Concerned Santa Clara

Tonight the City Council voted to accept the city staff’s recommendation to push out the ‘49ers Stadium vote until 2009. There were several arguments for and against moving the vote to next year, and I can’t say that I had a firm position either way.

For moving the vote out to 2009:

• It will give the city more time to think about the project and prepare.
• It will give the proponents of the stadium more time to send out pro-stadium propaganda. (Yes, we can see where this is going.)

Unfortunately, much of the support for moving the vote out amounted to attacks against the people opposed to the Stadium, support for builders and plumbers, and optimistic economic outlook without planning or justification. So much so that it is easy to forget the support these people had for city staff and the money and jobs they are sure the Stadium will bring, or has brought already, in some cases.

For keeping the vote this year (November 2008):

• There will be greater voter turn-out during the November elections due to the other elections in progress at that time.
• After over one-and-a-half years of deliberation, a vote sooner rather than later would waste less time and money.

Unfortunately, much of the support for putting the Stadium up for vote this year was actually just anti-Stadium sentiment , or even fear-mongering (at least they didn’t attack the people in support of the Stadium). That kind of negates the purpose of putting it to a vote in the first place. Proponents of the Stadium seem to feel that accepting the staff recommendation to move the vote out essentially finalizes the Stadium for Santa Clara. The people against the Stadium seem to feel that greater numbers of voters equates to killing the Stadium deal. I would remind both sides that getting something on a ballot is no guarantee of support either way, as the people at Save BAREC learned. The vote will decide.

What is surprising is that the EIR for the Stadium is already in progress. City Manager Jennifer Sparacino admits that the project plan for the Stadium is not complete, yet CEQA has already begun? That doesn’t make sense. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meetings have not occurred, but the EIR is being done anyway. After this was pointed out, Ms. Sparacino acknowledged that there would be Scoping Meetings in the future, but she neglects to remind the audience what the Scoping Meetings are for and why they should come before the start of the EIR: Scoping Meetings are held to solicit comments on the scope of the EIR. This means that residents can give input on what they think the EIR should cover, or, more directly, bring up specific issues related to the key environmental areas of concern they want addressed in the EIR. This is before the EIR is completed. Once the scoping issues are brought up, the company performing the EIR work will then have a set of concerns they can focus on as they are creating the EIR. (I stole most of that from something I wrote earlier).

As someone who would normally be neutral on the timing of the Stadium vote, the actions of city staff certainly do not give me reason to support their recommendations. They admit to using much of their own time — during “working lunches” — to discuss the Stadium issue to minimize cost, and ignore the fact that the ‘49ers would recompense their time if they bothered to track it. They seem very eager to push this project through, and graciously, at their own expense — except that it isn’t really their expense, it’s ours.

The fact that they are not open with the true cost of this project, are not being transparent in their actions, and have allowed an accelerated EIR without requiring the proper processes makes me nervous. Not about the Stadium, but our city staff. The Stadium will be good or bad depending on how we use it, or do not. Sneaky city staff? No use for them in a Mission City.

If the city wishes to serve the residents, it must remain open and honest with them and balance any propaganda from outside businesses with objective — and real — facts and figures, taking into account not just preferred futures, but also worst-case scenarios. You can spin the economy any way you want to, but banks will not be fooled.

2 Comments »

First, some business:

The first Santa Clara General Plan Community Workshop will be held on two dates; both are identical in content, so you need only attend one:

Saturday, 21 June 2008, 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
and
Monday, 23 June 2008, 7:00 to 9:00 PM.

Santa Clara Senior Center
1303 Fremont Street
Santa Clara, California

Earlier this week, the Santa Clara City Council appointed four residents to the General Plan Steering Committee: Thomas Banholzer, Tricia Finnigan Biocini, Peter Yoon, and myself. There were 11 applicants originally, although only ten were up for consideration after John recused himself in protest of the council’s decision on the Marina Playa project. It’s a little surprising that I made it to appointment; doubly so considering that at the start of the council meeting, only three positions were open.

After the candidates gave their speeches, the council members each voted for three. Anyone with a unanimous vote would be selected automatically. After the first round of voting, no candidate had unanimous backing, and four candidates had zero votes. To be fair, all of the candidates seemed the cream of the crop, but when you pour a bucket into a cup, you’re going to lose something. The council voted on the remaining six candidates, eliminating another two. On the third round of voting, Mr. Banholzer received unanimous support, with the rest of the votes split among the remaining three candidates. On sheer numbers, I would be the odd man out, which I expected. What I didn’t expect was a motion from Councilman Kevin Moore to increase the number of residential representatives to four and accept all remaining candidates. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

So here we are. For the record, these were my responses on the General Plan application:

Reasons for wanting to participate:
As a decade-long resident and a recent homeowner, I am deeply committed to making Santa Clara a vibrant city in which my future children can grow up. Managing growth of both residential and industrial sectors while defining a unique, important role for the city in relation to the other cities in the South Bay is both interesting and necessary. I would like to give input on transit and density, mixed with retail and commercial development, to create safe, walkable communities that are enjoyable to live in while forming a larger plan that can act as a role model for neighboring cities. More Transit, More Industry, More Retail, More Residential, but intelligently integrated and designed for the benefit of both existing and future residents.

Additional information:
I have lived in Santa Clara for over 12 years, renting first near Halford and Poinciana, then near Benton and Scott, and finally moving to the Pepper Tree area almost three years ago. I have worked in several high-tech companies in several cities, from San Jose to Fremont, and currently tutor grade school Mathematics and English in homes and libraries throughout our area, from Cupertino to Milpitas. These experiences have given me a greater understanding of the diversity within our city and a wider view of how Santa Clara fits in with the rest of the Bay Area. I am active in our community and talk regularly with staff from other cities to exchange ideas and get a better understanding of the planning process in general. I have attended almost every Planning Commission meeting and many City Council meetings this year and intend to continue to do so. Working with the Arts Education Planning Initiative for the Bay Area, I am concerned with not just the increase in population, but the economic balance required to control poverty and improve our school system. As a native of the Los Angeles area, I am aware that neighborhoods and cities can and must change, and would like to share my experiences so we can come up with the best solution for our city.

I believe every word of what I wrote. But I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, so you may want to take what I say with a grain of salt. As for Councilman Moore, I’ll have to take another look.

No Comments »

Not hardly.

John and I spoke in front of the city council tonight in a vain attempt to get the council members to consider the EIR for Marina Playa a little longer than the minutes they spent last week. Among the issues we brought up:

The table both planning department director Kevin Riley and Hexagon’s traffic engineer Gary Black use to obviate a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and El Camino Real is based on data from the year 2000 and does not represent the traffic on or near the Marina Playa site today. Worse, both Kevin Riley and Gary Black stated in their presentation that the agencies requesting a TIA for this project were satisfied with their responses, or lack thereof, and had no further comment. We called or visited every agency that responded to the EIR and found quite a different story.

The contact from the County sent a letter to staff on 5 May disagreeing with the city’s report indicating that TIA was not needed and asked additionally for an operational analysis of the Lawrence off-ramp, including weaving from Granada to El Camino Real. Funnily, in a phone call from the city planner, I was told to “look at his title: Associate Engineer”, as if that would cause me to disregard his input. I am not into titles. That engineer represents the County and his requests should be treated as County requests.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) responded on 28 April stating quite clearly that the city’s response “has not addressed the Department’s request” and that the intersection operational analysis should be performed, as previously requested. The staff from the DOT who managed the project was emphatic in stating that he had not been contacted in any way by either city staff or Hexagon (Gary Black again).

Several agencies pointed to the year the data were collected — over five years ago — and stated that the age alone would suggest new studies; that’s what the studies are for, to keep the data current. The data used to decide that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not necessary was also pulled from national averages. Anyone who lives in Silicon Valley knows that we are hardly average at anything, let alone the national average.

The California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) accident data was not from the year 2000; it was based on current data, which means that the intersection is the eighth most accident prone in the area today, even with the old Kaiser buildings empty. That means that any additional traffic from a new development will increase the accident rate. CHP also noted that all access to the project was on or near the problematic intersection and therefore the traffic had to be studied. This is where the planning staff came in with their faulty mathematics and ignored the safety concerns and the increased CHP resources required to manage the intersection.

Dominic Caserta’s vote on an issue that would be an ethics violation for any other citizen of the city was brought up again. Mr. Caserta received money not only from BRE and Taylor Morrison, the developers of the Marina Playa project, but also from people directly linked with Fairfield Residential. That is not the problem. The problem is that he voted to approve projects backed by people from whom he took the money, including Marina Playa. We’ll see how the Fairfield Residential project goes when he is still around to vote on it.

Council Member Jamie McLeod did feel there was enough new information to warrant a reconsideration, but without someone to second her motion, the action died on the floor. The mayor of our fine city Patricia Mahan ended our bid for reconsideration with a fantastic line: “Well, despite your best efforts, the action fails.”

Ouch. That sounds a little like me. And it hurts. Not because the action failed; we somewhat expected that. It hurts that she thinks this is our best effort.

Not hardly.

1 Comment »

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 »

The Marina Playa project is located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway, off the Lawrence Expressway exit to El Camino Real. The project is located on about 7.36 acres, on the old Kaiser office lot (with all the Graffiti on them). There are two developers: BRE Properties and Taylor Morrison of California (TM). BRE is proposing 277 retail apartments off of Granada Ave. on 3.2 acres of land and TM is proposing 63 residential units on 4.16 acres of land just to the north of the apartments with access off the El Camino Real off-ramp. This project was introduced in 2006 and has been kept relatively secret by Santa Clara’s 300-foot notification practices. Worse yet, Yen Han Chen, the project planner for the City, made no mention of the project in our many talks with him. The Final EIR was released in April of 2008 and the project was approved by the City Planning Commission on April 23, 2008. It is currently scheduled for presentation to the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2008.

The 277 BRE apartments will be a six-story block complex with 1.5 stories of parking underground, encompassing almost the entire 3.2 acres. The four-and-a-half stories above ground will contain 277 apartments, mostly single-bedroom units; that is 86.6 units per acre. The completed project will stand 55 feet above ground (5 feet above the city’s 50-foot ordinance). There will be a total of 502 parking spaces, 432 for residents and 70 for guests.

The 63 TM residences will consist of 57 single-family units and one Townhouse complex with 6 units. The single-family units will be three-stories high with two-car garages. The Townhouses will also be three-stories high with two-car tandem garages (two cars front-to-back, not normally allowed in Santa Clara). None of the units will have driveways capable of parking a car, so guests will have to use the 18 parking stalls.

Major Problems

Santa Clara itself

Santa Clara is allowing projects without performing their due-diligence. The current projects in the area have used the same erroneous studies that are over 5 years old, or neglected to perform studies at all. The traffic analyses in the EIRs were limited in scope and did not contain any intersection, roadway, or freeway analysis. Instead, they used traffic studies over 7 years old and provided no additional data to identify how traffic has changed in the last 8 years. The northbound ramps at this intersection are the eighth most accident-prone along the El Camino Real, yet Santa Clara doesn’t want to do an impact study for all of this added traffic. Santa Clara plans to build these developments contrary to rules adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), The Grand Boulevard Initiative (for developing El Camino), and the City of Santa Clara’s own guidelines, as identified in the City’s current General Plan.

Density

The City of Santa Clara plans to add up to 2,680 housing units within 1/2 mile of Lawrence and El Camino Real by the year 2010. Over 30% of all new housing in Santa Clara is planned here. 13% of all space (nearly 65 acres) within this 502-acre area will be high density, and up to 105 feet (9 stories) tall. The Marina Playa project proposes 340 units on 7.36 acres of land, or 46.2 units per acre, which exceeds the property’s “Transit-Oriented Mixed Use” designation allowing 26 to 45 units per acre.

Traffic

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) response to the EIR, the complex will cause a 42% increase in traffic at the site. Because the two access points into the complex feed onto Lawrence Expressway at or near the off-ramp to El Camino Real, CHP expects the likelihood of traffic collisions to “be greatly increased”; the accident rate at this intersection is already double the statewide norm. They believe that this may also cause delays in emergency responses and necessitate additional resources and officers to provide traffic enforcement. Traveling southbound on Lawrence, all residents of Marina Playa will have to go all the way down to Benton and make a U-turn to go home, or take a left onto El Camino Real and go completely around the complex.

Transit

The project site has “Transit-Oriented Mixed Use” designation, however there was no reference to the adequacy of existing transit service. They neglect to study capacity and frequency of service or mention the fact that although Santa Clara would like to have a high-capacity municipal transit corridor in the area, none currently exists. All of the high-speed, higher-capacity transit goes around the area, not through it. In the areas where higher-density, transit-oriented designations make sense (within 1/2 mile of Santa Clara’s train station, which is served by 325 transit trips each way each weekday, with future plans to add BART), less than 1% higher-density housing is planned.

Noise

The Marina Playa project would expose future residents to noise levels in excess of acceptable City standards that, even with mitigation measures, would still be listed as Significant Unavoidable Impact. An expert states that the noise level from Lawrence Expressway will be around 75-dba, which is 20-dba above allowable limits. Balconies with a direct line of sight or side view of Lawrence Expressway or units that are within 300 feet of Lawrence Expressway’s centerline would have to have solid railings 42-inches high, which brings into question why the balconies would be built at all since anyone on the balconies or with open access ways would be subject to the excessive noise levels. Sound walls will not be built the entire 3 to 4 stories up. [Update: It’s actually worse than what I wrote. The Final EIR wording states that there will be NO mitigation measures for the units described above and that residents will have to live with “significant unavoidable long-term noise exposure impact”.]

No Comments »

Santa Clara’s plans for the future have to be good not only with respect to potential buyers, but current owners as well.

The General Plan update requires more than just public input, it needs public buy-in.  Sunnyvale and other cities are spending the time and money to do studies on environmental issues that affect residents directly — such as parking, traffic, and garage space utilization.  They are looking into long-term effects for long-term benefits.  Santa Clara should do the same, especially with the General Plan up for discussion.  We need to know what we have and how effective it is before we continue to grant variances on parking because the city wants people to drive less, or plan on putting people into high-density housing on lots originally used for retail and commercial space.  It would certainly reduce the logical objections raised by the residents.

Trying to create a Transportation Corridor in an area where one does not currently exist cannot be done simply by taking away parking spaces for people’s cars.  Van’s research shows that much of the public transit in our city goes around our area, and there are few ways to go north and south like people need.  Green or not, people need their cars.  We have no light rail.  We have train stops, but few ways to get there from the heart of the city.  Where is the heart of the city?  Draw all of the municipal transit paths on a map; where the majority intersect, that’s the city center.  I can’t find it either.  Maybe it’s the mall.

The city planning staff readily admits that, although commuting can be made to work, it isn’t easy.  Worse yet, I was told that the various municipal transportation services do not communicate with each other well and therefore the schedules don’t match up.  On a recent adventure I took as a follow-up to a business-related trip, I found that the easiest way to get to where I wanted to go was to make it to the train stop by the university and take a free shuttle bus to the San Jose Airport, where I could then take another shuttle to a hotel near the area I wanted to visit.  Doesn’t sound like a plan.

When developers start projects touting amenities such as swimming pools, gyms, and meeting rooms, they put them in first so that even the very first resident of the very first unit can benefit from them.  It also avoids litigation and charges of fraud, especially if, for any reason, the promised facilities are not or cannot be built.  Rather than add people with promises, hopes, dreams, or just the idea of a Transportation Corridor, put the transportation in first.  Don’t give anyone reason to doubt the validity of a good plan that makes sense even below the surface.

As it is, it doesn’t make sense.

No Comments »

First a short notice:
The meeting scheduled for tonight, 20 February 2008, with Fairfield Residential has been postponed until next week (updates pending).

Now the real news:
Just a reminder that there will be a Scoping Meeting on Thursday, 21 February 2008, to address the Notice of Preparation (NOP) the city sent out regarding the project at 900 Kiely Blvd (the former Kaiser hospital site). There will be two sessions that cover the same material. Residents only need to attend one of them; the second session is for residents who cannot attend the first.

• First Session:

Thursday, 21 February at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council chamber at City Hall.

• Second Session:

Thursday, 21 February at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chamber at City Hall.

It is possible that these sessions will be moved to the City Hall cafeteria room, which is downstairs.

No Comments »

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 »

Motherhood and apple pie…

In every city neighboring Santa Clara, except San Jose, the plan Fairfield Residential submitted would fall under “high-density” or even “very high-density” housing.  It is only in Santa Clara that they are able to use the rather innocuous sounding “medium” and “moderate” density designations, probably to support projects like Rivermark.

Rivermark was a planned community in an area next to a main thoroughfair (Montague Expressway) that did not impinge greatly on the space or resources of the existing residents.  They didn’t just add more people; they added a school, a new library, streets to easily access the housing, a shopping center with a supermarket and restaurants, and recreational areas for people to relax and enjoy themselves.  They didn’t intrude on a neighborhood or have to worry about fitting with an existing community of permanent residents.  They didn’t develop in an area where the majority of the streets are a single lane in each direction and the biggest streets in close proximity are only two lanes wide.  They developed close to industry and created what is in essence a miniature town on over 150 acres of land.  It almost made sense to be there and it increased the value of the property on the other side of Montague Expressway by providing places for people to go.

The Fairfield Residential project is a different animal altogether.

Fairfield Residential focuses on the letter of their allowances and argues points such as “the plan they submitted would reduce the density allowed by the general plan” while ignoring the density itself, the effects of the density on the existing populace, and the compatibility of the density with the surrounding areas.  Just because the state has a legal limit of 0.08% blood alcohol content doesn’t mean you should get behind the wheel and drive if you blow a 0.079%.  Fairfield Residential asks us to accept (hopes we will?) what they have offered because the ruling the City Council made several years ago allows them to make it worse if they so choose.  I’ll file their comment under “New and Improved, but still not good” (Sure it cuts your arm off, but it used to kill you).  The attitude of the developers certainly sets a tone for what kind of neighbors they will be if they are allowed into our neighborhoods.

Our objections are not “Not In My BackYard” objections to commercial housing development on the Kaiser Property in general.  Any resident would fully support a project that was thought-out and kept the welfare of the existing residents in mind.  Although the phrase heard most often is “high-density”, the heart of the issue is quality of life.  A project focused on quality of life would not only entice future home owners to come, but may in fact convince current residents to stay.  We just need to be convinced that both the city and the developer of the land actually have the welfare of our existing community in mind when they insist on what is best for us by submitting a plan without talking to the residents until after the fact.  We as a community need to be seen as part of the process, not just as objections to be overcome or work around, which is the overall feeling of how Fairfield is treating us.  And we as a city need to be a destination, not just a stopping point.

Fairfield Residential needs to stop focusing on the details of the “coulds” and “cans” of the general plan and other inanimate objects and focus on the people in the neighborhood.  They need to block out the shininess of their new development and look around at what is already here.  They need to stop measuring data with machines and spend some time driving, eating, and living in the community.

The City Council needs to stop looking at projects as campaign opportunities or lines on their resumes, but as legacies that will stay with the city and its residents.  The Planning Commission needs to look at the density not as a target, but as a tool to achieve something greater.  It’s really about quality of life.  It shouldn’t be a game for politicians who have plans for other offices later in life, or even financial gain in the short term, but a serious issue that affects the lives of thousands of people who simply want to live out their lives in the best city in the Bay Area.

The people of Santa Clara need to start taking their role in the city more seriously.  We need to realize that we are in this together and that if someone isn’t pulling the job may take longer or may not get done at all.  We need to vote for our representatives not based on single events in their past histories, but on net long-term effects.  We should support people who help our city and remember those that don’t.

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 solid investment, not just cheap investment.  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.

When I first moved to Santa Clara, the only people I knew that had 45-minute commutes lived in Morgan Hill, Foster City, or San Leandro.  Today, it’s the average commute time for residents in the 95050 area code.

The growth should be planned and the density managed.  And the quality of life improved or maintained.  We have no downtown in Santa Clara due to poor planning, and our high-density developments seem to be based merely on land availability.  With every new high-density development that gets put in place, there is a strain put on existing commercial business, services, and utilities.  When the new developments do not address the existing problems, it seems reasonable that they will only get worse with the addition of more people.

No Comments »

Measures A and B regarding the BAREC site passed rather easily, garnering 50% more YES votes than NO votes for each. This isn’t surprising, really, considering that SummerHill spent a lot of money turning the issue of high-density housing and for-sale houses on public land into a senior housing issue and a marketing campaign for “Santa Clara Gardens”. The plan in general is not necessarily a bad plan: 110 houses on 10 acres of land, 1 acre of public park, 162 senior housing units on about 3.5 acres, with an additional open “garden” area for the seniors on the remaining 2.5 acres. In fact, given the amount of work SummerHill will put in to clean up the area and develop an essentially abandoned lot and the potential revenue the project may generate, it may not be bad for the city as a whole.

People did take offense with SummerHill’s tactics:

• They seemed to imply that a vote against their development was also a vote against senior housing.
• They lumped the 2-acre senior “garden” area in with the 1-acre park and marketed it as a full 3 acres of public open space in their “argument in favor” sheet.
• They never clarified that the 162 senior units were going to be on only 3.5 acre of land (that’s almost 50 units per square acre) in discussions and, based on notes of the public meetings, talked only in terms of the full 17 acres.

And even with as much work as the people against the project seemed to have put in, there really wasn’t a strong defense. The counter-proposal was nice, but not realistic given the cost to purchase the land, clean it up, and provide on-going management for the proposed gardens. To top that off, the people against the development seemed to have stopped trying as hard as they needed to once they received enough signatures to put the measures on the ballot. There weren’t any major updates to either BAREC web site after the petitions were completed.

No, the disturbing thing about the BAREC project was the City’s response to the people and the issues. The complaints made by the SaveBAREC organization seem much too familiar to just ignore. Consider (from the argument against Measure A):

FLAWED PUBLIC PROCESS

• The City of Santa Clara refused to consider all options for BAREC’s future.
• Only one plan was seriously considered by the City of Santa Clara for this historic site.
• Public input was consistently ignored.

Whether right or wrong, these points do feel familiar, and that’s a concern. The issues the SaveBAREC organization brought up were also familiar:

[Measure A will:]

• Negatively impact traffic on already congested roads
• Strain city facilities and services
• Not support Smart Growth Principles

So rather than simply complain about these issues, the Pepper Tree Neighborhood Association will take the time to validate our concerns and provide as much real data as we can to support our arguments. Hopefully, the City of Santa Clara will be more receptive than they have been viewed to be in the past and will take our issues seriously.

Forebodingly, the City of Santa Clara seemed to have taken the stance that they could not purchase or develop the land themselves without the help of SummerHill, yet they moved to put us over $50 million in debt to try to bring the ‘49ers to Santa Clara. The SAN FRANCISCO ‘49ers. A personal concern is that they will try to finance the shortfall by allowing more and more high-density housing — under the guise of medium and moderate density — with less planning, thought, and development than we deserve.

No Comments »