Sunnyvale development

Sep 20, 2013

Sunnyvale schools

Sunnyvale politics

Perhaps now would be the time for the council to simply ban contributions from businesses that do business with the city. Then we could actually have debate on the real issues. However, for the the time being, corporate and developer contributions are allowed. So, we have to filter through this before getting to the meat of the campaign.

As for the donations, some candidates are making much ado about peanuts. In the current election, none of the candidates "need" developer contributions to run their campaign. If we exclude the "micro-financed" campaign of Gustavo Magana, all candidates are their top contributor. Excluding developers would not pose any significant hardship on the campaigns. Donations are a viable means for third parties to show support for candidates. Refusing the donations would not change the developer support for the candidate. Accepting the donation would, however, show a willingness to work with the developer for the good of the city.

Claims that these are "career politicians" that are out soliciting heavy donations could also fairly easily be debunked. Four of the candidates are middle-aged (around 50) engineers. There is also a middle-aged CEO and retirement-age investment manager. All six of these guys would likely be well past the prime age for entering a career in politics. They would also be taking a significant pay cut to do so. The only one that seems a likely candidate for a "lifer" is Magana. Alas, he has been fairly well ignored in this election.

It is not likely that developer donations play a strong role in the council decisions. But, lets suppose that they did. Suppose that city council members simply looked at their contributions and voted for the party that would benefit the most. Would this be a bad thing? We have a free market and donation information is publicly available. Opposing parties could make contributions to balance out any big developers. The mantra given by "anti-development" people is that candidates are favoring developers over "ordinary residents". Well, most candidates receive much more from individual residents than they do from developers (much less single developers.) The calculated politician would thus vote in the best interest of the "residents". However, this could very well be in line with the developer.

Pat Meyering raised another issue. Perhaps contributions influence the city to grant better contracts to companies doing business with the city. He suggested the contributions caused the Sunnyvale city council to approve some "pork" for the Smart Station operator. This case can easily be rebuffed by the facts. (Only two candidates received contributions. Even if they had recused themselves, the measure would have passed.) The nature of a "city-manager" type of government makes blatant favoritism more difficult to carry out. Most of the work is carried out by the apolitical city employees who work under the city manager. The primary role of the council is to approve these details. The garbage contract was placed on the "consent" agenda, meaning the council will typically approve it with a number of other items. Politicking only becomes involved when it is removed from this agenda. This is, in fact, exactly what Meyering did. He introduced politics into the discussion as an attempt to discredit the other councilmembers. (In the process, the city staff of Sunnyvale and neighboring cities were also assumed to be corrupt.) The details showed that the owner of the company that runs the Smart station contributed to one candidate in his most recent election, and another candidate in the previous election. Both candidates were terming out of office with no immediate intentions of seeking other office. The tie to receiving a donation is tenuous at best. (I'd saw the fact that one candidate did not receive a donation in the most recent cycle would make him likely to be prejudiced against the company.)

Once we subtract out the issue of "donations", we get to the other issue brought up by the anti-establishment candidates: "development." Development is bad. Developers are bad. City council constantly votes to violate city policy to support these evil developers. The council should stand up to developers and not let them "urbanize" our city and bring with it all the congestion and urbanization. We should try to be like Los Altos Hills or at least Los Altos. Or so the party line goes.

The comparisons can be misleading. Los Altos Hills has an idyllic, rural setting. Lot sizes are large. This limits the number of residents and requires lots of driving, but keeps traffic congestion low. It is located on the periphery of the urbanized area. While 280 passes through on a north-south axis, there is very little reason to travel east-west through the town. Housing prices there are very expensive. Most people in Sunnyvale could not afford to live there if they wanted. If Sunnyvale were to adopt similar policies, people would be priced out of Sunnyvale. There jobs would also leave the city, and overall driving distances and traffic congestion would likely increase. Sunnyvale is "in the middle", with three freeways passing through or near the city, with an additional two expressways passing and numerous major roads passing through.

Los Altos borders sections of Sunnyvale and may be a closer comparison. Los Altos has 28% of the area of Sunnyvale, but only 15% of the population. That leaves it at about half the population density of Sunnyvale. However, Los Altos is almost entirely residential, while Sunnyvale includes a large swath of industrial land. Sunnyvale is also much more diverse in land use than Los Altos. Perhaps a better comparison would be the 94087 zip code. It has a similar "mostly residential" makeup to Los Altos and about the same area, but more than 50,000 people (compared to under 30,000 in Los Altos.) Sunnyvale is just more dense than Los Altos. Los Altos home prices are higher than those in Sunnyvale. Los Altos also has higher taxes (both due to higher values and special measures for schools, libraries, etc.) Sunnyvale residents that prefer the area are more likely to be able to afford the move, however, it wouldn't be without cost. Not only does Los Altos cost more, it lacks some common amenities (like sidewalks and storm drains in most residential areas.) Los Altos has also made a decision to eschew overbuilding roads. (Just take a look at Fremont. From Foothill to expressway to the Sunnyvale border, it is a tree-lined, 2-lane 30 mph road. In Sunnyvale it expands to a 6 lane, 40 mph road. During evening rush hour, there can be a mile-long back-up in Los Altos, while the road moves freely in Sunnyvale.)

While Sunnyvale shares a short border with Los Altos, it primarily borders Cupertino, Mountain View and Santa Clara. All of those cities have approved large scale development. Santa Clara has a new 49ers football stadium. Mountain View has a giant mixed-use project at a former mall on El Camino and San Antonio. (Sunnyvale has tried to do something similar, but at a smaller scale downtown, but it has been eternally stalled.) Cupertino just approved a gigantic Apple spaceship campus right across the street from Sunnyvale. All of these cities get the tax revenue and development fees from these projects. They also have a significant say in how the projects proceed. Sunnyvale can attempt to grovel, but it has no authority in the decision process.

These developments will all produce significant traffic within Sunnyvale. Even if Sunnyvale ends development altogether, traffic will still continue to grow. Sunnyvale also has a large number of employers of its own. Simply cutting off residential development will mean people have to travel from further away to work there, also driving up city traffic congestion. There is high demand for development in the area. If it is not met in Sunnyvale, it will be met in Mountain View - or perhaps Gilroy. The further away the development, the greater the traffic.

Increasing density in a good manner can significantly reduce need for cars and driving. Density also helps to enable lower cost housing. (Simple math: house costs $1.3 million, with $1 million the cost of the land. Put 4 slightly smaller houses on the same land and now you have 4 $500,000 houses. I was disappointed to see one candidate attack density by saying that high density cities like New York have high some of the highest housing costs. This totally confuses cause and effect. New York is dense because of the high demand. Without the demand, costs would plummet. Density is a way to meet the demand. A million dollar Sunnyvale house would cost many times that in a similar-sized lot in Manhattan. People build dense to meet the demand. This makes housing more affordable.

Sunnyvale is lucky to be a core suburban area that remains in high demand. In many other metropolitan areas, cities similar to Sunnyvale are deteriorating. Development has focussed on the inner city and the new outer-ring suburbs, leaving the inner suburbs behind. Sunnyvale is lucky to still be in strong demand for employers and residents. If it were not for development, the city would simply fade in importance and be changing in the "wrong direction." If we force residents out to the central valley, eventually companies will start to locate there, and the allure of Sunnyvale will fade. Rather than fight development, the best reaction is to encourage it to be done right. The development should be coerced together to make a cohesive, walkable community (rather than a series of big box buildings.) There may be issues with development that can be resolved, but fighting development itself is nothing more than a naive sound-bite.

iWoz

iWoz is Steve Wozniak's "brag" book. Humility is not one of his strong points. As a kid he was an "engineering nerd" who was way ahead of everybody else in math and technology. However, he was not so advanced socially. He saw himself as somebody who was interested in both people and technology. (Hmm... Don't all engineers think they have the "human touch", while others are dedicated engineers?)

At the start, we get the kids riding his bike around the orchards in southern Sunnyvale. He went to the (now shuttered) Serra school and Homestead high school. Most of the kids had stay at home moms and were free to do creative antics like create a local electronic intercom system. (Could all the programmed children activities be hurting the creative and education of children?) This silicon valley of the past most have been very different from that of today.

We hear about the science fairs he won, the pranks he pulled, his telephone phreaking, electronic gadgets and plenty of other "nerdy" activities that he did. Then he goes to school, does some pranks, decides to return to De Anza college, gets involved in the home brew computer scene and builds the Apple I. He was lucky to find stores that wanted it. Jobs was lucky to hook up with him and have a knack with people. He was lucky HP (his employer) didn't want part of it. They also tried to sell to Commodore, who didn't want it. He was serendipitously in the right place at the right time. Had he finished school in Colorado, he would probably be just another nameless engineer working at some big company. Had he and Jobs not hooked up, they would both be anonymous dudes. Another one of the many computer startups may have been the one that hit it big. Had they not emphasized quality over price, the ground would not have been set for the current premium model of iOS and mac devices. One thing he mentions is that "marketing" took over Apple pretty early in the company's history. This had started to alienate the "engineer" in him. (But it has ultimately led to the success of the company.) Even during the "dark days" when apple wasn't doing well, they were designing iPods, etc.

Woz wants you to think that he was a uber-engineer who was destined for engineering greatness. In reality, however, he seemed to just be lucky. After Apple, there none of his inventions had really caught on. (Who has used the CL-9 universal remote?) The Apple computer was revolutionary at the time. But he even mentions that he had created the equivalent of the Altair 5 years before it was released. If the Apple I (and Apple II) had not found the right customers, investors and partners, they could have been in the same place. His closing message is to encourage people to go solo and invent without the bureaucracy of a large corporation. However, the "behind the scenes" message is that invention itself isn't worth diddly-squat. You need to make sure the device gets out there and gets sold. Working for a company can leave you rather nameless, but more able to see the fruits of your labors. (Who knows who Jonathan Ive is? Yet, he is responsible for the design of most modern Apple products.)

Red lights bikes sunnyvale

Ugghh. It is annoying when a road has a bike symbol painted on it, yet it doesn't actually trip the light. (Or even more annoying when it trips the opposing red, but then doesn't trip your green.)

How do you resolve?

1) Provide feedback when a light will turn green.

2) Always provide green lights (fixed time cycle). This benefits bikes and pedestrians.

3) Do the Idaho and let bikes run red lights.

4) Have a button to press.

In some cases, there are buttons, but they are usually pedestrian buttons. And the rage is to have only one crosswalk at less-busy intersections (precisely the ones that bikes and peds like to use!)

Making the sensors too sensitive can be a problem.  There are some intersections that trip a turn light, even though cars are in the opposite lane. D'oh!

The old-fashioned timed lights would probably be cheaper, and nicer for everyone, as long as they are timed decently.

Feedback could be a good solution, especially at some of the annoying long lights. (But, why not just make them less long.)

Sunnyvale has, alas, been going backwards. At the intersection of Mary and Fremont there used to be a button to press. Now there is a bike symbol on the pavement. Alas, this is right where right turning cars go. If you go there with a bike, you are likely to either annoy cars, or have cars try to turn right in front of you. If you don't go there, you may not get a green light.  A lose-lose situation.

El camino brt zoning and car dealers

Santa Clara county was pursuing a Bus Rapid Transit lane from Santa Clara to Palo Alto. Sunnyvale opted out because it wanted to maintain parking for car dealers on El Camino. You have to wonder, why do car dealers even need street parking? Don't they have huge parking lots as is? But it just goes to show where the priorities are. Cars=king. Everything else is just subservient.

This is similar to other quests to get bike lanes at the expense of parking. It does not matter if off street parking is only used at 50% of capacity. Those extra on-street parking spaces must be maintained. Even then, the city still mandates a minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces for single family houses. There is no way to win.

I wonder how things would be different if people had to pay for the externalities? If meters were places on the street, would the spaces still be in such high demand? What if meters were placed there and any shortfall had to be made up by the residents? And pollution and traffic congestion? Buses are slow and expensive. Cars are cheap and have no "immediate" costs. Well, duh! Cajoling wont make people change. Lets actually make things better so that there are real options. Of course that is not what the car guys wants, and they seem to have a hold on things.

Housing in Sunnyvale

The city of Sunnyvale complained that 700 housing units per year is too much. Just try to tell that to the many people that are trying to buy houses in the city.

The problem is that Sunnyvale is still trying to solve the problems of last century.

100 years ago, people lived close to where they worked. Factories were loud, polluting buildings that people wanted to get away from.

Thus, the city now has "zoning" to solve the problem. Workplaces are separated in to one zone. Residences in to another.

Except, that is no longer the problem. Workplaces are now sterile with some of the most "green" buildings around. The primary cause of the noise and pollution? The very suburban style that is mandated.

Cars cause much of the noise and pollution. Leaf blowers and lawn mowers contribute to the environmental problem. They are often hired by people to maintain their bit of "suburbia" that they rarely use.

The city does claim that it is "supporting" development by a new "industrial to residential" zoning. However, it also alludes to the problems with providing enough subsidized housing.

The problem is that land is so expensive. By requiring low density housing, the city raises the cost. Requiring subsidies further increases the costs.

Eliminating much of the zoning restrictions would help resolve the problems.
Currently, many single-family homes are being torn down and turned in to larger single family homes (even as household sizes are shrinking.) Instead, these could be allowed to be converted to multi-family housing. Replace one housing unit with four, and you get new, low-cost housing. Alas, the city is obsessed with "big" projects, and often ignores the small work.

There is also the location problem. Southern Sunnyvale has high prices. This is where people want to live. The "industrial to residential" areas are in northern Sunnyvale. There are few amenities there. The location also has heavier industry with its associated issues.

Meanwhile, there is a huge office area north of Highway 237 that has no housing at all. Why not allow some here? This will allow people to walk to the many jobs near there. It is also well-served by transit and would allow contra-flow car commuting.

Alas, the city is still solving the problems of the past. Alas, the city's "bosses" further influence this. Zoning and planning is done by the "current" residents rather than the future residents. People that would like to live in the city have no say in the process. Prop 13 further keeps residents in place. Thus people that moved in to suburban tracts surrounded by orchards want it to stay like it was when they moved in - even though the orchards are long gone. Manhattan was once filled with farmland. When will the South Bay get a clue?

Foreigners running the city

Jim Griffith has created a nice page to gather feedback from Sunnyvale "study issues" at http://www.dweeb.org/2010studyissues.html. His quick capsules are much more readable than the official city site, which is nothing more than a bunch of links to pdf files. And these are not even searchable PDFs, but simply scanned images. (The 'copyright 2003-2005' at the bottom of the page is an indicator as to how much attention is placed on the city web site. So much for being at the center of technology.)

Sunnyvale has an entrenched 'professional' staff. Some live in the city, but many live far away. Some city employees even intentionally seek out housing outside the city to avoid a potential "conflict of interest". Unfortunately, this also reduces the "shared interests" of actual residents of a city. Thus we end up with cases like the staff recommendations on study issues. Some examples:

Out of 17 public works study issues, staff was in favor of 2, "plastic bag ban" and "guided bicycle routes through neighborhoods". The city bicycle/pedestrian commission ranked 6 study issues as worthwhile. The bike routes did not make the cut. While rejecting or ignoring the preferred plans of the BPAC, staff is more than happy to favor devoting 120 hours for guided neighborhood bicycle routes. This is just three weeks work, and does actually provide some benefit (if implemented), so it is not all that bad.
The plastic bag ban is bad. It was encouraged by the county government association. Staff estimate it will take 510 staff hours for this study issue. Why there may be plenty of arguments for and against a bag ban, spending time studying it now is mere waste. San Jose is in the midst of preparing an EIR on a bag-ban ordinance that is set to start in 2011 at the earliest. Palo Alto and other bay area cities already have bans. Why spend time rushing and studying? Sunnyvale is clearly not the innovator in this issue. Trying to spend so much time "studying" it will either replicate other work, or lead to another 'different' ordinance. If you are going to be a follower, do it right. Or better yet, just wait. With a number of bay area cities already enacting bans, chain retailers will likely just follow the same policies through the region. This gives Sunnyvale the benefits with almost no cost.

While staff is interested in spending hours pioneering for plastic bags, they have no interest in pioneering for livability. With many of the BPAC requests, the response is "oh, we follow some standards. We don't see any point in making them better." One study issue simply asks staff to share its criteria with the BPAC. Staff rejected it, saying they planned on sharing. (I think the point was that they had not. Otherwise, the BPAC would not have need of a study issue.)

Staff also believes that Sunnyvale of today is exactly the same as Sunnyvale of 12 years ago. (They reject an issue to improve the Homestead bike lane because it had been studied before in 1998, back when some of those Homestead High students now using it were still in diapers.)

Residential parking?

Biking home in Sunnyvale down Astoria, past Wright, I noticed a number of signs stating "resident parking only". This is in an area where most houses have two and three car garages (with space for at least 2 or 3 more cars on the driveway.) The city requires houses to have 4 parking spots, and many of the houses exceed this.

If the city is willing to spend the money to post signs giving these residents semi-private use of previous public parking, why is it also requiring them to have devote much of their lot to providing additional parking for cars? And furthermore, if street parking is so important, why does it let developers rip out street parking to add multiple private driveways (often leading to private roads with no street parking.)

It probably just comes down to a hidden method of discrimination. Require excessive space devoted to non-living areas, thus keeping property values high. Then donate those 'public' resources in the area to the local residents. In order to not appear too callous, funds can be allocated to subsidized housing. However, these are often kept away from the monolithic single family areas (often in isolated new developments disconnected from most public amenities.) The city also gets to serve as a gatekeeper, allowing it to enforce some restriction of access.

Removing parking requirements and regulations would be the free market solution to obtaining the proper allocation of parking space. However, that would hurt some of the 'sinister' motives in parking policy. Thus we are left with pockets of parking shortages, even while having a huge glut of parking spaces in the city.