San Jose Diridon Area Plan Could Add Parking, Lose Trail, Pass Council Tues.

SAP Arena’s existing surface parking lot. San Jose has already agreed to expand the parking available to Arena visitors by over 900 spaces in the Diridon plan. Photo: Google Maps

Just four days before San Jose’s City Council was expected to approve the Diridon Station Area Plan, a four-year-old community-based plan to guide the next 30 years of transit-oriented redevelopment around the Diridon Caltrain Station, city officials released a memo on June 6, proposing numerous amendments in response to City Council questions and public comments made at the council’s preliminary review of the plan on May 20.

These amendments include adding a “Parking Policy 9” to the plan’s Implementation Strategy Report, developed in close collaboration with SAP Center. The sports and entertainment arena has requested that over 20,000 car parking spaces be constructed in the Diridon Station Area — double what the city’s recommends based on its projections of parking demand — and has criticized the city’s plans to improve transit as “unlikely to allow convenient transportation.”

Development projects within 1/3-mile of the Caltrain station or SAP Center would be affected by Mayor Reed’s June 10 proposal. Image: City of San Jose

The city’s memo recommends adding new conditions to future commercial development within the Diridon Station Area. Shared parking, which would allow SAP Arena visitors who arrive for events to park in the parking lots of future office buildings, would be a required for all development projects located within 1/3-mile of the Caltrain station, “if necessary to mitigate the loss of parking” of new buildings constructed on existing parking lots.

Mayor Chuck Reed, who is also represented on the San Jose Arena Authority’s Board of Directors along with City Council members Pierluigi Oliverio and Kansen Chu, proposed additional development conditions in his own June 10 memo [PDF]. City Council members Sam Liccardo and Pierluigi Oliverio voiced support for the Mayor’s proposals in a June 13 memo [PDF].

Mayor Reed’s new development conditions would give SAP Center control over any future city plans to reduce the existing parking supply, proposing that the implementation of the Diridon plan include “a goal to maintain the current parking availability until the City and Arena Management agree that transit ridership is robust enough to reduce parking supply without negatively impacting SAP Center operations.” (emphasis added)

The Reed-Liccardo-Olivero proposal would also expand the required parking studies to all projects located within 1/3-mile of SAP Arena, in addition to those located within 1/3-mile of the Diridon Caltrain Station as proposed by city staff. These parking studies would need to “identify the impacts of the project on the existing parking supply within the Diridon area, and suggest ways to mitigate the impact if it is deemed significant,” possibly resulting in the construction of surplus parking spaces, the cost of which would be borne by developers and passed onto tenants in the form of higher rents.

In an encouraging step, the council members’ joint June 13 memo also supports the creation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, and that the SAP Center be “a key stakeholder” in any such TMA. Local transportation advocacy groups agree that the Diridon Station Area Plan’s implementation should pursue approaches that reduce the demand for parking rather than maximizing parking supply as SAP Center has requested.

“This is a bold new step encouraging the SAP Arena to step up and join the efforts of the entire Downtown/Diridon area at shifting transportation away from driving,” wrote Friends of Caltrain Director Adina Levin.

“We should plan for the tens of thousands more who might live and work in downtown over the next thirty years — not just those who drive in today,” said SPUR Transportation Policy Director Ratna Amin.

City officials also proposed eliminating several items that enjoy widespread public support and had been explicitly recommended by the Diridon Station Area Plan — including the restoration of Los Gatos Creek, which currently runs through an enclosed concrete culvert just south of the Caltrain station.

The Los Gatos Creek Trail has already been constructed under many busy city streets, including Bascom Avenue. Photo: Google Maps

Reconstructing Montgomery Street and Park Avenue, to allow the creek and a trail to pass underneath in an open channel, would fill in the missing link between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and the Guadalupe River Trail. This connection would link Los Gatos, Campbell, and Willow Glen with existing off-street trails that extend all the way to downtown Mountain View and Palo Alto, via the San Francisco Bay Trail. Restoring the creek and constructing a multi-use path along it would also create new and very valuable park space in the center of a dense urban area — a rare opportunity.

The draft Diridon Station Area Plan recommends a continuous off-street trail along Los Gatos Creek, connecting to the Guadalupe River Park. Image: City of San Jose

“This Plan also identifies a potential trail connection across the intersection of Montgomery Street and Park Avenue that should be explored as opportunities arise,” wrote city planners in the draft Diridon Station Area Plan. “This Plan recommends that, if funding and construction opportunities arise, the City re-explore this rerouting of the Los Gatos Creek and/or the reconstruction of this intersection as a means to both daylight this creek segment and to provide an off-street trail connection.”

But city staff are instead recommending that the creek restoration project be shelved, citing high costs and the older 2008 Los Gatos Creek Trail Reach 5 Master Plan as justification.

“The Los Gatos Creek Trail Reach 5 Master Plan does not propose daylighting the creek at this location because it would require a bridge structure that possibly elevates Montgomery Street and Park Avenue over the creek, and requires the acquisition of private property,” wrote city officials.

Trail advocates point out that San Jose has already spent $25 million acquiring private property to woo the Oakland A’s baseball team to relocate and play in a new stadium to be constructed there, disagree that any existing streets would need to be elevated, and that other engineering solutions should be investigated in more detail, rather than reject the project simply because one design option is relatively expensive.

“Regarding the need for elevated bridges,” wrote Diridon Good Neighbor Committee member Dr. Larry Ames in response to the June 6 memo, “the creek is twenty-some feet below grade, which leaves more than enough height for a trail above the creek’s high-flow level and beneath an at-grade roadway.”

Cross sectional drawings of Los Gatos Creek in a covered culvert, vs. an open channel. Image: Larry Ames

“By providing a safer way for folks to reach the Diridon Station Area, more would be willing to walk or cycle, which further reduces the traffic impacts,” wrote Ames.

“It is disappointing that staff suggests taking daylighting of Los Gatos Creek off the table,” Greenbelt Alliance Regional Director Michele Beasley wrote in a letter to the City Council. “San Jose should put as much emphasis on the area’s natural amenities, like Los Gatos Creek, as it does on the needs of SAP Center.”

City officials have also recommended against requiring bird-safe building designs (glass treatments, landscaping, low-impact lighting), a low cost design idea which many residents spoke in support of at the City Council’s May 20 meeting. City officials said the “costs should be assessed” first.

All of the changes described above would have to be approved by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, June 17, which begins at 11 am.

  • Idrather Bebikin

    Thank you for posting this great article which uncovers so much!

    The City of San Jose made a horrible agreement with the SJ Sharks via the SJ Authority. This new agreement doesn’t just double down on that, it more than tenfold down on it because it:

    1) reinforces the horrible agreement – something the CIty of SJ does not want to be made public, but should be forced to be made public – along with all of the additional concessions made to date by various city of SJ administrations

    2) gives SJ Sharks/SJ Arena Authority even more power over an even wider area

    3) makes it more costly for any new development to occur anywhere near SJ Arena/SAP Center

    4) creates a new bureaucracy that SJ Sharks can dominate and overpower the City of SJ, SJ residents and local businesses

    5) nukes the people’s planning overall that 50 local residents and city employees created over 4 1/2 years via 44 public meetings

    6) eliminates the “daylighting” of Los Gatos Creek and creation of a LGC Trail under existing roadway right of ways (or modified roadways)

    7) gets justification via a 2008 plan that was made obsolete by the Diridon Area Plan

    8) shows the “bad faith” that the City of SJ has with it’s residents and shows that the City of SJ will do ANYTHING the SJ Sharks want

    as well as shows, once again, that GreenVision, Envision 2040, etc do not matter as soon as a developer sweet talks the Mayor and City Council.

    What are they getting in return for these major modifications that “gut” these plans one after another after another — which leaves our streets DEVOID OF LIFE?!?

    (which coincidently extends the time of parking and hurts alternative transportation too)

    9) puts all eggs in a few baskets (SJ Sharks, Adobe, everybody else) instead of aggressively pursuing additional business and finding ways for existing businesses to survive, much less thrive

    10) puts into serious jeopardy the affordable housing component – and every other component in this plan – if not actually dooming it to fail.

  • thielges

    This is basically the arena offloading its transportation costs to the city, developers, and downtown residents. Of course they’re going to ask for a freebie.

    If the city is going to increase subsidies for the arena it should at least have a say in how it will subsidize and control the impacts on downtown. The arena’s attitude is basically “people are gonna want to drive so you must provide more parking”. The city should counter with providing parking outside of the core and bolstering transit. For example there’s plenty of parking up at the government complex at First and Hedding. This parking empties out promptly at 5pm and is right next to a light rail stop. VTA could easily run 3-car trains at 5 minute headways between Hedding and downtown , effectively quadrupling capacity during events over their current default service. Caltrain could provide complementary service as well, opening access to thousands of parking spots along the peninsula.

    It is OK for a business like the arena to externalize their transportation costs onto the general network. Every business does that. But it is not OK for the arena to require facilities for a specific mode (i.e. door-to-door driving) which are in direct conflict with how the city wants to grow.

    The Giants have successfully filled the ballpark without requiring SF to provide suburban parking volumes in SOMA and Mission Bay. Surely the same can be done in downtown SJ.

  • Let’s all email council and ask for the better walking and cycling plan to be adopted.

  • thielges

    Councilmember _______– Please oppose addition of downtown parking spaces that the SAP arena has requested. While that added parking would make it easier for event goers to drive into and out of downtown San Jose quicker and with less hassle, it works against the direction that downtown is heading towards a human scaled downtown. It establishes dead zones during non-event days and places an extra burden on developers and the city. Downtown should continue its path of establishing more residential, commercial, and retail space which not only makes for a more livable environment but also provides better tax revenue compared to parking spaces.

    There are other solutions to explore to get event patrons to the arena. Adding extra event Caltrain and LRT service could take advantage of existing parking around periphery transit stations for example.

  • thielges

    … not sure what happened but that last post was supposed to be prefixed with:

    Thanks for the nudge Nicholas. I sent the following to the mayor and a couple of council members.

  • aslevin

    Here is an update on the concern about the “side deal” in which the city negotiates the amount of parking they owe to the city.

    This deal is up for renewal – but not for another two years. This does leave some time for the initial analysis and development of a transportation management association, potentially setting different expectations for mode share for the area. Like, um not everybody drives.

    While these deals between the city and the arena authority have been done in the past without public participation, this is starting to occur for the first time with participation from neighbors and potentially livable streets advocacy groups. Some of the neighborhood groups have been supportive of less parking/more multimodal.

    The big variable is perceived to be the ballpark, which key players are still hoping to see (this means in denial about Not Happening, right?).

  • Barbara Goldstein

    The Mayor’s memo also lets the potential ballpark off the hook for including art unless agreed to by MLB and the A’s (as if) and rather than endorsing across the board art in all development kick the can down the road until further study (presumably after the election lol)

  • Stephen Inoue

    Birds & Bikes are items that make our neighborhoods livable. Let’s hope San Jose can insist on some practical standards for ensuring our bike trails get built, and our buildings are designed with an eye to minimizing bird impacts. These don’t have to be expensive, but they do take thought and consideration during the planning process.

  • aslevin

    Not only that, it exempts the potential ballpark from all of the urban design guidelines in the Plan, as if there were no good examples of urban ballparks that foster a good pedestrian environment and appealing sense of place. Meanwhile the A’s are negotiating a deal to stay in Oakland for another 10 years so the concern about a suburban-style car-centric stadium plunked next to Diridon station may be moot.


Today’s Headlines

Caltrans Endorses the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Protected Bike Lanes (PFB) Happy Walk to Work Day — Press Conference Outside City Hall at 10 A.M. (SF Weekly, Hoodline) SFPD Chief Talks Ped Safety at Elementary School (ABC, CBS), SFPD and Avalos in Ingleside (CBS) Driver Critically Injures Three-Year-Old Boy on Bike at Fulton and 43rd […]

Today’s Headlines

“Restore Balance” Proponents Respond to Allegations of Petitioners Lying About Sunday Meters (SFist) Driver Crashes Into Restaurant at Bush and Taylor Streets (SFGate, CBS) Buffered Bike Lane Road Diet Has Made Northbound San Jose Ave Safer for Residents (SFGate) Family of Sofia Liu, Killed by Uber Driver, Protests 90 Percent Cut in Ride-Share Insurance Reqs (Exam) Bike-Share […]

Diridon Community Meeting: Diridon Station Area Plan

"How many parking spots do you want at Diridon Station? Do you want lots of motor vehicle traffic or do you envision a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood that you can easily bike through to get onto the train? The final Diridon Station Area Plan Alternatives Analysis Report is now available from the City of San Jose ( […]

Today’s Headlines

Despite Rollback, Some Oakland Residents "Still Angry Over Parking" (ABC7) Petaluma City Council Raises Parking Fines by $5 (Press Democrat)  Steve Jones Makes a Good Point: MTA Board Should Show Some Independence on Parking (SFBG) Driver Hits Woman Walking in Santa Rosa’s Fountaingrove Area (Press Democrat) UK Researchers say Oil Production Could Peak and Decline […]