Concerned Santa Clara

Last night the City Council voted to set up a special meeting to discuss the 900 Kiely project (Fairfield Residential’s Gallery at Central Park / old Kaiser Hospital)  on 16 June 2009, at 7:00 p.m. (Tuesday).

This should be a special meeting dedicated to this project and, again, we should be the first and only item on the agenda.  We have been told that the developer is not happy with the Planning Commission recommendations and has been lobbying council members personally.  We have offered to discuss the project with the developer many times, so it is a little disappointing — still — that they continue to ignore the people and try to work back-room deals instead.

We hope you can all make it one more time:

Tuesday, 16 June 2009, 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Av
Santa Clara

Should you wish to write the Santa Clara Council and express your views, you may send e-mail to

mayorandcouncil@ci.santa-clara.ca.us

No Comments »

The Planning Commission found a number of problems with both the EIR and the project plan itself for the 900 Kiely project, or Fairfield Residential’s Gallery at Central Park.  They felt by and large that Fairfield Residential’s plan to build over 800 units at the old Kaiser hospital site was too much for the area, which residents noted was not along major arteries and comprised mostly single lane streets that lead into cul-de-sacs and residential loops.

There were three things up for approval tonight:

1. Recommendation that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 900 Kiely project.
   Planning Commission vote: Deny (7 to 0)
2. Recommendation that the City Council approve Rezoning request and Development Agreement to support the project.
   Planning Commission vote: Deny (7 to 0)
3. Recommendation that the City Council approve Master Community Plan and Development Area Plan for the 900 Kiely project.
   Planning Commission vote: Deny (7 to 0)

Congratulations, all!

We would like to thank each and every person who supported the neighborhood for your help.  Our work isn’t done yet — the project still needs to go in front of the City Council, [Edit: the City Council date has been set for 16 June 2009, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers] but having the Planning Commission recommend denial by a margin of 7 to 0 for each of the project items is a big win for residents.

After the meeting concluded, we extended an offer to Fairfield Residential to discuss the project with residents — as we always have.

There will be more updates as time goes on, but we just wanted people to know what we waited over eight hours over two days to find out.

No Comments »

The Planning Commission will continue to hear neighbor testimony begun on 22 April concerning the 900 Kiely Project, a.k.a. Fairfield Residential’s Gallery at Central Park, which proposes the construction of over 800 high-density housing units on the old Kaiser Permanente Hospital site at the corner of Kiely Blvd and Kaiser Road.  This would put an additional 2% of the City of Santa Clara at your doorstep with no additional schools, traffic mitigation fees, retail stores or other public services.  This topic is first on the agenda, so please arrive by 7:00 p.m.  Each resident will have 3 minutes to express concerns; if you are not comfortable with talking, just be present to be counted in support of efforts to scale this project down.

Wednesday, 13 May 2009, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Av
Santa Clara, CA

Last time, city staff scheduled two big items on the same night, and the 900 Kiely project discussions didn’t even start until well past 9:30 p.m.  We were told that this project would be the only project on the agenda on 13 May, and the staff and applicant (Fairfield Residential) have already presented their side, so the meeting should start almost immediately with input from neighbors.

Thank you.

No Comments »

The 900 Kiely Project, a.k.a. Fairfield Residential’s Gallery at Central Park, proposes the construction of over 800 housing units on the old Kaiser-Permanente Hospital site at the corner of Kiely Blvd and Kaiser Road.  This would put an additional 2% of the City of Santa Clara at your doorstep with no additional schools, traffic mitigation fees, retail stores or other public services.  The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project will be discussed at:

Santa Clara Planning Commission
7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 April 2009
located at City Council Chambers:
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California  95050

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 900 Kiely property is available here:

http://santaclaraca.gov/city_gov/gallery-FEIR.html

The 900 Kiely Project:

• doubles the number of daily car trips, mostly along Kiely, to over 10,000
• doubles the number of people in the area (2,000), within one-fifth of the space
• assumes the benefits of  being a transit district, without actually having the transit infrastructure — the largest street along this project is Kiely Blvd, and it is only two lanes in each direction, with only two bus routes
• does not add any retail space or public services — the additional 2000 people will share the existing schools, library, grocery stores, post office and roads
• eliminates much street parking for city-wide Central Park events
• ignores the current mixed zoning for parks and institutional use in favor of 100% high-density housing
• does not add any public open space — any green areas are owned by and solely for Fairfield Residential and come about due to mandatory set-backs

After a verbal agreement that the city would give the residents 20 days to review the Final EIR, we were told almost at the last minute that the EIR would be available exactly 10 calendar days (the minimum legal requirement) — including weekend days, and during Easter to boot — before the Planning Commission meeting on 22 April.  The noticing for the project was done a mere three days before the release of the EIR.

To put that in perspective, they gave us 10 days to go over more than 1300 pages of paperwork.  The planning commissioners had better be equally prepared; they had better be convincing that they know what they are approving.

No Comments »

We were deeply disappointed to see the response from a contingent of real estate brokers and former politicians who stand to gain substantially from the 900 Kiely project.  We have been to every one of the few opportunities to meet with the city and the developer concerning this project and never once saw these people in attendance, so we cannot understand any reason for their involvement at this time other than financial — or other — gain.

They claim, among other things, that the residents were given ample opportunity to meet with the city and the developer. They claim that more people will be good for the area.  They say that this project will bring jobs and revitalize the area.  They don’t tell you that they own or have stake in a large percentage of the businesses in this area and work in real estate selling the types of housing proposed for construction.

The developer Fairfield Residential made it clear at each of the handful of meetings we had — largely initiated by residents — that the only topics they would allow concerned look-and-feel; residents can clearly recall Fairfield Residential executive Ed McCoy’s direct refusal to discuss density or its effects on the neighborhood.  The city’s involvement was even smaller: after many requests, they scheduled a single meeting at which city staff controlled discussions — since then, it has refused to meet at all. We even have a letter from the city manager discouraging discussions between residents and city officers.  The brokers that put together the response clearly did not try to verify their information, which puts their other “facts” in doubt and makes it clear they do not represent residential concerns.  They don’t appear to have actually studied the EIR, and they didn’t get background on the concerns.  It is arrogant to assume you have solutions to problems you neither know about nor understand.

The current problems have nothing to do with the site’s past use as a hospital: they exist today, even with the hospital closed.  Anyone who commutes, or uses the post office or library, or has to stand in line for services knows about these problems.  Explain how the addition of ~2000 people and ~1700 cars, without any additional services or businesses, could possibly make this situation better. The additional 5000 car trips PER DAY will be forced down Kaiser Drive, which is one lane in each direction, and then down Kiely, which is only two lanes in each direction. Otherwise drivers will be funneled down single lane residential roads, like Live Oak and Pepper Tree Lane.  If this isn’t a problem, why is the concern amplified by every agency that responded to the EIR, including the County, CHP, and neighboring cities?

900 Kiely is not zoned just for high-density housing: it has three possible uses, perhaps with the thought that mixed-use would ease problems housing-only projects would cause.  Again, the possible uses are Parks and Recreation AND/OR Institutional (like the previous hospital use) AND/OR Residential Housing. That Fairfield Residential went 100% high-density housing is no surprise given the economics of housing over park space, or even institutional uses that would provide jobs, but for people to state that this is the best use for the area is irresponsible. Support coming so strongly from real estate brokers and politicians also raises the question of who gets dibs on selling the houses once they get built.  Who, do you think?

This pure-housing development will not provide long-term jobs, while substantially drawing from local resources.  Any business owner that touts the benefits of additional customers without considering the other effects on the neighborhood is not doing the community any favors.

It’s disappointing that local coverage didn’t balance its reporting of this project by talking to residents more.  Instead, we got several opinionated stories by someone who hadn’t spoken to residents, and a single story in response, written by someone who lives in another city who talked to a handful of residents because the writer of the previous stories wouldn’t touch it.

We are not against ALL construction here.  We are concerned about this particular proposal and the huge effects it will have on the area.  If Fairfield Residential opened their discussions to alternatives, like trading some housing for other viable uses, we would be open as well. The EIR even states that this would be the best proposal.  At least get that part right.

We also seem to forget that a single company is behind the three largest projects in our area: Kaiser Permanente.  Besides the new hospital itself, which draws complaints regularly from both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale residents, Kaiser Permanente is responsible for the sale of the land that allowed both the 900 Kiely project and Marina Playa, on the exit ramp from Lawrence onto El Camino.  Hospitals provide valuable service, and we all appreciate that, but when their business aspects — and let’s not forget that hospitals are businesses first and foremost, because they wouldn’t provide services if they weren’t profitable — are pursued to the detriment of the residents, they are not being good neighbors.

But the city is equally culpable.  When both planning commissioners and city council members ignore or dismiss agency responses and public input, we have a problem.  Again, residents are not trying to stop development, they are trying to get something that makes more sense than pure high-density.  The city ignored us with the Marina Playa project, and with almost the same type of EIR responses we see with the 900 Kiely project.  We didn’t know enough to get the word out the first time, but we’ve learned a bit since then.

The Planning Commission is not a stepping stone to the City Council.  Good community service is.

No Comments »

[Edit: My earlier, unpublished posts will have to wait a bit.]

Something interesting happened last night.  The Great Exchange Covenant Church applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the establishment of a church in a Light Industrial zone (4600 Patrick Henry Drive).  They want to convert the building they are using for clerical activities into their permanent church site.  Staff recommendation was to deny the use permit.

The kick is in the reasons they used to deny.  I took lots of notes, because there was a lot being said.  Here is the one-minute public input I gave last night:

It is interesting to note the change in [Planning] Staff’s position, attitude, and direction when we are not approving high-density housing that give Mr. Riley credit for 10%, or more, BMR [Below Market-Rate — low income] units.

The concerns, in Staff’s own words: [the structure is not parallel because I am quoting]

• “Parking does not meet the standard.”
• Complaints of neighbors (exactly six?) and traffic issues
• “Adverse effect on industrial zoning rights”
• “Adverse effect on industrial property values”
• “Reduces attractiveness of the area for new industrial users”

I hope Staff shows similar concern when we discuss the 900 Kiely Project later this year, the Draft EIR of which was just released. [The 900 Kiely Project is Fairfield Residential’s proposal to put over 800 high-density apartments and town houses at the old Kaiser hospital site.]

You [the Planning Commission] already have conditions for approval — 37 of them, listed in the docket package.  The difference between this project and the other projects we have seen is that I believe that this is a developer that will work with the existing industrial owners and the City.

We are losing more tax base by converting industrial to high-density housing, and more services by converting our institutional developments — also to high density.  It will be interesting to note what Sobrato proposes on their site in a few years when their tenants’ leases are up, especially given how Sunnyvale is converting industrial buildings to high-density residential just southwest of the site.

Actually, that’s what I wrote, what I wanted to say.  Public input was limited to just one-minute (one-minute!), so I had to end rather quickly.  For clarification, the Sobrato Organization owns the property immediately south of the proposed church property and had a representative speak out against the proposed church use.  This is the same development group that has put up higher-density apartments all over the Bay Area, most recently, and closely, with Domicilio on El Camino Real near the university.  It’s just funny to hear developers complain about a church bringing in problems, bringing their property values down.

The people representing the church didn’t necessarily help their cause as well as they could have, but they were honest and tried what they thought was best.  There were many holes in the debates that followed public input, but there were many good points as well.

The Planning Commission should never have allowed themselves to use the “3 or 4 people per car” number that the church spokesman used, admitting to pulling that statistic out of thin air.  Those numbers weren’t part of any study, were qualified as being guesses at the time they entered the public hearing, and shouldn’t have been used as part of the discussion.  Tony Marine questioned the parking, and rightly so, especially since the numbers he heard were almost half of what the city studies showed, but kept going back to the guesses brought up by the applicant again and again.  Keith Stattenfield intelligently suggested that over time the actual numbers would average out to the numbers in the study — that’s what averages mean, and that’s how averages come to be in the first place.  Commissioner Marine then did the next best thing he could do: he asked for a continuance so that the Planning Staff could work with the applicant, perform more studies, and come back with more information on both the traffic concerns and mitigation of sensitive receptors.  I hope that 90-day continuance is used well, by both sides.

It was funny to see Planning Staff so concerned with the potential effects of the industrial neighbors on the applicants.  The City Planner stated that an earlier “1,000 foot radius of effect” was just an arbitrary number (much like “3 to 4 people per car”, I would guess) and that toxic “plumes can go up to two miles.”  Dave Parker, who knows a thing or two about hazardous materials, clarified item 25 on the Recommended Conditions For Approval list:

Hazardous Occupancies:

25. Group H Occupancies may not be allowed within 1,000 feet of Group A, E, I, and/or R Occupancies without certain requirements/obligations implemented through project approval.

Mr. Parker clarified that Group H Occupancy meant that the property has “hazardous materials above a certain level” and that the church use would be Group A Occupancy, or “Assembly”. When asked if there were any Group H Occupancies that would prevent the church from moving in, nobody knew.  It was pointed out, and rightfully so, that this item wasn’t necessarily about what was there currently, but what could potentially be allowed in Light Industrial zones.  The talk then moved on to safety measures that would have to be implemented: shelters, electric/mechanical shut-off systems, and alarms.  To keep the church safe.

Has anyone bothered to give this lecture to the City of Sunnyvale? They have single-family residences less than 300 feet away from the same industrial buildings city staff and Mr. Parker are so concerned about.  Do they have a safety plan?  Shelters?  Alarms?  What about the other churches in the area, also less than 1,000 feet (or two miles, depending on which guess you decide to cling to) away?  Or office buildings?  Or colleges?  It was quite amusing to hear their concern.  Think of the children.  It sounds like the Light Industrial buildings near the site will have problems becoming Group H Occupancies regardless of whether or not the church is allowed.

The other funny thing is that the church is already using the building they want to purchase. If these are real issues, what happened to disclosure when they initiated their lease?

So: Double Standard?  Does the city go out of its way to protect industry from its citizenry — or, as they would state, vice versa — yet ignore the same exact complaints residents would have with high-density development in areas that have no transit, poor access, single-lane roads in either direction, and increasing crime? Is parking such a big issue for companies, yet not an issue for the residences that house the people working at those same companies?

1 Comment »

This post underwent several major revisions.  I had originally titled the post “Endangered Species: Single-Family Homes” when I realized that, ostensibly, developers were building single-family houses — not quite the same as homes, but marketed well enough to fool most.  So I thought about what was missing.  “Endangered Species: Large Lots”?  Well, yes, but what was the point of large lots?  “Endangered Species: Yards”.  Now we were getting closer.

It’s really about lifestyle.  And that’s really about community.

When I was a kid, we had a concept marketed to us as Kool-Aid Houses: The house on your block where all the kids went to hang out. The house where all the kids wanted to be. The place other parents felt safe letting their kids stay. Where parents talked to each other while their kids played outside.  In the yard.  With all of the other kids.

Kids are much busier these days, as are parents.  And lifestyles are changing.  With more and more people opting not to become couples, with more and more couples opting not to become parents, and with more and more parents overwhelmed by family and financial stresses, it appears that immediate needs are overshadowing wants, and health requirements are falling to the wayside.

Communities are ways for individual families to form teams, to fight common causes, share common joys, and support each other.  Or just make sure that the garbage bins are put away, that strange people aren’t prowling in the neighborhoods, or your kids aren’t climbing on the roof when they are not supposed to.  They are ways to get to know people who have something in common so that you can indulge in sharing your differences.  It’s about life and living, not business.  It’s about health and happiness, not efficiency.  It’s about arts and crafts, not just construction.

Communities aren’t even so much about the needs of the homeowners; they are about the needs of their children, and the future.  We need to look at why space is important, not just at how we can use it to fit more people and things.  We have so many ways to put pauses in our words, including commas, dashes, colons, semicolons, and periods; perhaps we should also look at how we can put pauses in our busy lives.  People are quick to state that they want to make the world a better place for their children, but slow to realize that this effort can begin at home, and in their own neighborhoods.

I would contend that Kool-Aid Houses would benefit both parents and children; instead, the lack of Kool-Aid Houses benefit the many private day-care centers popping up to support neighborhoods without such amenities. Santa Clara should be a place where people choose to come, choose to stay.  Not just because of lower housing prices, but something less tangible and far more rewarding: community.  They shouldn’t have to go outside their city for the opportunity to pay someone else money to make up for any difficiences in their neighborhoods.

Low-density houses with useful yards are a vanishing species.  Once these kinds of lots are sold, they tend to get converted into multiple family dwellings.  You can see this in what happened at Pomeroy Avenue and Brookdale Drive near the Challenger school: three single-family lots with yards were converted into nine high-density units.  You can see this with what is proposed at 1575 Pomeroy Avenue: another large lot with plans to demolish a single-family house and build three multi-story townhouses with a common driveway.  Once lots get converted into high-density housing, they don’t go back; it’s just not financially sound.

We need to be aware of our assets, and those extend far beyond just “three bedroom, two bath”.  We need to treat them with care and respect.  We need to understand what we have in the present, not regret our choices for the future or dream wistfully of the past.  Any developer that can understand this, I will gladly stand behind.

So bring on development.  Let’s look at different types of communities and lifestyles.  But don’t destroy existing communities and lifestyles to do it.

[In before tasteless “drinking the Kool-Aid” references…]

1 Comment »

Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. in the Santa Clara City Hall chambers, four cities got together to discuss how they could work together to prevent and resolve issues with large development projects, especially when they occur near city boundaries. The City of Sunnyvale initiated this meeting in response to public outcry from its citizenry over a number of projects in Santa Clara, including the Santa Clara Square proposal and Kaiser Hospital.

It felt like a small meeting despite the number of participants: 3 to 9 representatives from each of the cities present (Cupertino, Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale) and a dozen or so residents and press. Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan and Sunnyvale Mayor Tony Spitaleri co-chaired the meeting, which followed a round table discussion format with little formality — and no microphones. Sorry, Van.

Mayor Mahan was very gracious, mixing with audience members prior to the meeting and expressing pleasure with our interest. After some brief introductions from Mayor Mahan and Mayor Spitaleri, the meeting got going.

(Sunnyvale) Visitors often think that the individual cities are one big city. Perhaps (this group) can meet on a quarterly basis.

One of the big issues driving this meeting: industrial/commercial and high-density development next to residential areas. This problem gets worse when the developments are in adjacent cities. Notifications should not be from one city’s staff to another city’s residents. Notification to its residents is the city’s job; cities should notify the staff of adjacent cities and let the local staff handle the notifications.

(My input) We need consistent definitions and consistent processes across cities. Zoning definitions may not be the same from city to city; zoning designations in one city may not even exist in another (like ITR). The numbers used to define Low-, Medium-, and High-density differ from city to city. In fact, Santa Clara’s definition for Medium-density is almost double that of other cities. Some cities notify both property owners as well as tennants; others notify property owners only. It would be unfortunate if a neighborhood was not notified of an adjacent project simply because the city that owned that project used a different standard for notifications.

To better see how the plans of the cities affect each other, the General Plans should show how neighboring cities are zoned along city lines, just so project planners keep them in mind; the General Plan map should not stop at the borders.

(Sunnyvale) All cities represented at this meeting are “pretty built-up already”; the cities have been around for some time and there is already a great deal of development. Do we want to fight the new developments in court and in EIRs, or can we have better cooperation? One way to minimize the problems at the tail end is to have more discussions up front.

There is a San Jose project (North First) that did not allow any input up front. San Jose borders so many cities that it should be at these discussions. Palo Alto as well.

(Sunnyvale) Perhaps there should be a “clip level” that would trigger and require intra-city meetings — for projects larger than a certain size, density, or proximity, for example.

Zoning changes should not be granted easily. Cities should try to follow the General Plan as closely as possible, especially at the borders where changes to zoning could come as a surprise to neighboring cities. Cities should share their General Plans and at least make the plans known to other cities. Currently Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale are looking at land use or General Plan updates, and there are many opportunities to share information and work together. Perhaps we could create an intra-city plan view, incorporating the General Plans from participating cities; then individual cities would simply try to stick to their own plan.

Cupertino Mayor Dolly Sandoval raised some concerns about forcing General Plans and zonings on future planners: “We don’t want to tie the hands of the city or developers.” She pointed out that there were several projects in Cupertino right now that could not have been achieved if the city did not have some possibilities to maneuver.

(My input) This is not to say that the zoning designations are to be written in stone, but exist as guidelines. It is not intended to prevent good development, but to make planners justify the exceptions. We are trying to reduce the current practice, in which zoning changes for projects seem to be a matter of course. It will try to prevent surprises that can happen when a high-density transit-oriented mixed-use development pops up next to residential housing when the area was originally zoned for commercial development.

(Santa Clara) The boundaries of cities are near high-transit areas: Lawrence Expressway, 85, 280.

The questions boil down to transit.

(Santa Clara) At the table we have discussions about shared vision and cooperation, but this is all voluntary. It’s great when it works. We need to look at the times when it breaks down.

(Sunnyvale) There will be disagreements. Let’s try to make the disagreements we have small disagreements.

Sunnyvale Council member Chris Moylan put a thought on the table: What if cities gave up some (legal) land use to a neighboring city in return for cooperation for large projects? Maybe neighboring cities could have some veto power over projects along the border that have negative impact on their residents or city.

Mayor Mahan joked that if that happened, she “would never get re-elected again.” In further discussions, it was not certain that any council or commission could have 100% legal control of a city anyway. Still, it is an interesting thought that could warrant some discussion to find an acceptible “middle ground” without throwing out the concept completely.

The problem with the projects tended to be notifications (not soon enough, not wide enough — not enough in general), level of community access to the discussions, and level of community input into the final proposal.

Mayor Mahan referenced a recent Architectural Meeting she chaired just a few weeks ago. She likes the size of the discussions, the public input given at these meetings, and the feedback capability those meetings provide. “Architectural Meetings should be (one of) the first times residents get to see a project, not the last.”  (I also attended that meeting and agree with Mayor Mahan’s sentiments.)

What if cities had an informal meeting — no legal ramifications — for large projects, with both the developer and the public? Mayor Mahan went on to state that she would have liked to have had someone from Sunnyvale at the Kaiser discussions.

(Cupertino) That leads to the question, “When does the process begin?”

(Santa Clara) We need early notifications to neighborhood meetings; developers should meet with residents before project application. Project notification could occur after filing, but before any entitlements are granted. Other cities and the community should be involved in any mitigation discussions.

Santa Clara Council member Jamie McLeod suggested noticing project Study Sessions. These advance discussions give people a few more weeks of notification on a project. For projects on the border, neighboring groups would be invited, including city planners.

(Cupertino) In general, cities give the same weight to non-residents as they do to residents.

(My input) This is important as residents in neighboring cities can be affected more than residents in the city the project belongs to (see Santa Clara Square, Kaiser, etc.). Borders are often crossed by high-transit roadways (El Camino Real, Stevens Creek, etc.) so it is hard to determine where project impacts start and end.

(Mountain View) Joint meetings may not be feasible in all cases because of “political spheres” at work.

(Sunnyvale) In determining impacts, perhaps school districts should be invited to these meetings as well.

Mayor Spitaleri then opened the meeting for public comment.

Art Schwartz, Sunnyvale

• Attends almost every City Council, Planning Commission, and Study Session meeting; learns the most from Study Sessions
• Fixed distance notifications (300 feet, 1000 feet, etc.) are not effective. Instead, take a map and define an area of impact. Notify all people (not just property owners) along the areas of impact.
• Try to find total conflict at the beginning of projects
• High-density is often not the problem, but high-rise; we need to identify and define impacts better.

Tap Merrick, Sunnyvale

• We need to improve transit. Transit plans should be easier to justify/do now that we have $4 per gallon gasoline.
• We need to have some consistency between plans and implementations. Follow the guidelines set out in zoning restrictions: if a limit is set at four stories, keep to the limit.

Doug Hosking, Santa Clara

• We need earlier notifications.
• Put the details of projects on the web (Santa Clara currently claims to have IT issues which prevent the details of some of the larger projects, like Marina Playa, from being available through the web)
• We should look into regional general plans — like the Grand Boulevard Initiative
• We need to study and address cumulative impacts of projects; we should work with developers to negotiate plans area-wide and not just lot-by-lot

Werner Gans, Sunnyvale

• The cities need to ask themselves two questions:

1. “What is FULL?”
2. “What are we going to do for water?”

• Forecasts are for drought. California is already on voluntary water use reduction, yet we keep adding more people.
• Bordering cities should have agreements on zoning for a two mile band along their borders.
• Advocate of putting high-density and high-rise developments where the jobs are.

Lisa Fernandez, Mercury News

• “How can all of these ideas be put in place now?”
• “Why are (the cities) talking about Open Dialogue and obvious issues now in 2008 when it has been a problem for the last 10 years?”

(Sunnyvale) [Concerning “Why now?”] There has been a gradual change in the mindset of communities. People value communities better/more.

Kevin, Santa Clara (my input)

Even though we have a great vision for El Camino Real with the Grand Boulevard Initiative, the individual projects cities approve still need to make sense for the particular area.

El Camino Real is an old road and was put together for a purpose different from what we may now desire. The developments along it are also old. Some proposals — while possibly in line with what the Grand Boulevard Initiative would support — may not be compatible with what is already here.

We may have to change the infrastructure — including transit — before projects are approved, or, better yet, proposed. You can’t just throw a ball to home plate; there has to be someone there to catch it.

Are we forgetting about Central Expressway as a potential transit corridor?

Mayor Spitaleri and Santa Clara Vice Mayor Joe Kornder closed the meeting. Basically, we need constant and consistent communication. Best practices should be shared. Cities should learn from each other. How does this happen? Planning staff from one city would attend meetings with planning staff from other cities to key projects.

In general, the meeting was positive. I was very pleased with both the discussions and the tone. But improvement meetings are like exercise: if you miss them too often, you end up in the same shape you started. Sometimes worse.  And you can’t short-cut the work.

[Update] Van and I did not “inadvertently” sit at the big table prior to the meeting. We started out in the audience, taking camp in the second row. Mayor Mahan explained that the meeting would not be formal like a City Council meeting and invited us to move to the table if there was room, especially since there would be no microphones and hearing could be a problem. Van and I moved to the front row. It wasn’t until after some discussion had gone on in the meeting that I saw the value of moving even closer and having a table on which to write.

I didn’t realize that there would be a separate public input section. I apologize to all participants.

1 Comment »

This is a letter sent by Tap Merrick, from Sunnyvale, concerning the Multi-city Council meeting held on Thursday, 26 June 2008:

Dear Neighbors,

A historic meeting occurred yesterday that may spark better relations between the north Santa Clara County cities, and more cohesive planned development.

The Sunnyvale City Council had initiated this meeting as a result of two cross border issues that kept coming before them, a third that had been implemented and a fourth, the 49ers’ Stadium proposal that may affect traffic through Sunnyvale, especially along route 237, Lawrence Expressway and 101. The first two, the “no left turn out of Kaiser onto Homestead” issue and the 490 condo unit/shopping center, Santa Clara Square, at Lawrence Expressway and El Camino Real, are events that may dramatically affect all of us here in Birdland East. The third issue, the development of the Mercado Shopping Center off of 101 and added neighborhood street traffic in North Sunnyvale has already been completed, and is impacting the Lawrence north of 101 Lakewood neighborhood.

This meeting was not a witch hunt, but instead an effort to get Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View and Palo Alto working in tandem to manage employment, housing and traffic growth successfully with minimal pain to existing citizens. Because of my seating, I did not notice any representatives from Palo Alto, although the other cities were well represented, including the four other city mayors. Santa Clara had four council members, and Sunnyvale had five in attendance. Santa Clara Council Member Caserta, having spoken to a group of us two months ago, was conspicuous by his absence. Both cities also had their city managers, planning directors, and some staff taking part.

Santa Clara’s Mayor Patricia Mahan suggested that the City of San Jose might also be included in the future. This certainly makes sense for Santa Clara, which shares about half of it’s border with San Jose. I suspect that any meeting that included San Jose would quickly degenerate as most issues would focus solely on San Jose, and tend to ignore any other cross border issues which might arise.

As the Santa Clara Unified School District, Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District all cross various city boundaries, it was suggested that perhaps they ought to be included in the new development planning process also.

Both Cupertino’s Mayor and Santa Clara’s City Manager stated that they tend to make decisions, and weigh all public comments when reviewing new developments, regardless of whether the comment is from one of their citizens or a neighboring city’s citizens. Cupertino’s Mayor cited the Cupertino Village redevelopment at Wolfe and Homestead. Santa Clara’s City Manager cited Santa Clara Square, and how they have stopped that development. I have to admit that I’m not confident that Santa Clara Square’s basic plan has actually been stopped.

Mayor Mahan did note the success Santa Clara had working with Sunnyvale’s Birdland neighbors in developing the new Kaiser facility at Lawrence Expressway and Homestead, and as a counter Sunnyvale’s Council Member John Howe noted that Kaiser had reignited some sparks as a result of wanting to change the “no left turn out of Kaiser onto Homestead” rules originally agreed to some 12 years ago.

There were several suggestions about various cross border issues being brought before neighboring City Councils in a timely manner, as well as being brought before neighboring City Planning Departments or Commissions. There was also a suggestion that joint planning commission meetings be held regarding new development projects being proposed.

Kevin, who inadvertently [It wasn’t inadvertent — Kevin] sat at the big table prior to anyone’s arrival, and was thus assumed to be part of some city’s contingent, suggested that all of the cities standardize their definitions and that all neighbor notifications go out to all residents, as Sunnyvale does, instead of going to just the property owners, as Santa Clara does.

Sunnyvale’s own Council Member Chris Moylan suggested that neighboring City Councils might be allowed veto power over projects, or particular aspects of projects. Mayor Mahan stated that if that were allowed, i.e. giving up some authority over one’s own developments, that she, or any other politician, would never be elected to anything ever again.

I would argue that fair play and political integrity is what gets most people elected, although there is certainly something to be said about campaign contributions coming from developers such as Santa Clara Square, LLC or the Gilmoors. In any case, it looks like Mayor Mahan plans to run for some office when her term expires, which I believe is in 2010.

As an exploratory meeting, nothing was decided, and no agreements were made. It was tentatively suggested that these Councils meet on a quarterly basis, although there again, nothing definitive was decided.

The public was allowed to make up 3 minutes worth of comments each at the end of the meeting. Art Schwartz, Werner Gans, Doug Hosking and I all provided comments. I will let them speak for themselves.

The first of my two points was that these cities needed to implement a comprehensive transit plan which will allow us all to commute to and from work without driving, and how at $4.00 a gallon for gasoline, this concept is much more realistic than at $2.00 a gallon. The second is that cities need to stick to their adopted plans. Santa Clara’s General Plan, for example, calls for housing to be no more than 4 stories tall, and yet, here we are with 9 story high rises being planned for Santa Clara Square.

As you are all aware, I tend to write some extensive missives on the various topics that I choose to tackle. Many of you read them, and I am sure, many of you don’t. It was heartening to me that Sunnyvale’s Mayor Spitaleri told me that he reads each and every letter/e-mail I send to them. No, he didn’t offer if he agreed with me or not, but the first step is to know they are listening. I often receive comments from all of the other council members regarding various issues. As no one in the Santa Clara City Council has ever commented or questioned any of the issues I have ever raised with them, save for Peterson Field, I wonder if they are as thorough as our Sunnyvale Council Members are. Thank you Mayor Spitaleri and Honorable Sunnyvale Council Members for your ongoing attention to the details, and your citizens.

Thank you to all of the cities that participated in this historic meeting. We look forward to future meetings and making cooperative progress for the betterment of all in Silicon Valley.

Thanks to everyone for caring.

Sincerely,
Tap Merrick

1 Comment »

The Santa Clara Planning Commission did some funny things last night.

Almost every Planning Commissioner, with the exception of Commissioner O’Neill, who didn’t really say much until near the end, had reasons to deny the project on 2585 El Camino Real, yet they approved it 4 to 2. Commissioner Frank Barcells was absent again, which concerns me because he is one of the few people who consistently votes in favor of the residents; I hope all is well with him. Commissioner Mohammed Sarodi gave very logical and realistic reasons for denying the project; it’s too bad his term ended that night. Chairperson Ian Champeny was the other vote to deny.

Commissioners Tony Marine, Keith Stattenfield, and Todd Fitch spun around and around before voting to approve the project, while city staffers Debby Fernandez, Carol Anne Painter, and Gloria Sciara did their best to support their decision, although it was very clear that they had no strong arguments as they were reduced to repetition of their position and its embedded inaccuracies and panicked searching for support material at the last minute. Commissioner O’Neill didn’t contribute much more than her vote to approve. The funny thing was that the document Gloria Sciara brought up during the discussion bolstered the argument against the project. She showed chapter 18.22 of the City Charter, which, in section 18.22.140 pertaining to TMU zoning, clearly states that

(e) .. If any part of the main building is adjacent to properties designated single-family and is more than two stories or twenty-five (25) feet in height, the third and fourth stories shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet from that side yard property line. ..

The project only has a 20-foot setback from the houses to the north at its closest point while the taller buildings are 46 feet away. The other funny thing was that Gloria actually showed section 18.22.040 pertaining to MU, which made the project look even worse when you looked at the numbers. She quickly took down the document and replaced it with the boring, but useful, agenda. Debby Fernandez is insistent, but incorrect, in her assertion that there is a minimum 50-foot setback to the taller buildings, and there’s no math required this time because the number sits in black and white on pages 3, 4, and 5 of the architects’ drawings. All these errors are inconsequential, however, because, as Mr. Stattenfield would say, the Planning Commission has chosen to not to consider the problems with the plan. The question, in times like these, is always “Why?”. Commissioner Marine said something interesting: whenever a project like this comes up, he takes into account whether or not he would like to live near the development. In this case, he stated, and rather emphatically, “No.” But then he voted to approve the project. Maybe “interesting” isn’t the right word.

What was the issue? PLN2007-06419/CEQ2007-01047. 2585 El Camino Real, a 1.45-acre site on the north side of El Camino Real, just east of Saratoga Creek and 490 feet west of Morse Lane. This is the old Wheels & Deals site. The property is zoned CT (Thoroughfare Commercial). The applicant and owner is Greg Malley, of The Nobel Group.

The requests were numerous:

General Plan Amendment #68: change General Plan from Mixed Use (MU) to Transit-Oriented Mixed Use (TMU)

The General Plan Amendment is required to allow the four-story mixed use project with a few ground floor retail shops and 60 rental units above and behind, for a maximum density of 45 units per acre (High-Density) and a height over 50 feet that of adjacent residential lots. If left at the current Mixed Use, the maximum-allowed density would be almost half that of TMU at a “mere” 25 units per acre, with a height maximum of 45 feet.

Rezone from CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) to PD (Planned Development)

The rezone is required to allow the apartment complex to be built on land that was originally intended for commercial business.

Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration

The adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is required to justify the construction despite the impact it will have on the neighboring community and the traffic flow on El Camino Real, and eventually San Tomas and Lawrence Expressways.

So why is this a problem, and what does it have to do with the Planning Commission?

The applicant Greg Malley made an impassioned speech on 28 May 2008 — the first time this went before the Planning Commission — stating how much he paid for the property ($5 million) and how much Kevin Riley’s requirement to turn over 10% of the units (10% of 60 is 6, as is 10% of 51 according Mr. Malley) for Below Market Rate (BMR) housing affects his bottom line. He couldn’t, he complained, take off even a single unit because the fact that he would still have to give 6 units instead of 5 would absolutely shatter his wallet. The fact that the commission agreed to consider other compensation for any fractional units never came into play because, a month later, Mr. Malley has returned with essentially the same proposal, with a single change to the rear building height to bring it closer to, but not quite within, compliance.

The condominium units would not even be sold initially because of market conditions. Mr. Malley would rent out the units until a time came when it would be profitable for him to sell. For apartment to condominium conversions, that time is usually when the cost to upkeep the property becomes noticeable because the units have become so old. Worse yet, if this project went through, he publicly announced his intent to develop the neighboring lot and do the same thing there.

I mentioned it in my public comment in this context: It’s clear that the applicant is only in it for the money; however, regardless of how much the applicant paid for the property, profit should not be the main driving force behind approving this project, or any project like this. Commissioner Marine picked up on that comment and stated strongly that the commission must take this into consideration, because, face it, everybody that comes before them has profit in mind. They as a city cannot allow unprofitable projects, it’s not good for business.

They as a Planning Commission shouldn’t let profitability to come into consideration when reviewing projects for approval. It’s not even allowed. Commissioner Sarodi tried to make this point late in the discussions while explaining why he was against the project.  Likewise, while they can postulate on different possible outcomes if the project is denied, they should not use those suppositions as a basis for approval. It’s not allowed. If the project is denied and the CT zoning is maintained, Commissioner Marine is correct in stating that the applicant could come back with a commercial project that was 35 feet tall that met the conditions the CT zoning lays out without having to come before the commission. But that has nothing to do with this proposal and shouldn’t have affected this approval. But it’s clear it was a sticking point for him; he brought up the thought multiple times.

Commissioners Marine and Stattenfield both seemed to see the light when it came to the traffic and the specifications of the project. Commissioner Marine went as far as to say that if there were any doubt concerning the traffic findings, the only possible motion was to deny. But then he spun himself around on the issue of protecting applicants from their own decisions and spun again on fears of future proposals. Note to Mr. Marine: a 35-foot commercial project on a lot zoned for Thoroughfare Commercial with all of the requirements that come with it would be far better than 60 units of High-Density housing over 50-feet tall and a mere 20 feet from single-family residential houses, and on a street with poor access.

Traffic and Access

The section of El Camino Real immediately in front of the property has a four-foot cobblestone median strip preventing any east-bound traffic from entering the site directly. Residents and patrons who wish to do so must continue on to the break in the median at Buchanan Drive, or a little further down at Morse Lane, and make a U-turn — not the easiest of things to do, given the traffic on El Camino Real at that point; to say that that area is busy is accurate. Drivers wishing to go north on San Tomas will recall having to wait multiple lights before they were able to make it to the left turn lane, let alone onto San Tomas itself. They may also recall having to wait on the west side of the break at Morse Lane so that cars could be let through. Neither left-turn lane is long; the turn at Buchanan drive will fit three, perhaps four, cars before the traffic on El Camino Real is impeded. The left-turn lane onto Morse Lane is even shorter, and neither intersection is controlled by lights. These facts will likely increase the traffic on side streets north of the proposed site, on streets like Warburton, Cabrillo, or Monroe, or simply make the traffic on El Camino Real worse.

The same median prevents residents of the proposed apartments from turning left onto El Camino Real as well. To do so would require them to cross three lanes of traffic and then make it into the left-turn lane at Bowe; failing that, the next opportunity occurs at Kiely Blvd. At least these intersections have lights and longer left-turn lanes. We really need to look into the data the EIR company (David J. Powers & Associates) used to determine the impacts. Were they only considering numbers, or did they actually work out how the people would get in and out of the complex?

Parking and Layout

Commissioner Sarodi brought up some excellent points — and from a residential perspective. When friends or family live in a complex with reduced parking, it becomes difficult for others to visit them. The project provides 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with another 30 spaces are shared with the retail component — of which 5 or 6 spaces are reserved for handicapped parking, which brings us to a hair less than 2 spaces per unit, and not well-distributed. Let’s do some supposition of our own. If we believe local garage-use studies and acknowledge that some percentage of enclosed garage space will be used as storage, that will put a number of cars belonging to multi-bedroom apartments onto the street. Exactly how much parking does El Camino Real afford in front of the complex between Bowe and Buchanan? About eight spaces, first-come-first-served. And as Mr. Malley mentioned, the units won’t even be sold initially, but rented, which means that there will be no CC&Rs in effect to control the parking either.

And there is only one entrance and exit to this site. Many people who look at the drawings may be fooled into thinking that the parking lot forms an inverted U around the buildings, resulting in two different entrances to the property on El Camino Real, but closer inspection will show that the western leg of the U is really a walking path and the single driveway that leads into the property dead-ends some distance after the left-turn. That means that every row of cars inside the parking lot dead-ends to the west. That means that if residents, customers, or guests misjudge the number of the space, or the number of available spaces, they must back out completely, because in the worst case they won’t even have enough space to turn around. And heaven forbid that two people make the same mistake on the same row. A single accident on El Camino Real, or in the parking structure, or along the back row, can block many other cars, or, worse yet, trap residents.

Transit

Less of this would be a problem if the project were located in a real transit area with easy access to Caltrain, or light rail, or even diverse bus service. But it’s not. It’s changed to TMU (Transit-oriented Mixed Use) simply to allow the unit density (60 units per acre), not because the transit situation will be improved, or is even good to being with. At least this proposal has mixed use, though.

It has been mentioned several times that the project is within walking distance to a supermarket. It doesn’t seem reasonable that someone buying groceries for a family would walk back without some sort of cart. Many people with families who live near a market still take a car, but roll that trip in with other errands to compensate. At the least, perhaps Mr. Malley would provide some community carts so that the local supermarket won’t have to bear the brunt of the cart costs.

Design

The buildings are 50 feet high, as measured from the project lot. The problem is that there was so little community outreach that the project architects (MBA Architects, 1176 Lincoln Av, San Jose) don’t even know that the adjacent residential lots drop about 2.5 feet just past the north wall. This becomes important when we look back at section 18.22.140:

(c) Building Height Limits. Structures are limited to four stories plus depressed parking. Total building height measured from adjacent grade shall not exceed fifty (50) feet.

That drop even makes the reduced 35-foot building out of compliance. It was very clear from their initial presentation that the architects were concerned about the heights and the massing of the complex, so much so that the mock-up picture they made was taken from a low angle and used a fish-eye lens effect to make the background buildings look smaller in relation to the foreground housing elements.

What does 45 feet of high-density apartment next to single-family homes look like? Here is a project the Planning Commission approved earlier this year on Cabot Avenue, near the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard:

The Cabot development is only a fraction of the size of the development Greg Malley wants to build. The Wheels & Deals development will be almost twice as wide and block much more of the view than you can see above.

They are very similar in massing, though: three and four story sections less than 30 feet away from single-family homes.

The shadow study of the proposed Wheels & Deals development presented by the architect shows clearly that the backyards of the houses on the north border are perpetually in the shade (image forthcoming; studies done on both summer and winter solstices). A resident of one of those houses spoke at an earlier commission meeting describing her garden and fruit trees, which look like they will not be getting any more sun. I do not see how this can be an acceptable proposal, or how lacking staff must be to not even be able to suggest design changes. The EIR did not even go into alternative use studies.

I do like the walking path. But let’s not get started on the 100-foot setback from the creek that is not present.

This is Not What We Want As An Exemplar

Commissioner Todd Fitch acknowledges that we cannot control or demand specific types of development. I believe he is also one of the people to note that this project is the first development of its type along El Camino Real, which may explain why there is so much outcry.

Which also is why we should be more careful. You should not set precedent by approving a bad example of what we want in the future, a project so far from what’s desired that it requires a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Change, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration to adjust for potentially “significant impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise.” That’s a long list; is there anything they think it won’t significantly impact? Besides traffic, I mean.

Mr. Fitch, for a first TMU project on El Camino Real, you are sending exactly the wrong message to developers with your approval. Especially to a developer who has explicitly stated plans to repeat what you have approved right next door. We are not against high-density, but bad projects: out of spec, out of greed, and out of their minds.

Rather than simply look at what we want on El Camino Real, we have to consider how it fits. And when a project looks good from one side, we must still consider the other. Compared to what is currently there, almost any new project looks good from El Camino Real. However, we must consider how the front of the projects transition to the back, where, although hidden from popular view, people live. Not hypothetical, future residents, but living, breathing, current tax-payers and voters.

The residents are not asking to stop development in general, but simply request that the projects accepted fit in with the area in question, do not negatively impact their homes and neighborhoods, and are built with their best interests in mind. When the staff presentations require strong-arm tactics, overlooked inaccuracies, and a process which prevents residents from pointing these things out; when projects require General Plan amendments, zoning changes, and expansive mitigation; when commissioners ignore the residents, proper procedure, and their own consciences; it’s time to review the people making the decisions, from staff on up.

It’s disappointing that our planning commissioners seem to know and care so little about our planning guidelines. It is made worse by the feeling that our planning staff seem to know and care so little about our citizens.

4 Comments »