super-variance” via a general plan amendment and rezone to make the design fit.

It’s especially concerning that this project couldn’t find an existing zoning type or general plan designation to be built under and that the 950 Monroe project had to go so far as to remove general plan guidelines such as:
·
New development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. ·
Buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses.

This sets a precedent that we should allow developments anywhere even if they are incompatible with the surrounding uses, or even toss out an objective design standard. Once the City Council approves such exemptions how is it fair to not approve this for any future application? The proposed parcel changes also create substandard residential lots, by chopping up the current historic single-family home parcels, and hiding townhomes in their backyards.

As far as community benefits go, we don’t need yet another “community room” that no one will be able to use. I’m still waiting to book the community room in Levi’s stadium as outlined in section 4.7.2 of the stadium lease1.

If the council wants to know what the community wants, we’ve put it in the downtown precise plan, but we cannot require the applicant to conform to the downtown precise plan. Instead, we must compare the development to what the current general plan and zoning requires, and it fails to meet that. The Council should deny the general plan amendment. -Jonathon Evans
President OQRA
Citations:

1. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46687/636071428735770000 From: [email protected]
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 12:58:34 AM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

From: Tom Yetter
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 9:28:25 AM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Thank you for your time,
Tom Yetter, Old Quad resident
From: [email protected]
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 - 950 Monroe St Project.

Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 8:11:08 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Most importantly an amendment for a single project certainly should not include changes which:

More than double the allowed density of a parcel.

Exempt a property from a requirement that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods.

Change architectural guidelines such as removing requirements for buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower-intensity residential uses.

Raise building heights above what was done through an area or city-wide planning process.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the longterm planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown
Tim Clay
From: Silin Chen
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 11:52:57 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the longterm planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.
--
Silin Chen
Email: [email protected]
From: Ann MacDonald
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810 – 950 Monroe St Project Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:34:02 AM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City.

Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

From: HELEN OSTRANDER
To: Clerk; Public Comment; Mayor and Council; Lisa Gillmor; Kathy Watanabe; Raj Chahal; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Sudhanshu Jain; Anthony Becker; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda item 8. 23-810 950 Monroe Street Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:12:52 PM
City Council,
I oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a single request to ask for the most extreme of variances. You will be rewriting the general plan to make exceptions, with no citizen approval. I know that I do not want a 10 story tower next to my single family home and neighborhood You need to remember who your constituents are, why they voted for you, and their interest in saving a little bit of Santa Clara that our forefathers mistakingly tore down. The Old Quad area would be changed permanently! A pure example of the Santa Clara Spirit was on Aug. 4 when the Annual Street Dance occurred. Citizens enjoyed meeting, seeing, talking with other citizens. If you permit the variance, how many more will you approve. The person who purchased the property new in advance what the restrictions were and now they want to change them. For their personal gain, not that of Santa Clarans!! Please keep the Old Quad area alone from high rises, high density parcels, and away from the citizens' back yards and front yards.

Sincerely,
Helen Mirrione Ostrander
626 Los Padres Blvd.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
From: Joe Agu
To: Mayor and Council; Anthony Becker; Clerk; [email protected]; Karen Hardy; Kevin Park; Kathy Watanabe; Lisa Gillmor; Public Comment; Raj Chahal; Sudhanshu Jain Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8. 23-810-950 Monroe St. Project Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:29:27 PM
Dear City Council,
I’m writing you to oppose the general plan amendment for 950 Monroe Street. A charter city is under no obligation to approve a general plan amendment for a development, and updates to the general plan are one of the last discretionary powers left to the City Council. Any update to the general plan should be done with consideration to not just a single development, but the City as a whole.

Stand up for Santa Clara and show that the Council stands behind its citizens and the long-term planning of our City. Please deny the requested General Plan Amendment and maintain our community vision for downtown.

Thank you,
Joe Agu
From: Louis Mirante
To: Clerk
Cc: Matt Regan
Subject: Support - Project Located at 950 Monroe (Item 8 Tomorrow) Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:09:45 PM
Santa Clara City Council,
I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to support the project located at 950 Monroe. We support staff’s recommended actions to approve the project. Please see our attached letter of support. If you have any questions about our support, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Louis
From: Louis Mirante
To: Clerk
Cc: Matt Regan
Subject: Support - Project Located at 950 Monroe (Item 8 Tomorrow) Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:12:54 PM
Santa Clara City Council,
I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to support the project located at 950 Monroe. We support staff’s recommended actions to approve the project. Please see our attached letter of support. If you have any questions about our support, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Louis
From: Louis Mirante
To: Clerk
Cc: Matt Regan
Subject: Support - Project Located at 950 Monroe (Item 8 Tomorrow) Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:14:59 PM
Santa Clara City Council,
I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to support the project located at 950 Monroe. We support staff’s recommended actions to approve the project. Please see our attached letter of support. If you have any questions about our support, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Louis
From: Louis Mirante
To: Clerk
Cc: Matt Regan
Subject: Support - Project Located at 950 Monroe (Item 8 Tomorrow) Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:18:42 PM
Attachments: BAC - 950 Monroe.pdf
Santa Clara City Council,
I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to support the project located at 950 Monroe. We support staff’s recommended actions to approve the project. Please see our attached letter of support. If you have any questions about our support, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Louis
From: Louis Mirante
To: Clerk
Cc: Matt Regan
Subject: Support - Project Located at 950 Monroe (Item 8 Tomorrow) Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:06:02 PM
Santa Clara City Council,
I write on behalf of the Bay Area Council to support the project located at 950 Monroe. We support staff’s recommended actions to approve the project. Please see our attached letter of support. If you have any questions about our support, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Louis
From: Eric Mosinger
To: Clerk
Subject: Written Comment on Item 23-810
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:34:40 AM
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to support the construction of a mixed-use development at 906-950 Monroe Street.

This building will be a wonderful start to Santa Clara's project of reviving a vibrant, walkable downtown. More importantly, it will embody Santa Clara's commitment to building affordable housing for families.

I am writing as a member of the Santa Clara community raising three young children just a few blocks from the proposed development. We currently rent a small two-bedroom house.

One day we dream of upgrading to a three bedroom house or apartment; however, at current housing prices it's hard to see how we'd make ends meet. As it is, we are lucky. Many if not most of the other parents at Westwood Elementary, where our daughters attend second grade, make due in much smaller apartments.

We are not low-income. I am a tenure-track professor at Santa Clara University, hired after the university conducted a nationwide search, making a salary that would be enviable in most US metropolitan areas. I want to raise my son and daughters in Santa Clara. Yet I wonder how long we will be able to afford to live here.

To the homeowners and community organizations who oppose this development on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the "neighborhood character," I ask: What kind of "neighborhood character" will we have here when families can't afford to live in the neighborhood? When middle-income families like ours are forced to move out? When teachers, healthcare workers, and professors are replaced by retirees and AirBnBs? I hope this building is just the first of several six to eight story apartment buildings that will make central Santa Clara a future-oriented community for young families, with a dense walkable downtown and thriving retail.
yours,
Eric Mosinger
--
Eric S. Mosinger (he / him / his)
Assistant Professor
Political Science Department Santa Clara University

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentAugust 22, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
August 22, 2023