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.

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

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.

Santa Clara Planning Director Kevin Riley provided some background for the workshops. The General Plan will represent the over 115,503 people in Santa Clara (number was provided by the Department of Finance and is current as of January 2008). For reference,

As of 2005, there were 105,000 jobs in the city.

Harriett Robles, the President of Mission College, provided the opening speech both nights, describing the General Plan update process Mission College is undergoing. Rather than simply remodel certain parts of the school, Mission College felt it best to review the entire campus to allow greater flexibility in meeting the needs of the 10,000 students it supports. The planners need to be Responsible and Responsive and the plan requires what Ms. Robles calls “the Four Cs (plus One)”:

• Courage
• Commitment
• Creativity
• Collaboration
• (Capital)

The meeting was then handed over to Rajeev Bhatia, principal planner at a planning firm Santa Clara uses as a consultant, who got the workshop started. The goals of the workshops were to initiate dialogue with the community, to get feedback on key topics, and to begin to identify common themes and visions for the city.

The purpose of the General Plan:

• Outlines the vision for long-range physical development in the city
• Provides specific implementing actions that will allow the vision to be accomplished.

The General Plan should be:

• Comprehensive (it should take into account all desired aspects of the city)
• Long-Range (the current update should guide development through the year 2035)
• Internally Consistent (there should be harmony among the different areas)
• Vertically Consistent (Zoning and General Plan should be in agreement)

Mr. Bhatia then brought the participants to their first exercise: the “Pop Quiz” (It was really just a feedback session; it was more about what you thought and felt than what you knew). There were 10 feedback questions to answer to help define opportunities and challenges and identify possible solutions. It was really an individual exercise although it was listed for “small groups”. Participants wrote out their answers on Post-it note squares and stuck them to posters which lined the walls of the room. Here is a sampling (questions and answers overheard or seen):

Identity and Vision
1. What word do you think best defines Santa Clara?
   Diverse, Flat, Small Town, Potential, Heartless, No Downtown, Comfortable, Fragmented, Community
2. What do you like most about Santa Clara?
   Quiet, Size, Neighbors, Climate, People, Diversity, Utilities, Small Town, Community
3. What can be done to make Santa Clara better?
   Remember Our History, Downtown, Responsible Development, More Schools, Transportation, No Stadium, No More Apartments

Future Growth and Development

4. Where should new homes and businesses be allowed in the future?
   Nowhere, Alviso, Sunnyvale, We Are Full, Dilapidated Areas Around Stadium, No Homes On El Camino Real, Near Transportation, Plazas, Businesses On El Camino Real
5. What would you like to see happen in the downtown area?
   No Planned Ghettos, More Businesses, What Downtown Area?, Common Architecture, Arts-Centered District, More Trees, Apartments Above Businesses
6. What type of development would you like to see along El Camino Real?
   Restaurants, No Houses, Entertainment, More Businesses, Apartments Above Businesses

Environmental and Open Space

7. What environmental resources should be protected as the city grows?
   Open Space, Parks, Water, Air, Land
8. What are the top two priorities for parks and open space?
   More Parks, More Open Space, Make Them Look Nicer, Family Friendly, Art

Neighborhoods

9. What is the name of your neighborhood, and what will most enhance your neighborhood?
   No High-Density Housing, More Businesses, No Graffiti

Transportation

10. What should be the future priorities?
    Light Rail, BART, Fewer People, Easier Access To Existing Trains And Light Rail, People Movers

After discussing the results and trying to identify common themes, Mr. Bhatia then transitioned to our real small group exercise: the “Time Magazine” cover. Participants were given a cover for an imaginary magazine called “California Today” and asked to come up with a headline they would like to see in the year 2035, when the General Plan period would be complete. Participants came up with their own individual covers, and then each table tried to come up with a group cover. This is when the conversations flew fast and furious. There were moderators at each table who tried to focus the discussions, but the topic was so rich many residents could not be contained. Several tables abandoned coming up with a headline and focused on getting as many of the diverse thoughts in as possible.

Although Mr. Bhatia had set a direction for the headline — the best possible outcome you could imagine in 2035 — several tables presented their fears as well. The very first group on Saturday presented both optimistic and pessimistic headlines, which was brilliant. John Reagan got the dubious honor of presenting “High-Density Development Backfires“, which was clearly on the minds of a majority of people at these workshops.

A sampling of headline snip-its and bylines:

Santa Clara: World-class City Wins Olympic Bid
Because of Transit, Stadium, International Swim Center, Vibrant Downtown Area, Entertainment, Education, Multiculturalism, and Opportunity.

America’s Most Notable City
Lifelong learning district, Schools and Universities, Safety, Small Town Feel, Engaged Community

Santa Clara, Perennial All-American City
Excellent in every category; other cities strive to be like Santa Clara
Good to live and work.

South Bay’s Best-Kept Secret
World-class Attitude, Small Town Feel

Forbes Declares Santa Clara Most Forward Family City
Because of Schools, Green policies, and the ability to live, work, shop, and play in the same community.

Found Downtown!
Best Little Green City In America Finally Finds Its Heart

A Notable City For All Ages, A City With A Mission
high-tech, for all ages, diverse, innovative, modern, 100% solar, engaged community, great quality of life

Back To The Future
Community Drives Green Growth; Hometown Rebirth

The Best Place To Live And Work
Quality of Life, Lots of Different Kinds of Jobs — Santa Clara is a Magnet City

A Caring Small Town

Intelligent Planning Keeps Santa Clara The Most Livable City… Again
Safety, Education, Open Space, Property Values

For moving the vote out to 2009:

• It will give the city more time to think about the project and prepare.
• It will give the proponents of the stadium more time to send out pro-stadium propaganda. (Yes, we can see where this is going.)

Unfortunately, much of the support for moving the vote out amounted to attacks against the people opposed to the Stadium, support for builders and plumbers, and optimistic economic outlook without planning or justification. So much so that it is easy to forget the support these people had for city staff and the money and jobs they are sure the Stadium will bring, or has brought already, in some cases.

For keeping the vote this year (November 2008):

• There will be greater voter turn-out during the November elections due to the other elections in progress at that time.
• After over one-and-a-half years of deliberation, a vote sooner rather than later would waste less time and money.

Unfortunately, much of the support for putting the Stadium up for vote this year was actually just anti-Stadium sentiment , or even fear-mongering (at least they didn’t attack the people in support of the Stadium). That kind of negates the purpose of putting it to a vote in the first place. Proponents of the Stadium seem to feel that accepting the staff recommendation to move the vote out essentially finalizes the Stadium for Santa Clara. The people against the Stadium seem to feel that greater numbers of voters equates to killing the Stadium deal. I would remind both sides that getting something on a ballot is no guarantee of support either way, as the people at Save BAREC learned. The vote will decide.

What is surprising is that the EIR for the Stadium is already in progress. City Manager Jennifer Sparacino admits that the project plan for the Stadium is not complete, yet CEQA has already begun? That doesn’t make sense. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meetings have not occurred, but the EIR is being done anyway. After this was pointed out, Ms. Sparacino acknowledged that there would be Scoping Meetings in the future, but she neglects to remind the audience what the Scoping Meetings are for and why they should come before the start of the EIR: Scoping Meetings are held to solicit comments on the scope of the EIR. This means that residents can give input on what they think the EIR should cover, or, more directly, bring up specific issues related to the key environmental areas of concern they want addressed in the EIR. This is before the EIR is completed. Once the scoping issues are brought up, the company performing the EIR work will then have a set of concerns they can focus on as they are creating the EIR. (I stole most of that from something I wrote earlier).

As someone who would normally be neutral on the timing of the Stadium vote, the actions of city staff certainly do not give me reason to support their recommendations. They admit to using much of their own time — during “working lunches” — to discuss the Stadium issue to minimize cost, and ignore the fact that the ‘49ers would recompense their time if they bothered to track it. They seem very eager to push this project through, and graciously, at their own expense — except that it isn’t really their expense, it’s ours.

The fact that they are not open with the true cost of this project, are not being transparent in their actions, and have allowed an accelerated EIR without requiring the proper processes makes me nervous. Not about the Stadium, but our city staff. The Stadium will be good or bad depending on how we use it, or do not. Sneaky city staff? No use for them in a Mission City.

If the city wishes to serve the residents, it must remain open and honest with them and balance any propaganda from outside businesses with objective — and real — facts and figures, taking into account not just preferred futures, but also worst-case scenarios. You can spin the economy any way you want to, but banks will not be fooled.

The first Santa Clara General Plan Community Workshop will be held on two dates; both are identical in content, so you need only attend one:

Saturday, 21 June 2008, 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
and
Monday, 23 June 2008, 7:00 to 9:00 PM.

Santa Clara Senior Center
1303 Fremont Street
Santa Clara, California

Earlier this week, the Santa Clara City Council appointed four residents to the General Plan Steering Committee: Thomas Banholzer, Tricia Finnigan Biocini, Peter Yoon, and myself. There were 11 applicants originally, although only ten were up for consideration after John recused himself in protest of the council’s decision on the Marina Playa project. It’s a little surprising that I made it to appointment; doubly so considering that at the start of the council meeting, only three positions were open.

After the candidates gave their speeches, the council members each voted for three. Anyone with a unanimous vote would be selected automatically. After the first round of voting, no candidate had unanimous backing, and four candidates had zero votes. To be fair, all of the candidates seemed the cream of the crop, but when you pour a bucket into a cup, you’re going to lose something. The council voted on the remaining six candidates, eliminating another two. On the third round of voting, Mr. Banholzer received unanimous support, with the rest of the votes split among the remaining three candidates. On sheer numbers, I would be the odd man out, which I expected. What I didn’t expect was a motion from Councilman Kevin Moore to increase the number of residential representatives to four and accept all remaining candidates. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

So here we are. For the record, these were my responses on the General Plan application:

Reasons for wanting to participate:
As a decade-long resident and a recent homeowner, I am deeply committed to making Santa Clara a vibrant city in which my future children can grow up. Managing growth of both residential and industrial sectors while defining a unique, important role for the city in relation to the other cities in the South Bay is both interesting and necessary. I would like to give input on transit and density, mixed with retail and commercial development, to create safe, walkable communities that are enjoyable to live in while forming a larger plan that can act as a role model for neighboring cities. More Transit, More Industry, More Retail, More Residential, but intelligently integrated and designed for the benefit of both existing and future residents.

Additional information:
I have lived in Santa Clara for over 12 years, renting first near Halford and Poinciana, then near Benton and Scott, and finally moving to the Pepper Tree area almost three years ago. I have worked in several high-tech companies in several cities, from San Jose to Fremont, and currently tutor grade school Mathematics and English in homes and libraries throughout our area, from Cupertino to Milpitas. These experiences have given me a greater understanding of the diversity within our city and a wider view of how Santa Clara fits in with the rest of the Bay Area. I am active in our community and talk regularly with staff from other cities to exchange ideas and get a better understanding of the planning process in general. I have attended almost every Planning Commission meeting and many City Council meetings this year and intend to continue to do so. Working with the Arts Education Planning Initiative for the Bay Area, I am concerned with not just the increase in population, but the economic balance required to control poverty and improve our school system. As a native of the Los Angeles area, I am aware that neighborhoods and cities can and must change, and would like to share my experiences so we can come up with the best solution for our city.

I believe every word of what I wrote. But I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, so you may want to take what I say with a grain of salt. As for Councilman Moore, I’ll have to take another look.

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.

John and I spoke in front of the city council tonight in a vain attempt to get the council members to consider the EIR for Marina Playa a little longer than the minutes they spent last week. Among the issues we brought up:

The table both planning department director Kevin Riley and Hexagon’s traffic engineer Gary Black use to obviate a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and El Camino Real is based on data from the year 2000 and does not represent the traffic on or near the Marina Playa site today. Worse, both Kevin Riley and Gary Black stated in their presentation that the agencies requesting a TIA for this project were satisfied with their responses, or lack thereof, and had no further comment. We called or visited every agency that responded to the EIR and found quite a different story.

The contact from the County sent a letter to staff on 5 May disagreeing with the city’s report indicating that TIA was not needed and asked additionally for an operational analysis of the Lawrence off-ramp, including weaving from Granada to El Camino Real. Funnily, in a phone call from the city planner, I was told to “look at his title: Associate Engineer”, as if that would cause me to disregard his input. I am not into titles. That engineer represents the County and his requests should be treated as County requests.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) responded on 28 April stating quite clearly that the city’s response “has not addressed the Department’s request” and that the intersection operational analysis should be performed, as previously requested. The staff from the DOT who managed the project was emphatic in stating that he had not been contacted in any way by either city staff or Hexagon (Gary Black again).

Several agencies pointed to the year the data were collected — over five years ago — and stated that the age alone would suggest new studies; that’s what the studies are for, to keep the data current. The data used to decide that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not necessary was also pulled from national averages. Anyone who lives in Silicon Valley knows that we are hardly average at anything, let alone the national average.

The California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) accident data was not from the year 2000; it was based on current data, which means that the intersection is the eighth most accident prone in the area today, even with the old Kaiser buildings empty. That means that any additional traffic from a new development will increase the accident rate. CHP also noted that all access to the project was on or near the problematic intersection and therefore the traffic had to be studied. This is where the planning staff came in with their faulty mathematics and ignored the safety concerns and the increased CHP resources required to manage the intersection.

Dominic Caserta’s vote on an issue that would be an ethics violation for any other citizen of the city was brought up again. Mr. Caserta received money not only from BRE and Taylor Morrison, the developers of the Marina Playa project, but also from people directly linked with Fairfield Residential. That is not the problem. The problem is that he voted to approve projects backed by people from whom he took the money, including Marina Playa. We’ll see how the Fairfield Residential project goes when he is still around to vote on it.

Council Member Jamie McLeod did feel there was enough new information to warrant a reconsideration, but without someone to second her motion, the action died on the floor. The mayor of our fine city Patricia Mahan ended our bid for reconsideration with a fantastic line: “Well, despite your best efforts, the action fails.”

Ouch. That sounds a little like me. And it hurts. Not because the action failed; we somewhat expected that. It hurts that she thinks this is our best effort.

Not hardly.

After reading the document cover-to-cover a second time and looking up information provided in the notes and from other sources, it seems to make their proposal appear even worse. Consider the stats:

It provides no amenities, makes existing problems worse, has density higher than that of surrounding areas, and clearly does not have residential support. There must be some way to enable Fairfield Residential to see this. Instead of proposing the same project over and over again with different colored paint, or different roofs, Fairfield Residential should discuss the other problems with their plan with the people who will have to live alongside it, not just the one, or so, individuals willing to advise in secretive meetings for personal gain. Hold public meetings and public forums. They haven’t learned the first rule of congress: don’t lose the support of people who like you, but spend time with the people who oppose you. Understand why they feel the way they feel, even you don’t agree.

We’re learning quite a bit from other projects: the plans, the responses, the process, the politics… and the alternatives. Looking at ULI’s profiled communities, it is clear: It’s About Quality of Life, Not Just Quality of Construction.

Critical questions for Fairfield Residential — and for the City of Santa Clara:

• How can we redevelop existing neighborhoods and business districts to improve the quality of life?
• How can we create more choices in housing, accommodating diverse lifestyles and all income levels?
• How can we reduce traffic congestion yet stay connected?
• How can we include citizens in planning their communities rather than limiting input to only those affected by the next project?
• How can we fund schools, bridges, roads, and clean water while meeting short-term costs of increased security?

These are all questions directly from the ULI website. It’s funny how the people who use ULI’s arguments do not also take ULI’s advice. But do more than have boilerplate answers. Explain how they can apply, don’t just tell us that they do.

“Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite.”

This statement could easily be written another way, except that they use the word “sprawl”, which already has intended negative connotations. How about this:

“Well-designed communities offer residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned projects do the opposite.”

Density is independent of that statement.

In every case, common themes:

• vibrant, walkable communities
• mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments
• easy access to public transit

It is not clear that the key to these themes is density. It sounds like density is the problem, and these help solve it.

I’ve got to hand it to the Urban Land Institute. If I ever become a real-estate developer or somehow revert to my days of being an up-and-coming youthful urbanite, I will know exactly who I want to talk to. As it is, I am just a teacher living in a small town — a Mission City, no less — whose height of fame may be in becoming kept by a sports team, from another city, that won’t even carry our name.

Residents came from all over to speak out against the Marina Playa project, but it was pretty clear that the council had predetermined their course of action. From their weak lines of questioning to their glowing praise of city staff, the outcome was fairly certain. Yet I will admit to some surprise. Pat Kolstad moved immediately to accept the staff recommendations, without discussion. Jamie McLeod put up some resistance, but, under pressure from the rest of the council, she caved in and made every motion unanimous; the sad thing is, she was the only one of the bunch to try to understand what was being proposed and motioned for a continuance. Joe Kornder initially seconded the motion, but after Patricia Mahan led the charge to quell any support for a continuance, he backed down. Mahan asks enough questions to let everyone know her opinion and then keeps the topic open long enough for the more politically astute members of the council to suggest what she is thinking without her having to do the dirty work herself. Dominic Caserta, who has taken over $10,000 in donations from the Marina Playa developers (BRE Properties and Taylor Morrison), surprisingly chose to support the project, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues. His and Kevin Moore’s comments were — in Caserta’s case, as expected, and in Moore’s case, as usual — unnecessary, feel-good political rhetoric. Will Kennedy’s involvement and effect on the proceedings were surprisingly minimal; I expected a little more from him, either pro or con.

It is clear that the decisions were made without very much study of the EIR and project in front of the council. To those who say there was a great deal of study, I will ask: Then why weren’t there more questions about the complaints or responses? Why were there so many questions about the project itself? How could the council identify the amount of traffic as the only issue?

There were enough people to reduce the resident response time from 3 minutes down to 2 minutes, so many of us weren’t able to finish what we had planned to say. Here’s what I submitted: (roughly)

I am not against higher-density housing. Well-designed developments would benefit not just the immediate neighborhoods, but the entire city. However, when the EIRs and planning staff responses do not make sense, for either new residents or existing residents, we have to question the specific projects.

The project is flawed.

We want future residents of Santa Clara to love where they live, not simply bear the transit-isolated high-density units they inhabit, that even Santa Clara acknowledges would be damaging to their health. There are no bus stops on Lawrence in the area and those directions are not walkable. This proposal will have no mitigation for noise levels that even the EIR states will have “significant unavoidable long-term noise exposure impact“, 20 dba above what experts think is acceptable for residents. All of the street access is on or near the intersection and ramps that the CHP has declared to be some of the most accident-prone between San Francisco and San Jose. Yet Santa Clara doesn’t want to do a traffic study.

The responses are, at best, incorrect and incomplete.

EIR Response A1: The math is wrong. CHP calculates 42% additional traffic; the city nitpicks and says 30%. 731 additional trips on top of 1739 originally is, in fact, 42% more. The planning staff used the wrong numbers to make the percentages look favorable — intentional or not — which, unfortunately, puts into question every other calculation.

EIR Response B1: It is hard to believe that 731 additional trips per day will not add a minimum 100 trips during peak hour. That would mean we are adding 632 non-peak hour trips versus 99 peak hour trips, which puts into question the definition the planning department used for the term “peak hour”. 340 units, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. 550 cars, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. Young professionals and families, ostensibly with children, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. It is hard to believe, but even harder to accept without a study, or without more recent data.

This point is very important, because it is used to justify not doing a traffic impact analysis in EVERY subsequent response.

We know about the Urban Land Institute studies. We agree with them in concept — largely. Our complaint is not about higher-density; it is about bad projects and flawed studies (or no studies at all). It’s about a feeling of “residents versus the city”. Tell us about the projects. Invite us to your discussions. Ensure that we can give input and help where we can.

Unfortunately, this project and the Santa Clara Square project are giving our city and staff a bad reputation; and they haven’t even been approved yet.

More unfortunate, the council made it seem like traffic was the only issue. People brought up fears, but without solid facts to back them up I will admit that it made the complaints sound a little NIMBY. The city council really isn’t the forum for a discussion, or even for details, so it’s disappointing that this is the only method open to us. The city and developers always get the first and last words, with no time limit for their discussions, yet the residents only get two minutes apiece. Once public discussion is closed, there is no way to provide any kind of feedback, even when it is to correct misstatements from the staff and hired “experts” or provide information the council seems to be asking for when no one on staff is familiar enough with their own EIR to provide it internally.

The city never addresses the CHP comments. Ignoring the concerns of delayed emergency response, increased accidents in an area that is already one of the worst in the Bay Area, and poor circulation, the planning staff answers with improper math and the standard staff line: we didn’t have to do a traffic study based on our assumptions and old data, therefore we did not perform one. They then use that line over and over again to address every traffic-related question brought up in agency letters. Read the responses, or lack thereof, in the EIR yourself and you will wonder what the qualifications are for city planner.

[Edit on 20 May 2008: I spent about two hours discussing the Marina Playa project, among other things, with Yen Han Chen on Monday, 19 May.  He is, and has been, very helpful to our group. So why would I “bite the hand that feeds us”? After writing this blog post, I was inundated with requests to turn this blog into more of a political blog, which, after very short consideration, I have refused to do, at least by intent.  The intent of this blog is to make issues known and support the views of residents as it pertains to their neighborhoods and their quality of life.  This can be done without campaigning, either for or against.  We are trying, foremost, to improve our city, and improvement often comes at the cost of criticism.  To be fair, I will try to ensure that my interpretations of the events and opinions seen as criticism on this blog are accurate, or based on facts of some sort.  Without being for or against public nudity, we should be able to claim that the emperor is naked.  And hopefully most people will be able to come to the same conclusion, not just us children.

Mr. Chen acknowledges the errors and understands how we, an outside organization, can make our claims.  We do not know the ins and outs of the city planning department or the process, and judge mainly by viewing the effects of the actions, not the reasoning behind them. I respect Mr. Chen and his willingness to talk to us, especially after this project.  That does not redress the lack of notification or the deficiencies in either the report itself or planning director Kevin Riley’s and Hexagon’s Gary Black’s presentations to the city council.  As long as the problems are not addressed, my criticism of the improper mathematics (minor criticism) and the inaccuracies perpetrated by Kevin Riley and Gary Black (major criticism) must stand.  It is indeed unfortunate that the process requires a single name to be associated with an EIR, especially one as problematic as the one just accepted, when the direction comes largely from managing staff. I apologize for any problems my statements might have caused Mr. Chen and have changed my wording to reflect this.  The criticisms, as mentioned earlier, are still valid and stand as they are.]

They ignore the fact that the current traffic and accident rates exist even with the Kaiser buildings empty. This means that, although there was a certain condition back in the year 2000 when the traffic data were collected, there is another condition now, that adding 340 apartments with over 550 cars will only exacerbate.

The building heights are at least a story (10 feet) taller than the surrounding community — and 5 feet above Santa Clara’s own height ordinance. The units will tower over Lawrence Expressway and, without any proposed mitigation, will be at the mercy of the noise directly.

Again, Dominic Caserta accepted over $10,000 from the two developers of Marina Playa – BRE and Taylor Morrison — yet he chose not to recuse himself from the voting. As one resident speaker noted, legal or not, it smacks of impropriety. How many other council members have received money from developers while voting for their projects?

And of course Kathy Thibodeaux from Fairfield Residential was there to gauge public response and council reaction. They have a keen interest in what happens to similar projects in the area. The interesting thing to note is that with another high-density project going in next to our same transit corridors, we have different ammunition to use against them. But that’s another story.

More to come.

P.S. Note to the city: I tutor grade school Math (and English, although you probably couldn’t tell from these blog posts); I would gladly donate hours of my time to help make our city staff look more competent to the public. I have a vested interest in making the city I live in look good. This is a serious offer. [Edit on 20 May 2008: The offer still stands.]