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 »

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

There were three things up for approval tonight:

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

Congratulations, all!

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

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

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

No Comments »

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

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

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

Thank you.

No Comments »

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

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

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

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

The 900 Kiely Project:

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

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

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

No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazardous Occupancies:

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment »

Early last month I received an e-mail from a resident just outside the 1000 foot radius from the old Kaiser Hospital. He didn’t have a problem with the development plans in the area. Well, don’t take it from me, here’s his letter:

I have no problem with the proposed development of houses, condo’s [sic] etc. in the areas around the old Kaiser Hospital and the Marina Playa project.

What is your real problem with the projects?

After giving it some thought, I responded a day or two later:

Contrary to developer belief, I have no problem with higher-density development, but the project as a whole should make sense. By “project” I also include social, economic, and academic effects, not just environmental. Instead, the recent projects propose high-density apartments adjacent to single-family homes in areas that are already negatively affected by vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Visit our library, supermarkets, senior center, and post office. Study the graffiti and crime affecting our neighborhoods. Be aware of our morning and evening commutes.

The Urban Land Institute has it correct: higher-density should come with transit, walkable neighborhoods, and a mix of retail, office, and residential. The community needs to be looked at as a whole, not just parcel by parcel from a business perspective. Rather than try to understand these issues and the growing problems with crime in our area, Fairfield Residential is simply proposing the addition of 2000 people. When the City claims that our lives will not be affected in any way, it is hard to take it seriously when even CHP disagrees.

The facts that the developers do not seem to be interested in dialogue, but in their business plan, that the City is not interested in recent or real data, that other cities have done research because of well-known problems while our City grants variances in denial, and that so many external groups express concern should make almost anyone cautious. When the City doesn’t seem to care, I have a problem.

Thanks for your interest. Why do you think these projects are good for our area?

Well, after almost a month, I had a title for my latest blog post.

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 »