Concerned Santa Clara

Early last month I received an e-mail from a resident just outside the 1000 foot radius from the old Kaiser Hospital. He didn’t have a problem with the development plans in the area. Well, don’t take it from me, here’s his letter:

I have no problem with the proposed development of houses, condo’s [sic] etc. in the areas around the old Kaiser Hospital and the Marina Playa project.

What is your real problem with the projects?

After giving it some thought, I responded a day or two later:

Contrary to developer belief, I have no problem with higher-density development, but the project as a whole should make sense. By “project” I also include social, economic, and academic effects, not just environmental. Instead, the recent projects propose high-density apartments adjacent to single-family homes in areas that are already negatively affected by vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Visit our library, supermarkets, senior center, and post office. Study the graffiti and crime affecting our neighborhoods. Be aware of our morning and evening commutes.

The Urban Land Institute has it correct: higher-density should come with transit, walkable neighborhoods, and a mix of retail, office, and residential. The community needs to be looked at as a whole, not just parcel by parcel from a business perspective. Rather than try to understand these issues and the growing problems with crime in our area, Fairfield Residential is simply proposing the addition of 2000 people. When the City claims that our lives will not be affected in any way, it is hard to take it seriously when even CHP disagrees.

The facts that the developers do not seem to be interested in dialogue, but in their business plan, that the City is not interested in recent or real data, that other cities have done research because of well-known problems while our City grants variances in denial, and that so many external groups express concern should make almost anyone cautious. When the City doesn’t seem to care, I have a problem.

Thanks for your interest. Why do you think these projects are good for our area?

Well, after almost a month, I had a title for my latest blog post.

No Comments »

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 »

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 »

[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 »

Last Wednesday the Santa Clara Planning Commission met to discuss the Santa Clara Square, which is in it Final EIR acceptance stage. Well over 200 people filled City Hall to standing room-only capacity to speak out against the project — many from the City of Sunnyvale, including its Principal Planner and Vice Mayor.

In short, the project proposes two eight-story residence towers and at least two slightly shorter five- and six-story commercial retail buildings on the property currently used by Kohl’s off of Lawrence Expressway and El Camino. The project would add almost 500 housing units and incorporate 190,000 square feet of commercial and retail space on about 12 acres of land.

The complaints against the project were many:

• Adding 500 additional families would add more traffic to the local parks, libraries, streets, and services which are already saturated with people.
• The estimated 250 students (number taken from the EIR) would greatly impact the schools in the area.
• Allowing a variance for the number of parking spaces required by the project would put more cars on the streets next to the single-family homes.
• Although the developer projects adding over 1700 additional cars, the EIR states that they do not expect the traffic on Lawrence Expressway or El Camino to be affected.
• The EIR states that there is, on average, only a single car accident per year in that intersection, although people who work and live in the area claim witness to about two accidents per month.
• The EIR states that there is no correlation between increased traffic and increased accidents, which puts many of their other “facts” in doubt.
• Kohl’s — the largest business on the block, both before and after the project is completed — was not even notified of the project; the manager heard about it shortly before the Planning Commission meeting through a customer.
• At 8 stories tall, it will be the largest project along El Camino or Lawrence Expressway for miles in any direction and goes against the 4-story height restriction specified in Santa Clara guidelines.
• Although the project has been in progress for almost four years, according to the developer, they have not significantly changed the nature of the project despite community complaints and outcry.

The Planning Commission voted to allow a continuance for this project for up to 90 days to allow the developer to come back with a modified plan. You can read more reactions to this meeting at the Mercury News site:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8630379?source=rss

All of the other complaints against Santa Clara Square sound eerily familiar to those of us fighting for a more reasonable proposal here at the Kaiser site. Other things to note when comparing the Fairfield Residential project with the Santa Clara Square project:

With twice the number of units, people, and cars, the Fairfield Residential project at the former Kaiser hospital property fails to add any of the commercial, retail, or community convenience proposed by Santa Clara Square, while staging the project closer to single-family homes.

One of the chief complaints against the Santa Clara Square project mentioned by residents was that, in the several years the project has been in planning, the developers had not made useful changes to any of their designs or numbers, ending up with essentially the same project they had at day one. Fairfield Residential has come back to us several times to adjust numbers, but the net change has taken them from 812 units originally to about 806 today. It’s hard to get excited about a less than 1% change. Their densities haven’t changed — we still have 540 or so High Density apartments. And their changes have nothing to do with residential concerns: Fairfield Residential has to give up those units to improve substandard access or adjust for their tandem parking garage units — which are not allowed by Santa Clara.

Initial data stated by Fairfield Residential put the number of school children anticipated at about 75. That is about a quarter of the number of children expected by the Santa Clara Square project — even though Fairfield Residential will have twice the number of families.

Although the Santa Clara Square EIR tries very hard to hide it, the effects on traffic cannot be pushed aside. At least two of the residents that spoke out that night had experience with EIRs and both slammed the report for its deficiencies. At one point, one gentleman suggested that the EIR be thrown out and done again from scratch. We are talking with those individuals and others to ensure that the data presented for the Fairfield Residential project will be above board and accurate.

The good news is that the Planning Commission seems willing to listen, especially when forced to acknowledge the hundreds of people who attended Wednesday night’s meeting. The problem appears to start with our planning department — Kevin Riley and his staff — who seem eager to comply with high-density goals against the desires of the general populace. Affordable housing is nice, but only when it comes with a community people want to be a part of. It certainly shouldn’t anger existing residents.

If we can change Santa Clara Square and make the city listen there, I have little doubt that we can make an impact with Fairfield Residential.

It’s getting exciting again.

No Comments »