Steve Fleet, the senior planner for the City of Santa Clara, opened a developer‑hosted community meeting about a proposed project at 3521 Homestead/Lawrence, saying the presentation would be recorded and that project‑specific comments should be directed to the applicant. "My name is Steve Fleet. I'm the senior planner here with the city of Santa Clara," he told the room.

Jim Sullivan, representing Pulte Homes, said the company is under contract to pursue entitlements for a 5.5‑acre site now occupied by roughly 62,500 square feet of commercial space. Sullivan said the proposal would include 147 for‑sale homes — a mix of four‑story stacked condominium buildings facing Lawrence Expressway and 3‑story townhomes to the east — with two‑car garages and a small retail building. "Pulte Homes is not coming in to try and steal anybody's livelihood," Sullivan said, adding that the project would include the city’s required 15% inclusionary units at the moderate‑income level.

Sullivan described an approximately 5,000‑square‑foot retail pad and a 6,000‑square‑foot private park owned and maintained by the homeowners association rather than the city. He said environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is in process and that the city has hired David J. Powers & Associates as the consultant; the project team hopes to reach the planning commission in early 2026, with a possible groundbreaking in mid‑2026 and opening in 2027, though Sullivan called those dates estimates.

City staff explained the broader planning context to attendees: the state’s eight‑year regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) cycle requires jurisdictions to identify sites for housing and Santa Clara's RHNA share for 2023–2031 was cited in the meeting as 11,632 units. The staff member summarized state enforcement tools, including the so‑called "builder's remedy," as a reason jurisdictions aim to provide opportunities for housing near jobs and transit.

Residents and business owners expressed repeated concerns about losing neighborhood retail that supports elderly residents and the local Asian community. One local resident who said she walks to the plaza asked how the applicant could reduce roughly 60,000 square feet of existing retail to a 5,000‑square‑foot pad and whether the site could accommodate a larger grocery or other essential services. Several commenters described long tenures at the plaza — postal services, clinics and restaurants — and said relocation costs and higher rents would threaten those businesses.

Melissa Poppy, a frequent customer, said the plaza provides essential, culturally specific services and urged officials to "protect the commercial integrity of the [plaza] and consider other alternatives." Online attendee Jeff Houston, who said he lives within walking distance of the site, urged the project to include more affordable housing and to continue community dialogue: "We don't have enough housing in our community. My children can't afford to live here because there is not enough housing."

On traffic, staff noted the state now evaluates vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) rather than traditional level‑of‑service metrics and said the environmental review will include traffic and acoustics studies. The applicant told attendees the project is not proposing a sound wall along Lawrence Expressway and that noise mitigation could be achieved with building materials and window assemblies rather than a barrier.

Sullivan and staff said the retail footprint reflected the property's current general‑plan designation (neighborhood commercial mixed use) and the developer's market preference; Sullivan said the developer initially proposed no commercial space and that city zoning and the property owner’s decision to sell shaped the proposal. Staff and the developer said they would continue to meet with residents and accept written feedback; the project will move through architectural review, a tentative map to the planning commission, and then city council hearings, with public comment opportunities at each stage.

The meeting ended with staff and the applicant collecting contact information for follow‑up and reiterating that environmental, traffic and other studies remain incomplete. No planning commission or council vote occurred at the meeting; formal decision points will occur in subsequent public hearings and CEQA review.

Next steps: project notifications and additional community meetings, an ongoing CEQA review and a scheduled tentative map hearing before the planning commission when studies are complete.