November 6, 2024
Cit
y of Santa Clara Planning Commission
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
ELECTRONIC TRANSMITTAL via [email protected]
Hon
orable Chair Saleme, Vice Chair Bouza, Secretary Crutchlow, Commissioner Biagini, Commissioner Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, and Commissioner Bhatnagar, To
night, Kylli is proud to present for your consideration the Mission Point development proposal.
This proposal represents seven years of collaboration, where we continuously integrated community and stakeholder input into the Mission Point vision. This feedback has been invaluable in helping to shape the direction of the project, which has evolved positively since its initial conception. Through the years, the overall vision has remained consistent: to transform a single- use property into a vibrant, transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood that will stand the test of time.
Th
e robust community benefits package addresses many of the critical issues we have heard about over the years, including:
• De
eper level of housing affordability valued at up to $46.3M (Option A) to up to $66.8M (Option B)
• Publicly accessible park maintenance valued at approximately $10.6M • Arts and cultural programming valued at $5M
• Contributions towards fire apparatus at $3.5M and supplemental roadway improvements valued at $3M
• Childcare valued at approximately $1M
• A grocer valued at approximately $6M
• and construction materials and use taxes estimated at approximately $10M Ky
lli’s offices are right here in Santa Clara. We are enthusiastic about the opportunity to further complement the vision for Santa Clara North with Mission Point.
Tha
nk you, Santa Clara, for all of the dialogue over the years. Mission Point is a better project because of it. We know Mission Point will be a new neighborhood that Santa Clarans will be proud to call home. We truly appreciate the time and consideration on this exciting opportunity.
Warml
y,
Ou Sun
Ms. Ou Sun
CEO
Kylii, Inc
From: Lesley Xavier
To: Jason Silva
Subject: FW: Support Family-Friendly homes being built
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:31:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Here is a PMM for the Kylli project for Wednesday PC
Lesley
Lesley Xavier | Planning Manager
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2484 | email: [email protected]
www.SantaClaraCA.gov
From: Savita Nataraj
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:53 PM
To: Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Subject:
Support Family-Friendly homes being built
Planning Staff Lesley Xavier,
I hear of more and more young people who are choosing to go child free or wait even longer to have children. But this type of family-friendly community & housing space project would definitely help build an environment more encouraging for children and all families.
And so, I support Kylli's Mission Point project in Santa Clara.
It is a visionary redevelopment plan that aims to transform an underutilized site, currently occupied by outdated office buildings and excessive parking areas, into a vibrant mixed-use community.
Specifically, the project includes:
Sustainable Urban design: The project transforms underutilized parking lots into 1,800 new homes near public transit options, promoting increased walkability and reducing car dependency by 25%
Environmental Sustainability: With underground parking and enhanced connectivity to the Patrick Henry Specific Plan area and existing bike trails, Mission Point prioritizes pedestrian and cycling infrastructure over vehicle use. The project also aims for LEED certifications,
reflecting high environmental standards. Moreover, the project will be landscaped with drought resistant plants and greenery to promote environmental and mental wellness. Enhanced Community benefits: Kylli's Mission Point proposes over seven acres of publicly accessible park space, turning a largely impervious site into a green, vibrant hub with opportunities for community to gather. Moreover, Mission Point will connect existing trails, promoting physical wellness and outdoor activities. The proposal also includes a child care facility with designated outdoor green space for the children to safely play outside. Please move this project forward without delay!
Sincerely,
Savita N.
Savita Nataraj
5055 Dent Avenue, 18
San Jose, California 95118
RE: 24-122MissionPoint
TotheSantaClaraCityPlanningCommission:
SouthBayYIMBYisagroupof neighborscommittedtoplentiful, inclusive, andaffordablehousinginSantaClaraCounty. Weadvocatefor aSouthBaythat leadsthecountryinbuildingnewhomesandlivesuptoCaliforniavalues, onewhereresidentsareabletowalk, bike, andtaketransit toworkandenjoythedignityof stablehousing.
Weareproudtosupport theMissionPoint development proposedat 3005DemocracyWay. Thedevelopment wouldbring1,800much-neededsustainablenewhomestoSantaClarathat arewell connectedtoexistingtransit, bike, andpedestriannetworks, redevelopingtheunderutilizedlot tobetter serveour community.
MissionPoint seekstoreplaceagingparkinglotswithavibrant communitythat placeshomesnear jobsandjobsnear homes. Itswalkable, sustainableurbandesign, whichincorporates100,000sf of communityretail and10,000sf of childcarefacilities, will alsoprovidevaluableamenities. ConnectionstothePatrickHenryDriveSpecificPlanandexistingbikeandtrailnetworkswill allowfor safeaccesstooutdoor activitiesandpromotephysical wellness.
Theproject isnear theSanTomasAquinoCreekTrail, whichconnectstomanyof thecity’smajor employers. Inadditiontoplacingmorehomesnear existingtransit connectionsanditswalkabledesign, thedevelopment will promotebikingandwalkability, reducingcar dependencyandincreasingaccesstolocal services.
Thisproposal alsoincludes7acresof neighborhoodparksandopenspace, turningtheexistingpavedlot intoavibrant greenspacefor not just thenewhomes, but thewholeof SantaClara.Withdrought resistant plantsandlandscaping, theproject will further promoteenvironmentalsustainability. ConnectionswithPatrickHenryDriveSpecificPlanopenspaceswill meanthesenewhomeswill bewell servedbyahealthyandgreencommunity.
SouthBayYIMBYsupportstheMissionPoint proposal toaddnewhomestocombat ourhousingcrisisandtorenewunderutilizedareasof our communitywithsustainable, affordable,andwell connectednewdevelopment.
Sincerely,
JasonMorrowOnbehalf of SouthBayYIMBY
CityofSantaClaraPlanningCommission1500WarburtonAvenueSantaClara,CA95050 October22nd,2024
DearChairSaleme,ViceChairBouza,SecretaryCrutchlow, andCommissionersBiagini,Cherukuru,Huang,andBhatnagar, Onbehalfof theSiliconValleyLeadershipGroup,I ampleasedto recommendthePlanningCommission’sapprovalofMissionPointbyKylli.
Asyoumayknow, theSiliconValleyLeadershipGroupwasfoundedin1977byoneofSiliconValley’spioneers,DavidPackard.Today, SVLGservesas the nation’s mosteffectiveanddynamicbusinessassociationrepresentingtheinnovationeconomyanditsecosystem.SVLGrepresentshundredsofcompaniesacrossthebroaderSiliconValleyregion,manyofwhichcallSantaClarahome.
TheSiliconValleyLeadershipGrouphasendorsedMissionPointbyKyllithroughourrigorousprojectreviewprocess.It is a vastimprovementcomparedtobothcurrentsiteconditionsaswellasthepreviouslyapprovedentitlementundera formerowner. Thesiteiscurrently100%impervioussurfaceswithaseaofsurfaceparkingandfouroutdatedcommercialbuildings.Thepreviouslyapprovedplanincluded3 millionsquarefeetofofficespace,butnothingforthecitizensofSantaClara.WeendorsedMissionPointbecauseitfocusesoncommunityfirstbyaddinghousing,community-facingretailandpubliclyaccessibleopenspace.
BecauseKyllitookontheaddedexpenseofbuildingundergroundparking,MissionPointwillbeabletodelivermorethansevenacresof contiguous,publicopengreenspace.Thepublicmulti-usetrailthatrunsthroughMissionpointwillcompletetheplannedtrailsystemintheneighborhood,linkingtheTasmanDrivecorridortothefuturetrailnetwork.TheparkspacealsoconnectstotheparkspaceplannedinthePatrickHenryDrivespecificplan.ThisparkspacewillbeacelebratedamenityforSantaClararesidentsinthispartofthecity.
TheSiliconValleyLeadershipGrouprespectfullyrequestsyoursupportofMissionPoint.
Sincerely,
KristenBrownVicePresident,GovernmentRelationsSiliconValleyLeadershipGroup
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Planning Public Comment
To: Jason Silva
Cc: Lucy Garcia
Subject: PMM Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:59:02 AM
Attachments: 5936-008acp - Mission Point 10-23-24 PC Comments.pdf Save as PMM, thanks.
From: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:56 AM
To: Alisha C. Pember <[email protected]>; Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Rebecca Bustos <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>; Alexander Abbe <[email protected]>; Eric Crutchlow <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <[email protected]>; Nancy Biagini <[email protected]>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected]>; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Thank you, your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.
Regards,
Elizabeth Elliott
Planning Division
From: Alisha C. Pember <[email protected]
>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Andrew Crabtree <[email protected]>; Rebecca Bustos <[email protected]> Cc: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Good morning,
Please find attached Comments re Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068).
We are also providing a Dropbox link containing supporting references:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/sx6kwcm4jc02enpxk4am3/AC8KJjOMuxHJxLtRicknMIc? rlkey=l6pmlkdh85b5sah535ua0h0s9&st=lzqpufub&dl=0
A hard copy of our Comments will go out today via overnight delivery.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Franco.
Thank you.
Alisha Pember
Alisha C. Pember
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 589-1660 voice, Ext. 24
[email protected]
___________________
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
October 23, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
City of Santa Clara Planning
Commission
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Email:
PlanningPublicComment@santaclaraca
.gov
Andrew Crabtree
Director of Community Development
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Rebecca Bustos, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018- 13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018- 01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Dear Planning Commission, Mr. Crabtree and Ms. Bustos:
We are writing on behalf of Silicon Valley Residents for Responsible Development (“Silicon Valley Residents”) to provide comments on the City of Santa Clara (“City”) Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 regarding the Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22- 00635, CEQ2018-01054, SCH No. 2018072068) (“Project”) proposed by Kylli Inc (“Applicant”). The Planning Commission (“Commission”) will consider the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and entitlements including a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceedings on the Project.
1 1 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The Project proposes construction of up to 4.9 million gross square feet (“gsf”) of new development consisting of up to 1,800 residential units, three million gsf of office/R&D space and 100,000 gsf of neighborhood retail.2 The Project also calls for 10,000 gsf of childcare facilities and 3,000 gsf of community space.3 An electrical substation of approximately 18,000 gsf would be constructed to support the Project.4 The Project site is located at 3005 Democracy Way in Santa Clara.
The City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act5 (“CEQA”), prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and FEIR for the Project. Silicon Valley Residents’ comments on the DEIR6 explained how the DEIR failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement to act as an informational document that adequately analyzes and discloses the Project’s significant impacts, and fails to include feasible and enforceable mitigation measures in several impact areas, as required by CEQA. Those comments further explained how the DEIR lacks substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions regarding those impacts.
The City’s FEIR includes responses to Silicon Valley Residents’ comments and purports to address the issues raised. As discussed below, however, the FEIR fails to adequately resolve these issues or to mitigate all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The City may not approve the Project until it revises the DEIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Silicon Valley Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential environmental impacts associated with Project development. Silicon Valley Residents includes Santa Clara residents Adrian Frometa and Todd Mellott, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 393,
2 DEIR, pg. 2-1.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
6 January 2, 2024 letter from Richard M. Franco and Ariana Abedifard to City of Santa Clara re Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068) (“Silicon Valley Residents DEIR Comments”).
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, along with their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County.
Individual members of Silicon Valley Residents and its member organizations live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.
In addition, Silicon Valley Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
II. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE
FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and provide a written response to DEIR comments raising significant environmental issues. 7 Such comments must be
addressed in detail and include good faith reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by facts do not suffice.
8 A lead agency’s failure to adequately respond
to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purposes and renders the EIR legally inadequate. 9 Here, as discussed below, many of the FEIR’s responses to Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments lack any reasoned analysis and include wholly conclusory statements unsupported by any facts. The FEIR is therefore legally inadequate under CEQA and the Commission may not recommend certification of the FEIR or approval of the Project entitlements at this time.
7 14 CCR § 15088(a).
8 14 CCR § 15088(c).
9 Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-17; Rural Landowners Ass’n v. City Council (1883) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”10 As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”11 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”12 III. THE EIR LACKS AN ACCURATE, COMPLETE AND STABLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As explained in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the DEIR does not comply with CEQA because it fails to include an accurate, complete and stable description of the Project, rendering the DEIR’s impact analysis inadequate.13 The FEIR’s response to comments fails to resolve these issues.
It is axiomatic that an EIR must “identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment.”14 An accurate, stable and finite project description is essential to an informative and legally sufficient EIR.15 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be
10 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
11 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.
County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision -makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 12 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 13 See Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 7-9. 14 14 CCR § 15126.2(a).
15 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. City of Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85–89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
assessed.16 The project description is therefore the foundation for the evaluation of a project’s environmental impacts.
Here, though, the City fails to comply with these basic CEQA principles by failing to base its analysis on the Project’s characteristics set forth in the DEIR’s project description. As discussed at length in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, certain of the City’s CEQA analyses use an artificially low estimate of the number of jobs the Project is expected to generate. 17 While the DEIR’s project
description estimates that at full buildout the Project will employ 12,564 people, for purposes of assessing the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance and impacts arising from Project-induced population, housing and employment changes, the DEIR assumes that the Project will only employ 6,667 people. The latter figure is derived from the employee generation rate used in the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 2010. In other words, the City states in the DEIR for this Project that it expects the proposed Project will generate nearly double the number of employees than previously estimated for the Project site using the employee generation rate set forth in the General Plan. Rather than using the actual number of employees the Project is expected to add, the City uses the much lower number to analyze Project impacts, which leads to an unrealistic assessment of the Project’s reasonably foreseeable significant impacts.
Rather than correct the errors pointed out in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the FEIR’s responses to comments attempt to justify the City’s approach.
As discussed below, these responses lack merit and the EIR continues to violate CEQA.
In the FEIR, the City disagrees that the Draft EIR did not clearly or consistently describe the number of employees on the Project site at full build-out or that the approach the City selected and described in the Draft EIR rendered the Project description unstable.
18 The City claims that using a different employment
generation rate than is set forth in the DEIR is permitted by CEQA because (1) CEQA does not direct any specific methodology for employment assumptions, and (2) the DEIR clearly identifies and explains the use and employment generation
16 CEQA Guidelines § 15124; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192–193; see also El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597 (“An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully evaluate the project's potential environmental effects.”) 17 Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 7-14.
18 FEIR, pg. 3-195.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
assumptions in the EIR as well as the purpose of such assumptions.19 According to the FEIR, “the basic components of the Project remained accurate, stable, and finite, and the methodology used to assess the impacts of the Project in the Draft EIR was clearly explained throughout for the public.”20
The City’s response is not only factually incorrect, but its reasoning completely subverts the EIR’s purpose, which is to serve as a vehicle for intelligent public participation in the decision-making process.21 The City’s responses simply ignore the underlying defect: the EIR fails to evaluate the Project’s impacts using the number of employees the Project is actually expect to generate. If the City’s view was correct then a project description would be virtually meaningless as long as it explains why it disregarded the project description. Explaining why the City used a clearly misleading methodology does not cure the defect and appears to be an attempt to categorize the issue as a dispute about methodology in order to seek favorable case law with the courts. And while it is true that CEQA does not provide any specific methodology for employment assumptions, it does require the EIR to “examine the changes to existing environmental conditions that would occur in the affected area if the proposed project were implemented.” 22 Using an employee
generation rate that does not reflect the actual change in employment expected to result from the Project impermissibly skews the analysis in violation of CEQA.
In addition, the City attempts to justify its use of the significantly lower employee generation rate by stating that “the Project requires a General Plan amendment to the existing High-Intensity Office/R&D land use designation…to consolidate the already-allowed office/commercial on a smaller portion of the Project site.”
23 Because of this, “an analysis of consistency with General Plan policies, an overstatement of impacts and/or confusion about consistency (or inconsistency) with the General Plan policies could occur if the City were to use a different employee generation rate than that used by the General Plan itself in the development and analysis of those policies.”
24 This entirely misses the point. The City is required to assess whether actual expected Project impacts are consistent with General Plan policies, not whether the General Plan’s prior assumptions about the Project site are consistent with the General Plan policies. The City’s responses are nonsensical.
19 FEIR, pg. 3-195.
20 FEIR, pg. 3-197.
21 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.3d 185, 197. 22 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. V. County of Merced (2007) 149 CA4th 645.
23 FEIR, pg. p. 3-198.
24 FEIR, pg. p. 3-198.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Indeed, the City’s approach artificially manufactures Project consistency with the City’s General Plan; rather than comparing employment projections for the Project with the General Plan’s estimates, the EIR compares the General Plan’s employment estimates with itself, and of course finds consistency. This directly conflicts with the requirements of CEQA, which requires “[t]he defined project and not some different project [to] be the EIR’s bona fide subject.” 25 The City cites to Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, and City of Santee v. County of San Diego to support its claim that an explanation of its methodology will cure an otherwise defective Project description.26 However, none of these cases stand for the proposition that explaining an inconsistency will cure an otherwise defective Project description. In Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island, the Court upheld the Project description because even though it lacked certain design elements, those elements existed in other documents that would guide future development of the Project.27 Here, the claim is not that the EIR lacks relevant information regarding employment generation, it is that the EIR provided such information and then the City ignored it in its CEQA analyses.
In San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, the Court held that the Project description was inconsistent when it portrayed the Project as having “no increase” in mine production while at the same time allowing for substantial increases above recent historical averages if the Project were approved.28 The Court held that this violated CEQA because it failed to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope and magnitude of the Project.29 Similarly, in City of Santee, the Court held that the EIR did not contain an accurate, stable and finite Project description when it evaluated a prison Project using variable figures to determine the duration of the temporary facility (i.e., from three years to seven years to an indefinite length).
30 The Court reasoned that this could not “adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the Project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences.”
31 25 Western Placer Citizens for an Agriculture & Rural Environment v County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 898.
26 FEIR, pg. 3-197.
27 Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014), 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1053.
28 San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657. 29 San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657. 30 City of Santee (1989), 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1451.
31 City of Santee (1989), 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1455.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Like the holdings in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and City of Santee, the EIR here violates CEQA by using a higher employee generation rate in the Project description and in its analysis of some environmental impacts but uses a lower employee generation rate in its analysis of the Project’s consistency with Santa Clara’s General Plan and impacts on population and housing. This fails to properly apprise the public of the true scope of the Project by ignoring actual expected employment growth which minimizes the Project’s true effects.
The City also attempts to distinguish several cases relied upon in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments.
32 However, those attempts fail because this EIR
suffers from similar deficiencies as in the cited decisions. Specifically, this EIR’s use of an employee generation rate different from the one in the Project description fails to clearly articulate the future housing needs and employment growth at the site, 33 fails to consistently describe the projected employment growth upon project build out,
34 and fails to discuss the future cumulative effects of the Project’s actual projected employment generation rate.35
Accordingly, the City must revise and recirculate the DEIR with analysis properly based on the DEIR’s project description.
IV. THE EIR’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT’S
IMPACTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The DEIR’s flaws relating to the project description have serious implications for the City’s ability to adequately assess the Project’s environmental impacts.
Under CEQA, the City’s analysis is required to include evaluations of whether the Project would cause significant environmental impacts due to conflicts with land use plans and policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. 36 The
City is similarly required to analyze and disclose the Project’s impact on population and housing.
37 The DEIR expressly recognizes that the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance will affect a host of other environmental impacts,
32 FEIR at p. 3-196.
33 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010), 184 Cal. 4 th 70, 82 (finding that the EIR failed to clearly articulate the anticipated future potential at the site). 34 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977), CA 3rd 185, 190 (finding that the EIR failed to consistently describe various elements of the Project). 35 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), 47 Cal. 3 rd 376, 396 (finding that the EIR failed to discuss all potential cumulative effects of the whole Project). 36 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XI.b.
37 Id., XIV.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
including VMT, air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic congestion.38 But because the DEIR relies on an artificially low employment generation rate in its analysis of the Project’s land use impacts associated with the City’s jobs/housing balance, the DEIR’s conclusions that the Project will not have a significant impact with respect to land use and planning and population and housing is unsupported by substantial evidence.
As discussed above, the DEIR used different employee generation rates depending on the environmental impact being analyzed. This inconsistency has profound effects on the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts with respect to Land Use and Planning, and Population and Housing, and in particular the City’s jobs/housing balance. The Project’s impact on the City’s jobs housing balance is calculated from the number of the Project’s new housing units and the number of employees expected to be generated from the Project’s office/commercial/ R&D uses.
Obviously, using an unrealistically low number of expected new jobs from the Project will directly affect this ratio. As explained at length in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments, the Project will worsen the City’s jobs/housing balance when the actual number of expected new employees is considered.39
In the FEIR, “the City acknowledges that the Draft EIR uses the General Plan employment assumptions to compare the Project for land use and planning purposes, including the City’s policies related to the jobs/housing balance…” 40 In other words, the City concedes that in evaluating whether the Project would conflict with the General Plan’s policies regarding jobs/housing balance, it did not consider the actual expected impacts of the Project, but rather “uses the General Plan employment assumptions” to compare the Project to the City’s policies. The City essentially admits that it failed to provide an accurate analysis of the Project’s true impacts, and instead relies on misinformation that undermines the ability to meaningfully assess the Project’s impacts.
Similarly, in assessing the City’s housing needs associated with the Project’s generation of thousands of new employees, the DEIR’s population and housing analysis improperly assumes that the Project will only generate a total of 6,667 office/R&D employees (based on the General Plan employee generation rate), rather than the 12,564 employees set forth in the project description. In assessing housing needs for new Project-generated employees, the DEIR assumes only 544 net new
38 DEIR, pg. 3.1-5.
39 Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 9-12.
40 FEIR, pg. 3-198.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
employees (consisting of neighborhood retail, childcare and multifamily residential employees not accounted for in the General Plan projections). Using this misleading assumption, the City projects that “the Project’s total demand for housing units to support employment would amount to approximately 349 units.” 41 This is calculated based on 544 employees/1.56 workers per household.42
The City’s analysis ignores the fact that the Project is actually expected to generate 12,564 employees, which is 5,897 employees over what was assumed in the General Plan. The Project’s housing demand to support the additional 5,897 employees anticipated from the Project actually amounts to 3,780 units (5,897 employees/1.56 workers per household). This is more than double the 1,800 units the Project is expected to provide at build-out.
Despite detailed comments on the DEIR explaining these errors, the FEIR fails to directly address them or correct the errors. The City simply asserts that, notwithstanding the obvious flaws, its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
43 It points to the definition of ‘substantial evidence’ in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(a), to argue that there is substantial evidence to support the use of the General Plan employee assumption in the comparison of the Project’s consistency with the General Plan land use policies.
44 The City also relies on Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, which states that “a court may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.”45
The City misconstrues the ‘substantial evidence’ standard as a mechanism to excuse the use of incorrect facts in EIR impact analyses. The substantial evidence standard requires “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.” 46 Providing
incorrect information and expecting the public to draw inferences about the Project’s actual impacts, is directly contradictory to one of CEQA’s primary purposes of “identification of a project’s significant environmental effects.”47
41 DEIR, pg. 3.12-10.
42 Id., fn. 32.
43 FEIR, pg. 3-198 and 3-200.
44 FEIR, pg. 3-198.
45 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.
46 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
47 CEQA § 13.2.11.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The City similarly misapplies Laurel Heights in an attempt to justify its use of misleading information about the Project’s impacts. The passage quoted by the City relates to weighing conflicting evidence regarding the significance of a project’s impacts. The issue here is not whether there is conflicting evidence regarding the Project’s impacts. Rather, it is whether the City may use assumptions that do not reflect the described characteristics of the Project when analyzing the Project’s impacts, and CEQA is clear that it may not.
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the EIR for the Project is wholly inadequate and the City must prepare and circulate a revised DEIR that accurately analyzes and discloses the Project’s expected impacts relating to employment assumptions.
V. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE PROJECT’S
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE DISPLACEMENT OF
LEVI’S STADIUM PARKING
As explained in detail in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the Project site currently provides 3,300 parking spaces for events at nearby Levi’s Stadium, which represents approximately 16% of the 21,000 parking spaces “located within a short walking distances of Levi’s Stadium.”
48 The DEIR concedes that the
Project may eliminate some indeterminate number of stadium parking spaces but includes no analysis of the potentially significant impacts associated with the displacement of stadium parking.
49 California courts have recognized that a
project’s impact on vehicle parking is a physical impact that may constitute a significant effect on the environment;50 at a minimum, the “secondary effects of scarce parking on traffic and air quality” is an environmental impact that requires analysis under CEQA.51 Indeed, in the FEIR’s response to Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments, the City concedes that “secondary impacts from the potential for cars to circle in a neighborhood looking for parking can be CEQA impacts and necessary to analyze.”
52 Despite this concession, the FEIR includes no analysis of
48 DEIR, pg. 3.2-3; see also, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadium- authority/experience-levi-s-stadium/levi-s-stadium-information, last accessed on December 26, 2023. 49 DEIR, pg. 3.2-3.
50 Taxpayers for Accountable Sch. Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 215 Cal. App. 4th 1013, 1051 (2013) [“Taxpayers”].
51 San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 697 (2002) [“SFUDP”]; Covina Residents for Responsible Dev. v. City of Covina, 21 Cal. App. 5th 712, 728 (2018) [“Covina”]; Taxpayers, 215 Cal. App. 4th at 1052. 52 FEIR, pg. 3-204.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
these issues. The EIR remains defective because the City has failed to evaluate and disclose any of the impacts associated with the Project’s displacement of Levi Stadium parking, in violation of CEQA.
The DEIR's treatment of parking issues as inconsequential, and the FEIR’s failure to remedy this flaw, ignores the environmental harms that could arise from a reduction in parking availability for stadium patrons. As discussed in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, courts have consistently underscored the importance of considering parking deficits' environmental impacts under CEQA. 53 A
loss of stadium parking due to Project construction and operations is likely to exacerbate traffic congestion and public safety, increase vehicle emissions, affect air quality, and contribute to noise pollution. Indeed, stadium events already routinely cause major traffic jams and road closures affecting areas surrounding the stadium.54 Despite the FEIR’s express recognition that such secondary impacts from parking scarcity may require CEQA analysis, the City declines to even consider, analyze or disclose such impacts. The DEIR must be revised to include an analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the expected reduction of Levi’s Stadium parking.
VI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE
FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT’S
ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires the City to issue several discretionary approvals, including a general plan amendment (“GPA”), a tentative subdivision map, and a development agreement.
55 As an initial matter, each of these entitlements require that the Planning Commission (and ultimately the City Council) find that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.56 As discussed above, the City’s failure to properly analyze the Project’s employment-related impacts precludes a finding that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission may not make the required findings
53 See SFUDP, 102 Cal. App. 4th at 697; Covina, 21 Cal. App. 5th at 728; Taxpayers, 215 Cal. App. 4th at 1052.
54 See e.g., https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-cowboys-game-traffic-jam-17734652.php; https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/santa-clara-wednesday-rolling-stones-concert-traffic- advisory-levis-stadium/ .
55 DEIR, pgs. 2-37–2-38.
56 See City of Santa Clara Agenda Report for October 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Proposed Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment (“Staff Report”), pg. 3 of 5; Santa Clara City Code §17.05.300(h) (Vesting Tentative Tract Map findings); Santa Clara City Code § 17.10.180 (Development Agreement findings).
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and therefore may not recommend Project approval to the City Council.
A project, like this one, that includes a GPA requires that the City make the following findings in order to approve the Project:
A. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest; B. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected;
C. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA); and
D. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
57 The City cannot make these findings because, as discussed above, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and address the Project’s significant impacts, and the FEIR fails to remedy these defects. These failures create inconsistencies with General Plan policies, which also precludes the city from finding that there will be no detrimental effects to public health, safety, and welfare.
Finding B, above, requires that the City determine that the proposed amendment to the General Plan would be consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan. Here, the proposed GPA seeks to change the current Project site designation from High-Intensity Office/R&D to Urban Center Mixed Use. 58 As
discussed above, the FEIR fails to adequately analyze and address the Project’s significant impacts arising from significant employment increases, leading to inconsistencies with the General Land Use and Air Quality policies in the City’s General Plan.59
For example, General Land Use policy 5.3.1-P18 requires the City to “[m]eter net new industrial and commercial development excluding ‘Approved/Not Constructed and Pending Projects’ […] so as not to exceed 2.75 million square feet
57 Staff Report, Proposed Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment, pgs. 2 -4. 58 DEIR, pg. 2-37.
59 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/56139/636619791319700000
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
in Phase I, 5.5 million square feet in Phase II and 5.5 million square feet in Phase III in order to maintain the city’s jobs/housing balance and ensure adequate infrastructure and public services.”
60 This policy underscores the City’s commitment
to maintaining a balanced jobs/housing ratio.
The EIR undermines this goal by using the General Plan’s lower employee generation rate (one employee per 450 square feet of office/R&D uses) rather than the rate used in the Project Description (one employee per 250 square feet of office/R&D uses). This fails to properly disclose the actual effect the Project would have on the City’s jobs/housing ratio. As previously explained, the Project’s actual job creation estimates would nearly double the number of expected employees on the Project site and lead to an increase in the jobs/housing ratio. The EIR also significantly underestimates the number of housing units required to support Project-related employment growth. The EIR greatly underestimates the Project’s actual expected impacts on the City’s needs for housing and expected job growth as compared to what was forecast in the General Plan, and therefore undermines the General Plan policy of maintaining a balanced jobs/housing ratio.
Similarly, General Plan Air Quality Policy 5.10.2-P2 requires the City to “[e]ncourage development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled and air pollution.”
61 This illustrates the City’s goal of lowering VMT and air pollution levels.
The DEIR’s inadequate disclosure and analysis of the Project’s actual impacts directly conflicts with this policy goal. The DEIR recognizes that the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance will affect a host of other environmental impacts, including VMT, air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic. 62 Despite this
recognition, the DEIR fails to consistently use the expected employment figures projected for this Project, which minimizes the Project’s true impacts.
Finding C, above, requires that the City determine that the proposed amendment to the General Plan would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
The City cannot make this finding because it has not adequately addressed the project’s significant impacts. As discussed above, the FEIR fails to adequately
60 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, General Land Use Policy § 5.3.1-P18. 61 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Air Quality Policy § 5.10.2-P2. 62 DEIR, pg. 3.1-12.
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
resolve these issues or to mitigate all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts.
Specifically, the EIR still lacks an accurate, complete, and stable project description; and the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the Project’s environmental impacts (e.g., land use and planning, housing and population, and impacts from displacement of stadium parking) are unsupported by substantial evidence. These unaddressed impacts may be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. As such, the City may not approve the GPA until it revises the DEIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
Similarly, before approving the Project’s proposed development agreement, tentative subdivision map and rezoning, the City must also find that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
63 The City cannot make the findings required to
approve the development agreement, tentative subdivision map or rezoning for the same reasons as stated above.
In short, the EIR’s failure to address the Project’s significant impacts preclude the Planning Commission from making the findings required to recommend approval of the Project. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot recommend certification of the FEIR or approval of the Project entitlements without a revised and recirculated DEIR that accurately analyzes and discloses the Project’s significant environmental effects.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the EIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions
63 Santa Clara City Code § 17.10.180 (“Before the City Council may approve a development agreement with or without modifications, it must find that its provisions are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans and relevant City policies and guidelines for development.”); Santa Clara City Code § 17.05.300(h)(5); Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance Chapter
18.02.050 (“the Council intends that this Zoning Code be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and that any development, land use, or subdivision approved in compliance with this Zoning Code shall also be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.”); Cal. Gov. Code § 65860 (“County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan…A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) the city or county has officially adopted a plan, (2) the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan.”).
October 23, 2024
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review and comment. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project. The City also cannot make the required findings under the City Code.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.
Sincerely,
Richard Franco
RMF:acp
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Planning Public Comment
To: Ali Sapirman; Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier Cc: Lesley Xavier; Corey Smith; Alexander Abbe
Subject: RE: Mission Point Letter of Support
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 4:01:14 PM
Attachments: Misson Point letter of support -4.pdf
image001.png
image003.png
Hello,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.
Thank you,
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450 Direct : 408.615.2474
From: Ali Sapirman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Cc: Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Corey Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Mission Point Letter of Support
Dear Planning Commission & Staff,
Please see the attached letter of support on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager | Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
October23,2024
DearMembersofthePlanningCommission,TheHousingActionCoalitionisamember-supportednonprofitthatadvocatesforcreatingmorehousingforresidentsofallincomelevelstohelpalleviatetheBayAreaandCalifornia’shousingshortage,displacement,andaffordabilitycrisis.WewriteinsupportoftheMissionPointprojectbyKylli,whichweproudlyendorsed.Today,thesiteismadeupoffoursmall,outdatedofficebuildingsandacresofunderutilizedsurfaceparking.Thesitewasalsopreviouslyentitledfor3millionsquarefeetoftechofficespace.Neitherofthesearepublicfacing,nordotheycontainparksorsignificantopengreenspace.However, KyllidesignedMissionPointtobecomeadestinationforresidentsoftheCityofSantaClaraandtheregionbyproposingamixed-usedevelopmentwithmuch-neededhousing,desirableground-floorretail,andmorethansevenacresofpubliclyaccessibleparkspace.MissionPointwillcreateparksandopenspacethatiscurrentlylackinginthispartofSantaClara.TheKylliteamdesignedtheprojecttomakeopenspacethefocalpoint,andmovedtheparkingunderground.Ithasalsobeendesignednottobecontained,butconnectedtothePatrickHenrySpecificPlanarea,aswellastheexistingbiketrailnetwork.Theopenspacewillcontainwalk/biketrailsthroughoutandprovideavaluablelinkbetweentheTasmanDrivecorridorandthefuturetrailnetwork.Thisisavastimprovementfromthesitetoday, whichcontainsalmost100%impervioussurfaces.WerespectfullyaskthatyourecommendtheapprovalofMissionPointwithoutanydelays.
CoreySmith, ExecutiveDirectorHousingActionCoalition(HAC) AliSapirman,Advocacy&PolicyManagerHousingActionCoalition(HAC)
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Planning Public Comment
To: Allie Hughes; Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier Cc: Jennifer Johnson; Seher Awan; Cade Story-Yetto; Marie Keith; Candice Brooks; Alexander Abbe Subject: RE: Letter of Support for Item 2 24-122 on the 10/23/24 Planning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 3:59:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Mission Point Letter of Support - Mission College.pdf
image002.png
Thank you for your email, it has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
| Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450
Direct : 408.615.2474
From:
Allie Hughes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:50 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Cc: Jennifer Johnson <[email protected]>; Seher Awan <[email protected]>; Cade Story-Yetto <[email protected]>; Marie Keith <[email protected]>; Candice Brooks <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support for Item 2 24-122 on the 10/23/24 Planning Commission Agenda Good afternoon,
On behalf of Dr. Awan at Mission College, please see the letter of support for Kylli's Mission Point project (item 2 24-122) attached below.
All my best,
Allie
--
Allie Hughes, MPA
Government Affairs Manager
Canyon Snow C
onsulting, LLC
408-375-0142
[email protected]
www.canyonsnow.com
October 22, 2024
RE: MISSION POINT PROJECT – MISSION COLLEGE LETTER OF SUPPORT
To the Santa Clara Planning Commission,
On behalf of Mission College, I would like to encourage your approval of the Mission Point project before you this evening. This project represents the kind of growth that makes sense for our city – it brings 1,800 much-needed new residences, as well as new community gathering spaces and services to Santa Clara.
Our mission at Mission College is to support the students and employees of Mission College, while creating opportunities for educational attainment, workforce development, career enhancement, and engaging events for our Santa Clara community. With the immediate proximity to amenities for Mission College students and employees, the new residential opportunities, as well as the parks and trails that this brings to the city; Mission Point directly aligns with and will contribute to our mission.
We are hopeful that you will support this project and look forward to the positive impacts of this project on not just our students and campus community, but the Santa Clara Community as a whole. We thank you for your dedication and service. Mission College supports this proposal without reservation, and I am available to provide any additional information via email at [email protected] or phone (323) 362-3477. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Seher Awan, Ed.D., MBA, MPA
President, Mission College
Mission Point does both by laying out a plan for a dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented community.
This project creates more homes and more jobs. Mission Point is exactly what Santa Clara and Silicon Valley need. Please approve this project!
Carlin Black
Aka J’Carlin