Due to the quick turnaround of press time, The Weekly focused on one key item from last night’s Santa Clara City Council meeting. We offer more in-depth coverage of other items discussed at the city council meeting in the coming days.  

A contentious housing development that uses new state housing exemptions left the Santa Clara City Council and city employees bemoaning the loss of local control.

At its most recent meeting on Aug. 25, the Santa Clara City Council heard an appeal of a housing development on a .61-acre lot located at 858 and 860 Civic Center Dr. and 1526 Alviso St. The four-story development will consist of three buildings — one with eight for-sale townhouses, one with six for-sale townhouses and a duplex with two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) attached.

Two of the for-sale townhouses will be for moderate-income households, which, despite being 120% of area median income (AMI), qualify as “affordable.”

Because the developer meets the city’s 15% below-market-rate housing criteria — augmenting the fractional unit with in-lieu fees — it qualifies for unlimited waivers under state law. Those waivers prevent the city from denying the project if the exemptions from city design standards allow the development to achieve the desired density. 

The developer, Damien Spino, requested four waivers to increase height and reduce setbacks.

The development has two attached parking spots for each townhouse, a guest spot and one unassigned spot for the 750 sq. ft. of commercial space, which will be used as a by-appointment community room. 

Further, state law allows the project to eliminate a requirement that makes the project costly. That concession reduced the required commercial space from 2,665 sq. ft.

The project ruffled some feathers, with public commenters complaining that the buildings, two stories taller than the homes in the area, will be too close, blocking out the sun and invading their privacy. Others complained that the on-site parking would be insufficient to accommodate residents’ guests.

“It seems like the city never considers the residents that already live there,” said Chester Chen, a neighbor to the project.

The appellant, Michael Fisher, had previously tried to develop his property adjacent to the development. He lambasted city employees, who he accused of stonewalling his project in 2017 because his home was treated as a historic property despite being absent from the registry. 

The way city employees treated him — both as an applicant and an appellant — he said, was “abhorrent,” “horrible,” and like a “guinea pig,” adding that the public meeting process “shocked and disgusted” him.

He called the situation “bonkers,” accusing the city employees of giving the developer preferential treatment while he paid more than $250,000 in “city satisfaction dollars.”

“Nobody seems to give a damn,” he said. “I smell a rat.” 

Kurt Anderson, the developer’s architect, told the council that the project went through seven revisions, adding that city employees “held our feet to the grindstone.” When asked about why the design called for a community room as its commercial space, he called the location a “crappy place for commercial.”

Council Member Kevin Park spoke at length, calling the state law “a very bad use of a very big stick,” adding “at some point, we need to make a stand.”

“Legally required or not, the city needs to consider the welfare of its residents,” he said. “When the legal requirement goes against people’s welfare, then the legal requirement is not a good requirement. Legal does not mean good. Good does not mean legal.”

The only grounds for the council to deny the project would be if the project posed a significant health and safety hazard.

Cheryl Fisher, Michael’s wife, told the council that it likely has more discretion than it thinks. Building the project is “like putting a square peg in a round hole,” she said. 

“Do not be bullied by someone saying, ‘Oh, the state says that, and we have no discretion,’” she said. “Are you going to sit there and spin your wheels forever and ever and ever and get nothing accomplished because we are afraid of this state thing that hasn’t even been tested in the courts yet? Maybe it needs to.”

The recommendation from city employees was to deny the appeal. With Council Member Kelly Cox absent and Mayor Lisa Gillmor recusing herself, the council only had five voting members. Since Council Member Raj Chahal opposed and Park abstained, the motion failed to get the four votes needed to pass. 

However, because the development was not originally slated to come to the council, the city employees’ decision to deny the appeal stood, allowing the project to move forward despite the council’s defeat of the motion.  

Santa Clara City Council Consent Calendar Spending

The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar:

• A $16.69 million amendment to an agreement with Impec Group, Inc. for janitorial services.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 15 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.

Members of the public can participate in the city council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov

Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com 

Previous Santa Clara City Council Meetings:
Santa Clara Residents May no Longer Have to pay for City ADA Upgrades
Interim Supportive Housing Development in Santa Clara to Assist Families 
Lack of Consensus Kills Comprehensive Santa Clara Charter Update
Santa Clara’s Electric Utility Connectivity Increases