Concerned Santa Clara

[Update: I had originally written this article with publishing it, but based on the FEIR for the Marina Playa project, Planning Commission notes from 23 April 2008, discussions with residents from both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, and the City Council meeting on 6 May 2008, it is now available publicly. To make it easier for the blog, I will only post one or two “Myths and Facts” per day.]

Fairfield Residential has again raised the banner of the Urban Land Institute, giving us copies of the document that they displayed prominently on their propaganda posters back on 15 November 2007. So I read it. Again. I read it for the first time back in November. Unlike some, I do take the time to obtain, read, and consider suggested material.

The paper is titled Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact and was written ostensibly for the purpose of educating people about the benefits of higher-density, mixed-use communities: “New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl.” (page 5) The reality is that it is a one-sided monologue: “This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density development and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face.” (also page 5) Well put. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The disagreements come not from the purported benefits of higher-density developments, but the arguments and examples used to support those claims. The fact that Fairfield Residential is drawing parallels with their high-density apartment project without noting any of the differences is, again, insulting. Just because higher-density projects somewhere have been shown to be beneficial does not mean that your project will be beneficial, no more than I am Socrates.

The complaint of the residents is not high-density in and of itself, but the effects of an additional 800+ units, 2000+ people, and 1700+ cars in apartment complexes two to four times the height of the surrounding homes in a neighborhood that is already saturated. Unfortunately, our issues of the existing problems with commute traffic, library parking, senior center access, grocery store overcrowding, post office traffic, saturated park facilities, and increased crime have gone completely ignored. I almost wrote “largely ignored”, but, looking back at my notes, there are no concessions or actions from Fairfield Residential regarding any of those issues.

In fact, looking back at the plans they showed us in November 2007, the project looks almost identical from the density and massing point of view. The layout has changed a bit, and they have dropped from 812 to 806 units, but the project from a high level looks pretty much the same.

But back to the paper. I will not use the terms “Myth” and “Fact” as the paper does, because in all cases the terms can be switched if you pick the right examples. Because of the paper’s requirement for the “right” examples to prove its points, we can clearly put this in the realm of propaganda and not canon. I will instead use “Claim” and “ULI’s Opinion”.

Claim 1: Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and required more infrastructure support systems.

ULI’s Opinion: The nature of who lives in higher-density housing — fewer families with children — puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it.

They go on to claim that the types of people higher-density development attracts are predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. I don’t know if that is exactly true of single-bedroom apartments in heart of Silicon Valley, but we are collecting more data. Fairfield is proposing that fewer people will have children that go to schools in an area that is literally surrounded by four schools within two city blocks? In an area where other communities, like the Enclave, tout schools as one of the major draws?

Example ULI gives: The Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia.

“Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington’s extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful development. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the building, and structured parking is provided. The compact development form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young professionals without children, lessening the impact on the county’s school system.”

This doesn’t sound like 900 Kiely Blvd in any way. In an area where I can hop on my local transit, an extensive subway system? If you look at the picture in the article, the neighborhood is more of a promenade, not just a high-density apartment complex where even the swimming pools get little sun. I don’t know that as a neighbor I would ever feel jealous of Fairfield Residential’s fantastic walkways and extensive, 7-acre open areas.

Another example ULI gives: Highlands’ Garden Village in Denver, Colorado.

“Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands’ Garden Village is a walkable, transit-linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York-based developer .. developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors’ and multifamily apartments, co-housing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California-based [developer] designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square-shaped village and a commercial ‘main street’ on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs.”

Again, how does this sound like Fairfield Residential’s proposal? It doesn’t even sound like an argument related to the Claim. And it isn’t. It is more marketing directed at pushing ULI’s viewpoint, and it has nothing to do with Fairfield Residential’s project. Schools are a major draw for our area. It seems unlikely that people will ignore that fact. Rather than try to shut down our schools in the long-term, we should be attracting families with children, and in the right numbers.

No Comments »

Fairfield Residential has hired a telemarketing company (Dynamics Marketing in North Dakota) to take a “survey” of residents in the area concerning their 800+ unit high-density apartment development with town homes and row houses.  It is more of a binning mechanism designed to polarize resident responses and minimize Fairfield Residential’s work and outreach as it brings attention to related effects that it can claim to address while ignoring the real issues: poorly-managed community development and Fairfield Residential’s culpability thereof.

First, the question designed to determine “whose side you are on”:

Which statement do you agree with more:
A. I don’t want my neighborhood to change at all; new developments should be severely restricted and discouraged.
B. Well-planned development around my neighborhood could improve the community with increased open space, preservation of old-growth trees, and improved economic environment for local businesses.

People with no background in the Fairfield Residential project or the high-density shenanigans in our neighborhood will more likely choose B, as do I, both in general and in particular.  People who know about the Fairfield Residential project and understand that it is really an in-fill development and not a planned development taking its effects on the community into account would be tempted to choose A, especially because the “survey” is about the Fairfield Residential project in particular and there is little connection other than hope linking the “increased open space, preservation of old-growth tree, and improved economic environment” to the 800+ units it proposes.  Trying to make the tenuous link between Fairfield Residential’s proposal and a “well-planned” development leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Having such a narrow and severe choice as the only alternative is simply insulting.

A “well-planned development” would be tremendous, but that’s not what Fairfield Residential is proposing.  It is simply adding more people at a higher density than that of the existing neighborhoods without acknowledging responsibility for any of the effects the increased population will have on the community.  They haven’t done their homework to understand why our concerns are what they are, and their next “survey” question gives residents little hope that they will try any harder in the future.

What is your top concern regarding the development:

1. Connecting Miles Drive cul-de-sac to the new Fairfield Residential development.
2. Construction.
3. Crime.
4. Design and Architectural detail.
5. Demand on public services like Fire and Police.
6. Impacts on Central Park.
7. Impacts on area schools.
8. Light, glare, and shadow impacts on existing residents.
9. Open space and old-growth trees.
10. Street parking.
11. Traffic.
12. Water consumption.

This reminds me of the oft-repeated joke (not so funny in Silicon Valley):

Friends, family, career: Pick one.

Let’s look at these items one-by-one:

Construction: This too shall pass.  In the worst case, we have laws to regulate how things are done.

Crime: Crime comes as a result of more people more closely packed and community unrest, which provide both motivation and opportunity.  It is not just a concern for wealthy neighborhoods or single-family homes.

Design and Architectural detail: These are important to Fairfield Residential as well; the community only has to deal with it when there are no other options. Here is a quote from the movie “My Cousin Vinny“:

Vinny Gambini: What about these pants I got on? You think they’re okay?
Mona Lisa Vito: Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water - BAM. A f*****’ bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a f*** what kind of pants the son-of-a-b**** who shot you was wearing?

Demand on public services: …like the library, post office, senior center, sports areas, supermarkets, etc. which are already difficult to access.  Ask anyone who actually uses these facilities.  More people means more public services required, regardless of how well you design.

Impacts on Central Park: The plan that Fairfield Residential proposes does not decrease the need for parks and recreation areas.  The pool areas in the middle of their apartment complexes will be largely sun-less, surrounded by four-story walls on three or four sides fewer than twenty feet away.  Fairfield Residential provides no place for children to ride bikes, engage in organized sports activities, or even play ball.  How does this keep people away from Central Park?  Worse, with all of the former Kaiser parking spaces that were used for community events, like the Fourth of July and the Arts and Wine Festival, gone, will the city decide to move these events to other venues?  How will we be compensated for that?

Impacts on local schools: More families mean more children. More children without proportionally more resources adds to the schooling problems and the urban unrest that is already visible in the higher incidence of graffiti in our areas and litter in the areas in which the children congregate after school.  Impacts on local schools quickly become impacts to our neighborhood.

Light, glare, and shadow impacts on existing residents: Kaiser may be tall, but it’s mostly empty space, and at an angle with respect to the path of the sun.  There is no glare off of trees, and shadows from living plants are cooling.  People on Pepper Tree Lane can see Central Park and the trees there as well. Fairfield Residential’s buildings don’t even seem to allow sun for their own pool areas.

Open space and old-growth trees: If the trees really are old-growth, Fairfield Residential will have a hard time trying to cut them down.  This may be another diversionary tactic: save a few trees, claim a small victory, and pave over the others that didn’t happen to be placed conveniently.  Fairfield Residential currently has no plans to keep the large trees in the Kaiser parking lot that add to the general canopy of the area, and they don’t seem to understand the issues involved in moving them.  But they will claim to save the trees along the south side that they aren’t allowed to cut down anyway.  Other than that, what “open space” is the Fairfield Residential project proposing? The patches of land in-between buildings that act as set-backs and walkways on private property?

Street Parking: More cars mean more parking required.  While having two parking spaces per unit sounds good, the lack of enforcement and the lack of driveways doesn’t bode well for the surrounding community.  Most single-family homes actually have four or more parking spaces available before they need to affect street parking spaces: they have two garage spaces and two driveway spaces.  Everytime you see a car parked in a driveway, consider the two parking space limit blown.  Larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, will not easily fit side-by-side in average parking spaces (try this yourself), especially if the parking spaces are not easy to maneuver into in the first place.  Fairfield Residential’s units will not have driveways.  The turning radii for the parking spaces look like they will be similar to those of the Enclave on Pruneridge and Lawrence.  Fairfield Residential’s laissez faire attitude of letting their residents park where they wish and their inability to enforce parking puts a large number of those cars on neighborhood streets.  “You can’t prevent our residents from parking on your streets, but we can prevent you from parking at Fairfield Residential.” Are they afraid of neighborhood cars creating a nuisance on their properties?

Traffic: more cars mean more traffic, regardless of how well you design.  800+ units implies well over 1700 cars.  Drive the main roads around the proposed development project and try to convince yourself that an additional 10,000 vehicular trips per day from Fairfield Residential’s residents will have no effect on your daily commute.

Water consumption: We are not saving any water by converting Kaiser into 800+ units; Kaiser moved down the street and expanded, using more water than it ever did previously.  Fairfield Residential’s project will add an additional 800 families in need of water.  More people means more utilities required, regardless of how well you design.

These are all largely effects of poorly-managed density: more people, disproportionate amounts of additional resources (in this case, none). Fairfield Residential has removed discussions of density from the table, effectively disabling any chance of productive solutions.

By ignoring root cause and focusing on specific effects, Fairfield Residential is digressing from the real residential issues and trying to move forward by addressing symptoms.  The Miles Drive cul-de-sac issue is a red herring designed to lure residents along Marietta Drive and Miles Drive away from the other side effects of poorly-managed development.  I would welcome Fairfield Residential to propose opening up the cul-de-sac to traffic; that would only awaken the sleeping community into action and point out even more succinctly Fairfield Residential’s lack of neighborhood understanding and goodwill.

Bottom line: Fairfield Residential is a business, not a community group.  They make apartments complexes, not neighborhoods.  They care about the people paying their expenses, not the people it comes at the expense of.  Fairfield Residential is “not willing” to discuss density or the effects of the density.

They may claim differently.  Let The Deed Shaw.

2 Comments »