Concerned Santa Clara

We presented in front of the City Council tonight — Item 9b on the agenda. The presentation we gave follows later on this post, but I thought it would be entertaining to go over the history of our struggle to present.

We originally submitted our written petition — including a CD with the presentation, as well as a printed copy — on 13 December 2007, with the intent on making the 8 January 2008 City Council meeting. We were bumped to the 22 January meeting due to agenda issues concerning the ‘49ers. On the Thursday before the meeting on the 22nd, we were told that City Hall had misplaced the CD containing the presentation we had intended to give. I sent another copy of the presentation via e-mail to both Gloria Sciara and the city clerk’s office the next day. A second call then told us that our agenda item was being pushed back due to special agenda items concerning the ‘49ers. There was a special City Council meeting held on the 15th to address the ‘49ers which lasted until midnight, and any items not covered were moved to the special agenda section of the regular City Council meeting on the 22nd. Because they could not guarantee that the meeting on the 22nd would not also last until midnight — special agenda items are handled first — our presentation was effectively moved to the next City Council meeting on 12 February. One day before the meeting (yesterday), Kirk Harter from City Hall informed us that they had misplaced our presentation — again — and that I would have to send them another copy. I sent another copy — slightly updated — directly to Kirk shortly after noon on 22 February.

The funny thing is, the copy they used during the presentation was the one we originally submitted back in December, almost two months earlier. What’s going on here?

The original presentation was created before Fairfield Residential’s application had been submitted. There were some inaccuracies in the numbers and many of the things we know now were not included. Remember, the original presentation was created two months ago with the intent of presenting it over one month ago — and we weren’t allowed to change it for tonight’s meeting. So we improvised. Just a little.

The slides still remained with their original text. Instead of reading the text directly, different text was written to be read while the various slides were shown. I tried to keep it relevant, but without adequate time to practice, I ended up taking more time than allotted. We were given 3 minutes to speak; I probably needed 3.5 to 4 minutes. I didn’t think it would be too much of an issue because the speaker for agenda item 9a went well over his time limit and was not stopped; he had well over 6 minutes. I was a little surprised to be cut short with only one slide remaining.

Here are the presentation slides, along with the text of what was read while the slides were shown. The text is a little bit of a rehash stuff that was previously on this site, but it was probably the first time the City Council heard it.

---

 

Click here to download a PDF file of the entire slide presentation.

There are many new higher density developments in Santa Clara, especially in the area around Kiely Blvd and Homestead. The densities are much higher than the existing neighborhoods; and if you look, the majority of housing around Kaiser is already higher density apartments and townhouses.

 

Even Measures A and B only presented 16 units per acre, with allowances for a public park area. We need densities that will not only benefit future residents of Santa Clara, but also the current residents. As the city expands in terms of people, we need the safety, services, industry, and quality of life to grow along with it. The city’s primary concern should include personal quality of life, not just private wealth creation — or even taxes. That’s what taxes are for.

 

As more and more people move into our neighborhoods — not just the city — we need to address how the people are taken care of. With every new higher-density development that gets put in place, there is a strain put on existing commercial business, services, and utilities. When new developments do not address the existing problems, it seems reasonable that they will only get worse with the addition of more people. Spend some time at our post office. Buy groceries at our supermarkets. Drive our morning and evening commutes.

 

The average commute for our area is over 40 minutes. With reduced industry in the city, residents have no choice but to go farther and farther away to support their families. Single income families are rarer — at least by choice. People need places to work and places to relax, not just places to live. That’s what living is — not just a place. More cars also require more parking — and spaces are not just about numbers, but the distribution and use of those spaces. When cars get bigger or more plentiful, we’ll find more of those cars on the streets.

 

Even with “green plans”, more units require more facilities, services, and utilities. And Kaiser hasn’t moved out; they’ve simply moved… and expanded. The service and utility requirements for our area have not been dimished, and every time a lot is replaced with higher density housing, those needs increase.

 

People don’t just need places to live, they need space. And Privacy. And Safety. When people make investments in property — their homes — they also need assurances that their investments can be protected and that their families are safe.

 

We would like the density plans looked at again, from the perspective of the people who live in Santa Clara already. It is about Quality of Life. The development at 900 Kiely is being presented based on a decision over three years ago. In that time, many things have happened:

• The number of higher-density housing has increased quite a bit in the surrounding areas.
• There are more cars per household.
• There are fewer grocery stores to support more people.
• People are spending more time on the road to go to work.

 

We need development that is compatible with the community that is already here — what the environment will support. We need places to go, not just more people. We need ways to use fewer cars, not have more cars.

 

We need the city to stop focusing on the details of the “coulds” and “cans” of the general plan, density goals, and other inanimate concepts and focus on the people in the neighborhood.

We need reasons for people to make the move to Santa Clara itself, both in terms of home ownership and careers, not just for renters to stop here temporarily while they work and eventually buy houses elsewhere. It is about affordable home ownership, not just affordable rents. It is about good homes, not just more houses. It is about being the heart of Silicon Valley, not being just a work-pool for neighboring cities. It is about long-term investment, not just short-term gain. It is about personal quality of life, not private wealth creation. Industry and jobs gave rise to the population originally; it is foolish to think that people will come just because there are houses when the jobs are moving farther and farther away, or regulated to 30 days per year during a sports season.

 

Santa Clara should be a city for the people, not just a city full of people.

No Comments »