Shell Game or Prudent Planning? The latest Santa Clara RDA money shuffle

Despite the ostensible urgency that demanded an emergency meeting of the Santa Clara RDA/Stadium Authority Monday to transfer $4.5 million to a SF 49ers business entity called Stadco, no one seems to know who called the emergency. 


"[I] Can't pinpoint exactly who was the driving force," is how one member of the City staff -- who have been working on the details of the resolution round-the-clock since Thursday -- answered a direct question from Jamie McLeod. Details of the 26-page proposal -- plus about 50, mostly critical, emails -- were not made public until 5:10 p.m. Monday afternoon. 

Despite the fact that no one is quite clear whose idea it was, the City Council was crystal clear in approving it; with Council Members Lisa Gillmor, Pat Kolstad, Pat Mahan, Jamie Matthews, and Kevin Moore voting in favor, and Will Kennedy and Jamie McLeod opposing. "This is an excellent document," said Council Member Kolstad in his ringing endorsement of the proposal.



Predevelopment Agreement for Stadium Site Infrastructure

The move is the latest in a series of efforts to shield money that the City has allocated to redevelopment agency (RDA) projects. Like many other RDAs, Santa Clara is attempting to protect control over RDA assets by transferring them to city government. However, as the legislation continues to evolve, some fear that transfers between municipal agencies may not secure the assets. Their logic is that the only way to protect RDA money may be to put it in private -- not public -- hands. 

The proposal currently on the table in Sacramento moves control of redevelopment assets to currently unspecified local "successor agencies." And those successor agencies are not necessarily city governments. This raises the specter of successor agencies selling parks, libraries and fire stations to private owners.

Further, it's difficult to pinpoint just how the tax increment pie will be sliced, should the RDAs shut down. (Tax increments are the central funding mechanism for redevelopment, and divert the increase in tax revenues resulting from redevelopment back to the RDA). Presumably, after the first year -- where money will flow back to the state to close the budget deficit -- any revenue above what's needed to pay off debt will be divided by the same formula that is used for distributing other tax revenue. 

What won't happen is that all the RDA assets will flow into municipal coffers, although school districts will see more revenue. Combined with California's zany school district boundaries, this fans the fires of  a zero-sum competition between school districts and municipal governments as each vies for a bigger slice of a diminishing pie. 

For example, if the San Jose RDA is abolished, Santa Clara Unified School District will receive its proportional share of north San Jose property taxes. Currently, those property taxes are diverted by the San Jose RDA, leaving SCUSD to deal with a potential doubling of its student population with no additional revenue. Either SCUSD loses or San Jose 

Santa Clara voters approved a ballot measure last June to go forward with a 49ers stadium project. However, the Stadium Authority and Stadco are still negotiating the project's terms and conditions and  the complex financing plan for construction has yet to be completed or approved. Should the project fall through, "the advanced funds that are spent for makeready work will not be recoverable," explains City staff analysis of the measure.

The "predevelopment funding" aims "to ensure that the $4 million previously earmarked for this project, as well as the project tax increment are protected and are used for the purposes which the Council has identified and the voters have confirmed," said Deputy City Manager Carol McCarthy, in presenting the proposed resolution.

The $4.5 million that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SA) will advance to Stadco will pay for "make ready" infrastructure such as demolition, clearing and grading, design, relocating high voltage transmission lines, and regulatory compliance on city-owned land. This infrastructure would be needed for any development on the city-owned land, according to McCarthy. The site is currently leased by Great America for overflow parking.

"It is expected that the City, as owner of the Stadium site, will benefit from the work installed on and adjacent to the site," continues the analysis, "however it is possible that the work may not have value for future development, depending upon the nature of future development on the site."

All of this presents unacceptable risk for Santa Clara say opponents of the measure."The 49ers LLC is an entertainment business operating in our city," Santa Clara resident Clysta McLemore told the City Council. "It is not a bank. Our property tax dollars belong in a public agency to be used for the public good. Tonight's proposal opens the city to absorbing more front-end risk while our city services are being cut, city employees are being furloughed, and school budgets are being decimated," adding that "Measure J didn't discuss predevelopment costs."

"What it looks like from the outside … [is that] you are acting in parochial interests to sequester funds that are ours, not the team's," City resident William Ray warned the Council. "And in doing so you are acting against the interests of the people of California, of which we are members. The idea of racing the clock ahead of the governor and legislature is unconscionable," adding that in his previous home of Palm Beach County, FL, three recent county commissioners -- Tony Masilotti, Mary McCarty, and Warren Newell – are currently serving federal prison sentences for corruption and bribery.

Summary of pre-development funds transfer:

Stadco Predevelopment Costs

• Stadco has incurred a lot of predevelopment costs to date
• Stadco will advance the sa the $40 million for the benefits of SA
• Predevelopment costs includes SA operating costs

Payment of Initial Make-Ready Funds:

• SA advances $4 million to Stadco upon execution of agreement
• Kept in separate account along with any interest earned
• May be used only for make-ready work and SA operating costs in accordance with appropriated budget
• SA will hold RDA potion of development fees in separate account
• Funds returned/retained by SA if stadium is not built

Does the Monday's Emergency RDA Meeting Violate the Brown Act?

One question that is begged by Monday's short-notice RDA meeting is whether the meeting violates the California's 1953 Brown Act, mandating that public agencies conduct their business in a way that is open to public scrutiny. 

The Brown act requires agencies to post meeting agendas at least 72 hours in advance, in a "freely accessible" location, and to describe each item of business – including items discussed in closed sessions – with "enough information to enable members of the general public to determine the general nature of subject matter." Further, public agencies and boards may not discuss, nor take action on, items that aren't on the agenda.

The law allows three exceptions to the agenda requirements: emergencies, a situation requiring immediate action, and items posted on previous agendas. Closed sessions are permitted to discuss personnel matters, pending litigation, real estate negotiation, and labor negotiations. Minutes from closed sessions are exempt from public disclosure rules.

Technically, the meeting and a one-page agenda were posted on the City website Friday, just within the 72 hour limit. But Friday March 18, 2011 was a furlough day -- City offices were closed. However, according to the City attorney, the one page agenda that was posted on Friday does comply with state law. 

"The people, in delegating authority," says the introduction to the Brown Act, "do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." 
The administrative panic about the threat of RDA shutdown might lead some to think that Santa Clara's City Council doesn't agree. 

Candidate recommendations

As we're on the eve of the election, I felt it prudent to get this posted. I've been avoiding doing this mostly because as a reporter, I'm supposed to stay neutral on issues or candidates. But as a citizen of our fine community, it's rather difficult for me to just sit by the sidelines and not speak up, which is probably a reason why I'm a reporter in the first place.

Recommendations:
School Board Race

• Andrew Ratermann (Incumbent) - Santa Clara Unified School District; Trustee Area 3
• Pat Flot (Incumbent) & Anna Strauss - Santa Clara Unified School District; Trustee Area 2

My reasons? I think Ratermann, although a bit verbose at times, is the best candidate for Trustee Area 3. He's intelligent, gives a darn about what happens, isn't running for a political cause (or for political revenge) and is looking out for the best interests of students.

For Trustee Area 2, I think Anna Strauss & Pat Flot are the two best candidates. Flot is articulate, gives a darn about what happens, isn't running for a political cause (or for political revenge). The same goes for Strauss. When I first met her a few years back, I wondered why she wasn't on the school board or running for it. I think she'll be a fresh face and voice on the board.

One BIG problem I have with Christine Koltermann is that Santa Clara Plays Fair has endorsed her, yet she's a member of their board. That just isn't right - see my previous posting about the Sniff Test - Part II. What's even more amusing is she happily lists them as endorsing her on her webpage, but fails to include that she's on the board and then goes on to state that SCPF believes in "...ethical government, transparency in governance..."

One BIG problem I have with Ina Bendis is that two of her endorsements come from fellow board members on Mission City Democratic Club - see my previous posting about the Sniff Test

A problem I have with Christine Koltermann, Ina Bendis and Adela Saadat is that they appear to have copied from each other.

On either their webpage (in Bendis' case) or on the SmartVoter.org page (for Koltermann and Saadat) their ballot statements all include these key words or phrases:

• fiscal responsibility
  
• administrative accountability
  
• transparency in governance
• increased educational opportunities/options/choices
  
• supporting (retaining) teachers and staff
• narrow the achievement gap
  

Those are all great ideas, but for all three of them to have essentially the same ideas, down to the same wording sounds like they should go back to school to learn why plagarism is bad before they consider running for office.

A problem I have with Ashish Mangla is when he states one of his top priorities is to: "Increasing Education standards of the Santa clara city schools along with incentivizing children from economically weaker section of our community"

Except the SCUSD has schools in Sunnyvale and Alviso. Does this mean he'll just worry about Santa Clara schools and those schools in Sunnyvale and Alviso can get by on their own? Also, exactly what does "Incentivizing Children" mean? Is he proposing the district pay students to go to school?

City Council

• Mayor: Jamie Matthews
  

This one was looking like it would be a difficult choice, but one candidate made it easy. I'm recommending a vote for Jamie Matthews. Say what you will about him, I think he'll be more open and honest than Chris Stampolis. Stampolis appears to be a very gifted chameleon candidate - he's able to provide answers he thinks a target audience wants to hear. I've never really seen Matthews do that - he pretty much states his opinion whether you like it or not.

Also, back in 2008, when Matthews was running for Council, I related this story. Even though time has passed, I still think this is relevant in talking about Jamie's character:

"One thing that impressed me about Matthews is his turning down free press. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Matthews and several other Code Enforcement Officers went to New Orleans to help identify houses that were still habitable. Upon his return, I told him the paper could run a story on this, but to my surprise, he declined. He explained that he was just doing what he could to help the victims and didn't want to be in the spotlight. In starting his Council race this time, I offered to do a story on some website shenanigans committed by a former Council member and he declined. Both stories would have shown him to be an upstanding guy but he turned them down. Why tell the story now? I related these stories to a Santa Clara resident who said she felt they should be known."

City Council Seat 2

• Mohammed Nadeem

Nadeem answered a series of questions I put to him that unfortunately, won't make it into an issue of the Weekly. However, the questions I asked of him are questions any Santa Clara resident can ask of a candidate. I'll post the questions and candidates answers soon. Although Nadeem didn't impress me with his answers, I think getting a fresh face on Council could be a good thing.

City Council Seat 5

• Teresa O'Neill

Disclaimer:

• I signed Teresa O'Neill's campaign filing statement - not because I'm now supporting her but because she needed a signature and I thought it would be kind of neat thing to do. Since that time, I've emailed and chatted with Teresa - she answered the questions I mentioned above - but we've never discussed the issues or much of anything else.
  

• I've used Patricia Mahan as an attorney. My wife is quite fond of Patty and has already disagreed with me over this posting. I think Patty is a fine candidate and as a reporter, I've been duly impressed by the gravitas she's displayed sitting on the dais.

That said, I'm in favor of Teresa, in part because of the apparent loophole in how the term limits law applies. I'm sure if elected, Mahan will do a fine job, but I feel term limits should take priority. I think Teresa O'Neill will bring a fresh perspective to the City Council.

The Brown Act and Ina Bendis

Ok. This is not my writing, although I do like the style of this.

This was written by a soon-to-be participating blogger, "Fly on the Wall" on the Around Santa Clara blog, but since the election is almost here and Mr. Fly still can't post, I felt it prudent to get this posted sooner than later. Apparently did Mr. Fly in his email to me asking if I could post it for him (her?) in the meantime. (If I find out Mr. Fly is really a Miss Fly (Mrs. Fly?), I'll correct my salutations).

The appeal of this seems to be how Mr. Fly has managed to capture the spirit and style of Ina Bendis' speaking style.

Once the permissions issue is resolved, then I'll delete this post and allow Mr. Fly to re-post it.

Below is the work of one, Mr. Fly in response to my article about the School Board issuing a "Strong Disapproval" of Ina Bendis.

---------------------------
Mr. Sacks,

What you didn't include in your article was what I see as Bendis' biggest problem. Her commitment to verbosity.

"I should have kept my mouth shut" was a laudable defense, although she rarely will follow that strategy. Instead, she acts more like a crafty petulant child, who caught red-faced with her hand in the cookie-jar intones, that she has done nothing wrong.

Rather, it was the fault of her parents for having purchased the cookies in the first place and then for having placed them in the cookie jar and for not properly securing the cookies in such a way that would truly prevent her from gaining access.

Merely placing them on a high shelf in the pantry actually has forced her to risk life and limb by climbing in an unsafe manner to get to the cookie jar. She, is merely acting the way her parents intended her to act by doing the aforementioned grievances with the cookies and the cookie jar. Had her parents not wanted her to attempt to sneak cookies from the cookie jar, then she would not have been forcibly placed into such a position where her parents are now accusing her of lying, which "quite clearly" (one of Bendis' favorite phrases), she is not doing since quite clearly, this is the behavior her parents sought from her.

On top of that, it should also be pointed out that Mommy and Daddy actually regularly break the law by driving over the posted speed limit, and for not properly stopping before making a right turn on a red light. Furthermore, even though Daddy promised that he would stop smoking, in reality, he has been smoking in the bathroom and blowing the smoke out the window and then washes his clothing and takes a shower to mask the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke.

Additionally, Mommy and Daddy also smoke marijuana on a regular basis in the privacy of their room even though it is quite clearly, a violation of the law and neither of them has a valid medicinal need for it.

Finally, while Mommy and Daddy are smoking their dope, she is left to sit in a dirty diaper as they are both too stoned to know that they are quite clearly violating the Brown Act. This has left her no choice other than to report Mommy and Daddy to child and family services. The social worker assigned to my case was unaware about Mommy and Daddy's heinous actions and she informed them of that."

The “Sniff Test" - Part II

Santa Clara Plays Fair has endorsed Christine Koltermann in her bid for Santa Clara Unified School Board, Trustee Area 2.

Except, "Christine Koltermann... (is) a Board member of Santa Clara Plays Fair..."

Santa Clara Plays Fair's (SCPF) endorsement of Koltermann smells funny since Koltermann is on the board. To be truly objective and easily pass the sniff test, no board member would (or should) ask for, or receive the endorsement of an organization for which they serve on the board.

Also, SCPF includes a link to Koltermann's webpage, but they don't do that for the other candidates. That's really just childish and a way to avoid allowing people to find answers for themselves.

The Sniff Test

Candidate Recommendations – Do They Pass the “Sniff Test”?

As the election season begins its last week, fliers imploring people to vote for candidates continue to pour into and overflow residents’ mailboxes. Each one extols the virtues of their particular candidate or a particular measure.

The Sniff Test
Some of these groups hope voters won’t give the fliers the “Sniff Test”. The “Sniff Test” is a way to literally see how a particular position “smells.” If it seems less than scrupulous, then it fails the sniff test. For example, in the last election cycle, PG&E was the primary backer of Proposition 16 – the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act”. However, Prop 16 was defeated because voters felt PG&E was really trying to protect their own interests. Essentially, it failed the “sniff test” and a majority of voters said “NO”.

A Local Group
Most of the groups behind measures or candidates are a conglomeration of letters and names people think they’ve heard of before, which adds an air of legitimacy to their mailings. The same theory applies to local groups, based in Santa Clara.

One local group is the Mission City Democratic Club (MCDC). The MCDC, as with most politically motivated groups, also has its own slate of endorsements right on the home page of their website. Members of the MCDC have to pay a fee, answer a questionnaire and ask to be considered for endorsements. The Board of the MCDC then decides who should receive their endorsement. However, delving a little deeper, their endorsements raise some questions as people are asking, “Do the MCDC’s recommendations pass the sniff test”?

The Board

• The President of the board is Chris Stampolis, current candidate for Mayor.
• The Vice President of the board is Pat Mahan, current candidate for City Council.
• The Outreach Officer is Dr. Ina Bendis, current candidate for the Santa Clara Unified School District Trustee Area 2.
• The Secretary/Immediate Past-President is Todd Fitch. He’s not running for any office.
• The Past-President is Anna Song, wife of Chris Stampolis, current candidate for Mayor.

The Endorsements
The MCDC has endorsed (this is a partial list containing only Santa Clara candidates):

• Chris Stampolis for Santa Clara Mayor.
• Dr. Ina Bendis, for SCUSD Trustee Area 2
• Christine Koltermann for SCUSD Trustee Area 2
• Adela Saadat for SCUSD Trustee Area 3

The Sniff Test?
MCDC’s endorsement of Stampolis and Bendis smells funny since both Stampolis and Bendis are officers on the board. To be truly objective and easily pass the sniff test, no one on the board would ask for, or receive the endorsement of the MCDC. Look at Pat Mahan. She’s currently Mayor of Santa Clara, is the MCDC's Vice President, is running for City Council, yet she did not receive the MCDC’s endorsement (rumors are she didn't ask for it). The MCDC’s lack of endorsement for Mahan is proper, considering her position on the board.

Addendum

I received an email from Chris Stampolis that stated:

No one pays a fee to seek endorsement by the Mission City Democratic Club.

The Club's Board does not endorse candidates - the membership does. All endorsement votes are taken by secret ballot.

The process was noticed, open and transparent.

I stand corrected... but let's take a closer look...

The fact of the matter - and this is from members of the MCDC - is that the MCDC won't endorse a candidate who isn't a member. And to become a member you have to pay a fee. So maybe no one pays a fee to seek endorsement but they do pay a fee. I mean, the MCDC won't endorse someone who isn't a member, so... perhaps seeking and getting the endorsement of the MCDC is a perk of membership? Like getting a secret decoder ring when you join the Little Orphan Annie's Secret Circle?

Let's take a look at an interesting choice of words - "noticed, open and transparent". Those are supposed to convey the idea that everything was done above board. Noticed to who (or is it whom?)? I don't recall seeing anything published in any newspaper (main stream or not) that the MCDC was going to vote on their endorsements or was seeking candidates to endorse.

As for the membership voting to endorse a candidate and not the board, it still doesn't pass the sniff test to have board members receiving endorsements from an organization.

Questions for Candidates

Early on in the election season, I posted a series of questions to each new candidate hoping to submit a story to the paper. That never happened, in part because of the sloooooow response of some candidates (I'll considering revealing that for a large enough contribution to my favorite charity). I didn't email people currently on the Council or who had served on the Council in the past, since their voting record shows how they felt, whether or not they had reservations at the time.

Here's the questions and my preface to them in the email I sent:

I'm emailing the following list of questions to the candidates who filed papers for this November's City Council elections. It's my hopes to use these answers in a future article in the Santa Clara Weekly about how the different candidates view issues that have affected Santa Clara in the past.

I'm doing this to hopefully provide a more level playing field so the voters can compare the candidates on an issue-by-issue basis.

If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask.

1. Where did you stand on the proposed stadium for the San Francisco 49ers? Please state why you did or did not support the stadium.

2. What is your opinion of the Fairfield Residential Development? If you had been on the City Council when it first came to Council, would you have voted in favor of the development or against it? Please state your reason(s) for or not supporting it.
3. What is your opinion on the BAREC property? Please state your reason(s) for or not supporting developing the property.

4. What do you think should be done with the Santa Clara Square project?

5. What do you think is the biggest area for improvement in the local government in Santa Clara? What do you think is the best? Why?


And now the answers (these are just copied directly from the emails - no editing has been done):

Mohammed Nadem

1 (The Stadium).
I stand for ‘Yes on J’. I think the City of Santa Clara is uniquely positioned for the Stadium. Santa Claran’s will enjoy uncommon abundance and economic prosperity for a long time to come. The Stadium will enhance City identity.

I support the proposed stadium for the San Francisco 49ers because of the following reasons: No new or increased taxes on city residents; No money from the city’s general fund will be used for the stadium project; 49ers are legally and financially responsible for all cost overruns; long term jobs; Expected millions of dollars in economic benefits; Guaranteed new revenue to our Santa Clara schools and public safety services---Fire and Police, etc.

(Nadeem endorsed Measure J with this statement): "The City of Santa Clara is uniquely positioned for a Stadium. Santa Clarans will enjoy uncommon abundance and prosperity for a long time to come.”

2 (Fairfield)
The Developer of the Gallery on Central Park Project on the former Kaiser Hospital site, Fairfield Residential which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, recently announced that it received investment commitments from the CalSTRS. The new money will help fund operations and real estate acquisitions following Fairfield’s exit from Chapter 11. I think the time has come for the City Council to re-open the issue this year, and explore all options to move forward.

If I had been on the City Council when it first came to Council, I would have voted in favor of the development with a reasonable accommodation of the concerns of the residents and neighbors. I would have the Developer work hard with the City Council in resolving the density, open space, traffic, noise and FAR issues amicably. Given that the City's general plan already specifies higher density development for this parcel, I would find a common ground and resolve the residents and neighbors concerns as we add approximately additional two percent of the City of Santa Clara. We must particularly address required services and public safety issues with an end goal to develop the property by bringing existing land uses into conformance with the proposed City’s General Plan.

3 (BAREC)
I think The 17 acre Bay Area Research and Extension Center (BAREC) property is a treasure to celebrate our past and look for future. I support developing the property.

Having said that I would like to see State performs due diligence as required for remediation of the property in accordance with the RAW and DTSC pending initiation of site development. In particular, soil remediation of hot spots of contamination---with Arsenic, Dieldrin and or any other toxic chemicals whether they are in the middle (and or on the outskirts!) of the property--- as clearly identified and addressed in the EIR are safely and professionally handled.

Furthermore, I think all the stakeholders including Santa Clara Gardens, Charities Housing, Santa Clara Methodist Foundation, and Summerhill Homes (if still part of the development) must make sure---contaminated soil is removed, and the excavated soil is replaced properly. In addition, all dust control measures such as water spray, local air monitoring, and soil sampling after cleanup is completed accordingly.

In addition, attention to detail is warranted as health and safety plan complies with the State and Federal regulations and the City staff is kept duly informed. Finally all the stakeholders must protect the health and safety of onsite workers, residents, neighbors, and the general public---as Public Park, New Apartments for low income and very low-income seniors, Single-Family Homes are successfully built on the property in near future as part of our Land Use Strategy in accordance with the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan.

4 (Santa Clara Square)
What I think we should do---is to find a financially sound and environmentally friendly developer who can not only work with the City Council but also listen to residents and neighbors concerns and address and resolve the issues raised. For all developing Cities---traffic, noise, open space, and essential services---Schools, Police, Fire, etc are growing challenges.

As residents of Santa Clara a ‘Software Valley’ (no more Silicon Valley) we believe in innovation, creation, and abundance. If there is a will, there is a way and SC Square project is no exception. I think together, we must find a solution and develop the property as part of our Land Use Strategy in accordance with the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan.

5 (Area for Improvement)
I think the biggest area for improvement is to manage the ‘growth, change and sustainability’ of the City of Santa Clara. We must create and preserve healthy neighborhoods and ensure a diverse range of employment, housing, public space and investment opportunities with democratic accountability. Our current and new City projects must contribute to the overall fiscal development of the City areas to further enhance the City’s high quality of life and better public health & safety services.

***********************************************************

Chris Stampolis

1 (Stadium)
I endorsed and I voted for Measure J. However, I am very concerned that this project be seen as a City stadium that has just one of its uses for professional football. The community's investment of money and neighborhood impacts need to be managed for maximum City return. We have to be honest about resources and impacts; and we have to be creative to steer a range of uses to the stadium that strengthen our economy. And, we absolutely have to build trust with all our residents so they understand and trust the numbers. Transparency is key so our community has confidence in our leaders.

2 (Fairfield)
I am unlikely to have voted to approve the Fairfield development "as is," given the impact on the surrounding community. I believe in maximizing green space, even if this means building taller. Given our very high renter population, we need to create ownership opportunities for young families, so those growing up in Santa Clara have reasonable opportunities to stay in Santa Clara as adults. Develop? Yes. But we need to embrace smart growth that respects existing communities while still providing growth and green space for the future. Multi-story condo living is not perfect, but it provides a reasonable compromise as Santa Clara urbanizes.

3 (BAREC)
I served on the Planning Commission when BAREC development first was proposed and I advocated strongly to resist large footprint development. The City had all the power to decide the future of this property and I believe we could have been more assertive in retaining more green space. I believe the State was short-sighted to seek sale of the property to private development, though the senior housing component brings value. I was most concerned about the clumsy way public trust was approached - including private meetings that were held with some Councilmembers to build consensus outside of public view.

4 (Santa Clara Square)
We still need multi-story mixed use projects. The Santa Clara Square site still should be developed in a reasonable way that enhances multistory ownership housing opportunities and provides quality retail options that increases the City's tax base and El Camino Real's attractiveness. This is the time to encourage neighbors to discuss future options. I favor respectful transit-oriented development that incorporates creative recreational and other green space.

5 (Area for Improvement)
Four items:

1) Academic partnerships that recognize today's young Santa Clarans need outstanding math, science and language training to thrive in the new economy. From the first bell to the last bell is the responsibility of the school district, but from the last bell to the next first bell is the responsibility of the City. As Mayor I will champion homework centers and enhanced mentoring and tutoring efforts so our City's children have great opportunities to succeed. And, the Mayor must be aware of each school's performance so the City can respond to unique neighborhood challenges.

2) Enhanced international relationships that respond to the current demographics of Santa Clara. We have not had any new sister cities in decades and it is time to formalize relationships with communities in China, India, Korea, Mexico and the Philippines. These efforts will show respect and also spur the types of private investment in Santa Clara necessary to create jobs.

3) The El Camino Real corridor needs serious leadership to upgrade its look to the modern standards Santa Clarans demand. In partnership with landowners, business owners and neighboring residents, we must invigorate retail and create new multistory housing ownership opportunities so young families have the chance to build equity.

4) We must prioritize transparency and trust-building after the passionate stadium campaign. City leadership must make difficult budget and staffing decisions in coming months. As we consider furloughs, cutbacks and project deferrals, we must be fully committed to sharing these processes with all Santa Clara constituents. The decisions are not easy, but we can strengthen a culture of mutual respect and disclosure.


Teresa O'Neill

1 (Stadium)
I feel the 49er stadium project has a lot of merit from the land use perspective and the design is very attractive. But I still have concerns about aspects of the financial model. I voted for the stadium recognizing the positive aspects of the project and believing that the areas of the term sheet that I feel are not sufficiently defined to achieve the financial objectives of the City of Santa Clara can be improved in the final contract. The stadium can be part of an exciting center of Santa Clara, but there is much work to do to develop correctly the entire district, as one of the City's own consultants pointed out.

2 (Fairfield)
As a member of the Planning Commission, I voted against the Fairfield project (at 900 Kiely). While I am not opposed to having denser housing developments in principle, I didn't like many aspects of this project as proposed. While I liked the idea of residents in the apartment buildings being able to park their car at the level where there apartment is because of the interior garage design, I didn't like the unattractive façade of the building being built right up to the sidewalk on Kiely. To me, that was far from the "attractive urban streetscape" Fairfield was describing. I didn't like that Fairfield was proposing to pay additional fees to the City to avoid having to put aside an appropriate amount of the land for real open space. Additional fees won't help alleviate crowding in the existing park space across the street. I didn't like how every little piece of patio or parking strip was counted towards the open space calculation. There were a number of issues with the project, including the sequence in which Fairfield was proposing to build the different housing types, traffic navigation through the development and surrounding neighborhoods, the "paseo" along the southern edge of the property, and what I called "the bridge to nowhere." I would rather have seen some taller buildings clustered at the center of the property, offering condo flats (which are much more practical than townhomes on 3 levels as we get older), surrounded by open space, trees, and gardens.

3 (BAREC)
Having memories of BAREC as an active agriculture research station, I had hopes that some or all of BAREC could be preserved in tribute to our agricultural heritage and as a foothold for urban agriculture in Silicon Valley as one way to improve our lives. While I recognize the need for additional housing in Santa Clara, I believed the BAREC property was unique because of its history and that it had never been developed other than for agriculture. It's not clear to me that the State of California made a real effort, once Santa Clara said it couldn't afford to buy the entire property, to find one or more other public agencies to buy the BAREC acreage for a purpose other than housing. The area surrounding BAREC could really use more open space. I believe Supervisor District 4 is the only district in the County without a County park. Looking just at the merits of the development project as presented to the Planning Commission, I believed that the traffic and safety issues were not dealt with adequately, particularly considering that the City's parcel of land is to be used for a senior housing development. I also had concerns for how the clean-up activities on the soil would be conducted. I realize that it was going to be very difficult to have the entire 17 acres preserved in some form of open space, but I had hopes that a compromise could be found to better meet the needs of the entire community.

4 (Santa Clara Square)
From what I have read, it looks like the SC Square project will probably be on hold until this area comes out of the real estate slump. I think Santa Clara Square can be a nice mixed-use development that can be an asset. The parcel of land is sufficiently deep to allow for more density near the center of the parcel and then step down in height and density as the boundaries with the surrounding neighborhood are reached

5 (Area for Improvement)
I think the Santa Clara city government can improve in how it engages the residents to be involved in our community, in part by making sure that residents have more complete access to information and how the City is making decisions. The residents need to have more confidence that their voices are wanted to be heard and will be listened to.

The City has done an excellent job up to the point of these economic hard times at providing very high quality and diverse services to the residents--public safety, parks and recreation, library, and utilities. We need to assure our financial stability to protect those services which are so valuable to residents and our business community.

************************************

Followup
Some of Stampolis' statements read like platitudes to me so I emailed him follow up questions. However, those answers also read like platitudes as well.

Plus, Stampolis emailed both Carolyn and myself asking for an online retraction to an article Carolyn wrote - http://www.santaclaraweekly.com/1633.html because she stated he did not respond to the questions she asked. In Stamplolis' email, he stated he responded to two rounds of questions when my second round of questions was a follow up in hopes he wouldn't sound like a pandering politician.

However, Carolyn and I weren't working together on any articles and my questions didn't involve the budget in the least, while Carolyn's article did. So I took it as a bit odd that he would email both of us asking for an online retraction even though he never answered Carolyn's questions.