Concerned Santa Clara

The Santa Clara Planning Commission did some funny things last night.

Almost every Planning Commissioner, with the exception of Commissioner O’Neill, who didn’t really say much until near the end, had reasons to deny the project on 2585 El Camino Real, yet they approved it 4 to 2. Commissioner Frank Barcells was absent again, which concerns me because he is one of the few people who consistently votes in favor of the residents; I hope all is well with him. Commissioner Mohammed Sarodi gave very logical and realistic reasons for denying the project; it’s too bad his term ended that night. Chairperson Ian Champeny was the other vote to deny.

Commissioners Tony Marine, Keith Stattenfield, and Todd Fitch spun around and around before voting to approve the project, while city staffers Debby Fernandez, Carol Anne Painter, and Gloria Sciara did their best to support their decision, although it was very clear that they had no strong arguments as they were reduced to repetition of their position and its embedded inaccuracies and panicked searching for support material at the last minute. Commissioner O’Neill didn’t contribute much more than her vote to approve. The funny thing was that the document Gloria Sciara brought up during the discussion bolstered the argument against the project. She showed chapter 18.22 of the City Charter, which, in section 18.22.140 pertaining to TMU zoning, clearly states that

(e) .. If any part of the main building is adjacent to properties designated single-family and is more than two stories or twenty-five (25) feet in height, the third and fourth stories shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet from that side yard property line. ..

The project only has a 20-foot setback from the houses to the north at its closest point while the taller buildings are 46 feet away. The other funny thing was that Gloria actually showed section 18.22.040 pertaining to MU, which made the project look even worse when you looked at the numbers. She quickly took down the document and replaced it with the boring, but useful, agenda. Debby Fernandez is insistent, but incorrect, in her assertion that there is a minimum 50-foot setback to the taller buildings, and there’s no math required this time because the number sits in black and white on pages 3, 4, and 5 of the architects’ drawings. All these errors are inconsequential, however, because, as Mr. Stattenfield would say, the Planning Commission has chosen to not to consider the problems with the plan. The question, in times like these, is always “Why?”. Commissioner Marine said something interesting: whenever a project like this comes up, he takes into account whether or not he would like to live near the development. In this case, he stated, and rather emphatically, “No.” But then he voted to approve the project. Maybe “interesting” isn’t the right word.

What was the issue? PLN2007-06419/CEQ2007-01047. 2585 El Camino Real, a 1.45-acre site on the north side of El Camino Real, just east of Saratoga Creek and 490 feet west of Morse Lane. This is the old Wheels & Deals site. The property is zoned CT (Thoroughfare Commercial). The applicant and owner is Greg Malley, of The Nobel Group.

The requests were numerous:

General Plan Amendment #68: change General Plan from Mixed Use (MU) to Transit-Oriented Mixed Use (TMU)

The General Plan Amendment is required to allow the four-story mixed use project with a few ground floor retail shops and 60 rental units above and behind, for a maximum density of 45 units per acre (High-Density) and a height over 50 feet that of adjacent residential lots. If left at the current Mixed Use, the maximum-allowed density would be almost half that of TMU at a “mere” 25 units per acre, with a height maximum of 45 feet.

Rezone from CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) to PD (Planned Development)

The rezone is required to allow the apartment complex to be built on land that was originally intended for commercial business.

Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration

The adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is required to justify the construction despite the impact it will have on the neighboring community and the traffic flow on El Camino Real, and eventually San Tomas and Lawrence Expressways.

So why is this a problem, and what does it have to do with the Planning Commission?

The applicant Greg Malley made an impassioned speech on 28 May 2008 — the first time this went before the Planning Commission — stating how much he paid for the property ($5 million) and how much Kevin Riley’s requirement to turn over 10% of the units (10% of 60 is 6, as is 10% of 51 according Mr. Malley) for Below Market Rate (BMR) housing affects his bottom line. He couldn’t, he complained, take off even a single unit because the fact that he would still have to give 6 units instead of 5 would absolutely shatter his wallet. The fact that the commission agreed to consider other compensation for any fractional units never came into play because, a month later, Mr. Malley has returned with essentially the same proposal, with a single change to the rear building height to bring it closer to, but not quite within, compliance.

The condominium units would not even be sold initially because of market conditions. Mr. Malley would rent out the units until a time came when it would be profitable for him to sell. For apartment to condominium conversions, that time is usually when the cost to upkeep the property becomes noticeable because the units have become so old. Worse yet, if this project went through, he publicly announced his intent to develop the neighboring lot and do the same thing there.

I mentioned it in my public comment in this context: It’s clear that the applicant is only in it for the money; however, regardless of how much the applicant paid for the property, profit should not be the main driving force behind approving this project, or any project like this. Commissioner Marine picked up on that comment and stated strongly that the commission must take this into consideration, because, face it, everybody that comes before them has profit in mind. They as a city cannot allow unprofitable projects, it’s not good for business.

They as a Planning Commission shouldn’t let profitability to come into consideration when reviewing projects for approval. It’s not even allowed. Commissioner Sarodi tried to make this point late in the discussions while explaining why he was against the project.  Likewise, while they can postulate on different possible outcomes if the project is denied, they should not use those suppositions as a basis for approval. It’s not allowed. If the project is denied and the CT zoning is maintained, Commissioner Marine is correct in stating that the applicant could come back with a commercial project that was 35 feet tall that met the conditions the CT zoning lays out without having to come before the commission. But that has nothing to do with this proposal and shouldn’t have affected this approval. But it’s clear it was a sticking point for him; he brought up the thought multiple times.

Commissioners Marine and Stattenfield both seemed to see the light when it came to the traffic and the specifications of the project. Commissioner Marine went as far as to say that if there were any doubt concerning the traffic findings, the only possible motion was to deny. But then he spun himself around on the issue of protecting applicants from their own decisions and spun again on fears of future proposals. Note to Mr. Marine: a 35-foot commercial project on a lot zoned for Thoroughfare Commercial with all of the requirements that come with it would be far better than 60 units of High-Density housing over 50-feet tall and a mere 20 feet from single-family residential houses, and on a street with poor access.

Traffic and Access

The section of El Camino Real immediately in front of the property has a four-foot cobblestone median strip preventing any east-bound traffic from entering the site directly. Residents and patrons who wish to do so must continue on to the break in the median at Buchanan Drive, or a little further down at Morse Lane, and make a U-turn — not the easiest of things to do, given the traffic on El Camino Real at that point; to say that that area is busy is accurate. Drivers wishing to go north on San Tomas will recall having to wait multiple lights before they were able to make it to the left turn lane, let alone onto San Tomas itself. They may also recall having to wait on the west side of the break at Morse Lane so that cars could be let through. Neither left-turn lane is long; the turn at Buchanan drive will fit three, perhaps four, cars before the traffic on El Camino Real is impeded. The left-turn lane onto Morse Lane is even shorter, and neither intersection is controlled by lights. These facts will likely increase the traffic on side streets north of the proposed site, on streets like Warburton, Cabrillo, or Monroe, or simply make the traffic on El Camino Real worse.

The same median prevents residents of the proposed apartments from turning left onto El Camino Real as well. To do so would require them to cross three lanes of traffic and then make it into the left-turn lane at Bowe; failing that, the next opportunity occurs at Kiely Blvd. At least these intersections have lights and longer left-turn lanes. We really need to look into the data the EIR company (David J. Powers & Associates) used to determine the impacts. Were they only considering numbers, or did they actually work out how the people would get in and out of the complex?

Parking and Layout

Commissioner Sarodi brought up some excellent points — and from a residential perspective. When friends or family live in a complex with reduced parking, it becomes difficult for others to visit them. The project provides 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with another 30 spaces are shared with the retail component — of which 5 or 6 spaces are reserved for handicapped parking, which brings us to a hair less than 2 spaces per unit, and not well-distributed. Let’s do some supposition of our own. If we believe local garage-use studies and acknowledge that some percentage of enclosed garage space will be used as storage, that will put a number of cars belonging to multi-bedroom apartments onto the street. Exactly how much parking does El Camino Real afford in front of the complex between Bowe and Buchanan? About eight spaces, first-come-first-served. And as Mr. Malley mentioned, the units won’t even be sold initially, but rented, which means that there will be no CC&Rs in effect to control the parking either.

And there is only one entrance and exit to this site. Many people who look at the drawings may be fooled into thinking that the parking lot forms an inverted U around the buildings, resulting in two different entrances to the property on El Camino Real, but closer inspection will show that the western leg of the U is really a walking path and the single driveway that leads into the property dead-ends some distance after the left-turn. That means that every row of cars inside the parking lot dead-ends to the west. That means that if residents, customers, or guests misjudge the number of the space, or the number of available spaces, they must back out completely, because in the worst case they won’t even have enough space to turn around. And heaven forbid that two people make the same mistake on the same row. A single accident on El Camino Real, or in the parking structure, or along the back row, can block many other cars, or, worse yet, trap residents.

Transit

Less of this would be a problem if the project were located in a real transit area with easy access to Caltrain, or light rail, or even diverse bus service. But it’s not. It’s changed to TMU (Transit-oriented Mixed Use) simply to allow the unit density (60 units per acre), not because the transit situation will be improved, or is even good to being with. At least this proposal has mixed use, though.

It has been mentioned several times that the project is within walking distance to a supermarket. It doesn’t seem reasonable that someone buying groceries for a family would walk back without some sort of cart. Many people with families who live near a market still take a car, but roll that trip in with other errands to compensate. At the least, perhaps Mr. Malley would provide some community carts so that the local supermarket won’t have to bear the brunt of the cart costs.

Design

The buildings are 50 feet high, as measured from the project lot. The problem is that there was so little community outreach that the project architects (MBA Architects, 1176 Lincoln Av, San Jose) don’t even know that the adjacent residential lots drop about 2.5 feet just past the north wall. This becomes important when we look back at section 18.22.140:

(c) Building Height Limits. Structures are limited to four stories plus depressed parking. Total building height measured from adjacent grade shall not exceed fifty (50) feet.

That drop even makes the reduced 35-foot building out of compliance. It was very clear from their initial presentation that the architects were concerned about the heights and the massing of the complex, so much so that the mock-up picture they made was taken from a low angle and used a fish-eye lens effect to make the background buildings look smaller in relation to the foreground housing elements.

What does 45 feet of high-density apartment next to single-family homes look like? Here is a project the Planning Commission approved earlier this year on Cabot Avenue, near the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard:

The Cabot development is only a fraction of the size of the development Greg Malley wants to build. The Wheels & Deals development will be almost twice as wide and block much more of the view than you can see above.

They are very similar in massing, though: three and four story sections less than 30 feet away from single-family homes.

The shadow study of the proposed Wheels & Deals development presented by the architect shows clearly that the backyards of the houses on the north border are perpetually in the shade (image forthcoming; studies done on both summer and winter solstices). A resident of one of those houses spoke at an earlier commission meeting describing her garden and fruit trees, which look like they will not be getting any more sun. I do not see how this can be an acceptable proposal, or how lacking staff must be to not even be able to suggest design changes. The EIR did not even go into alternative use studies.

I do like the walking path. But let’s not get started on the 100-foot setback from the creek that is not present.

This is Not What We Want As An Exemplar

Commissioner Todd Fitch acknowledges that we cannot control or demand specific types of development. I believe he is also one of the people to note that this project is the first development of its type along El Camino Real, which may explain why there is so much outcry.

Which also is why we should be more careful. You should not set precedent by approving a bad example of what we want in the future, a project so far from what’s desired that it requires a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Change, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration to adjust for potentially “significant impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise.” That’s a long list; is there anything they think it won’t significantly impact? Besides traffic, I mean.

Mr. Fitch, for a first TMU project on El Camino Real, you are sending exactly the wrong message to developers with your approval. Especially to a developer who has explicitly stated plans to repeat what you have approved right next door. We are not against high-density, but bad projects: out of spec, out of greed, and out of their minds.

Rather than simply look at what we want on El Camino Real, we have to consider how it fits. And when a project looks good from one side, we must still consider the other. Compared to what is currently there, almost any new project looks good from El Camino Real. However, we must consider how the front of the projects transition to the back, where, although hidden from popular view, people live. Not hypothetical, future residents, but living, breathing, current tax-payers and voters.

The residents are not asking to stop development in general, but simply request that the projects accepted fit in with the area in question, do not negatively impact their homes and neighborhoods, and are built with their best interests in mind. When the staff presentations require strong-arm tactics, overlooked inaccuracies, and a process which prevents residents from pointing these things out; when projects require General Plan amendments, zoning changes, and expansive mitigation; when commissioners ignore the residents, proper procedure, and their own consciences; it’s time to review the people making the decisions, from staff on up.

It’s disappointing that our planning commissioners seem to know and care so little about our planning guidelines. It is made worse by the feeling that our planning staff seem to know and care so little about our citizens.

4 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

As it is, it doesn’t make sense.

No Comments »

After the success of our last residential meeting, we will have a follow-up meeting on 25 March at 7:00 p.m.  We are looking for a place to meet that has sufficient parking because the library is already booked for that night.  I will most-likely send out updates via e-mail, so if you are not on our e-mail distribution list and would like an update, please let me know your address.

The original push for these meetings was the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss the General Plan on 26 March, but it looks as though that meeting has been canceled.  There is no alternative meeting scheduled yet, so I will have to get back to you when I have more information.

Equally disappointing is that the Santa Clara General Plan Update site has been up for a while, but it isn’t very useful.  That would have been the best place to announce the joint meeting, or even the cancellation and rescheduling.   But after several weeks, there is no mention of the meeting — or even how to become involved or what the schedule is.  Remember, the Santa Clara city newsletter requested that people get involved almost a month ago and pointed us to that web site.  Maybe this post will spur them into action.  You know there is a problem when their site gets updated less often than this site does.

Poorly-managed Density is the problem.  The General Plan is the enabler.  Fairfield Residential is merely baffoonish in its effort to force their project into our neighborhoods with specious claims, inaccurate designations, and hollow neighborhood liaising.

Active residents are the solution.  We aren’t quite there yet, but we are learning every day.  I’ll see you at the meeting.  Let’s fix things.

No Comments »

Last Wednesday the Santa Clara Planning Commission met to discuss the Santa Clara Square, which is in it Final EIR acceptance stage. Well over 200 people filled City Hall to standing room-only capacity to speak out against the project — many from the City of Sunnyvale, including its Principal Planner and Vice Mayor.

In short, the project proposes two eight-story residence towers and at least two slightly shorter five- and six-story commercial retail buildings on the property currently used by Kohl’s off of Lawrence Expressway and El Camino. The project would add almost 500 housing units and incorporate 190,000 square feet of commercial and retail space on about 12 acres of land.

The complaints against the project were many:

• Adding 500 additional families would add more traffic to the local parks, libraries, streets, and services which are already saturated with people.
• The estimated 250 students (number taken from the EIR) would greatly impact the schools in the area.
• Allowing a variance for the number of parking spaces required by the project would put more cars on the streets next to the single-family homes.
• Although the developer projects adding over 1700 additional cars, the EIR states that they do not expect the traffic on Lawrence Expressway or El Camino to be affected.
• The EIR states that there is, on average, only a single car accident per year in that intersection, although people who work and live in the area claim witness to about two accidents per month.
• The EIR states that there is no correlation between increased traffic and increased accidents, which puts many of their other “facts” in doubt.
• Kohl’s — the largest business on the block, both before and after the project is completed — was not even notified of the project; the manager heard about it shortly before the Planning Commission meeting through a customer.
• At 8 stories tall, it will be the largest project along El Camino or Lawrence Expressway for miles in any direction and goes against the 4-story height restriction specified in Santa Clara guidelines.
• Although the project has been in progress for almost four years, according to the developer, they have not significantly changed the nature of the project despite community complaints and outcry.

The Planning Commission voted to allow a continuance for this project for up to 90 days to allow the developer to come back with a modified plan. You can read more reactions to this meeting at the Mercury News site:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8630379?source=rss

All of the other complaints against Santa Clara Square sound eerily familiar to those of us fighting for a more reasonable proposal here at the Kaiser site. Other things to note when comparing the Fairfield Residential project with the Santa Clara Square project:

With twice the number of units, people, and cars, the Fairfield Residential project at the former Kaiser hospital property fails to add any of the commercial, retail, or community convenience proposed by Santa Clara Square, while staging the project closer to single-family homes.

One of the chief complaints against the Santa Clara Square project mentioned by residents was that, in the several years the project has been in planning, the developers had not made useful changes to any of their designs or numbers, ending up with essentially the same project they had at day one. Fairfield Residential has come back to us several times to adjust numbers, but the net change has taken them from 812 units originally to about 806 today. It’s hard to get excited about a less than 1% change. Their densities haven’t changed — we still have 540 or so High Density apartments. And their changes have nothing to do with residential concerns: Fairfield Residential has to give up those units to improve substandard access or adjust for their tandem parking garage units — which are not allowed by Santa Clara.

Initial data stated by Fairfield Residential put the number of school children anticipated at about 75. That is about a quarter of the number of children expected by the Santa Clara Square project — even though Fairfield Residential will have twice the number of families.

Although the Santa Clara Square EIR tries very hard to hide it, the effects on traffic cannot be pushed aside. At least two of the residents that spoke out that night had experience with EIRs and both slammed the report for its deficiencies. At one point, one gentleman suggested that the EIR be thrown out and done again from scratch. We are talking with those individuals and others to ensure that the data presented for the Fairfield Residential project will be above board and accurate.

The good news is that the Planning Commission seems willing to listen, especially when forced to acknowledge the hundreds of people who attended Wednesday night’s meeting. The problem appears to start with our planning department — Kevin Riley and his staff — who seem eager to comply with high-density goals against the desires of the general populace. Affordable housing is nice, but only when it comes with a community people want to be a part of. It certainly shouldn’t anger existing residents.

If we can change Santa Clara Square and make the city listen there, I have little doubt that we can make an impact with Fairfield Residential.

It’s getting exciting again.

No Comments »

There has been some focus put on how many people should be notified when a project affecting their neighborhood is proposed. There is a “legal” 300-foot minimum distance from the project site, with no “maximum” notification limit. I am told that the 300-foot distance is the distance within which the state will reimburse cities for mailing notifications; beyond that distance, the city must pay for notifications itself.

First, let’s look at what 300 feet gets you.

For the Santa Clara Square site, 300 feet doesn’t even get you across most of Lawrence Expressway. It doesn’t span the supermarket parking lot — especially not after having to cross El Camino Real. 300 feet does not even cover one residential block, in any direction.

For the Fairfield Residential project, 300 feet doesn’t include a third of Woodsborough, half of Miles Drive, a quarter of Pepper Tree Lane, any of Santa Lucia, any of Homestead, or anything adjacent to Central Park. It takes 600 feet before any houses along Live Oak Drive are included, and even then no houses along Homestead are touched. Even after 1000 feet, only half of Live Oak is touched and we still haven’t gotten across the park or the schools in the area.

Now let’s look at who gets notified within that 300 feet.

Santa Clara is only legally bound to notify land owners within their chosen radius. This means that apartment complex owners — who may be thousands of miles away in a different state — will be notified, but none of the renters. Commercial and retail store owners may be notified, but they may not even live in the city.

For Santa Clara Square, that means that fewer than a dozen homes and two dozen town home complexes were notified of the 8-story tall residential high-rises and 5- and 6-story tall commercial buildings that would be put in next door. If you draw the boundary of the 300-foot areas around the Santa Clara Square site, it includes mostly street, parking lot, apartment or condominium, and commercial properties. It excludes the great majority of residential properties that lie immediately to the south and west of the property, not to mention all of the residents the project would affect along Lawrence Expressway or just off of El Camino Real. Sunnyvale residents, who live adjacent to the project, weren’t notified by Santa Clara at all, even with a request from Sunnyvale’s principal planner to do so.

Near the Fairfield Residential complex, even at 1000 feet, no residents on the other side of Central Park — or even adjacent to it — were notified. The notifications never made it beyond the two schools in the area or past the apartment and retail complexes off of Homestead. They did finally reach residents of Live Oak, but only about half of them. The area is already so saturated with rental housing that there were few houses notified beyond Live Oak or Miles Drive. In short, increasing the notification range from 300 feet to 1000 feet had no significant impact on home owners in the area. The city in its infinite wisdom stuck to the letter of their “favor” and cut the notifications off on Live Oak at exactly 1000 feet; half of the street never received the Notice of Preparation or were told about the Scoping Meeting the city set up to get public feedback. And that’s just people on Live Oak. None of the renters in the area — who would be affected just as much, if not more, by the development — were notified. This includes people in rental houses as well as those in apartment complexes.

Renters are residents just as much as home owners are residents. There is a transitory aspect to their residence, agreed. In a recent blog post, Carolyn Schuk of the Santa Clara Weekly opines “Young people buy here with the grand plan of moving to a free-standing house in a more ‘residential’ area as soon as they can.” But they deal with the same traffic, stand in the same lines, breath the same air, enjoy the same skyline, and fight for the same parking spaces as permanent residents. They suffer the same consequences, yet are excluded from sharing our same voice.

By knowingly and actively excluding renters from project notifications that affect their living standard and quality of life, the city disfranchises the very group of people it is also trying to entice by depriving them of vital information that would allow them to participate in neighborhood discussions. To become part of the neighborhood, you may say. It is argued that renters do not have as much to lose or gain as they are not home owners affected by lowered property values and have an easier option before them to leave the area and therefore do not care as much about local events. But that is not true of all renters. And notifications are not about requirements for action. They are for notification, so that people who are so inclined and so motivated can take an active role in their community to support common causes. By adding an additional 550 apartments in a high-density development, Fairfield Residential isn’t adding a single person that Santa Clara would have to notify in the event of a future project.

So. Home owners. Areas already saturated with rental units. 95-foot tall high-rise buildings.

300 feet sounds more and more like the minimum, legal requirement that it is and not so much the “favor” the people supporting the high-density projects make it out to be. Increase the radius to 1000 feet and the story doesn’t really change.

No Comments »

After talking with many residents in the Pepper Tree neighborhood, it was clear that few have even heard of the Santa Clara Square project. This project would put a mix of High Density housing, structured parking, commercial/retail space, and offices into buildings 8 stories, 6 stories, and 5 stories tall right on the corner of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway.

Paraphrasing from the Final EIR information:

The project site is located at 3610 and 3700 El Camino Real, at the southwesterly quadrant of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway (in the shopping area near Kohl’s that used to have the K-Mart). The site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 313-06-002 and -004.

The project is a Planned Development rezoning application to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of single family attached residential units above office and commercial/retail space on approximately 12.6 acres. The project includes up to 490 residential units, up to 171,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 12,300 square feet of office space. The residential units will be separately sold condominiums. The 171,000 square feet of commercial/retail space includes 147,741 square feet of commercial/retail space that is currently on the site. The existing 111,495 square foot Kohl’s store will remain and the free-standing restaurant space along El Camino Real and the commercial/retail space east of the Kohl’s building will be incorporated into the new commercial/retail space.

Building heights along El Camino Real will be 5 stories in height while buildings along the southerly boundary will be 6 stories in height and be located approximately 70 feet from the existing 2-story residential buildings in the area. 8-story buildings made up of four stories of residential floors on top of four-level structured parking are within the center of the project along Lawrence Expressway and the mid-site portion along Halford Avenue.

It is certain that one of the reasons residents in areas just outside of 300 feet of the project don’t know about the project is that the City of Santa Clara had no requirement to notify those outlying residents and, in keeping with their standard practices, chose not to do so.

For anyone that has time, I would recommend reading the City of Santa Clara’s responses to the concerns raised by both residents and public agencies. It is disturbing to see in print the City of Santa Clara’s attitude towards the density of the site (pages A-43 to A-44), the effect on the value of homes (page A-45), notification of residents affected by the project (pages A-48- A-49), the lack of public recreational space (page A-51), and the effects on traffic (pages A-51 to A-55). In short:

Increased Density: The city does not deal with the concern and instead falls back on the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) numbers and the decisions the city made in 2002 to comply with those numbers. They explain that El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway are major thoroughfares, but make no mention of how the density will impact the traffic or potential future residents, to make no mention of the people already living in the area.

Lowered Real Estate Values: They note the comments on lower home values, but cite the CEQA Guidelines 15358(b) and state that social and economic impacts, such as changes in real estate value, are not required to be evaluated as part of the EIR. Then they follow the City of Santa Clara standard practice and choose not to address the lowered real estate issue.

300-foot Notification: Residents in both Santa Clara and neighboring Sunnyvale complained that they were not notified, but Santa Clara stuck to standard practice and explained that home owners within 300 feet were notified in accordance with State law. Mailing addresses were not requested from people who attended the neighborhood meeting in 2006 and e-mail addresses and phone numbers are being used instead to obtain addresses for future mailings. It is very clear that Santa Clara is taking a “least that we can do” stance.

Increased use of area parks / school fields: I quote: “The comments are acknowledged. As stated on page 76 of the Draft EIR, the project would increase the demand for public park facilities / school fields in the area. There is no way to quantify such usage. Increased public park usage is not a significant environmental impact unless new facilities are deemed to be required as a result of the project.” Isn’t this report supposed to determine if “new facilities are deemed to be required as a result of the project”? Sunnyvale’s concerns regarding the project are from the point of view of neighborhoods affected by the new development — neighborhoods like ours: “There should be a discussion of the impact that 490 homes at the proposed site would have on the parks located within the City of Sunnyvale.” They go on to ask: “The amount of on-site open space and recreation does not appear to remove the need for use of a larger park area. Does the amount of usable open space located on site meet the requirements of the City of Santa Clara?”

Traffic and Circulation concerns: The City of Santa Clara states: “The evaluation of operational and site access issues are not considered CEQA issues, nor are any identified operational deficiencies considered impacts”; then they choose to follow Santa Clara standard practice and ignore them. Later, when addressing existing congestion at El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway: “the existing plus approved level of service at the intersection of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway would remain unchanged with the addition of project traffic; therefore, the project’s impact at that intersection would be less-than-significant.” Are they saying the addition of 490 residences and almost 200,000 square feet of renovated commercial/retail/office space will have no effect? Lastly, the City of Santa Clara closes with this observation: “Increased traffic does not directly relate to increased accidents.” At least their sense of humor is intact.

The eye-opening thing for me is not just how bad some of these responses are, but that they come from a city that is chartered to look after its citizens. Our city. You and me. It is disheartening to hear the City of Santa Clara give its “standard practice” answer and then choose not to go even an inch farther than required.

More to come.

No Comments »

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

People did take offense with SummerHill’s tactics:

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

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

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

FLAWED PUBLIC PROCESS

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

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

[Measure A will:]

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

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

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

No Comments »

The Pepper Tree Neighborhood Association will give its first presentation in front of the Santa Clara Planning Commission on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 at City Hall, located at 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95050. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

The presentation will cover alternative plans for the Kaiser site at 900 Kiely Boulevard. Given Fairfield Residential’s planning application, alternative plans are even more desired as Fairfield’s plan may more than double the current average density of the area.

We would like as many concerned citizens of Santa Clara there as possible to show support for our city and its future.

No Comments »

Welcome, all.

We are in the process of gathering the information to put on this site. Thank you for your patience.

We are not against well-planned developments, but the City of Santa Clara seems obsessed with densification without regard for existing conditions, or even existing residents.  You can’t just put people and houses in an area because you feel like it: it has to make sense.  Traffic, parking, parks, recreation, families, air quality, schools, grocery stores, restaurants, utilities… it has to make sense.

Santa Clara is a Mission City.  People come here for reasons different from the reasons they would go to New York or Los Angeles, or even San Francisco.  Let’s think about that.

No Comments »