The Santa Clara Station Area Task Force on Feb. 20 reviewed three draft development alternatives for the area around the future Santa Clara transit station and directed consultants to refine the concepts before a community workshop in spring 2025.

Consultants presented a VTA-playbook-based alternative, a residential-priority alternative and a strategic-growth-mix alternative that prioritizes a combination of office, light industrial/innovation uses and limited new residential. Consultants said the three options were intended to test trade-offs in height, land use mix, open space and phasing before seeking community input.

Diksha (consultant) said the task force’s starting point was the project vision: “This station area will be a vibrant transit oriented district that leverages regional transit to build a thriving, walkable, accessible community grounded in equity.” The team then displayed massing, street reconnections, three pedestrian crossings across the rail corridor and an open-space network.

Why it matters: the choices will affect how much housing and office space the district can accommodate, how the historic depot and views to the East Hills are treated, and whether long-term industrial employers or retailers such as Costco remain. The alternatives vary markedly in scale: the VTA-playbook scenario shows the highest theoretical capacity; the residential-priority scenario concentrates housing closer to the station; and the strategic-growth mix assumes some large existing uses remain and focuses new growth in targeted nodes.

Key technical figures presented

- VTA playbook allowed heights cited in the presentation: Zone 1 residential 8–15 stories and office 6–11 stories; Zone 2 residential up to 8 stories and office up to 6 stories.
- Consultants estimated the VTA-playbook alternative would yield about 11,500 residential units; the residential-priority alternative about 9,000 units; and the strategic-growth-mix about 5,400 units (not including a project currently under city review). The consultants used an average unit size of about 900 square feet to convert floor area to unit counts.
- A rough general-plan calculation cited by consultants suggested a district of this size would yield roughly 30–32 acres of open space; the alternatives shown included about 15.3 acres of public park/open-space in the most park‑heavy scheme.
- Consultants described a short‑term/long‑term redevelopment cutoff of roughly 15–20 years for higher-risk redevelopment parcels.

Market realism and building form

Consultants and task force members debated market feasibility for the tallest buildings. Jim (consultant) and other presenters said the region’s current market and construction cost environment favors 5–7 story wood-over-podium buildings — a common local precedent — rather than widespread 15‑story residential towers. As Jim summarized: taller residential towers “would be a very tough case to make” in the near term, though a few taller buildings could occur over time.

Task force members and public table reports pushed back in places. One breakout spokesperson argued for maximizing heights north of El Camino Real and reserving taller envelopes to capture future market opportunities, noting that some developers have said high‑rise projects can pencil if fees or inclusionary requirements are reduced. Another breakout favored a stepped approach with the highest buildings near the station and lower heights abutting single‑family neighborhoods.

Historic depot, views and public realm

Several members asked how new massing would respect the city’s historic depot and preserve views of the East Hills. Consultants said the depot area requires place‑specific attention and suggested stepping building heights and carving public space to preserve sightlines and create a welcoming station plaza. Participants repeatedly urged that massing near the depot step down to avoid a “wall” that would block views and overshadow historic resources.

Open space and Costco

The alternatives took different approaches to parks and to large, existing uses such as the Costco site. The most park‑heavy scheme proposed a roughly 15.3‑acre park network and several park blocks; the strategic-growth-mix left Costco in place and showed a smaller set of parks and more limited residential capacity. Breakout groups disagreed on whether to prioritize a single large linear park or multiple smaller, distributed parks; one group favored breaking the open space into smaller plazas to create more proximate, walkable parks.

Innovation/industrial district and retail

Consultants proposed an “Innovation District” near the airport and existing light-industrial area that would retain industrial activity while allowing compatible additional uses such as research-and-development, small manufacturers, indoor recreation and entertainment venues. Task force members discussed allowing a broader mix of uses (brewpubs, food halls, performance venues) to activate the district while trying to retain viable industrial tenants.

Transportation and coordination

Presenters said several infrastructure items would require interagency coordination: the proposed pedestrian/bicycle crossings and an overpass would need BART input (the maintenance yard raised security questions), while the Coleman‑Dela Cruz intersection and the Benton‑Brokaw underpass are under city jurisdiction and will be coordinated with city departments. Consultants said they had met with BART and would follow up on the viability of a bridge over the maintenance facility.

Grants and next steps

Staff reported the city’s recent Reconnecting Communities grant application to DOT was not funded; staff said the city will do a post‑mortem with DOT and consider reapplying. Consultants said their plan is to refine the three alternatives based on task force feedback, keep a similar range of options for public comparison, and return with refined diagrams and illustrative imagery for a community workshop anticipated in April or May 2025, then recommend a preferred development alternative.

Formal actions

The task force approved the consent calendar, including minutes of Nov. 21, 2024. The meeting record shows the consent motion passed unanimously with one absence. The meeting adjourned by motion at 8:21 p.m.

What’s next

Consultants will revise the three concept alternatives to reflect tonight’s feedback (massing and heights near the depot, park size and distribution, the innovation district mix, and where to allow higher office versus residential), coordinate further with BART and city departments on crossings and intersections, and bring materials back to the task force ahead of a community workshop in spring 2025.

Speakers quoted and referenced in this story include: Diksha (consultant); Jim (consultant); Rob (staff member); Sean (staff member and BART community‑working‑group participant); and task force members listed on the record as Member Collins, Member Evans, Member Ganesh, Member Hashimoto, Member Huff, Member Lung, Member Mayer, Member Andrasik, Member Plain and Member Stockwell.