Letters to the editor

On Nov. 19, 2015 a major update within the County of Santa Clara’s General Plan became effective. The revised local-serving use definition, known as R-LU 57, attempts to set reasonable limits of “size, scale and intensity” of new institutional and commercial uses in the unincorporated areas. The change was initially quite well-received by neighborhoods, but after a short honeymoon of just four weeks, citizens revolted against the new law.

I am the appellant in the Canh Thai Temple matter. This temple has become famous as the “bad neighbor Buddhist Temple in San Jose,” but at stake are issues of even greater import than code compliance. In a recent open letter to the county supervisors, my neighbors and I urged awareness and action: “The current R-LU 57, ignoring Floor Area Ratio completely, encourages the buying of small lands for establishing institutions; it could even encourage the owner of a 15-acre property to split their land 10 times to create 10 Canh Thai Temples. We urge you to look at the long-term market-driven consequences of disregarding density and the General Plan.”

This temple is a peculiar case in point. It is on land that San Jose planners and voters designated as greenbelt by saying “Yes” to Measure K in November 2000, by an 80 percent landslide. For San Jose, the greenbelt is to be the green forever, as it is permanently delineated by the 15-percent slope contour. Even if Canh Thai Temple were to be identified as urban in scope—as the neighbors have protested, quite vigorously—there is zero chance of the property ever being annexed by San Jose. Measure K specifically requires any redrawing of the greenline to be approved by the voters.

Two recent permit reviews have already eroded the credibility of the new “local-serving use.” First was the approval of the VVGC (Hindu Center) on Dec. 17, 2015 by the Planning Commission. At 16,500 square feet, the VVGC will be the largest religious institution ever built in the unincorporated areas. Second is the Canh Thai Temple proposed for Evergreen, heard by the Board of Supervisors Feb. 9. The Canh Thai Temple, situated on a small 1.6-acre property, has more than triple the density of most other unincorporated religious institutions.

Additionally, in the pipeline is the 29,000 square foot Cordoba Center. The unincorporated county has been the home of a dozen religious institutions, all under 10,000 square feet. Soon, it could be home to the newest megachurches.

Overly dense and intense rural development has been an ongoing point of dispute between San Jose and the County over the years. Rural density is of enormous importance, since it limits the growth-inducing potential of developments that, otherwise, would become hidden future costs to the city—such as heavily used roads and other services.

R-LU 57 formerly stated the following, to limit large uses in the rural residential areas: “Commercial, industrial and institutional uses may be established only where they serve the needs of the resident population and result in a net overall reduction of travel demand.” To uproot discriminatory language about the origin of patrons, the new R-LU 57 replaces “local” with “local intensity:” New uses are now blind to origin of patrons; the new permits, instead, are compared to existing uses’ building size and attendance limits. Furthermore, the size thresholds can be exceeded if developers include “maximal mitigations” of feasible scope, including financial feasibility. This begs the question: If you cannot afford to mitigate your large impacts, how could you afford to create big impacts and large buildings in the first place?

The county, once again, is urbanizing. Owing to R-LU 57, it is only a matter of time before developers discover all those pots of gold and start looting. Only one thing can stop this runaway train: Reminding the supervisors that the County’s General Plan has an underlying intention of low-density development. That intention should not be undermined by a stealth “small” change that is in fact far-reaching.

Previous articlePolice blotter: Stolen vehicles, fraud, narcotics
Next articleLetters to the editor: Dennis Kennedy, SV Flex

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here