It was a circus or a train wreck. I was entertained and intrigued at some points, and it certainly was a learning experience, so I can’t feel all that bad. I am shocked, but not amazed.

Residents came from all over to speak out against the Marina Playa project, but it was pretty clear that the council had predetermined their course of action. From their weak lines of questioning to their glowing praise of city staff, the outcome was fairly certain. Yet I will admit to some surprise. Pat Kolstad moved immediately to accept the staff recommendations, without discussion. Jamie McLeod put up some resistance, but, under pressure from the rest of the council, she caved in and made every motion unanimous; the sad thing is, she was the only one of the bunch to try to understand what was being proposed and motioned for a continuance. Joe Kornder initially seconded the motion, but after Patricia Mahan led the charge to quell any support for a continuance, he backed down. Mahan asks enough questions to let everyone know her opinion and then keeps the topic open long enough for the more politically astute members of the council to suggest what she is thinking without her having to do the dirty work herself. Dominic Caserta, who has taken over $10,000 in donations from the Marina Playa developers (BRE Properties and Taylor Morrison), surprisingly chose to support the project, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues. His and Kevin Moore’s comments were — in Caserta’s case, as expected, and in Moore’s case, as usual — unnecessary, feel-good political rhetoric. Will Kennedy’s involvement and effect on the proceedings were surprisingly minimal; I expected a little more from him, either pro or con.

It is clear that the decisions were made without very much study of the EIR and project in front of the council. To those who say there was a great deal of study, I will ask: Then why weren’t there more questions about the complaints or responses? Why were there so many questions about the project itself? How could the council identify the amount of traffic as the only issue?

There were enough people to reduce the resident response time from 3 minutes down to 2 minutes, so many of us weren’t able to finish what we had planned to say. Here’s what I submitted: (roughly)

I am not against higher-density housing. Well-designed developments would benefit not just the immediate neighborhoods, but the entire city. However, when the EIRs and planning staff responses do not make sense, for either new residents or existing residents, we have to question the specific projects.

The project is flawed.

We want future residents of Santa Clara to love where they live, not simply bear the transit-isolated high-density units they inhabit, that even Santa Clara acknowledges would be damaging to their health. There are no bus stops on Lawrence in the area and those directions are not walkable. This proposal will have no mitigation for noise levels that even the EIR states will have “significant unavoidable long-term noise exposure impact“, 20 dba above what experts think is acceptable for residents. All of the street access is on or near the intersection and ramps that the CHP has declared to be some of the most accident-prone between San Francisco and San Jose. Yet Santa Clara doesn’t want to do a traffic study.

The responses are, at best, incorrect and incomplete.

EIR Response A1: The math is wrong. CHP calculates 42% additional traffic; the city nitpicks and says 30%. 731 additional trips on top of 1739 originally is, in fact, 42% more. The planning staff used the wrong numbers to make the percentages look favorable — intentional or not — which, unfortunately, puts into question every other calculation.

EIR Response B1: It is hard to believe that 731 additional trips per day will not add a minimum 100 trips during peak hour. That would mean we are adding 632 non-peak hour trips versus 99 peak hour trips, which puts into question the definition the planning department used for the term “peak hour”. 340 units, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. 550 cars, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. Young professionals and families, ostensibly with children, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. It is hard to believe, but even harder to accept without a study, or without more recent data.

This point is very important, because it is used to justify not doing a traffic impact analysis in EVERY subsequent response.

We know about the Urban Land Institute studies. We agree with them in concept — largely. Our complaint is not about higher-density; it is about bad projects and flawed studies (or no studies at all). It’s about a feeling of “residents versus the city”. Tell us about the projects. Invite us to your discussions. Ensure that we can give input and help where we can.

Unfortunately, this project and the Santa Clara Square project are giving our city and staff a bad reputation; and they haven’t even been approved yet.

More unfortunate, the council made it seem like traffic was the only issue. People brought up fears, but without solid facts to back them up I will admit that it made the complaints sound a little NIMBY. The city council really isn’t the forum for a discussion, or even for details, so it’s disappointing that this is the only method open to us. The city and developers always get the first and last words, with no time limit for their discussions, yet the residents only get two minutes apiece. Once public discussion is closed, there is no way to provide any kind of feedback, even when it is to correct misstatements from the staff and hired “experts” or provide information the council seems to be asking for when no one on staff is familiar enough with their own EIR to provide it internally.

The city never addresses the CHP comments. Ignoring the concerns of delayed emergency response, increased accidents in an area that is already one of the worst in the Bay Area, and poor circulation, the planning staff answers with improper math and the standard staff line: we didn’t have to do a traffic study based on our assumptions and old data, therefore we did not perform one. They then use that line over and over again to address every traffic-related question brought up in agency letters. Read the responses, or lack thereof, in the EIR yourself and you will wonder what the qualifications are for city planner.

[Edit on 20 May 2008: I spent about two hours discussing the Marina Playa project, among other things, with Yen Han Chen on Monday, 19 May.  He is, and has been, very helpful to our group. So why would I “bite the hand that feeds us”? After writing this blog post, I was inundated with requests to turn this blog into more of a political blog, which, after very short consideration, I have refused to do, at least by intent.  The intent of this blog is to make issues known and support the views of residents as it pertains to their neighborhoods and their quality of life.  This can be done without campaigning, either for or against.  We are trying, foremost, to improve our city, and improvement often comes at the cost of criticism.  To be fair, I will try to ensure that my interpretations of the events and opinions seen as criticism on this blog are accurate, or based on facts of some sort.  Without being for or against public nudity, we should be able to claim that the emperor is naked.  And hopefully most people will be able to come to the same conclusion, not just us children.

Mr. Chen acknowledges the errors and understands how we, an outside organization, can make our claims.  We do not know the ins and outs of the city planning department or the process, and judge mainly by viewing the effects of the actions, not the reasoning behind them. I respect Mr. Chen and his willingness to talk to us, especially after this project.  That does not redress the lack of notification or the deficiencies in either the report itself or planning director Kevin Riley’s and Hexagon’s Gary Black’s presentations to the city council.  As long as the problems are not addressed, my criticism of the improper mathematics (minor criticism) and the inaccuracies perpetrated by Kevin Riley and Gary Black (major criticism) must stand.  It is indeed unfortunate that the process requires a single name to be associated with an EIR, especially one as problematic as the one just accepted, when the direction comes largely from managing staff. I apologize for any problems my statements might have caused Mr. Chen and have changed my wording to reflect this.  The criticisms, as mentioned earlier, are still valid and stand as they are.]

They ignore the fact that the current traffic and accident rates exist even with the Kaiser buildings empty. This means that, although there was a certain condition back in the year 2000 when the traffic data were collected, there is another condition now, that adding 340 apartments with over 550 cars will only exacerbate.

The building heights are at least a story (10 feet) taller than the surrounding community — and 5 feet above Santa Clara’s own height ordinance. The units will tower over Lawrence Expressway and, without any proposed mitigation, will be at the mercy of the noise directly.

Again, Dominic Caserta accepted over $10,000 from the two developers of Marina Playa – BRE and Taylor Morrison — yet he chose not to recuse himself from the voting. As one resident speaker noted, legal or not, it smacks of impropriety. How many other council members have received money from developers while voting for their projects?

And of course Kathy Thibodeaux from Fairfield Residential was there to gauge public response and council reaction. They have a keen interest in what happens to similar projects in the area. The interesting thing to note is that with another high-density project going in next to our same transit corridors, we have different ammunition to use against them. But that’s another story.

More to come.

P.S. Note to the city: I tutor grade school Math (and English, although you probably couldn’t tell from these blog posts); I would gladly donate hours of my time to help make our city staff look more competent to the public. I have a vested interest in making the city I live in look good. This is a serious offer. [Edit on 20 May 2008: The offer still stands.]

No Comments »