Developer outlines six‑story 22 Washington project in Santa Clara; neighbors press parking, traffic and annexation questions

Steve Lee, senior planner for the City of Santa Clara, opened a community meeting for a proposed mixed‑use development at the corner of Newhall Street and Washington Street, telling attendees, “This is the first community meeting. Project's in the early stage.”

Developers presented a six‑story building called 22 Washington that would contain roughly 194,000 gross square feet, about 124 residential units (a mix of studios through three‑bedrooms) and ground‑floor commercial space. Chris Sanders of ARP Architects, representing Capital Partners (the developer), said the design has two levels of podium parking beneath four levels of units, a private center courtyard, roughly 13,000 square feet of open/amenity areas, and about 2,900 square feet of interior amenity space. Sanders said the project footprint is about 1.24 acres and the team expects an average unit size near 800 square feet.

Why it matters: neighbors who live in streets behind the site said existing parking on nearby narrow residential streets is already constrained and warned that overflow parking and traffic cut‑throughs from Washington and Newhall to Park Avenue could endanger children and destabilize adjacent blocks. The developer and city staff said off‑site improvements would be studied and could be required as conditions of approval.

Key project details and developer commitments - Units and size: Sanders said the project would propose about 124 rental units; the team said sales vs. rental status and exact rents were “not specified” at this stage. - Affordability: Sanders said the proposal would include 15–20% affordable units, determined by area AMI levels. - Parking: The team said all required parking would be provided on site. Sanders and other project staff said the project currently meets code parking requirements (cited as roughly 1.5 spaces per unit for residential under current guidance) and will use “puzzle stacker” (mechanical) systems for some resident stalls to increase capacity. The team also said nearly all stalls would be EV‑ready; “100% of our stalls are EV ready or EV,” Sanders said. - Bike parking: The applicant said it will provide both short‑term and long‑term bike parking and that the overall bike capacity will exceed current city requirements. - Streetscape and utilities: The project team said sidewalks along Washington would be widened (to about 10 feet where currently narrower), noted existing mature trees they plan to retain for screening, and described a utility annexation process to move a parcel from San Jose to Santa Clara to connect utilities from the Santa Clara side. The team said utility upsizing or hydraulic studies will be performed as part of project engineering.

Process, timing and environmental review Steve Lee and the project team described the approvals process: project plan check and staff reviews, an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), planning commission review and a city council hearing. The team said the city’s third‑party traffic consultant is completing a traffic analysis; any off‑site mitigation recommended by that study could become conditions of approval. The developer estimated that, if approvals proceed, building permits and construction could extend into the mid‑to‑late 2020s; the team projected a construction timeline that could put occupancy around 2028.

Community concerns raised Residents focused most of their remarks on parking, traffic, neighborhood scale and how the project overlooks single‑family yards at the rear: - Parking overflow and street safety: multiple residents said narrow local streets (Redbush Terrace, Sunny Vista and others named in comments) are already congested and worry additional residents and visitors will park in nearby neighborhoods. One resident said, “It's getting to be a little nerve wracking,” as cars currently park along neighborhood streets. - Traffic cut‑throughs and pedestrian safety: neighbors described existing cut‑through traffic from major arterials into residential streets during peak hours and asked whether the development could worsen speeding and unsafe conditions for children walking to school. - Building height and privacy: nearby residents asked the team to reconsider unit terraces and decks that would face single‑family backyards; the team said it is retaining mature trees and will design landscaping and fencing to reduce direct sightlines. - Community outreach and presentation clarity: several online and in‑person participants—including Rosemary and Mark Kelsey—asked for slower, clearer presentations and additional community meetings; the developer said more meetings are planned and that comments submitted would be answered.

Responses from the project team and city staff - Parking and parking mandates: project staff acknowledged recent state law changes affecting local parking minimums and said they had nonetheless designed to meet or exceed local expectations; the team said it will evaluate feasibility of additional parking levels if required by code or conditions, but noted cost and constructability constraints for subterranean parking. - Traffic mitigation and off‑site improvements: the team said the traffic consultant will quantify net new trips and recommend mitigation; those measures could include off‑site improvements or traffic controls and would be negotiated with the city during review. - Annexation and utilities: the developer said they have discussed annexation with both the City of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose and that LATCO (the local property‑line/land authority) favored consolidating the parcel into Santa Clara for clarity of utilities; the team said all utilities would be provided from the Santa Clara side and that detailed utility studies will define whether pipes or services must be upsized.

What remains unresolved Many questions remain open or “not specified” at this stage: exact unit rents, whether units would be marketed to Santa Clara University students, final parking stall counts per unit, and whether adjacent commercial parcels might be added to a larger master plan. Residents asked the city for stronger outreach and for the traffic analysis and full presentation materials to be posted online; the project team said the presentation and recording would be uploaded after the meeting and that follow‑up engagement is planned.

Next steps Steve Lee said the project will proceed through plan check and CEQA review; the team expects additional public meetings and staff responses to the written comments submitted at this meeting. The traffic consultant’s report and the city’s plan‑check rounds will inform any required off‑site improvements or conditions of approval before planning and council hearings.