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 »

Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. in the Santa Clara City Hall chambers, four cities got together to discuss how they could work together to prevent and resolve issues with large development projects, especially when they occur near city boundaries. The City of Sunnyvale initiated this meeting in response to public outcry from its citizenry over a number of projects in Santa Clara, including the Santa Clara Square proposal and Kaiser Hospital.

It felt like a small meeting despite the number of participants: 3 to 9 representatives from each of the cities present (Cupertino, Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale) and a dozen or so residents and press. Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan and Sunnyvale Mayor Tony Spitaleri co-chaired the meeting, which followed a round table discussion format with little formality — and no microphones. Sorry, Van.

Mayor Mahan was very gracious, mixing with audience members prior to the meeting and expressing pleasure with our interest. After some brief introductions from Mayor Mahan and Mayor Spitaleri, the meeting got going.

(Sunnyvale) Visitors often think that the individual cities are one big city. Perhaps (this group) can meet on a quarterly basis.

One of the big issues driving this meeting: industrial/commercial and high-density development next to residential areas. This problem gets worse when the developments are in adjacent cities. Notifications should not be from one city’s staff to another city’s residents. Notification to its residents is the city’s job; cities should notify the staff of adjacent cities and let the local staff handle the notifications.

(My input) We need consistent definitions and consistent processes across cities. Zoning definitions may not be the same from city to city; zoning designations in one city may not even exist in another (like ITR). The numbers used to define Low-, Medium-, and High-density differ from city to city. In fact, Santa Clara’s definition for Medium-density is almost double that of other cities. Some cities notify both property owners as well as tennants; others notify property owners only. It would be unfortunate if a neighborhood was not notified of an adjacent project simply because the city that owned that project used a different standard for notifications.

To better see how the plans of the cities affect each other, the General Plans should show how neighboring cities are zoned along city lines, just so project planners keep them in mind; the General Plan map should not stop at the borders.

(Sunnyvale) All cities represented at this meeting are “pretty built-up already”; the cities have been around for some time and there is already a great deal of development. Do we want to fight the new developments in court and in EIRs, or can we have better cooperation? One way to minimize the problems at the tail end is to have more discussions up front.

There is a San Jose project (North First) that did not allow any input up front. San Jose borders so many cities that it should be at these discussions. Palo Alto as well.

(Sunnyvale) Perhaps there should be a “clip level” that would trigger and require intra-city meetings — for projects larger than a certain size, density, or proximity, for example.

Zoning changes should not be granted easily. Cities should try to follow the General Plan as closely as possible, especially at the borders where changes to zoning could come as a surprise to neighboring cities. Cities should share their General Plans and at least make the plans known to other cities. Currently Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale are looking at land use or General Plan updates, and there are many opportunities to share information and work together. Perhaps we could create an intra-city plan view, incorporating the General Plans from participating cities; then individual cities would simply try to stick to their own plan.

Cupertino Mayor Dolly Sandoval raised some concerns about forcing General Plans and zonings on future planners: “We don’t want to tie the hands of the city or developers.” She pointed out that there were several projects in Cupertino right now that could not have been achieved if the city did not have some possibilities to maneuver.

(My input) This is not to say that the zoning designations are to be written in stone, but exist as guidelines. It is not intended to prevent good development, but to make planners justify the exceptions. We are trying to reduce the current practice, in which zoning changes for projects seem to be a matter of course. It will try to prevent surprises that can happen when a high-density transit-oriented mixed-use development pops up next to residential housing when the area was originally zoned for commercial development.

(Santa Clara) The boundaries of cities are near high-transit areas: Lawrence Expressway, 85, 280.

The questions boil down to transit.

(Santa Clara) At the table we have discussions about shared vision and cooperation, but this is all voluntary. It’s great when it works. We need to look at the times when it breaks down.

(Sunnyvale) There will be disagreements. Let’s try to make the disagreements we have small disagreements.

Sunnyvale Council member Chris Moylan put a thought on the table: What if cities gave up some (legal) land use to a neighboring city in return for cooperation for large projects? Maybe neighboring cities could have some veto power over projects along the border that have negative impact on their residents or city.

Mayor Mahan joked that if that happened, she “would never get re-elected again.” In further discussions, it was not certain that any council or commission could have 100% legal control of a city anyway. Still, it is an interesting thought that could warrant some discussion to find an acceptible “middle ground” without throwing out the concept completely.

The problem with the projects tended to be notifications (not soon enough, not wide enough — not enough in general), level of community access to the discussions, and level of community input into the final proposal.

Mayor Mahan referenced a recent Architectural Meeting she chaired just a few weeks ago. She likes the size of the discussions, the public input given at these meetings, and the feedback capability those meetings provide. “Architectural Meetings should be (one of) the first times residents get to see a project, not the last.”  (I also attended that meeting and agree with Mayor Mahan’s sentiments.)

What if cities had an informal meeting — no legal ramifications — for large projects, with both the developer and the public? Mayor Mahan went on to state that she would have liked to have had someone from Sunnyvale at the Kaiser discussions.

(Cupertino) That leads to the question, “When does the process begin?”

(Santa Clara) We need early notifications to neighborhood meetings; developers should meet with residents before project application. Project notification could occur after filing, but before any entitlements are granted. Other cities and the community should be involved in any mitigation discussions.

Santa Clara Council member Jamie McLeod suggested noticing project Study Sessions. These advance discussions give people a few more weeks of notification on a project. For projects on the border, neighboring groups would be invited, including city planners.

(Cupertino) In general, cities give the same weight to non-residents as they do to residents.

(My input) This is important as residents in neighboring cities can be affected more than residents in the city the project belongs to (see Santa Clara Square, Kaiser, etc.). Borders are often crossed by high-transit roadways (El Camino Real, Stevens Creek, etc.) so it is hard to determine where project impacts start and end.

(Mountain View) Joint meetings may not be feasible in all cases because of “political spheres” at work.

(Sunnyvale) In determining impacts, perhaps school districts should be invited to these meetings as well.

Mayor Spitaleri then opened the meeting for public comment.

Art Schwartz, Sunnyvale

• Attends almost every City Council, Planning Commission, and Study Session meeting; learns the most from Study Sessions
• Fixed distance notifications (300 feet, 1000 feet, etc.) are not effective. Instead, take a map and define an area of impact. Notify all people (not just property owners) along the areas of impact.
• Try to find total conflict at the beginning of projects
• High-density is often not the problem, but high-rise; we need to identify and define impacts better.

Tap Merrick, Sunnyvale

• We need to improve transit. Transit plans should be easier to justify/do now that we have $4 per gallon gasoline.
• We need to have some consistency between plans and implementations. Follow the guidelines set out in zoning restrictions: if a limit is set at four stories, keep to the limit.

Doug Hosking, Santa Clara

• We need earlier notifications.
• Put the details of projects on the web (Santa Clara currently claims to have IT issues which prevent the details of some of the larger projects, like Marina Playa, from being available through the web)
• We should look into regional general plans — like the Grand Boulevard Initiative
• We need to study and address cumulative impacts of projects; we should work with developers to negotiate plans area-wide and not just lot-by-lot

Werner Gans, Sunnyvale

• The cities need to ask themselves two questions:

1. “What is FULL?”
2. “What are we going to do for water?”

• Forecasts are for drought. California is already on voluntary water use reduction, yet we keep adding more people.
• Bordering cities should have agreements on zoning for a two mile band along their borders.
• Advocate of putting high-density and high-rise developments where the jobs are.

Lisa Fernandez, Mercury News

• “How can all of these ideas be put in place now?”
• “Why are (the cities) talking about Open Dialogue and obvious issues now in 2008 when it has been a problem for the last 10 years?”

(Sunnyvale) [Concerning “Why now?”] There has been a gradual change in the mindset of communities. People value communities better/more.

Kevin, Santa Clara (my input)

Even though we have a great vision for El Camino Real with the Grand Boulevard Initiative, the individual projects cities approve still need to make sense for the particular area.

El Camino Real is an old road and was put together for a purpose different from what we may now desire. The developments along it are also old. Some proposals — while possibly in line with what the Grand Boulevard Initiative would support — may not be compatible with what is already here.

We may have to change the infrastructure — including transit — before projects are approved, or, better yet, proposed. You can’t just throw a ball to home plate; there has to be someone there to catch it.

Are we forgetting about Central Expressway as a potential transit corridor?

Mayor Spitaleri and Santa Clara Vice Mayor Joe Kornder closed the meeting. Basically, we need constant and consistent communication. Best practices should be shared. Cities should learn from each other. How does this happen? Planning staff from one city would attend meetings with planning staff from other cities to key projects.

In general, the meeting was positive. I was very pleased with both the discussions and the tone. But improvement meetings are like exercise: if you miss them too often, you end up in the same shape you started. Sometimes worse.  And you can’t short-cut the work.

[Update] Van and I did not “inadvertently” sit at the big table prior to the meeting. We started out in the audience, taking camp in the second row. Mayor Mahan explained that the meeting would not be formal like a City Council meeting and invited us to move to the table if there was room, especially since there would be no microphones and hearing could be a problem. Van and I moved to the front row. It wasn’t until after some discussion had gone on in the meeting that I saw the value of moving even closer and having a table on which to write.

I didn’t realize that there would be a separate public input section. I apologize to all participants.

1 Comment »

This is a letter sent by Tap Merrick, from Sunnyvale, concerning the Multi-city Council meeting held on Thursday, 26 June 2008:

Dear Neighbors,

A historic meeting occurred yesterday that may spark better relations between the north Santa Clara County cities, and more cohesive planned development.

The Sunnyvale City Council had initiated this meeting as a result of two cross border issues that kept coming before them, a third that had been implemented and a fourth, the 49ers’ Stadium proposal that may affect traffic through Sunnyvale, especially along route 237, Lawrence Expressway and 101. The first two, the “no left turn out of Kaiser onto Homestead” issue and the 490 condo unit/shopping center, Santa Clara Square, at Lawrence Expressway and El Camino Real, are events that may dramatically affect all of us here in Birdland East. The third issue, the development of the Mercado Shopping Center off of 101 and added neighborhood street traffic in North Sunnyvale has already been completed, and is impacting the Lawrence north of 101 Lakewood neighborhood.

This meeting was not a witch hunt, but instead an effort to get Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View and Palo Alto working in tandem to manage employment, housing and traffic growth successfully with minimal pain to existing citizens. Because of my seating, I did not notice any representatives from Palo Alto, although the other cities were well represented, including the four other city mayors. Santa Clara had four council members, and Sunnyvale had five in attendance. Santa Clara Council Member Caserta, having spoken to a group of us two months ago, was conspicuous by his absence. Both cities also had their city managers, planning directors, and some staff taking part.

Santa Clara’s Mayor Patricia Mahan suggested that the City of San Jose might also be included in the future. This certainly makes sense for Santa Clara, which shares about half of it’s border with San Jose. I suspect that any meeting that included San Jose would quickly degenerate as most issues would focus solely on San Jose, and tend to ignore any other cross border issues which might arise.

As the Santa Clara Unified School District, Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District all cross various city boundaries, it was suggested that perhaps they ought to be included in the new development planning process also.

Both Cupertino’s Mayor and Santa Clara’s City Manager stated that they tend to make decisions, and weigh all public comments when reviewing new developments, regardless of whether the comment is from one of their citizens or a neighboring city’s citizens. Cupertino’s Mayor cited the Cupertino Village redevelopment at Wolfe and Homestead. Santa Clara’s City Manager cited Santa Clara Square, and how they have stopped that development. I have to admit that I’m not confident that Santa Clara Square’s basic plan has actually been stopped.

Mayor Mahan did note the success Santa Clara had working with Sunnyvale’s Birdland neighbors in developing the new Kaiser facility at Lawrence Expressway and Homestead, and as a counter Sunnyvale’s Council Member John Howe noted that Kaiser had reignited some sparks as a result of wanting to change the “no left turn out of Kaiser onto Homestead” rules originally agreed to some 12 years ago.

There were several suggestions about various cross border issues being brought before neighboring City Councils in a timely manner, as well as being brought before neighboring City Planning Departments or Commissions. There was also a suggestion that joint planning commission meetings be held regarding new development projects being proposed.

Kevin, who inadvertently [It wasn’t inadvertent — Kevin] sat at the big table prior to anyone’s arrival, and was thus assumed to be part of some city’s contingent, suggested that all of the cities standardize their definitions and that all neighbor notifications go out to all residents, as Sunnyvale does, instead of going to just the property owners, as Santa Clara does.

Sunnyvale’s own Council Member Chris Moylan suggested that neighboring City Councils might be allowed veto power over projects, or particular aspects of projects. Mayor Mahan stated that if that were allowed, i.e. giving up some authority over one’s own developments, that she, or any other politician, would never be elected to anything ever again.

I would argue that fair play and political integrity is what gets most people elected, although there is certainly something to be said about campaign contributions coming from developers such as Santa Clara Square, LLC or the Gilmoors. In any case, it looks like Mayor Mahan plans to run for some office when her term expires, which I believe is in 2010.

As an exploratory meeting, nothing was decided, and no agreements were made. It was tentatively suggested that these Councils meet on a quarterly basis, although there again, nothing definitive was decided.

The public was allowed to make up 3 minutes worth of comments each at the end of the meeting. Art Schwartz, Werner Gans, Doug Hosking and I all provided comments. I will let them speak for themselves.

The first of my two points was that these cities needed to implement a comprehensive transit plan which will allow us all to commute to and from work without driving, and how at $4.00 a gallon for gasoline, this concept is much more realistic than at $2.00 a gallon. The second is that cities need to stick to their adopted plans. Santa Clara’s General Plan, for example, calls for housing to be no more than 4 stories tall, and yet, here we are with 9 story high rises being planned for Santa Clara Square.

As you are all aware, I tend to write some extensive missives on the various topics that I choose to tackle. Many of you read them, and I am sure, many of you don’t. It was heartening to me that Sunnyvale’s Mayor Spitaleri told me that he reads each and every letter/e-mail I send to them. No, he didn’t offer if he agreed with me or not, but the first step is to know they are listening. I often receive comments from all of the other council members regarding various issues. As no one in the Santa Clara City Council has ever commented or questioned any of the issues I have ever raised with them, save for Peterson Field, I wonder if they are as thorough as our Sunnyvale Council Members are. Thank you Mayor Spitaleri and Honorable Sunnyvale Council Members for your ongoing attention to the details, and your citizens.

Thank you to all of the cities that participated in this historic meeting. We look forward to future meetings and making cooperative progress for the betterment of all in Silicon Valley.

Thanks to everyone for caring.

Sincerely,
Tap Merrick

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 »