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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazardous Occupancies:

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

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

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

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

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

It’s really about lifestyle.  And that’s really about community.

When I was a kid, we had a concept marketed to us as Kool-Aid Houses: The house on your block where all the kids went to hang out. The house where all the kids wanted to be. The place other parents felt safe letting their kids stay. Where parents talked to each other while their kids played outside.  In the yard.  With all of the other kids.

Kids are much busier these days, as are parents.  And lifestyles are changing.  With more and more people opting not to become couples, with more and more couples opting not to become parents, and with more and more parents overwhelmed by family and financial stresses, it appears that immediate needs are overshadowing wants, and health requirements are falling to the wayside.

Communities are ways for individual families to form teams, to fight common causes, share common joys, and support each other.  Or just make sure that the garbage bins are put away, that strange people aren’t prowling in the neighborhoods, or your kids aren’t climbing on the roof when they are not supposed to.  They are ways to get to know people who have something in common so that you can indulge in sharing your differences.  It’s about life and living, not business.  It’s about health and happiness, not efficiency.  It’s about arts and crafts, not just construction.

Communities aren’t even so much about the needs of the homeowners; they are about the needs of their children, and the future.  We need to look at why space is important, not just at how we can use it to fit more people and things.  We have so many ways to put pauses in our words, including commas, dashes, colons, semicolons, and periods; perhaps we should also look at how we can put pauses in our busy lives.  People are quick to state that they want to make the world a better place for their children, but slow to realize that this effort can begin at home, and in their own neighborhoods.

I would contend that Kool-Aid Houses would benefit both parents and children; instead, the lack of Kool-Aid Houses benefit the many private day-care centers popping up to support neighborhoods without such amenities. Santa Clara should be a place where people choose to come, choose to stay.  Not just because of lower housing prices, but something less tangible and far more rewarding: community.  They shouldn’t have to go outside their city for the opportunity to pay someone else money to make up for any difficiences in their neighborhoods.

Low-density houses with useful yards are a vanishing species.  Once these kinds of lots are sold, they tend to get converted into multiple family dwellings.  You can see this in what happened at Pomeroy Avenue and Brookdale Drive near the Challenger school: three single-family lots with yards were converted into nine high-density units.  You can see this with what is proposed at 1575 Pomeroy Avenue: another large lot with plans to demolish a single-family house and build three multi-story townhouses with a common driveway.  Once lots get converted into high-density housing, they don’t go back; it’s just not financially sound.

We need to be aware of our assets, and those extend far beyond just “three bedroom, two bath”.  We need to treat them with care and respect.  We need to understand what we have in the present, not regret our choices for the future or dream wistfully of the past.  Any developer that can understand this, I will gladly stand behind.

So bring on development.  Let’s look at different types of communities and lifestyles.  But don’t destroy existing communities and lifestyles to do it.

[In before tasteless “drinking the Kool-Aid” references…]

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.