Concerned Santa Clara

The 900 Kiely Project (”Fairfield Residential Gallery at Central Park”) now proposes 766 housing units on the old Kaiser-Permanente Hospital site (corner of Kiely Blvd & Kaiser Road) - down less than 5% from the original project plan. This still places 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.

In June, the Planning Commission unanimously denied (7 to 0) both the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project proposal, citing problems with the EIR and density issues.

The City Council ignored the recommendation and approved the EIR, with all its flaws, to authorize demolition. The Council decision to authorize build was deferred until this Tuesday (that’s tomorrow!).

Santa Clara City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 August 2009
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California  95050

The City Council - and especially the Mayor - raised serious concerns to the developer:

• Density; specifically design and massing, creating tiny lots and building heights an unbelievable 30% greater than allowed
• “Putting 2000 sq-ft lots next to existing 6000+ sq-ft lot homes hardly constitutes ‘like next to like’ design”; they are 10 to 20 feet taller than existing neighborhood homes.
• Open space less than 4% of total project area, which is inconsequentially tiny; the mayor even suggested that the open space near the park should be dedicated to the city
• “The project’s lot coverage exceeds the city’s maximum by 12%”
• Estimated that the “Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was higher than the city preferred”

Yet the developer changed very little.  In addition, the residents were specifically assured by the mayor, city staff and the developer that the trees on site would be protected. But:

• Mature trees outside the demolition boundary were removed, without notice; the city’s response was to move the demolition boundary after the fact, retroactively allowing the removal of the trees
• After the neighbors complained about the loss of the trees and asked that all surviving trees be saved, the city took no further action, and we later lost all of the mature trees near the front of the site, including the cactus garden
• Homes next to the site were damaged by the demolition activity; the developer’s concrete crusher was placed so close to the residents that houses shook and sustained structural damage similar to that from large earthquakes.
• Work started and ended outside the allowed hours of operation
• Trucks that were not supposed to be parked on the street not only did so, but used the smaller neighborhood access roads to get to the site.  When the city chastised the residents by saying that the developer “did not use ‘dump trucks’”, they played a game of semantic, noting that the trucks they used were called something else.  Word games aside, pictures of the trucks on site today look very much like the pictures of trucks taken on the street.

Help our Mayor stand by her public commitments and enforce the City’s standards to ensure that the developer creates a less-massive, safer, environmentally-acceptable addition to the neighborhood. The EIR already suggests an Alternative 4 to add more park land for all to enjoy and lower Density. The zoning allows for mixed-use; let’s mix it.

The mayor’s comments, along with Planner Carol Ann Painter’s commitment to have the developer NOT cut down trees, can be seen on the second DVD on the council minutes from 16 June 2009, 1:44:00 in.  To quote Ms. Painter: “They are only proposing to demolish the buildings, and we as staff– I mean,  from a technical standpoint, we don’t have a tree ordinance, so they could start chopping down trees, but we’ll be happy to make a commitment that that’s not part of what the council approved, that’s not part of the council’s direction and we would not support that moving forward until we see what the development looks like, because we don’t want to be chopping down trees that with a revised development may not need to be chopped down.”

We need to pitch in and help fix this mess

1 Comment »

At tonight’s Santa Clara city council meeting, the 900 Kiely project was again up for discussion.  We would like to thank all of the people who came our for this meeting.

The council voted to approve the EIR and the mitigation monitoring for the project, but deferred approval of the project itself to the 18 August 2009 [edited] city council meeting, by a vote of 5 to 1 (Dominic Caserta was absent).  The one dissenting vote was from Jamie McLeod who felt that the EIR had enough issues with it to not recommend approval, and wanted to find a way to allow the developer to continue with demolition of the project site without approving the EIR.  She also asked that the project changes go through the Planning Commission, but her input was lost on a majority of the council that seemed intent on passing the EIR regardless of circumstance.  Councilmember McLeod’s suggestions were probably the best course of action, and it seemed that she was one of the few that actually read the comments from the Planning Commission.

The residential input was quite good.  Residents were consistent with the message that we were not against development of the site, but simply wanted an appropriate development that fit in with the neighborhoods and truly addressed the problems with traffic, pollution, and open space that the mitigations in the EIR missed.  To all of the concerned business owners and construction workers: there are many developments that could benefit our neighborhood and the city, it doesn’t have to be this one.  We should pick something good for everyone, long-term.

Mayor Mahan had some excellent closing comments.  She was concerned about the density of the project, specifically the design and massing which resulted in smaller lots and building heights (32 to 58 feet) that were higher than allowed (25 to 45 feet); to put this in perspective, the increased heights add almost another floor to each unit: the 2-story units are as tall as 3-story units, the 4-story apartments are are taller than 5-story buildings.  She was concerned about the setbacks of the front and side yards (3 feet) and the use of tandem parking.  She noted that the park land amounted to less than 4% of the total project area and opined that, despite the responsibilities of ownership, Fairfield Residential should dedicate the open space to the city: “We would take care of it better than (the developer) would.”  She estimated that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was higher than the city preferred, although also noting that the city did not have an FAR ordinance, and stated directly that the project’s lot coverage exceeded the allowed maximum by 12%.  Consistent with her opening comments, she didn’t like the design of the single family homes, and pointed out that Fairfield Residential’s 2000 square-foot lots next to the existing 6000+ square-foot lots on Marietta and Miles Drive hardly constituted “like-next-to-like” design.  These really were great comments.

Although we did not get what we wanted, which was stronger direction to correct the problems with the EIR and facilitate developer discussions with residents, it was what we expected would happen.  We are grateful that we had the turnout from the residents that we did; without you, it is possible they would have approved the project as well, although with some weak conditions for the developer.  The question that remains after tonight’s actions: What opportunities will the residents have to give input to the developer before it goes in front of the council on 7 July 2009?  How many meetings do they expect residents to go to before the city stands up for its citizens over the desires of developers who can’t manage a public relations campaign to simply find out what the neighbors think?  It is disappointing how easily a 7-0 vote from a commission can be overturned, and without much discussion in public by the council members; the motion to approve the EIR was the first thing out of councilman Jamie Matthews’ mouth the minute public comments were closed.  Each of the Planning Commissioners had reasons for denying the EIR and project; it would have been easier to accept the council’s decision if it appeared that they had tried to address any of the concerns.

[Edit] The DVDs of the meeting are now available at the library (16 June 2009 City Council Meeting); the replay of the events doesn’t look any prettier, and raises even more questions.  We may post snippets later.

No Comments »

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 »

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 »

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 »