Fairfield Residential has come to the Pepper Tree Neighborhood claiming to want to work with the neighborhood, yet they haven’t taken many pro-active steps to back up their claims. The only times they have spoken to residents was when they were given opportunities to present their marketing material or address their issues while ignoring those of the residents — and usually at our invitation. While they may point to their door-to-door “survey” as a bridging action, most residents saw it as an attempt to quell discontent without actually addressing the concerns of the community; according to some residents, Travis and his sidekick talked quite a bit, defending Fairfield Residential’s views on the project with some misdirection, but they took very few notes. We have not seen Ed McCoy, Dan Milich, John Franco, or even Kathy Thibodeaux (Fairfield Residential’s neighborhood liaison) anywhere near our homes without a marketing opportunity present.

John Franco and Kathy Thibodeaux claim to be from the area, but the Santa Clara they remember is not the Santa Clara they are trying to make it become. And they certainly don’t hold any allegiance to us now. Kathy Thibodeaux hasn’t lived in Santa Clara for over 17 years. John Franco lives in San Jose, but works in the San Ramon area (interestingly, about a 40 minute commute). They state their connection to our city, but make no attempt at understanding or accepting our views, or reaching out to us as residents. They are saccharine thrown in to hide the taste of Fairfield Residential’s real offering, but I’m not biting.

At last Monday’s meeting Ed McCoy made it very clear: Fairfield Residential will not lower their density. It is not an option they will consider. This is the reason that after our initial concerns, Fairfield Residential’s response was merely to change some color schemes, soften the prison tower look of their High Density apartments, and point out the shrubbery beside their required access ways and sidewalks, claiming them as common open space. As one resident pointed out, “Where will the children play?” The bits and pieces of green they present as “seven acres of common open space” are a lot of sawdust, but there is no table there.

But forget about their common open space calculation, which includes walkways, sidewalks, and any other possible piece of land that is not dedicated to streets or buildings. Their density designations themselves are wrong. While their calculation of open space is a bit like advertising the shell of the egg as a bonus thrown in when you buy the egg white and the yolk, their density claims are like selling you two eggs, but only giving you one. Their claim for the apartments is Medium Density, which means “26 to 36 dwelling units per acre” according to the Housing Element of the General Plan. (Unfortunately for Santa Clara. In every city neighboring Santa Clara, except San Jose, the Medium Density designation that describes the plan Fairfield Residential submitted would fall under “High Density” or even “Very High Density“; it is only in Santa Clara that Fairfield Residential is able to fall back on the rather innocuous sounding Medium Density designation.) According to the numbers in Fairfield Residential’s application to the City, they intend to build 542 apartment units on approximately 9 acres of land, which brings the density in the area they have labeled Medium Density to a whopping 60 units per acre. That is almost twice what is allowed for that designation and puts them quite clearly in the realm of High Density. If they are going to designate some areas Low Density for the marketing appeal, then it seems only reasonable to designate the high density areas as High Density for accuracy, at the least, if integrity is not possible. 60 units per acre is High Density in any city, even Santa Clara.

We as permanent residents are not as concerned about the look-and-feel of the High Density apartments as we are about the look and feel of the neighborhoods, streets, shopping centers, graffiti-free walls and fences, grocery stores, parks, post offices, Fourth of July fireworks, work commutes, and peaceful nights. Yet the look-and-feel of the apartment design is the extent of the changes Fairfield Residential is willing to make. And despite all of the misdirection, that’s what Fairfield Residential is building: High Density apartments.

Ed McCoy of Fairfield Residential claims rather forcefully — but incorrectly — that the Santa Clara General Plan requires them to build to 36 units per acre. The truth is that the Kaiser property has a mixed use zoning. As Kevin Riley clarifies:

The General Plan designation was changed by the City Council in 2003 from Institutional to a combine flexible designation that permitted any one or all of several land uses. This designation permits Medium Density Residential (up to 36 units per acre) and/or Park/Recreation and/or Institutional, and was so designated in anticipation of various scenarios upon the reuse or redevelopment of the site.

Ed McCoy’s insistence that Fairfield Residential has to build to 36 units per acre is akin to us claiming that they are required to transform the entire site into a Park or Recreation area. Ed McCoy also does some hand-waving when he tries say that they are providing a mixture of single-family homes and townhouses as well as High Density apartments. The truth is, if Fairfield Residential put more apartments instead of adding single-family homes and townhouses, its plan would far exceed the 36 units per acre limit, as was shown earlier. They are not doing us any favors by providing single-family residences; they need those residences to justify their apartments and get some financial return on the rest of the land. It is not concern for future residents that they have included single-family dwellings; they’re doing the best they can do to bring in more revenue.

Appendix F:
Santa Clara owes it to its residents, both current and future, from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative so that we can make the wisest decisions for the use of our limited resources. By being so immovable, uninformative, and — in the best case — incorrect about a project so big that it can affect not just the residents who live nearby, but anyone who chooses to travel by any means through the heart of our city, Fairfield Residential has proven that it does not have the welfare of our city or its residents in mind when they develop in our midst. For a functional neighborhood, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

The Kaiser site is mixed use. Fairfield Residential, let’s mix it up.

No Comments »