Concerned Santa Clara

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 »

[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 »

After the success of our last residential meeting, we will have a follow-up meeting on 25 March at 7:00 p.m.  We are looking for a place to meet that has sufficient parking because the library is already booked for that night.  I will most-likely send out updates via e-mail, so if you are not on our e-mail distribution list and would like an update, please let me know your address.

The original push for these meetings was the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss the General Plan on 26 March, but it looks as though that meeting has been canceled.  There is no alternative meeting scheduled yet, so I will have to get back to you when I have more information.

Equally disappointing is that the Santa Clara General Plan Update site has been up for a while, but it isn’t very useful.  That would have been the best place to announce the joint meeting, or even the cancellation and rescheduling.   But after several weeks, there is no mention of the meeting — or even how to become involved or what the schedule is.  Remember, the Santa Clara city newsletter requested that people get involved almost a month ago and pointed us to that web site.  Maybe this post will spur them into action.  You know there is a problem when their site gets updated less often than this site does.

Poorly-managed Density is the problem.  The General Plan is the enabler.  Fairfield Residential is merely baffoonish in its effort to force their project into our neighborhoods with specious claims, inaccurate designations, and hollow neighborhood liaising.

Active residents are the solution.  We aren’t quite there yet, but we are learning every day.  I’ll see you at the meeting.  Let’s fix things.

No 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 »

There has been some focus put on how many people should be notified when a project affecting their neighborhood is proposed. There is a “legal” 300-foot minimum distance from the project site, with no “maximum” notification limit. I am told that the 300-foot distance is the distance within which the state will reimburse cities for mailing notifications; beyond that distance, the city must pay for notifications itself.

First, let’s look at what 300 feet gets you.

For the Santa Clara Square site, 300 feet doesn’t even get you across most of Lawrence Expressway. It doesn’t span the supermarket parking lot — especially not after having to cross El Camino Real. 300 feet does not even cover one residential block, in any direction.

For the Fairfield Residential project, 300 feet doesn’t include a third of Woodsborough, half of Miles Drive, a quarter of Pepper Tree Lane, any of Santa Lucia, any of Homestead, or anything adjacent to Central Park. It takes 600 feet before any houses along Live Oak Drive are included, and even then no houses along Homestead are touched. Even after 1000 feet, only half of Live Oak is touched and we still haven’t gotten across the park or the schools in the area.

Now let’s look at who gets notified within that 300 feet.

Santa Clara is only legally bound to notify land owners within their chosen radius. This means that apartment complex owners — who may be thousands of miles away in a different state — will be notified, but none of the renters. Commercial and retail store owners may be notified, but they may not even live in the city.

For Santa Clara Square, that means that fewer than a dozen homes and two dozen town home complexes were notified of the 8-story tall residential high-rises and 5- and 6-story tall commercial buildings that would be put in next door. If you draw the boundary of the 300-foot areas around the Santa Clara Square site, it includes mostly street, parking lot, apartment or condominium, and commercial properties. It excludes the great majority of residential properties that lie immediately to the south and west of the property, not to mention all of the residents the project would affect along Lawrence Expressway or just off of El Camino Real. Sunnyvale residents, who live adjacent to the project, weren’t notified by Santa Clara at all, even with a request from Sunnyvale’s principal planner to do so.

Near the Fairfield Residential complex, even at 1000 feet, no residents on the other side of Central Park — or even adjacent to it — were notified. The notifications never made it beyond the two schools in the area or past the apartment and retail complexes off of Homestead. They did finally reach residents of Live Oak, but only about half of them. The area is already so saturated with rental housing that there were few houses notified beyond Live Oak or Miles Drive. In short, increasing the notification range from 300 feet to 1000 feet had no significant impact on home owners in the area. The city in its infinite wisdom stuck to the letter of their “favor” and cut the notifications off on Live Oak at exactly 1000 feet; half of the street never received the Notice of Preparation or were told about the Scoping Meeting the city set up to get public feedback. And that’s just people on Live Oak. None of the renters in the area — who would be affected just as much, if not more, by the development — were notified. This includes people in rental houses as well as those in apartment complexes.

Renters are residents just as much as home owners are residents. There is a transitory aspect to their residence, agreed. In a recent blog post, Carolyn Schuk of the Santa Clara Weekly opines “Young people buy here with the grand plan of moving to a free-standing house in a more ‘residential’ area as soon as they can.” But they deal with the same traffic, stand in the same lines, breath the same air, enjoy the same skyline, and fight for the same parking spaces as permanent residents. They suffer the same consequences, yet are excluded from sharing our same voice.

By knowingly and actively excluding renters from project notifications that affect their living standard and quality of life, the city disfranchises the very group of people it is also trying to entice by depriving them of vital information that would allow them to participate in neighborhood discussions. To become part of the neighborhood, you may say. It is argued that renters do not have as much to lose or gain as they are not home owners affected by lowered property values and have an easier option before them to leave the area and therefore do not care as much about local events. But that is not true of all renters. And notifications are not about requirements for action. They are for notification, so that people who are so inclined and so motivated can take an active role in their community to support common causes. By adding an additional 550 apartments in a high-density development, Fairfield Residential isn’t adding a single person that Santa Clara would have to notify in the event of a future project.

So. Home owners. Areas already saturated with rental units. 95-foot tall high-rise buildings.

300 feet sounds more and more like the minimum, legal requirement that it is and not so much the “favor” the people supporting the high-density projects make it out to be. Increase the radius to 1000 feet and the story doesn’t really change.

No Comments »