Concerned Santa Clara

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

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

The complaints against the project were many:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s getting exciting again.

No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments »

The last day to give scoping input for the 900 Kiely Blvd Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is 3 March 2008 at 5:00 p.m. After that date, all further scoping input will be ignored. The company performing the EIR work is Impact Sciences: http://impactsciences.com

If you would like a copy of the issues below in a Word document ready to be signed and sent or FAXed to the city, please click here. You can use this form letter and add other concerns. To make your concerns known, you can send your feedback to:

Gloria Sciara, AICP,
Development Review Officer
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

gsciara@santaclaraca.gov
or
planning@santaclaraca.gov

FAX: (408) 247-9857

Scoping input differs from EIR input. The Scoping Meeting was held only 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. Each resident comment will be responded to by Impact Sciences in writing.
After the EIR is released in draft form, residents will be notified and given an additional 45 days to comment on the Draft EIR.

There were two scoping meetings held last Thursday, one in the City Council chambers at 3:00 p.m. and one in the cafeteria at 7:00 p.m.

Participants:
From the city:

• Gloria Sciara, Development Review Officer
• Judith Silva, Associate Planner (retired?)

From Impact Sciences (the company doing the EIR):

• Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal, Environmental Planning
• Audrey Darnell, Senior Project Manager

General Issues and Comments:

• The 30 January 2007 Notice of Preparation notification was received late — or not received at all, in some cases — by residents clearly within the 1000 foot radius of the Kaiser site.
• The notification areas should be defined by affected residents and neighborhoods, not just on an arbitrary radius. This left many residents on Live Oak in the dark as some residents received notification, but their neighbors next door and across the street did not. Why was notification limited to radius when complete notification of affected streets would have been more useful? Why would the city notify part of Live Oak, but not another?
• Why were only homeowners notified when the issue impacts the residents of the neighborhood, many of whom are renters? In fact, the majority of the people in the higher density areas of the neighborhood that would be affected live in apartments and thus were not notified at all.
• As the project progresses and changes are made, how do they get addressed in the EIR? (Santa Clara quick answer: If there are substantial changes, the EIR document must be recirculated.)
• Does the EIR address Quality of Life? Because the impacts of the key environmental concerns are Quality of Life concerns as much as they are natural environment concerns, Quality of Life should be used as one of the contexts in which the EIR responses are given.
• The viability of the project should be determined as a result of its effects on existing residents.
• Legal mandates, laws, and standards are minimum requirements. The residents do not want high density developments built in our residential areas that only meet minimum requirements.
• Resident want to see the effects of shadows on green areas (shadow analysis, shadow projections).

Aesthetics:

• We want an attractive, well-designed community.
• Removing the large trees that are already there will break the “natural canopy” look of both the Kaiser site and Central Park. Some of the trees on the site are almost 50 years old. We want to keep the big trees as they are.
• 20-foot set-backs from the curb are not sufficient for 45-foot tall buildings. Increase those set-backs and put green areas such that apartment walls cannot be seen directly from the street.
• Having four-story buildings — that essentially span the entire eastern Kaiser parcel — only 20 feet from the curb when the next highest structures are two stories high to the north, one story high to the south, and open park space to the east, will stick out no matter how they are designed.
• Why can’t the height of the structures be limited to the height of the surrounding neighborhoods or have the larger buildings hidden in the center of the development, away from the streets and houses?
• Blocky, attached high-density apartments look prison-like regardless of the color of the paint or the framing of the windows and doors. Why can’t the attached apartment complexes be smaller multi-unit buildings like in Alderwood, Woodsborough, Laguna Clara, and surrounding higher density communities?
• We need to see specific elevations in a 3-D physical model — street-width versus building heights, sight-lines from apartments windows to neighboring homes.
• Will new retaining walls be built around the project? How tall will the walls be?

Air Quality:

• What measures will be used to reduce and vent exhaust from cars in the multi-story, enclosed parking garages?
• What measures will be used to control the venting from gas fireplaces and kitchen areas?
• How will the city replace the filtering effect of the tall trees planted throughout the Kaiser property?

Biological Resources:

• How will Saratoga Creek be protected from contamination before, during, and after demolition and construction?

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity:

• Will there be on-going soil studies during construction or a requirement to take soil samples during construction?
• How is the EIR going to address changes in the project if issues are found after construction has started?
• How will the fact that the area around Saratoga Creek is designated a 100-year flood zone affect this project?

Hazards and Hazardous Material:

• How will the asbestos and other hazardous material in the existing hospital site be monitored and controlled during demolition?
• During construction, how will dust and other airborne materials be controlled or prevented? What monitoring methods will be used?
• What pro-active measures will be taken to protect the surrounding neighborhoods in the event of a major failure or accident? For example, during the initial construction of the hospital, a crane hit a power line and caused a fire and a power outage affecting the entire neighborhood.
• What site safety/contingency plans that include police for traffic control and fire departments for emergency response will be in place during demolition and construction? We don’t want another Santana Row fire. Will this information be available to residents before construction?

Hydrology and Water Quality:

• The current storm water run-off drain system flows into Saratoga Creek. How will the city prevent run-off from going into Saratoga Creek as described in the NOP?
• If the storm water run-off is going to be dumped into the city’s sewage system, how will the San Jose/Santa Clara water-pollution control plant handle additional run-off? Will this run-off be treated on site?
• How will the fact that storm water run-off is going to be dumped into the city’s sewage system affect our well water supply?
• How will the additional run-off affect other communities’ sewer systems?

Parking: (yes, we know this is not a key term)

• The Fairfield Residential project will not only introduce over 800 new families, it will remove a large event-parking resource. How will this affect city-wide events, like the Fourth of July celebrations, the Art and Wine Festival, and others?
• Parking and access problems already exist at the post office, library, swim center, remaining grocery store, and Central Park. How will these be changed to accommodate an additional 800 families?
• We would like retaining walls along the perimeter of the complex to reduce the incidence of street parking on public streets.

Land Use and Planning:

• How does R-36 zoning fit in with existing R-6 to R-22 communities, both in terms of density and in terms of preservation of communities?
• Can residents submit an alternative site plan for the project? If so, will it be attached to the EIR and looked at by the staff?
• Residents are strong proponents of low density or mixed use. Would there be a possibility to lower the density, or offer mixed use? (Santa Clara quick answer: Currently the land can be used for institutional, park or recreation, or residential; if retail or commercial use is requested, the land would have to be rezoned)
• The city saw fit to allow a flexible zoning for the Kaiser site. What mixed-use plans were reviewed or will be reviewed before deciding upon just higher density housing?
• Although loss of property values may not be considered an environmental impact in the same way effects to Utilities and Land Use are viewed, it should be considered along side them. Social and economic impacts affect Quality of Life just as much as Aesthetics and Air Quality.
• How does the project construction coincide with the NFL stadium or other projects?
• There are other development projects, like the stadium, 8-story tall high-density units at Santa Clara Square, and others, being planned or built in the area. How will Impact Sciences determine when there is a cumulative impact of the many projects in close proximity and they should start considering them all as a single project (in terms of effects, etc.)?
• Is the city looking at the cumulative effects of multiple high density areas so close together?
• At the time the site was rezoned (over 3 years ago), many of the higher density projects in the area — like The Enclave, the several project on and around Homestead, the Santa Clara Square — did not exist. How does this affect how the city manages higher density projects?
• Does the city believe that higher density attached complexes like Fairfield Residential’s plan are better suited for residential neighborhoods like the Pepper Tree area than areas closer to industry?
• Stock explanations of how the General Plan was updated several years ago do not take the place of real answers.

Noise:

• What measures will be taken to mitigate the noise of trucks and equipment during demolition and construction?
• Can additional limits be placed on the construction times to restrict work to weekdays only, 8 hours a day?
• Noise and heat from air conditioning doesn’t currently exist in the older neighborhoods as much because there are relatively few air conditioning units. How will noise and heat be studied to determine impact and how will these impacts be mitigated?
• More people in closer proximity will generate more noise. Higher buildings mean that this noise cannot be kept out by traditional 8 foot retaining walls. How will this be addressed?
• More cars and more people equate to more noise. How will the noise be managed without having to have residents resort to calls to police? This will be a nuisance to both residents and the police force.
• Enclosed parking garages can create an “echo” effect, worsening the noise from cars. This cannot be stopped by gates.
• There was a noise restriction for the neighborhood due to the fact that there was a hospital nearby. This will no longer be in place once the project moves forward, increasing the noise from fireworks displays and other events even before new residents move in.

Population and Housing:

• This project will increase total resident population without adding any services, parks, recreation areas, or retail and commercial space. Where will these additional people go?
• When other cities in the South Bay — like Palo Alto, Los Altos, and even Sunnyvale — are questioning the ABAG density goals, why is Santa Clara so intent on higher density?
• How can this area simply add more people without adding to the area infrastructure?
• Although affordable rental housing is good, people would prefer affordable ownership.
• Does the city want to make a name for itself only in terms of affordable housing, or do the quality of the houses and the quality of living in the neighborhoods make a difference?

Public Services:

• With 800 families moving in, there is a potential for 1600 children. What will be the impact on schools and how will the city address this issue?
• What will be the impact of increased density on shared services outside the neighborhood, like the Senior Center? Residents have trouble parking already.
• With the parking and access problems that already exist at the post office, library, swim center, and Central Park, how will the city justify simply adding more people and cars?
• What will be the Emergency Medical Service response?
• There are potential officer safety concerns caused by the higher density and unfamiliarity with the new site. How will these be addressed?
• Will the new site provide its own private security, or will city police be used?
• Will all areas have enough access for fire trucks and ambulances? They need to move in quickly and cannot afford to get caught up on turns, street parking, or other obstacles.
• Will future residents be notified of any access limitations the projects has in terms of fire trucks, ladder trucks, and others?
• While construction is being done, the alarms and sprinkler systems will not be operational. There will be a need for full-time fire and police protection during this time. How will this be provided so that we do not have a repeat of the Santana Row and 550 Moreland fires?

Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation:

• Is Kaiser drive to remain a public roadway?
• During demolition and construction, trucks and equipment should not be allowed to go through local streets, but limited to access from Kiely.
• Construction vehicles, equipment, and worker vehicles should be kept off of local streets. Parking should be within the confines of the Kaiser property grounds.
• The city has stated that there are no known studies that correlate transit usage based on density. Since the increased density in this area will be high and the problem will become more common in the future as the city pushes high density into other areas, the city should invest time and resources to perform a study as a service to existing residents.
• Woodsborough has an easement on Kaiser Dr — how will this work out when Fairfield Residential takes over?
• Left turns into Kaiser from Kiely Blvd caused problems in the past, and now Fairfield Residential’s suggestion is to reopen this. Residents do not want a repeat of the problems that have already been shown.
• What will be done to reduce the speed on Kaiser Drive, Pepper Tree Lane, and Live Oak? There are already incidents of racing and car accidents.
• What will be done to reduce the congestion on Pepper Tree Lane and Live Oak? During commute times residents can be trapped in their driveways as cars are stacked up at the intersections on Kiely, Homestead, and Benton.
• Two cars per unit makes sense in the city or in developments where each unit also comes with parking around the perimeter of the development. The perimeter around attached high density units does not increase proportionally with the number of units, so the “two parking spaces” minimum requirement may be insufficient for this type of development.
• 800 families will bring in 1600 cars; adding new teenage drivers would raise the number even higher.
• Numbers of cars and numbers of car trips should also take into account local data, not just state averages or averages from other cities that are not so intent on higher density.
• Distribution and use of parking spaces is just as important as the number of spaces. When people with bigger or expensive cars cannot fit two cars into their minimal garage space without trouble or fear of damage, at least one car will be put on the street, taking away from street parking. How do we minimize this and enforce reservation of street parking for guests?
• When residents use garage spaces for storage or additional rooms, one or more of their cars will be put on the street.
• Even single room apartments may have two or more cars. Three or four room units may have three or more cars.
• The city claims that there is no direct relation between more traffic and more traffic accidents. How did the city reach this false conclusion, or how does the city explain that when the traffic goes away traffic accidents disappear?
• The local roads around the Kaiser property are two lanes wide (one lane in each direction). The major access roads are merely four lanes wide (two in each direction). This area was not intended for high-density traffic.
• How will Fairfield Residential control parking on the site and around the site? Homeowners Associations would not include the rest of the neighborhoods that are affected. There should be a way for current residents to continue inviting guests and parking existing vehicles without the fear of tickets or lack of space.
• How often will road repairs caused by heavy equipment or higher density traffic need to be performed? How do we mitigate the effect on the residents?

Recreation:

• Where will the children play when there is no open space in the Fairfield Residential plan except postage stamp-sized green areas? Kids will have to go to streets or Central Park, which are not safe or are already saturated with people.
• The way the open space is distributed in the Fairfield Residential plan, with no large areas for athletic activities or children, there doesn’t seem to be enough room for Fairfield residents to perform all of their recreation on site. With the public areas already fairly crowded, what will be done to accommodate another 800 families?

Utilities and Services Systems:

• Along with the ABAG recommendations for growth in density, there is the recommendation for parallel growth in municipal transit. Without additional transit, service, and utilities, including parks and recreation areas, it does not make sense to focus only on density.
• Woodsborough uses over 30,000 gallons of water per day. Is Impact Sciences going to use data that already exist (such as at Woodsborough)?
• How often has this area been disrupted by power losses and other failures? For example, there was a three day period of no electricity after the last earthquake.
• Kaiser had its own electrical grid and diesel generators to alleviate the power draw, which won’t be the case for the new apartments. How will this increased load affect the power of the existing neighborhoods?
• Kaiser hasn’t moved out, it moved away and expanded. The original power and water requirements have not gone away, they have simply moved and increased. Building additional high density apartments will only increase the loads.
• No matter how green construction tries to be, more people and more units require more services and utilities. There is no way to reduce existing water and power use by adding more users.

No Comments »

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

Paraphrasing from the Final EIR information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come.

No Comments »

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

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

• First Session:

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

• Second Session:

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

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

No Comments »

Many people have expressed concerns about the proposed Fairfield Residential project.  Unfortunately, it is clear that very few people have the time or knowledge to do anything about their concerns, even if they wanted to.  Not having been involved in public processes in the past and busied by the need to pay mortgages and care for families, residents rely more on others, or, as I like to put it, each other.  Even if you go to City Hall, who do you talk to?  What’s the proper process?  How does one get on the Planning Commission agenda?  What happens when the people at City Hall disagree with or contradict one another?  Why does this happen so often?  Where do you find the appropriate documents for a project?  If the planning department staff does not get back to you, what’s the next step?  If you don’t know yourself, you find someone who does.

I talked with the editor of a local newspaper last week.  She held the attitude that if residents didn’t care enough about their community to read the newspaper, browse the internet, watch the news, attend City Council and Planning Commission meetings, or call and write to the City, it was not anyone’s job to hold their hands.  But societies are based on public responsibility as well as individual responsibility.  That’s why we have newspapers and City Councils in the first place.  Isn’t it?  While it would seem nice to have well-informed, extroverted, public speakers and petition writers living in every household, we shouldn’t exclude households if they don’t.  And people don’t NOT read the newspaper, NOT watch television, NOT go to City Council meetings, and NOT call the city because they don’t care.  She softened her view a little after some back-and-forth, and we had a very good discussion afterward.  She probably still thinks that I am a bit silly, though.

This is a reminder that as long as we can rely on each other, no resident has to struggle alone or in isolation.  The Pepper Tree Neighborhood Association steering committee is committed to making your opinions and concerns known through the proper channels.  All you have to do is tell us what those opinions and concerns are.  Read our newsletters to find our numbers and e-mail addresses.

If you can’t find them or are too tired, you can still write to me: kevin at liveforeverodt.com (but you have to edit the address yourself).  And thank you to all who already write.

1 Comment »

Fairfield Residential will be coming (again) at our invitation (again) to meet with residents at the Woodsborough Activity Room on Wednesday, 20 February 2008, at 7:00 p.m.

On Thursday, 21 February 2008, there will be two Scoping meetings at Santa Clara’s City Hall to give residents to voice their concerns to the city.  There will be one meeting at 3:00 p.m. and a second meeting at 7:00 p.m. for those who cannot make the first.

For directions to the meeting places, please see the Locations page.

No Comments »

Fairfield Residential has come to the Pepper Tree Neighborhood claiming to want to work with the neighborhood, yet they haven’t taken many pro-active steps to back up their claims. The only times they have spoken to residents was when they were given opportunities to present their marketing material or address their issues while ignoring those of the residents — and usually at our invitation. While they may point to their door-to-door “survey” as a bridging action, most residents saw it as an attempt to quell discontent without actually addressing the concerns of the community; according to some residents, Travis and his sidekick talked quite a bit, defending Fairfield Residential’s views on the project with some misdirection, but they took very few notes. We have not seen Ed McCoy, Dan Milich, John Franco, or even Kathy Thibodeaux (Fairfield Residential’s neighborhood liaison) anywhere near our homes without a marketing opportunity present.

John Franco and Kathy Thibodeaux claim to be from the area, but the Santa Clara they remember is not the Santa Clara they are trying to make it become. And they certainly don’t hold any allegiance to us now. Kathy Thibodeaux hasn’t lived in Santa Clara for over 17 years. John Franco lives in San Jose, but works in the San Ramon area (interestingly, about a 40 minute commute). They state their connection to our city, but make no attempt at understanding or accepting our views, or reaching out to us as residents. They are saccharine thrown in to hide the taste of Fairfield Residential’s real offering, but I’m not biting.

At last Monday’s meeting Ed McCoy made it very clear: Fairfield Residential will not lower their density. It is not an option they will consider. This is the reason that after our initial concerns, Fairfield Residential’s response was merely to change some color schemes, soften the prison tower look of their High Density apartments, and point out the shrubbery beside their required access ways and sidewalks, claiming them as common open space. As one resident pointed out, “Where will the children play?” The bits and pieces of green they present as “seven acres of common open space” are a lot of sawdust, but there is no table there.

But forget about their common open space calculation, which includes walkways, sidewalks, and any other possible piece of land that is not dedicated to streets or buildings. Their density designations themselves are wrong. While their calculation of open space is a bit like advertising the shell of the egg as a bonus thrown in when you buy the egg white and the yolk, their density claims are like selling you two eggs, but only giving you one. Their claim for the apartments is Medium Density, which means “26 to 36 dwelling units per acre” according to the Housing Element of the General Plan. (Unfortunately for Santa Clara. In every city neighboring Santa Clara, except San Jose, the Medium Density designation that describes the plan Fairfield Residential submitted would fall under “High Density” or even “Very High Density“; it is only in Santa Clara that Fairfield Residential is able to fall back on the rather innocuous sounding Medium Density designation.) According to the numbers in Fairfield Residential’s application to the City, they intend to build 542 apartment units on approximately 9 acres of land, which brings the density in the area they have labeled Medium Density to a whopping 60 units per acre. That is almost twice what is allowed for that designation and puts them quite clearly in the realm of High Density. If they are going to designate some areas Low Density for the marketing appeal, then it seems only reasonable to designate the high density areas as High Density for accuracy, at the least, if integrity is not possible. 60 units per acre is High Density in any city, even Santa Clara.

We as permanent residents are not as concerned about the look-and-feel of the High Density apartments as we are about the look and feel of the neighborhoods, streets, shopping centers, graffiti-free walls and fences, grocery stores, parks, post offices, Fourth of July fireworks, work commutes, and peaceful nights. Yet the look-and-feel of the apartment design is the extent of the changes Fairfield Residential is willing to make. And despite all of the misdirection, that’s what Fairfield Residential is building: High Density apartments.

Ed McCoy of Fairfield Residential claims rather forcefully — but incorrectly — that the Santa Clara General Plan requires them to build to 36 units per acre. The truth is that the Kaiser property has a mixed use zoning. As Kevin Riley clarifies:

The General Plan designation was changed by the City Council in 2003 from Institutional to a combine flexible designation that permitted any one or all of several land uses. This designation permits Medium Density Residential (up to 36 units per acre) and/or Park/Recreation and/or Institutional, and was so designated in anticipation of various scenarios upon the reuse or redevelopment of the site.

Ed McCoy’s insistence that Fairfield Residential has to build to 36 units per acre is akin to us claiming that they are required to transform the entire site into a Park or Recreation area. Ed McCoy also does some hand-waving when he tries say that they are providing a mixture of single-family homes and townhouses as well as High Density apartments. The truth is, if Fairfield Residential put more apartments instead of adding single-family homes and townhouses, its plan would far exceed the 36 units per acre limit, as was shown earlier. They are not doing us any favors by providing single-family residences; they need those residences to justify their apartments and get some financial return on the rest of the land. It is not concern for future residents that they have included single-family dwellings; they’re doing the best they can do to bring in more revenue.

Appendix F:
Santa Clara owes it to its residents, both current and future, from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative so that we can make the wisest decisions for the use of our limited resources. By being so immovable, uninformative, and — in the best case — incorrect about a project so big that it can affect not just the residents who live nearby, but anyone who chooses to travel by any means through the heart of our city, Fairfield Residential has proven that it does not have the welfare of our city or its residents in mind when they develop in our midst. For a functional neighborhood, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

The Kaiser site is mixed use. Fairfield Residential, let’s mix it up.

No Comments »

We presented in front of the City Council tonight — Item 9b on the agenda. The presentation we gave follows later on this post, but I thought it would be entertaining to go over the history of our struggle to present.

We originally submitted our written petition — including a CD with the presentation, as well as a printed copy — on 13 December 2007, with the intent on making the 8 January 2008 City Council meeting. We were bumped to the 22 January meeting due to agenda issues concerning the ‘49ers. On the Thursday before the meeting on the 22nd, we were told that City Hall had misplaced the CD containing the presentation we had intended to give. I sent another copy of the presentation via e-mail to both Gloria Sciara and the city clerk’s office the next day. A second call then told us that our agenda item was being pushed back due to special agenda items concerning the ‘49ers. There was a special City Council meeting held on the 15th to address the ‘49ers which lasted until midnight, and any items not covered were moved to the special agenda section of the regular City Council meeting on the 22nd. Because they could not guarantee that the meeting on the 22nd would not also last until midnight — special agenda items are handled first — our presentation was effectively moved to the next City Council meeting on 12 February. One day before the meeting (yesterday), Kirk Harter from City Hall informed us that they had misplaced our presentation — again — and that I would have to send them another copy. I sent another copy — slightly updated — directly to Kirk shortly after noon on 22 February.

The funny thing is, the copy they used during the presentation was the one we originally submitted back in December, almost two months earlier. What’s going on here?

The original presentation was created before Fairfield Residential’s application had been submitted. There were some inaccuracies in the numbers and many of the things we know now were not included. Remember, the original presentation was created two months ago with the intent of presenting it over one month ago — and we weren’t allowed to change it for tonight’s meeting. So we improvised. Just a little.

The slides still remained with their original text. Instead of reading the text directly, different text was written to be read while the various slides were shown. I tried to keep it relevant, but without adequate time to practice, I ended up taking more time than allotted. We were given 3 minutes to speak; I probably needed 3.5 to 4 minutes. I didn’t think it would be too much of an issue because the speaker for agenda item 9a went well over his time limit and was not stopped; he had well over 6 minutes. I was a little surprised to be cut short with only one slide remaining.

Here are the presentation slides, along with the text of what was read while the slides were shown. The text is a little bit of a rehash stuff that was previously on this site, but it was probably the first time the City Council heard it.

Click here to download a PDF file of the entire slide presentation.

There are many new higher density developments in Santa Clara, especially in the area around Kiely Blvd and Homestead. The densities are much higher than the existing neighborhoods; and if you look, the majority of housing around Kaiser is already higher density apartments and townhouses.

Even Measures A and B only presented 16 units per acre, with allowances for a public park area. We need densities that will not only benefit future residents of Santa Clara, but also the current residents. As the city expands in terms of people, we need the safety, services, industry, and quality of life to grow along with it. The city’s primary concern should include personal quality of life, not just private wealth creation — or even taxes. That’s what taxes are for.

As more and more people move into our neighborhoods — not just the city — we need to address how the people are taken care of. With every new higher-density development that gets put in place, there is a strain put on existing commercial business, services, and utilities. When new developments do not address the existing problems, it seems reasonable that they will only get worse with the addition of more people. Spend some time at our post office. Buy groceries at our supermarkets. Drive our morning and evening commutes.

The average commute for our area is over 40 minutes. With reduced industry in the city, residents have no choice but to go farther and farther away to support their families. Single income families are rarer — at least by choice. People need places to work and places to relax, not just places to live. That’s what living is — not just a place. More cars also require more parking — and spaces are not just about numbers, but the distribution and use of those spaces. When cars get bigger or more plentiful, we’ll find more of those cars on the streets.

Even with “green plans”, more units require more facilities, services, and utilities. And Kaiser hasn’t moved out; they’ve simply moved… and expanded. The service and utility requirements for our area have not been dimished, and every time a lot is replaced with higher density housing, those needs increase.

People don’t just need places to live, they need space. And Privacy. And Safety. When people make investments in property — their homes — they also need assurances that their investments can be protected and that their families are safe.

We would like the density plans looked at again, from the perspective of the people who live in Santa Clara already. It is about Quality of Life. The development at 900 Kiely is being presented based on a decision over three years ago. In that time, many things have happened:

• The number of higher-density housing has increased quite a bit in the surrounding areas.
• There are more cars per household.
• There are fewer grocery stores to support more people.
• People are spending more time on the road to go to work.

We need development that is compatible with the community that is already here — what the environment will support. We need places to go, not just more people. We need ways to use fewer cars, not have more cars.

We need the city to stop focusing on the details of the “coulds” and “cans” of the general plan, density goals, and other inanimate concepts and focus on the people in the neighborhood.

We need reasons for people to make the move to Santa Clara itself, both in terms of home ownership and careers, not just for renters to stop here temporarily while they work and eventually buy houses elsewhere. It is about affordable home ownership, not just affordable rents. It is about good homes, not just more houses. It is about being the heart of Silicon Valley, not being just a work-pool for neighboring cities. It is about long-term investment, not just short-term gain. It is about personal quality of life, not private wealth creation. Industry and jobs gave rise to the population originally; it is foolish to think that people will come just because there are houses when the jobs are moving farther and farther away, or regulated to 30 days per year during a sports season.

Santa Clara should be a city for the people, not just a city full of people.

No Comments »

Motherhood and apple pie…

In every city neighboring Santa Clara, except San Jose, the plan Fairfield Residential submitted would fall under “high-density” or even “very high-density” housing.  It is only in Santa Clara that they are able to use the rather innocuous sounding “medium” and “moderate” density designations, probably to support projects like Rivermark.

Rivermark was a planned community in an area next to a main thoroughfair (Montague Expressway) that did not impinge greatly on the space or resources of the existing residents.  They didn’t just add more people; they added a school, a new library, streets to easily access the housing, a shopping center with a supermarket and restaurants, and recreational areas for people to relax and enjoy themselves.  They didn’t intrude on a neighborhood or have to worry about fitting with an existing community of permanent residents.  They didn’t develop in an area where the majority of the streets are a single lane in each direction and the biggest streets in close proximity are only two lanes wide.  They developed close to industry and created what is in essence a miniature town on over 150 acres of land.  It almost made sense to be there and it increased the value of the property on the other side of Montague Expressway by providing places for people to go.

The Fairfield Residential project is a different animal altogether.

Fairfield Residential focuses on the letter of their allowances and argues points such as “the plan they submitted would reduce the density allowed by the general plan” while ignoring the density itself, the effects of the density on the existing populace, and the compatibility of the density with the surrounding areas.  Just because the state has a legal limit of 0.08% blood alcohol content doesn’t mean you should get behind the wheel and drive if you blow a 0.079%.  Fairfield Residential asks us to accept (hopes we will?) what they have offered because the ruling the City Council made several years ago allows them to make it worse if they so choose.  I’ll file their comment under “New and Improved, but still not good” (Sure it cuts your arm off, but it used to kill you).  The attitude of the developers certainly sets a tone for what kind of neighbors they will be if they are allowed into our neighborhoods.

Our objections are not “Not In My BackYard” objections to commercial housing development on the Kaiser Property in general.  Any resident would fully support a project that was thought-out and kept the welfare of the existing residents in mind.  Although the phrase heard most often is “high-density”, the heart of the issue is quality of life.  A project focused on quality of life would not only entice future home owners to come, but may in fact convince current residents to stay.  We just need to be convinced that both the city and the developer of the land actually have the welfare of our existing community in mind when they insist on what is best for us by submitting a plan without talking to the residents until after the fact.  We as a community need to be seen as part of the process, not just as objections to be overcome or work around, which is the overall feeling of how Fairfield is treating us.  And we as a city need to be a destination, not just a stopping point.

Fairfield Residential needs to stop focusing on the details of the “coulds” and “cans” of the general plan and other inanimate objects and focus on the people in the neighborhood.  They need to block out the shininess of their new development and look around at what is already here.  They need to stop measuring data with machines and spend some time driving, eating, and living in the community.

The City Council needs to stop looking at projects as campaign opportunities or lines on their resumes, but as legacies that will stay with the city and its residents.  The Planning Commission needs to look at the density not as a target, but as a tool to achieve something greater.  It’s really about quality of life.  It shouldn’t be a game for politicians who have plans for other offices later in life, or even financial gain in the short term, but a serious issue that affects the lives of thousands of people who simply want to live out their lives in the best city in the Bay Area.

The people of Santa Clara need to start taking their role in the city more seriously.  We need to realize that we are in this together and that if someone isn’t pulling the job may take longer or may not get done at all.  We need to vote for our representatives not based on single events in their past histories, but on net long-term effects.  We should support people who help our city and remember those that don’t.

We need reasons for people to make the move to Santa Clara itself, both in terms of home ownership and careers, not just for renters to stop here temporarily while they work and eventually buy houses elsewhere.  It is about affordable home ownership, not just affordable rents.  It is about good homes, not just more houses.  It is about being the heart of Silicon Valley, not being just a work-pool for neighboring cities.  It is about solid investment, not just cheap investment.  It is about personal quality of life, not private wealth creation.  Industry and jobs gave rise to the population originally; it is foolish to think that people will come just because there are houses when the jobs are moving farther and farther away.

When I first moved to Santa Clara, the only people I knew that had 45-minute commutes lived in Morgan Hill, Foster City, or San Leandro.  Today, it’s the average commute time for residents in the 95050 area code.

The growth should be planned and the density managed.  And the quality of life improved or maintained.  We have no downtown in Santa Clara due to poor planning, and our high-density developments seem to be based merely on land availability.  With every new high-density development that gets put in place, there is a strain put on existing commercial business, services, and utilities.  When the new developments do not address the existing problems, it seems reasonable that they will only get worse with the addition of more people.

No Comments »