Agrihood Changes Approved Despite Planning Commission, City Employee Opposition

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. Despite recommendations from city employees and the planning commission, the Santa Clara City Council opted to move forward with approval of changes to the Agrihood project. At its Nov. 10 meeting, the council considered whether to change the project, located at 1816 Worthington Circle, from the proposed 160 apartments to 44 for-sale townhouses. Both city employees and the planning commission recommended that the council deny the proposal, but City Attorney Glen Googins and City Manager Jovan Grogan both told the council the decision was a “discretionary action.” SPONSORED The request, Grogan said, was really about whether the city council wanted to allow a reduction in density to allow a less dense project or whether it wants to maintain the original 2019 entitlement. “There are certain market conditions that have changed that make high-rise, multi-family less viable at this time,” Grogan said. “What a willing buyer and a willing developer and a bank that will finance for a specific return on their investment with a customer at the end of the line doesn’t always match what somebody dreamed up 10 years ago.” While the loss of several housing units is less than ideal, Grogan said the city has a buffer for its state-mandated housing number, known as regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). Six of the townhouses will be below market rate, Afshan Hamid, the city’s community development director, told the council. Council Member Kevin Park said he disliked increasing a development’s footprint while decreasing its density. “I am still trying to understand how we have a developer who is asking for less density when everyone else is asking for increased densities,” he said. Chris Neale, president Core Companies, said his company has “delivered a lot” to the city, adding that there has been “deep support” for the project. Vince Cantore, senior vice president at Core Companies, said that every site has its limits. He cautioned the council, saying the city cannot let “perfection be the enemy of good.” A slide presented to the council claimed the project as previously proposed would cost $120 million with only a $90 million value. The previously proposed project would be a “magnet for blight,” Cantore said. “It is either moving forward with available townhomes or an empty lot for the foreseeable future,” he said. “We are not asking you to approve less housing, we are asking to approve housing that actually has a realistic chance of being built.” Public commenters, many of whom were labor union advocates, were largely supportive of the project. Linda Leca supported the change, saying the downgrade in units would help alleviate traffic concerns in the area. “Santa Clara deserves and needs more home ownership,” she said. “This would allow people to be able to plant strong roots in Santa Clara instead of having to move out.” Hieu Nguyen, an Agrihood resident, echoed Leca’s sentiments about establishing roots. “A development that only exists on paper doesn’t provide housing to anyone, and I hope that we can find a realistic path toward construction,” he said. Still, not everyone favored the project’s change. Kirk Vartan, arguably the project’s godfather, having advocated for it for more than 20 years, wanted the city to hold Core Companies more accountable for floundering on what it promised. He called for the council to dismiss the proposal “with prejudice” to prevent the developer from submitting the same proposal the next day. Vartan zeroed in on the project’s proposed rezoning. “Markets change. A rezone is forever,” he said. “If this building can’t be built today, the answer is time or a builder who will or a better project, not a smaller promise. If you approve this, every developer learns this lesson: Santa Clara’s agreements are opening offers.” Still, despite opposition and a recommendation for denial, the council still saw fit to give the amended project the go-ahead, kicking it back to the city manager’s office. The item will return as a consent calendar item to be voted on without discussion amid a slew of other routine items, Grogan said. Park was the lone abstention from the vote, saying it was “difficult to move forward with a new project when the project that is here now isn’t viable.” Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Kelly Cox were absent. Santa Clara Consent Calendar Spending The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar: A 10-year, $3.79 million agreement with cQuant.io, Inc. for software-as-a-service generation resource modeling software solution. A $1.33 million increase to an agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for tree pruning, tree removal, stump grinding, and emergency tree services. An increase to agreements with Archer Energy Solutions, Compunnel Software Group, Dataman USA; Global Solutions Group, Inc., Infojini, Inc., LookingPoint, Inc., Synkriom, Inc., V-Soft Consulting Group, Inc., and ZDAAS, for specialized information technology support. The total across all agreements is now $5 million. A $847, 496 purchase order with Anixter Inc. for “various materials and equipment” for the Northern Receiving Station and Kifer Receiving Station 115 kV transmission line. A $146,315 contract with Graham Contractors, Inc. for asphalt replacement Project at Levi’s Stadium. Three five-year agreements totaling $7.5 million with HKS Architects, Inc., Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. and Populous Design Build, Inc. for architectural services and engineering at Levi’s Stadium. The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 17 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 [email protected] Contact David Alexander at [email protected]