Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tasman East Specific Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves limited Tasman East amendment; council members press for more parkland
Summary
The City Council approved an amendment to the Tasman East specific plan to fund a targeted transportation analysis including on-street parking, a Lick Mill extension review and consideration of additional units; council members and public pressed staff to pursue more parkland after delays to Related’s project and a 9-acre foreclosure.
The Santa Clara City Council on Tuesday approved Amendment No. 6 to the Tasman East specific plan to fund a narrow transportation-focused analysis, even as several council members pressed staff to expand the scope to address parkland and open-space shortages in the rapidly developing Tasman East area.
The action: Council member Albert Gonzales moved approval of the limited amendment; Vice Mayor Kelly Cox seconded. The motion passed 5–1 of those present. The amendment authorizes a scope of work limited to a three-part transportation study: adding on-street parking on Cayo De Mundo, analyzing a potential Lick Mill extension that would tie Tasman East to the north, and modeling the impact of additional housing units in the plan. Staff said the transportation study will be followed by an environmental analysis and a later policy decision on whether to add units.
Why it matters: Council members said changes since the original 2018 specific plan — including project delays for the Related Santa Clara site and a recent foreclosure affecting roughly 9 acres — create urgency to review how parkland, open space and immediate amenities will serve thousands of new residents in the district.
Council debate and staff response Council Member Maitri Jain (who pulled the item) said Tasman East’s planning assumptions have shifted: the original specific plan was approved in 2018 and amended in 2019; the council later included additional units as part of the city’s housing element and RHNA strategy. Jain described an earlier concept of ‘‘100 units per acre’’ on about 45 acres and pressed staff to study whether some of the area — especially the recently foreclosed 9 acres — could realistically be used as parkland rather than high‑density housing.
City staff told the council the amendment currently before them is ‘‘very limited’’ by design and focused on transportation; it does not preclude later consideration of parks. The planning director told council the specific plan and its environmental impact report previously quantified park obligations and that the amendment may add roughly 1 acre of new parkland and explore creative solutions such as rooftop parks or other design approaches.
Public comments and next steps Members of the public and multiple council members urged staff to prioritize near‑term, usable open space rather than only circulation changes. The city manager told the council the work on the Tasman East amendment will continue, and the full policy decision — including whether to move the 1,500 units identified in the housing element to another site — will return to council after the transportation and environmental analysis is complete (staff estimated that work would arrive for council consideration in 2026).
