Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,This coming Tuesday, June 27, 2017, the San Jose City Council will consider 3 "Urban Village" development plans for the Stevens Creek and Winchester areas of West San Jose. Of particular interest to me is the Stevens Creek Urban Village plan.Please clarify for the record the meaning of this statement in the June 23, 2017 memo from Mayor Sam Liccardo, et al, SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STEVENS CREEK URBAN VILLAGE PLAN (document link here: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_ id=2690&meta_id=644171), included as “Attachment 1” with the text below highlighted: 8. Implementation Chapter (Page 2)b. Implementation Chapter for the Stevens Creek Urban Village must allow for increased heights above the approved village heights if a project provides substantial urban village amenities.Please clarify:1) Does this mean that the implementation chapter “must allow” for consideration of increased heights, or that the increased heights are required to be automatically granted? Please clarify that this statement does not automatically allow for increased heights without a general plan amendment or other mechanism approved by council. As you are aware, building heights are a very contentious issue.2) The term “substantial urban village amenities” is vague and subjective. Please clarify that this needs to be defined in further detail in the implementation chapter.Furthermore, I submit that the following statement is inaccurate or misleading in the aforementioned memo (the June 23, 2017 memo from Mayor Sam Liccardo, et al, SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STEVENS CREEK URBAN VILLAGE PLAN), included as “Attachment 1” with the text below highlighted:Height (Page 4)The height on the sites between Kiely Avenue and Palace Drive were reduced from 150 feet to 120 feet.This property concerns the property at 4300 Stevens Creek Blvd, and is the proposed “Fortbay” development. It is concerning that this property is owned by SCAG member Thomas deRegt, and this should be corrected to avoid the appearance of impropriety.Fact: This statement neglects that:
(b) The community survey (results dated January 2017) also indicated the proposed height was 80 ft. (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66370)
(c) The March 9, 2017 height diagram presented to the community indicated a proposed height of 120 ft. (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/67620)
(d) The 150 ft. height was briefly considered by SCAG however there is no published record on the SCAG website. At the May 11, 2017 SCAG meeting, committee members expressed some confusion and reservations regarding the 150 ft height limits discussed at the previous meeting, and a majority of the committee then voted to recommend an 85 ft. height limit after lengthy discussion and general public testimony. The owner of the property was not opposed to this. Yet this recommendation was not adopted by planning staff, against the advisory group’s recommendation, even though community input requested 65 – 85 ft, and there is a clear history of public presentations showing a proposed 80 ft height limit. In fact, the proposed height limit for this property have actually been increased over time.I therefore request that the public record be amended to reflect these facts. (Reference Attachment 2: height diagram history)I hope you understand the many citizens that have expressed concerns regarding the Stevens Creek Urban Village over the last few weeks have nothing to personally gain. They are doing so out of genuine concern for the community.Finally, I am not in support of the current SCUV plan. In my opinion council is rushing to approve a plan due to an artificial MTC funding deadline. Did anyone ask MTC to extend the deadline?This has unnecessarily created a feeling of mistrust and skepticism in the community over “urban villages” that will take a lot of effort to overcome, and will cause more friction for projects to be completed. You yourselves expressed concern earlier this year that urban villages are not “crossing the finish line”. A vote at this time does not help.In summary:1) Redevelopment on a healthy scale is good. However, what is proposed is out of character for the area - specifically allowing 150 ft building heights. For reference, on the Santa Clara side, two new buildings are being built, both of which are low-rise 1 to 2 story, and the 150 ft. proposed heights are directly across Stevens Creek Blvd from Serena Way, which is a single family one and two story residential neighborhood.
2) There is no planned or existing mass transit in the area – Caltrain, VTA Light Rail, or BART – in contrast to the Diridon Station area or parts of N. San Jose. We’re making huge investments in these types of mass transit, and should be supporting high density in those areas.
3) By amending the general plan to allow for 150 ft building heights, when other urban villages are primarily 65 ft and in some cases 85 ft, San Jose is unnecessarily giving away a bargaining chip that could be used to obtain amenities such as affordable housing, parkland (sorely lacking in the area), or transit improvements. The proposed height limits appear to be arbitrary and in some cases contrary to what was presented to the public over many months. Building height limits can always be raised or reconsidered at any time.
4) One more concern is school capacity. The draft Stevens Creek Urban Village plan makes no mention of the potential impact of 3860 housing units, most of which impact the Cupertino Union and Fremont Union School Districts. Outreach was proposed to be conducted at Lynhaven (see Attachment 3, email), which is in Campbell Union and not in the aforementioned school districts. This is another indication that the community’s concerns were not taken into account.Residents of San Jose, Santa Clara and Cupertino have expressed concerns. Cupertino residents recently spoke out during a city council meeting with concerns about the Stevens Creek Urban Village and lack of engagement from San Jose. (“Cupertino residents worried about planned Urban Village”, SJ Mercury News, June 23, 2017, link to article here: http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php? shareid=0a5f5144b) Please don’t willingly make things worse by rushing to approve this plan without additional input and consideration.Thank you,HH
