Concerned Santa Clara

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 »

Fairfield Residential has hired a telemarketing company (Dynamics Marketing in North Dakota) to take a “survey” of residents in the area concerning their 800+ unit high-density apartment development with town homes and row houses.  It is more of a binning mechanism designed to polarize resident responses and minimize Fairfield Residential’s work and outreach as it brings attention to related effects that it can claim to address while ignoring the real issues: poorly-managed community development and Fairfield Residential’s culpability thereof.

First, the question designed to determine “whose side you are on”:

Which statement do you agree with more:
A. I don’t want my neighborhood to change at all; new developments should be severely restricted and discouraged.
B. Well-planned development around my neighborhood could improve the community with increased open space, preservation of old-growth trees, and improved economic environment for local businesses.

People with no background in the Fairfield Residential project or the high-density shenanigans in our neighborhood will more likely choose B, as do I, both in general and in particular.  People who know about the Fairfield Residential project and understand that it is really an in-fill development and not a planned development taking its effects on the community into account would be tempted to choose A, especially because the “survey” is about the Fairfield Residential project in particular and there is little connection other than hope linking the “increased open space, preservation of old-growth tree, and improved economic environment” to the 800+ units it proposes.  Trying to make the tenuous link between Fairfield Residential’s proposal and a “well-planned” development leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Having such a narrow and severe choice as the only alternative is simply insulting.

A “well-planned development” would be tremendous, but that’s not what Fairfield Residential is proposing.  It is simply adding more people at a higher density than that of the existing neighborhoods without acknowledging responsibility for any of the effects the increased population will have on the community.  They haven’t done their homework to understand why our concerns are what they are, and their next “survey” question gives residents little hope that they will try any harder in the future.

What is your top concern regarding the development:

1. Connecting Miles Drive cul-de-sac to the new Fairfield Residential development.
2. Construction.
3. Crime.
4. Design and Architectural detail.
5. Demand on public services like Fire and Police.
6. Impacts on Central Park.
7. Impacts on area schools.
8. Light, glare, and shadow impacts on existing residents.
9. Open space and old-growth trees.
10. Street parking.
11. Traffic.
12. Water consumption.

This reminds me of the oft-repeated joke (not so funny in Silicon Valley):

Friends, family, career: Pick one.

Let’s look at these items one-by-one:

Construction: This too shall pass.  In the worst case, we have laws to regulate how things are done.

Crime: Crime comes as a result of more people more closely packed and community unrest, which provide both motivation and opportunity.  It is not just a concern for wealthy neighborhoods or single-family homes.

Design and Architectural detail: These are important to Fairfield Residential as well; the community only has to deal with it when there are no other options. Here is a quote from the movie “My Cousin Vinny“:

Vinny Gambini: What about these pants I got on? You think they’re okay?
Mona Lisa Vito: Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water - BAM. A f*****’ bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a f*** what kind of pants the son-of-a-b**** who shot you was wearing?

Demand on public services: …like the library, post office, senior center, sports areas, supermarkets, etc. which are already difficult to access.  Ask anyone who actually uses these facilities.  More people means more public services required, regardless of how well you design.

Impacts on Central Park: The plan that Fairfield Residential proposes does not decrease the need for parks and recreation areas.  The pool areas in the middle of their apartment complexes will be largely sun-less, surrounded by four-story walls on three or four sides fewer than twenty feet away.  Fairfield Residential provides no place for children to ride bikes, engage in organized sports activities, or even play ball.  How does this keep people away from Central Park?  Worse, with all of the former Kaiser parking spaces that were used for community events, like the Fourth of July and the Arts and Wine Festival, gone, will the city decide to move these events to other venues?  How will we be compensated for that?

Impacts on local schools: More families mean more children. More children without proportionally more resources adds to the schooling problems and the urban unrest that is already visible in the higher incidence of graffiti in our areas and litter in the areas in which the children congregate after school.  Impacts on local schools quickly become impacts to our neighborhood.

Light, glare, and shadow impacts on existing residents: Kaiser may be tall, but it’s mostly empty space, and at an angle with respect to the path of the sun.  There is no glare off of trees, and shadows from living plants are cooling.  People on Pepper Tree Lane can see Central Park and the trees there as well. Fairfield Residential’s buildings don’t even seem to allow sun for their own pool areas.

Open space and old-growth trees: If the trees really are old-growth, Fairfield Residential will have a hard time trying to cut them down.  This may be another diversionary tactic: save a few trees, claim a small victory, and pave over the others that didn’t happen to be placed conveniently.  Fairfield Residential currently has no plans to keep the large trees in the Kaiser parking lot that add to the general canopy of the area, and they don’t seem to understand the issues involved in moving them.  But they will claim to save the trees along the south side that they aren’t allowed to cut down anyway.  Other than that, what “open space” is the Fairfield Residential project proposing? The patches of land in-between buildings that act as set-backs and walkways on private property?

Street Parking: More cars mean more parking required.  While having two parking spaces per unit sounds good, the lack of enforcement and the lack of driveways doesn’t bode well for the surrounding community.  Most single-family homes actually have four or more parking spaces available before they need to affect street parking spaces: they have two garage spaces and two driveway spaces.  Everytime you see a car parked in a driveway, consider the two parking space limit blown.  Larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, will not easily fit side-by-side in average parking spaces (try this yourself), especially if the parking spaces are not easy to maneuver into in the first place.  Fairfield Residential’s units will not have driveways.  The turning radii for the parking spaces look like they will be similar to those of the Enclave on Pruneridge and Lawrence.  Fairfield Residential’s laissez faire attitude of letting their residents park where they wish and their inability to enforce parking puts a large number of those cars on neighborhood streets.  “You can’t prevent our residents from parking on your streets, but we can prevent you from parking at Fairfield Residential.” Are they afraid of neighborhood cars creating a nuisance on their properties?

Traffic: more cars mean more traffic, regardless of how well you design.  800+ units implies well over 1700 cars.  Drive the main roads around the proposed development project and try to convince yourself that an additional 10,000 vehicular trips per day from Fairfield Residential’s residents will have no effect on your daily commute.

Water consumption: We are not saving any water by converting Kaiser into 800+ units; Kaiser moved down the street and expanded, using more water than it ever did previously.  Fairfield Residential’s project will add an additional 800 families in need of water.  More people means more utilities required, regardless of how well you design.

These are all largely effects of poorly-managed density: more people, disproportionate amounts of additional resources (in this case, none). Fairfield Residential has removed discussions of density from the table, effectively disabling any chance of productive solutions.

By ignoring root cause and focusing on specific effects, Fairfield Residential is digressing from the real residential issues and trying to move forward by addressing symptoms.  The Miles Drive cul-de-sac issue is a red herring designed to lure residents along Marietta Drive and Miles Drive away from the other side effects of poorly-managed development.  I would welcome Fairfield Residential to propose opening up the cul-de-sac to traffic; that would only awaken the sleeping community into action and point out even more succinctly Fairfield Residential’s lack of neighborhood understanding and goodwill.

Bottom line: Fairfield Residential is a business, not a community group.  They make apartments complexes, not neighborhoods.  They care about the people paying their expenses, not the people it comes at the expense of.  Fairfield Residential is “not willing” to discuss density or the effects of the density.

They may claim differently.  Let The Deed Shaw.

2 Comments »

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

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

• First Session:

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

• Second Session:

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

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

No Comments »