Concerned Santa Clara

Not hardly.

John and I spoke in front of the city council tonight in a vain attempt to get the council members to consider the EIR for Marina Playa a little longer than the minutes they spent last week. Among the issues we brought up:

The table both planning department director Kevin Riley and Hexagon’s traffic engineer Gary Black use to obviate a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and El Camino Real is based on data from the year 2000 and does not represent the traffic on or near the Marina Playa site today. Worse, both Kevin Riley and Gary Black stated in their presentation that the agencies requesting a TIA for this project were satisfied with their responses, or lack thereof, and had no further comment. We called or visited every agency that responded to the EIR and found quite a different story.

The contact from the County sent a letter to staff on 5 May disagreeing with the city’s report indicating that TIA was not needed and asked additionally for an operational analysis of the Lawrence off-ramp, including weaving from Granada to El Camino Real. Funnily, in a phone call from the city planner, I was told to “look at his title: Associate Engineer”, as if that would cause me to disregard his input. I am not into titles. That engineer represents the County and his requests should be treated as County requests.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) responded on 28 April stating quite clearly that the city’s response “has not addressed the Department’s request” and that the intersection operational analysis should be performed, as previously requested. The staff from the DOT who managed the project was emphatic in stating that he had not been contacted in any way by either city staff or Hexagon (Gary Black again).

Several agencies pointed to the year the data were collected — over five years ago — and stated that the age alone would suggest new studies; that’s what the studies are for, to keep the data current. The data used to decide that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not necessary was also pulled from national averages. Anyone who lives in Silicon Valley knows that we are hardly average at anything, let alone the national average.

The California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) accident data was not from the year 2000; it was based on current data, which means that the intersection is the eighth most accident prone in the area today, even with the old Kaiser buildings empty. That means that any additional traffic from a new development will increase the accident rate. CHP also noted that all access to the project was on or near the problematic intersection and therefore the traffic had to be studied. This is where the planning staff came in with their faulty mathematics and ignored the safety concerns and the increased CHP resources required to manage the intersection.

Dominic Caserta’s vote on an issue that would be an ethics violation for any other citizen of the city was brought up again. Mr. Caserta received money not only from BRE and Taylor Morrison, the developers of the Marina Playa project, but also from people directly linked with Fairfield Residential. That is not the problem. The problem is that he voted to approve projects backed by people from whom he took the money, including Marina Playa. We’ll see how the Fairfield Residential project goes when he is still around to vote on it.

Council Member Jamie McLeod did feel there was enough new information to warrant a reconsideration, but without someone to second her motion, the action died on the floor. The mayor of our fine city Patricia Mahan ended our bid for reconsideration with a fantastic line: “Well, despite your best efforts, the action fails.”

Ouch. That sounds a little like me. And it hurts. Not because the action failed; we somewhat expected that. It hurts that she thinks this is our best effort.

Not hardly.

1 Comment »

Fairfield Residential gave us nicely printed copies of the Urban Land Institute’s propaganda on Higher-Density Development, but for what reason? With the hopes that the information contained therein would convince us to drop our objections to their project? And accept their beautifully architected designs? Because their high-density plan is comparable — if not better — than any of the profiles ULI provided?

After reading the document cover-to-cover a second time and looking up information provided in the notes and from other sources, it seems to make their proposal appear even worse. Consider the stats:

It provides no amenities, makes existing problems worse, has density higher than that of surrounding areas, and clearly does not have residential support. There must be some way to enable Fairfield Residential to see this. Instead of proposing the same project over and over again with different colored paint, or different roofs, Fairfield Residential should discuss the other problems with their plan with the people who will have to live alongside it, not just the one, or so, individuals willing to advise in secretive meetings for personal gain. Hold public meetings and public forums. They haven’t learned the first rule of congress: don’t lose the support of people who like you, but spend time with the people who oppose you. Understand why they feel the way they feel, even you don’t agree.

We’re learning quite a bit from other projects: the plans, the responses, the process, the politics… and the alternatives. Looking at ULI’s profiled communities, it is clear: It’s About Quality of Life, Not Just Quality of Construction.

Critical questions for Fairfield Residential — and for the City of Santa Clara:

• How can we redevelop existing neighborhoods and business districts to improve the quality of life?
• How can we create more choices in housing, accommodating diverse lifestyles and all income levels?
• How can we reduce traffic congestion yet stay connected?
• How can we include citizens in planning their communities rather than limiting input to only those affected by the next project?
• How can we fund schools, bridges, roads, and clean water while meeting short-term costs of increased security?

These are all questions directly from the ULI website. It’s funny how the people who use ULI’s arguments do not also take ULI’s advice. But do more than have boilerplate answers. Explain how they can apply, don’t just tell us that they do.

“Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite.”

This statement could easily be written another way, except that they use the word “sprawl”, which already has intended negative connotations. How about this:

“Well-designed communities offer residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned projects do the opposite.”

Density is independent of that statement.

In every case, common themes:

• vibrant, walkable communities
• mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments
• easy access to public transit

It is not clear that the key to these themes is density. It sounds like density is the problem, and these help solve it.

I’ve got to hand it to the Urban Land Institute. If I ever become a real-estate developer or somehow revert to my days of being an up-and-coming youthful urbanite, I will know exactly who I want to talk to. As it is, I am just a teacher living in a small town — a Mission City, no less — whose height of fame may be in becoming kept by a sports team, from another city, that won’t even carry our name.

No Comments »

It was a circus or a train wreck. I was entertained and intrigued at some points, and it certainly was a learning experience, so I can’t feel all that bad. I am shocked, but not amazed.

Residents came from all over to speak out against the Marina Playa project, but it was pretty clear that the council had predetermined their course of action. From their weak lines of questioning to their glowing praise of city staff, the outcome was fairly certain. Yet I will admit to some surprise. Pat Kolstad moved immediately to accept the staff recommendations, without discussion. Jamie McLeod put up some resistance, but, under pressure from the rest of the council, she caved in and made every motion unanimous; the sad thing is, she was the only one of the bunch to try to understand what was being proposed and motioned for a continuance. Joe Kornder initially seconded the motion, but after Patricia Mahan led the charge to quell any support for a continuance, he backed down. Mahan asks enough questions to let everyone know her opinion and then keeps the topic open long enough for the more politically astute members of the council to suggest what she is thinking without her having to do the dirty work herself. Dominic Caserta, who has taken over $10,000 in donations from the Marina Playa developers (BRE Properties and Taylor Morrison), surprisingly chose to support the project, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues. His and Kevin Moore’s comments were — in Caserta’s case, as expected, and in Moore’s case, as usual — unnecessary, feel-good political rhetoric. Will Kennedy’s involvement and effect on the proceedings were surprisingly minimal; I expected a little more from him, either pro or con.

It is clear that the decisions were made without very much study of the EIR and project in front of the council. To those who say there was a great deal of study, I will ask: Then why weren’t there more questions about the complaints or responses? Why were there so many questions about the project itself? How could the council identify the amount of traffic as the only issue?

There were enough people to reduce the resident response time from 3 minutes down to 2 minutes, so many of us weren’t able to finish what we had planned to say. Here’s what I submitted: (roughly)

I am not against higher-density housing. Well-designed developments would benefit not just the immediate neighborhoods, but the entire city. However, when the EIRs and planning staff responses do not make sense, for either new residents or existing residents, we have to question the specific projects.

The project is flawed.

We want future residents of Santa Clara to love where they live, not simply bear the transit-isolated high-density units they inhabit, that even Santa Clara acknowledges would be damaging to their health. There are no bus stops on Lawrence in the area and those directions are not walkable. This proposal will have no mitigation for noise levels that even the EIR states will have “significant unavoidable long-term noise exposure impact“, 20 dba above what experts think is acceptable for residents. All of the street access is on or near the intersection and ramps that the CHP has declared to be some of the most accident-prone between San Francisco and San Jose. Yet Santa Clara doesn’t want to do a traffic study.

The responses are, at best, incorrect and incomplete.

EIR Response A1: The math is wrong. CHP calculates 42% additional traffic; the city nitpicks and says 30%. 731 additional trips on top of 1739 originally is, in fact, 42% more. The planning staff used the wrong numbers to make the percentages look favorable — intentional or not — which, unfortunately, puts into question every other calculation.

EIR Response B1: It is hard to believe that 731 additional trips per day will not add a minimum 100 trips during peak hour. That would mean we are adding 632 non-peak hour trips versus 99 peak hour trips, which puts into question the definition the planning department used for the term “peak hour”. 340 units, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. 550 cars, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. Young professionals and families, ostensibly with children, but only 230 or so peak hour trips. It is hard to believe, but even harder to accept without a study, or without more recent data.

This point is very important, because it is used to justify not doing a traffic impact analysis in EVERY subsequent response.

We know about the Urban Land Institute studies. We agree with them in concept — largely. Our complaint is not about higher-density; it is about bad projects and flawed studies (or no studies at all). It’s about a feeling of “residents versus the city”. Tell us about the projects. Invite us to your discussions. Ensure that we can give input and help where we can.

Unfortunately, this project and the Santa Clara Square project are giving our city and staff a bad reputation; and they haven’t even been approved yet.

More unfortunate, the council made it seem like traffic was the only issue. People brought up fears, but without solid facts to back them up I will admit that it made the complaints sound a little NIMBY. The city council really isn’t the forum for a discussion, or even for details, so it’s disappointing that this is the only method open to us. The city and developers always get the first and last words, with no time limit for their discussions, yet the residents only get two minutes apiece. Once public discussion is closed, there is no way to provide any kind of feedback, even when it is to correct misstatements from the staff and hired “experts” or provide information the council seems to be asking for when no one on staff is familiar enough with their own EIR to provide it internally.

The city never addresses the CHP comments. Ignoring the concerns of delayed emergency response, increased accidents in an area that is already one of the worst in the Bay Area, and poor circulation, the planning staff answers with improper math and the standard staff line: we didn’t have to do a traffic study based on our assumptions and old data, therefore we did not perform one. They then use that line over and over again to address every traffic-related question brought up in agency letters. Read the responses, or lack thereof, in the EIR yourself and you will wonder what the qualifications are for city planner.

[Edit on 20 May 2008: I spent about two hours discussing the Marina Playa project, among other things, with Yen Han Chen on Monday, 19 May.  He is, and has been, very helpful to our group. So why would I “bite the hand that feeds us”? After writing this blog post, I was inundated with requests to turn this blog into more of a political blog, which, after very short consideration, I have refused to do, at least by intent.  The intent of this blog is to make issues known and support the views of residents as it pertains to their neighborhoods and their quality of life.  This can be done without campaigning, either for or against.  We are trying, foremost, to improve our city, and improvement often comes at the cost of criticism.  To be fair, I will try to ensure that my interpretations of the events and opinions seen as criticism on this blog are accurate, or based on facts of some sort.  Without being for or against public nudity, we should be able to claim that the emperor is naked.  And hopefully most people will be able to come to the same conclusion, not just us children.

Mr. Chen acknowledges the errors and understands how we, an outside organization, can make our claims.  We do not know the ins and outs of the city planning department or the process, and judge mainly by viewing the effects of the actions, not the reasoning behind them. I respect Mr. Chen and his willingness to talk to us, especially after this project.  That does not redress the lack of notification or the deficiencies in either the report itself or planning director Kevin Riley’s and Hexagon’s Gary Black’s presentations to the city council.  As long as the problems are not addressed, my criticism of the improper mathematics (minor criticism) and the inaccuracies perpetrated by Kevin Riley and Gary Black (major criticism) must stand.  It is indeed unfortunate that the process requires a single name to be associated with an EIR, especially one as problematic as the one just accepted, when the direction comes largely from managing staff. I apologize for any problems my statements might have caused Mr. Chen and have changed my wording to reflect this.  The criticisms, as mentioned earlier, are still valid and stand as they are.]

They ignore the fact that the current traffic and accident rates exist even with the Kaiser buildings empty. This means that, although there was a certain condition back in the year 2000 when the traffic data were collected, there is another condition now, that adding 340 apartments with over 550 cars will only exacerbate.

The building heights are at least a story (10 feet) taller than the surrounding community — and 5 feet above Santa Clara’s own height ordinance. The units will tower over Lawrence Expressway and, without any proposed mitigation, will be at the mercy of the noise directly.

Again, Dominic Caserta accepted over $10,000 from the two developers of Marina Playa – BRE and Taylor Morrison — yet he chose not to recuse himself from the voting. As one resident speaker noted, legal or not, it smacks of impropriety. How many other council members have received money from developers while voting for their projects?

And of course Kathy Thibodeaux from Fairfield Residential was there to gauge public response and council reaction. They have a keen interest in what happens to similar projects in the area. The interesting thing to note is that with another high-density project going in next to our same transit corridors, we have different ammunition to use against them. But that’s another story.

More to come.

P.S. Note to the city: I tutor grade school Math (and English, although you probably couldn’t tell from these blog posts); I would gladly donate hours of my time to help make our city staff look more competent to the public. I have a vested interest in making the city I live in look good. This is a serious offer. [Edit on 20 May 2008: The offer still stands.]

No Comments »

The Marina Playa project is located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway, off the Lawrence Expressway exit to El Camino Real. The project is located on about 7.36 acres, on the old Kaiser office lot (with all the Graffiti on them). There are two developers: BRE Properties and Taylor Morrison of California (TM). BRE is proposing 277 retail apartments off of Granada Ave. on 3.2 acres of land and TM is proposing 63 residential units on 4.16 acres of land just to the north of the apartments with access off the El Camino Real off-ramp. This project was introduced in 2006 and has been kept relatively secret by Santa Clara’s 300-foot notification practices. Worse yet, Yen Han Chen, the project planner for the City, made no mention of the project in our many talks with him. The Final EIR was released in April of 2008 and the project was approved by the City Planning Commission on April 23, 2008. It is currently scheduled for presentation to the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2008.

The 277 BRE apartments will be a six-story block complex with 1.5 stories of parking underground, encompassing almost the entire 3.2 acres. The four-and-a-half stories above ground will contain 277 apartments, mostly single-bedroom units; that is 86.6 units per acre. The completed project will stand 55 feet above ground (5 feet above the city’s 50-foot ordinance). There will be a total of 502 parking spaces, 432 for residents and 70 for guests.

The 63 TM residences will consist of 57 single-family units and one Townhouse complex with 6 units. The single-family units will be three-stories high with two-car garages. The Townhouses will also be three-stories high with two-car tandem garages (two cars front-to-back, not normally allowed in Santa Clara). None of the units will have driveways capable of parking a car, so guests will have to use the 18 parking stalls.

Major Problems

Santa Clara itself

Santa Clara is allowing projects without performing their due-diligence. The current projects in the area have used the same erroneous studies that are over 5 years old, or neglected to perform studies at all. The traffic analyses in the EIRs were limited in scope and did not contain any intersection, roadway, or freeway analysis. Instead, they used traffic studies over 7 years old and provided no additional data to identify how traffic has changed in the last 8 years. The northbound ramps at this intersection are the eighth most accident-prone along the El Camino Real, yet Santa Clara doesn’t want to do an impact study for all of this added traffic. Santa Clara plans to build these developments contrary to rules adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), The Grand Boulevard Initiative (for developing El Camino), and the City of Santa Clara’s own guidelines, as identified in the City’s current General Plan.

Density

The City of Santa Clara plans to add up to 2,680 housing units within 1/2 mile of Lawrence and El Camino Real by the year 2010. Over 30% of all new housing in Santa Clara is planned here. 13% of all space (nearly 65 acres) within this 502-acre area will be high density, and up to 105 feet (9 stories) tall. The Marina Playa project proposes 340 units on 7.36 acres of land, or 46.2 units per acre, which exceeds the property’s “Transit-Oriented Mixed Use” designation allowing 26 to 45 units per acre.

Traffic

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) response to the EIR, the complex will cause a 42% increase in traffic at the site. Because the two access points into the complex feed onto Lawrence Expressway at or near the off-ramp to El Camino Real, CHP expects the likelihood of traffic collisions to “be greatly increased”; the accident rate at this intersection is already double the statewide norm. They believe that this may also cause delays in emergency responses and necessitate additional resources and officers to provide traffic enforcement. Traveling southbound on Lawrence, all residents of Marina Playa will have to go all the way down to Benton and make a U-turn to go home, or take a left onto El Camino Real and go completely around the complex.

Transit

The project site has “Transit-Oriented Mixed Use” designation, however there was no reference to the adequacy of existing transit service. They neglect to study capacity and frequency of service or mention the fact that although Santa Clara would like to have a high-capacity municipal transit corridor in the area, none currently exists. All of the high-speed, higher-capacity transit goes around the area, not through it. In the areas where higher-density, transit-oriented designations make sense (within 1/2 mile of Santa Clara’s train station, which is served by 325 transit trips each way each weekday, with future plans to add BART), less than 1% higher-density housing is planned.

Noise

The Marina Playa project would expose future residents to noise levels in excess of acceptable City standards that, even with mitigation measures, would still be listed as Significant Unavoidable Impact. An expert states that the noise level from Lawrence Expressway will be around 75-dba, which is 20-dba above allowable limits. Balconies with a direct line of sight or side view of Lawrence Expressway or units that are within 300 feet of Lawrence Expressway’s centerline would have to have solid railings 42-inches high, which brings into question why the balconies would be built at all since anyone on the balconies or with open access ways would be subject to the excessive noise levels. Sound walls will not be built the entire 3 to 4 stories up. [Update: It’s actually worse than what I wrote. The Final EIR wording states that there will be NO mitigation measures for the units described above and that residents will have to live with “significant unavoidable long-term noise exposure impact”.]

No Comments »

Santa Clara’s plans for the future have to be good not only with respect to potential buyers, but current owners as well.

The General Plan update requires more than just public input, it needs public buy-in.  Sunnyvale and other cities are spending the time and money to do studies on environmental issues that affect residents directly — such as parking, traffic, and garage space utilization.  They are looking into long-term effects for long-term benefits.  Santa Clara should do the same, especially with the General Plan up for discussion.  We need to know what we have and how effective it is before we continue to grant variances on parking because the city wants people to drive less, or plan on putting people into high-density housing on lots originally used for retail and commercial space.  It would certainly reduce the logical objections raised by the residents.

Trying to create a Transportation Corridor in an area where one does not currently exist cannot be done simply by taking away parking spaces for people’s cars.  Van’s research shows that much of the public transit in our city goes around our area, and there are few ways to go north and south like people need.  Green or not, people need their cars.  We have no light rail.  We have train stops, but few ways to get there from the heart of the city.  Where is the heart of the city?  Draw all of the municipal transit paths on a map; where the majority intersect, that’s the city center.  I can’t find it either.  Maybe it’s the mall.

The city planning staff readily admits that, although commuting can be made to work, it isn’t easy.  Worse yet, I was told that the various municipal transportation services do not communicate with each other well and therefore the schedules don’t match up.  On a recent adventure I took as a follow-up to a business-related trip, I found that the easiest way to get to where I wanted to go was to make it to the train stop by the university and take a free shuttle bus to the San Jose Airport, where I could then take another shuttle to a hotel near the area I wanted to visit.  Doesn’t sound like a plan.

When developers start projects touting amenities such as swimming pools, gyms, and meeting rooms, they put them in first so that even the very first resident of the very first unit can benefit from them.  It also avoids litigation and charges of fraud, especially if, for any reason, the promised facilities are not or cannot be built.  Rather than add people with promises, hopes, dreams, or just the idea of a Transportation Corridor, put the transportation in first.  Don’t give anyone reason to doubt the validity of a good plan that makes sense even below the surface.

As it is, it doesn’t make sense.

No Comments »

Part four of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1] or [see Part 2] or [see Part 3]

Claim 6: Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community.

ULI’s Opinion: Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities.

Actually, attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained developments attract good residents and tenants regardless of the density, but only if they fit into the existing community.  The fit determines the critique, not the other way around.  There are plenty of beautiful-looking real estate disasters; ask any real-estate agent.  Attractive and clean may get you a first look, but the neighborhood closes the deal.  Again, ask any real-estate agent.

An Example ULI gives: Post Riverside in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed-use pedestrian-oriented community developed by [a developer] and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta’s bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking distance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower-density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award-winning 85-acre mixed-use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity-rich, low-maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low-density neighborhood.”

The common theme of access to municipal public transit and mixed-use development continues.  Fairfield Residential has to understand that what makes a neighborhood attractive goes beyond colors and roof styles: it is affected greatly by convenience, access, and residential planning.  In this project, they have 85 acres and only 535 apartments along with over 250,000 square feet (about 6 acres) of retail and commercial office space.  Even if you make the assumption that half of the remaining space is dedicated to the town square, the density never goes above 15 units per acre.  Offices, shops, and restaurants within walking distance, connection to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system complete the deal.

Another Example ULI gives: The Plaza at the Arboretum in Santa Monica, California.

“This award-winning mixed-use project in Santa Monica, California .. achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven-story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm .. used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The development includes a swimming pool, spa, fitness center, and clubhouse.”

Finally, a development that sounds in scope like something Fairfield Residential is proposing.  But with 10,000 square feet of retail space.  And in between Olympic Blvd and Colorado Blvd in Santa Monica, near the 10 freeway and the Santa Monica pier, walking distance to hundreds of shops and restaurants, including the 3rd Street Promenade and Santa Monica Place.  I’ve never been to the development itself, but looking at the maps, I know the area very well having lived nearby for over 20 years and having walked the length of Olympic, well past the complex.  All of the apartments are pretty high-density, so the Plaza could fit right in; it probably isn’t even the densest development in the area.  But Fairfield Residential will have a hard time convincing our residents that their project will come close to the convenience, walkable neighborhood, and upscale environment the Santa Monica beach community provides.  Residents who want that lifestyle can live that lifestyle.  As for me and many of the residents that I have talked with, we left that behind to come to Santa Clara.

Claim 7: No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations.

Our population is more diverse, but we will always have families with children.  Now how the neighborhood is designed will affect the kind of people the neighborhood will attract.  If “people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s” who are “seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle” want to “live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience”, let them go to Rivermark or other planned communities.  Santa Clara Planning Department and Fairfield Residential: don’t try to sell our neighborhoods out to your plans and schemes by shoving business decisions down our throats.  Put the vibrant life-stylers where they want to be, but listen to the residents who already live in this charming neighborhood near 900 Kiely Blvd.  If you want steak, go to a steakhouse, but leave the vegetarian restaurants as they are.

An Example ULI gives: King Farm in Rockville, Maryland.

“This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. .. King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway, 15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial complex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center, 120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both residential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one-acre village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm’s two residential villages. They offer single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soccer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths.”

More of the same.  Walkable community, access to public transit, open areas for residents, much fewer houses.

Another Example ULI gives: Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, California.

“The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California’s Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low-density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed-use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development .. will create a vibrant higher-density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a ‘place’ in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commercial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga’s new downtown.”

1.3 million square feet equals about 30 acres of commercial and community space versus 20 acres of housing on 147 acres of land.  They are building a community, not just adding people.

Claim 8: Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households.

ULI’s Opinion: People of all income groups choose higher-density housing.

In Silicon Valley, people choose what they can afford.  In densely populated cities, people try to afford what they can get.  People in New York, Hong Kong, and London would laugh at ULI’s histrionics.

An Example ULI gives: Rollins Square in Boston, Massachussetts.

“Rollins Square, a mixed-use development in Boston’s South End, is a truly mixed-income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for-sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market-rate units selling for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. ..”

More of the same.

Another Example ULI gives: I’On in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

“I’On is a 244-acre master-planned community along the deep-water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the community features 700 single-family homes, community facilities, and a small-scale commercial area. [They are] developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. .. The architecture is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facilities include I’On Square, I’On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston harbor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for residents; a five-acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area.”

Even more of the same.

No Comments »

Part three of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1] or [see Part 2]

Claim 4: Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates.

ULI’s Opinion: The crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments.

ULI then goes on to cite studies in Irving, Texas and Anchorage, Alaska while ignoring statistics from San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose — the three “cities” in our area, all ranked in the top 50 U.S. cites by both size and crime rate — not to mention Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston and others. Anchorage shows up just outside of the top 50 in size; coincidentally enough, it is also just outside of the top 50 cities in terms of crime. Irving, Texas doesn’t show up in the top 100 for size, and is not even on the list for cities ranked by crime, which only goes to the 70s on the list I checked. Be positive, but be realistic and relevant as well.

An Example ULI gives: Westminster Place in St. Louis, Missouri.

“Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approximately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area’s becoming blighted. .. a St. Louis-based developer .. brought the community back through the addition of higher-density mixed-income housing comprising affordable and market-rate units. The master plan included for-sale and rental housing, garden apartments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted living facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail center, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new ‘eyes on the street,’ making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas.”

Again, they built a community, not just a business plan. If you read more about the history of the area, the project was not done by the developer alone, but had a city-wide and state-wide push behind it. Our neighborhood seems to be one that falls between cracks: enough crime to annoy and frighten residents, but not enough for the city to take decisive action. We certainly don’t want it to get worse. One way that we can try to ensure this is to bring in residents that have more “skin” in their community. While it is true that not all renters are oblivious to their surroundings, it is certainly more true when compared with home owners. The longer you know your neighbors, the better you can defend against crime and other unusual happenings. The better you know your neighbors, the stronger the community becomes. The more growth possibilities and control you have in where you live, the longer you tend to stay. I don’t think this is as true with single-bedroom, 600 square-foot units, which describe over 50% of Fairfield Residential’s apartment offerings.

Another Example ULI gives: East Village in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commercial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project .. developed the new mixed-income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings surround the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350-space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community.”

Again, this was a “revitalization project”, not just a high-density apartment proposal. They added community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses, not just higher-density units. The took old homes and made new ones. They took old commercial buildings and made new ones. They took abandoned parking lots and made a new one, and they put it underground to free up space for landscaping. They didn’t change the nature of the area, they revitalized it. Fairfield Residential is taking an institutional space which didn’t affect our library, park, grocery stores, and commutes as negatively and provided a benefit for local restaurants and shops, and is replacing it with more people. Fairfield Residential tells us to look at their pretty pictures and ignore the effects. ULI provides yet another great project example, but it does not in any way relate to Fairfield Residential’s.

Claim 5: Higher density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Lower-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.

Again, ULI takes a possibility and generalizes it as a rule. What’s more amusing is their first “profile”:

An Example ULI gives: Prairie Crossing in Grayslake, Illinois.

“The developers of Prairie Crossing .. saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmentally sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicago and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community features 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13 acres of wetlands, a 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood parks. Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedgerows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on-site walking and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy-approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra’s North Line to Chicago’s Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O’Hare Airport.”

It is ludicrous that Fairfield Residential would even try to compare their project with the one described above. ULI probably meant this as an exemplar, but it seems in bad taste to use this in defense of a general statement — it makes their argument seem more like an outright trick. The theme of on-site amenities and easy access to transit does not go unnoticed.

Another Example ULI gives: The Preserve in Hoover, Alabama.

“USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conventional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve’s future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight-acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award-winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve.”

Wow, I would love to live there. But it’s not 900 Kiely Blvd, and Fairfield Residential would have a hard time drawing parallels it could stand behind. It is again disappointing to see ULI’s example when they are trying to defend higher-density development. “Higher-density than what” is the obvious comment. 680 single-family homes, even with 100,000 square feet of retail and commercial office space, looks mighty small on 311 acres. The fact that over 40% of the originally available land was set aside for a nature preserve does speak volumes for the original owner USS Real Estate; if they provided medical services too, Kaiser Permanente would be out in more ways than one.

No Comments »

Part two of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1]

Claim 2: Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas.

ULI’s Opinion: No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values.

And some research would show that higher-density development can decrease property values. A possibility is not a fact, nor should it be for this type of claim. There is a whole world beyond “yes” and “no”. Instead, the answer should depend upon the situation.

An Example ULI gives: Haile Plantation in Gainesville, Florida.

“Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower-density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urbanist communities in the country. Developers .. in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices.”

1,700 acres with 2,700 units — that works out to about 1.6 units per acre. What was the original density? Perhaps it was not just the density that spurred public interest, but the “expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices.” That seems to be largely absent from Fairfield Residential’s proposal and thought processes. It seems largely improbable for the 900 Kiely Blvd area. To be fair, I would gladly agree to a 1.6 unit per acre project with a town center and other amenities. Triple the density to 5.4 units per acre — I think I could cope with the effect on my property value. But put the amenities in too. Even if you don’t give me access, Fairfield Residential.

Another Example ULI gives: Echelon at Lakeside in Plano, Texas.

“Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master-planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida-based developers .. overcame initial community opposition from area residents through high-quality innovative design. The award-winning architecture blends seamlessly with the surrounding neighborhood’s traditional style. Larger-than-normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single-family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis-based architects .. used five building types and three building styles. All units include high-quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort-style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge.”

That must have been nice when it was new. Now that they have been around for a while, and changed their name to Heritage (perhaps after the developer sold it off to another company?), they garner a less-than 50% average recommendation rating with plenty of complaints . All things get older. It’s not how a development looks when it is new that we should consider, but how it will be in the long term. You can be attracted by looks, but after 20 years there had better be something more. And substantial. Fairfield Residential doesn’t seem to have anything positive other than the shape of their roofs and the undulations of their homefronts. Oh, and pretty colors. But pity that it doesn’t “blend seamlessly”.

Claim 3: Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Higher-density development creates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking.

This is true if and only if the public transit and walkable communities exist in the first place. [Update: I recently wrote a post about this as well.] I know few companies that would be within walking distance for the majority of the renters Fairfield Residential is trying to entice. Getting there by public transit isn’t much better. To those who doubt: try it. Do it for a week until you get used to it.

An Example ULI gives: Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas.

“The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer .. partnered with Denver-based .. Group to create the ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DART trains, which offer residents an eight-minute commute to Dallas’s central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university’s new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit-oriented community.”

The difference is that 900 Kiely is not a “vibrant transit-oriented community”, and Fairfield Residential’s proposal will in no way make it one. And before they tell you that they will, remember that they hold no power or authority — or even business desire — to make those kinds of promises. I will suspect that DART existed even before the Dallas project was planned. I will also suggest that a “ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking” sounds more like a community than Fairfield Residential’s “~550 high-density apartments, ~220 attached town homes, ~50 single-family homes, and nothing else” proposal. And Dallas did it with less density: 216 apartments on 10 acres is only 22 units per acre.

Another Example ULI gives: Southwest Station in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls it the ‘best small system in the country.’ In an effort to capitalize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit-oriented development at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota, the commission completed a bus depot and five-story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of-way. In 2001, it started selling land around the transit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the commission, new public transit riders, affordable convenient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers.”

Again, this development was built around the transportation. They added restaurants and shops on 22 acres, but only 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. It was providing city amenities for a suburban community. There really isn’t much more to add.

No Comments »