SJ Homes

STAFF REPORTPLANNING COMMISSION

P.C. Agenda: 08-11-10Item: 3.c.

FILE NO.: PDC10-005 Submitted: March 23, 2010

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:A Planned Development Rezoning from A(PD)Planned Development Zoning District to R-1-8(PD) Planned Development Zoning District toallow for the demolition of fourindustrial/office buildings and the developmentof 94 sing!e-family detached residences on a15.8 gross acre site.

LOCATION:West side of Guadalupe Mines Road,approximately 1,130 feet southerly of ViaCampagna.

Existing Zoning A(PD) Planned DevelopmentProposed Zoning R-1-8(PD) Planned

DevelopmentGeneral Plan Medium Low Density

Residential (8 DU/AC)Council District 10Annexation Date November 14, 1984

(Guadalupe No. 20)SNI NAHistoric Resource NARedevelopment Area NASpecific Plan NA =

Aerial Map N

File No. PDC10-005Page 2 of 10

GENERAL PLAN

ZONING

Town ofLos Gatos


RECOMMENDATION

Planning staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL with the following conditions and planrevisions to be included in the proposed rezoning:

1. The project fully compliant with the Riparian Corridor Study with a riparian setback developmentstandard of 100 feet except for a 30-foot riparian setback on the south end of the site (defined bythe south edge of"public street A" to the southern property line);

2. All streets to be public streets with full cross sections;3. Oak trees within the area proposed for residential development be reviewed for integration into the

development including revised site grading to preserve natural grades; and4. The net density not exceed 8.0 housing units per net acre as def’med by the General Plan.

The staff recommendation of CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the proposed Planned DevelopmentRezoning to allow for the development of single-family detached residential units on the subject site ismade for the following reasons:

The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the goals and policies of the San Jose 2020General Plan, specifically: =:a. The zoning will comply with the Land Use Transportation Diagram designation of Medium Low

Density Residential 8.0 dwelling units per net acre (du!ac).b. The Housing Major Strategy, as the project will allow single-family detached units in a

neighborhood of single-family detached homes.c. Urban Design Policy #3, as the development will include new streets with a sidewalk and park

strip.2~ The project is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines appropriate for small lot single-

family detached dwellings.

Without the recommended conditions of approval, staff would recommend DENIAL of the proposedrezoning as it would significantly depart from the Riparian Corridor Policy.

BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTIONOn March 23, 2010, Erik Schoennauer, representing the applicant, Trumark Companies, applied for aPlanned Development Rezoning from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to R-1-8(PD) PlannedDevelopment Zoning District to allow for the demolition of four industrial/office buildings and thedevelopment of 94 single-family detached residences on a 15.8 gross acre site.

Site and Surrounding UsesThe subject site, located on the west side of Guadalupe Mines Road, approximately 1,130 feet southerlyof Via Campagna, is currently developed with two office buildings, a caretakers residence, and a buildingpad for a building that was never constructed. The existing development is surrounded by a surfaceparking lot. The buildings are currently occupied by office uses which will be eliminated with thedevelopment of the site.

The subject site is bordered by very large lot single-family detached residences to the west across thecreek, in the town of Los Gatos, the Guadalupe Land Fill entrance and extensive open space acrossGuadalupe Mines Road to the east, single-family detached residences to the south, and north east.


Previous Land Use ApprovalsIn 2006 the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment (File No. GP05-10-01) to change the landuse designation from Administrative Office/Research and Development to Medium Low DensityResidential (8 DU/AC). The applicant’s original request was for Medium Density Residential (8-16DU/AC), but in working with the area residents and the City, they modified their application to requestthe lower density of 8 DU/AC.

ANALYSISThe proposed project was analyzed with respect to: 1) conformance with the San Jose 2020 General Plan,2) conformance with the Riparian Corridor Policy, 3) conformance with the Residential DesignGuidelines, 4) sustainability, and 5) fire access. ~

General Plan ConformanceThe subject 15.8 gross acre site has a San Jose 2020 General Plan land use designation of Medium LowDensity Residential (8 DU/AC). This density is typified by 6,000 square foot lots which are prevalent inSan Josr. It is characteristic of many residential neighborhoods, and is the density at which the majority ofSan Josr’s single-family housing has been built. Smaller lot single-family residences are also appropriatein this category provided that the overall project density maintains an average density no greater than 8DU/AC.

The proposed 94 small lot single-family detached residential units on the site equals a density of 6.76DU/AC when the creek area is included in the calculation of density. The General Plan defines netdensity to exclude streets and other public use areas such as flood control easements. Typically that is thetop of bank of a creek and the maintenance road located at the top of bank. In this case, it does not appearthat an easement is being requested by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and thus the applicant isbenefiting by a larger area to transfer residential units from to the smaller development area. Should thatremain the case, the density would technically conform to the General Plan designation of up to 8 du/ac.Should an easement be required, the area to spread the density would decrease, and the density wouldincrease potentially above 8.0 du per net acre.

A comparison to similar residential development with the size of the proposed lots results in an effectivedensity of approximately 12 du/ac. The General Plan allows, as noted above that residential units can begrouped into smaller areas of the property to achieve a better development. The applicant in this case isproposing to locate the development outside of the riparian areas into a smaller portion of the site.

The proposed project should be considered in the context of the following General Plan Major Strategiesand Policies as discussed in the following:

Growth Management Major Strategy: The purpose of a growth management strategy is to find thedelicate balance between the need to house new population and the need to balance the City’sbudget, while providing acceptable levels of service.The proposed project will facilitate new single-family homes on the edge of the city already servedby existing infrastructure and facilities such as libraries, schools, parks, community centers andeommercial amen#ies. The proposed projeet replaces revenue generating uses with new housing.

2. Housing Major Strategy: This strategy seeks to maximize housing opportunities on infill parcelsalready served by the City and to consider the addition of new residential lands only when the Cityis confident that urban services can be provided.

o


The proposed project will provide significantly more housing opportunities than would have beenpossible by matching near by lot sizes and at the same time be compatible and consistent with thesurrounding land uses.

Urban Design Policy #3: Residential subdivisions should be designed to provide for internalcirculation within neighborhoods, prevent through vehicular traffic from traversingneighborhoods, and encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhoods and toadjacent commercial uses and transit facilities.The site will be accessed by two new streets off of Guadalupe Mines Road All new streets withinthe development will have the typical street design with a sidewalk and park strip to provide a safepedestrian connection throughout the new subdivision, as well as provide a connection betweenGuadalupe Mines Road, the existing surrounding neighborhoods, and the creek trail along theGuadalupe Creek, which runs the along the western boundary of the site. To further this, staff&recommending that all of the streets within the development be public streets. This will enablepublic access to not be restricted at any point, especially for those coming from outside of thedevelopment to access the creek trail and will also provide the residents of the new developmentwith all the typical amenities, street parking and park strip with street trees, that other residents inthe city enjoy.

Urban Design Policy #4: Residential developments which are adjacent to parks or open spacesshould be encouraged to provide direct access to, and common open space contiguous to, suchareas.Consistent with this policy, the proposed project provides access to the creek trail, as well aslocates the common open space for the project adjacent to the trail The project also includescreek frontage roads to provide great public access to the Guadalupe Creek

Riparian Corridor and Upland Wetland Policy #2: New public and private development adjacentto riparian corridors should be consistent with the provisions of the Riparian Corridor PolicyStudy.The project is NOT consistent with the Riparian Corridor Policy. The Policy requires a setback ofa minimum oflOOfeet and the projectprovides 30feet. Therefore, staff is recommending theprojeet provide a l OO foot riparian setback for the majority of the reek frontage in order toconform to this Policy. Additional discussion on the Riparian Corridor Policy follows below underthe next heading of this report.

Schools Policy #23: The City supports a system of open communication between the City, thepublic school districts and the development community in order to coordinate the activities of eachto achieve the highest quality of education for all public school students.State law (Government Code §65996) specifies the method of offsetting a project’s effect on theadequacy of school facilities as the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of abuilding permit. The proposed projeet would increase the number of school children attendingpublic schools in the project area, the impact to schools would be less than significant anddevelopment of the subject site will require the payment of a school impact fee, as mandated bythe State, to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed project. Inaddition, the affected school districts were made aware of the land use change on the subject sitefrom office/research and development to residential when the City Council changed the San Jose2020 General Plan land use designation in 2006.


Riparian Corridor PolicyThe Riparian Corridor Policy provides development guidelines to help protect riparian habitat andminimize impacts to riparian resources. The subject site is bordered by the Guadalupe Creek along thewestern property line and large portions of the riparian corridor occur on the site itself.

The Policy includes a setback guideline that requires a 100 foot riparian setback in order to preserve thecontinuity of the City’s riparian environments. The 100 foot setback was established to set thepredominate minimum setback to be utilized for new development. Certain exceptions are allowedrecognizing that creeks and rivers in San Jos6 have different character and quality. The normal tendencywith development projects has been to gravitate to the exceptions of the policy vs. the 100 foot minimum.That is the case with the developer with this project.

Staff does not support the request for a reduced setback of 30 feet.

Guadalupe Creek supports a dense stand of riparian vegetation and is intact. According to the BioticReport, the structural diversity of the riparian and woodland habitat occurring on the site results inrelatively high species richness and diversity. The 100 foot setback will allow for greater habitatProtection and rehabilitation, as well as preserve more existing trees on site. The subject site is the lastlarge developable site on this reach of the Guadalupe Creek, as at the southern end of this site the creekextends into the hills and open land. Allowing an encroachment would preclude further restoration of thecurrently compromised riparian habitat. Preserving the 100 foot setback will also allow for the proposedrecreational trail to be moved further away from the stream channel to further protect the riparianresources.

The Policy does state that there are circumstances which warrant consideration of a reduced setback,which include sites with unusual geometric characteristics and/or disproportionately long riparianfrontages. Although the riparian corridor extends along the entire western edge of the site, the depth of thesite, with the exception of the southern most "finger" is approximately 540 feet and a 100 foot ripariansetback does not impact the ability to develop the site with single-family residential development that isconsistent with the City’s Riparian Policy and its guidelines. The southern "finger" of the site does qualifyfor the exception, as there is a disproportionate amount of riparian frontage on this section (defined by thesouth edge of"public street A" to the southern property line). Therefore, staff would support a reducedsetback in this area to 30 feet. However, only the encroachment of the street is supported and theresidential units with lot numbers 91, 92, 93, and 94 should be removed from the site plan.

It is important to note that the site plan is correctly oriented to the creek. The orientation guideline in thePolicy states that development should be oriented towards the creek to provide views of the corridor forvisibility, habitat protection, and public safety. Frontage roads are a preferred interface and buildingsshould not back up to the riparian corridor. The proposed site design does provide a frontage road alongthe creek and the residential buildings face towards it consistent with the guideline.

Tree RemovalThe existing site contains 979 trees of various species. A total of 62 of the trees are ordinance size and themost frequently occurring species is the 409 Chinese Pistache trees that dominate the parking lot. Most ofthese trees were planted with the development of the office buildings. Of the ordinance size trees, theproject is proposing to preserve seven of the 62. The trees that are smaller than ordinance sized areassumed to be removed. Some may be replanted on the site where possible.


There are 66 Valley or other Oak species trees on the site. Several of these trees were preserved as a partof the industrial office development on the site. Some of the trees were preserved successfully and for theones that were not, it was due to the fact that they were left in irrigated landscape areas. Oak trees areintolerant of excess water and have therefore declined in health. The project as proposed will preservefive of the oak trees on the site. With staff’s proposed 100 foot riparian setback, an additional seven Oaktrees would be preserved as well as several Coast Redwood trees.

One consequence of developing the site with single-family detached residences is that many healthy treeswill be lost to accommodate proper grading for site drainage as part of the new subdivision. Preservingmajor trees such as Oaks in single-family lots is very difficult due to the individual homeowners makinglandscaping choices, and the developers desire to grade this sloped site essentially flat to maximize unityields. The average finished grade elevations will be about 3 to 8 feet different than the existing gradeswhich makes tree preservation harder. Staff still wants at the PD Permit stage to look for opportunities toadjust grading and lot pattern to preserve oaks that are in good condition instead of just assuming theremoval of healthy Valley Oak trees to squeeze in additional houses.

A biotic report including an arborist report and tree survey was completed for the site. Under the contextof the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the removal of a majority of the trees on the sitecan be mitigated and is therefore a less than significant impact. From a larger citywide policy standpoint, preservation of the native Valley Oaks should aggressively pursued.

Residential Design GuidelinesThis zoning application proposes small lot, two-story, single-family detached residences. The lot sizesrange from 3,404 to 4,029 square feet. The primary site design issue for this proposed zoning is theconformance of the proposed development standards with Chapter 17. Single-Family Detached House ofthe Residential Design Guidelines as discussed below.

Site DesignConsistent with the guidelines, there is one residential unit per lot that is oriented towards the street withfront, rear, and side setbacks, and private rear yards. The project design details and final site design willbe refined and effectuated through the subsequent Planned Development Permit process.

SetbacksThe project proposes two lot sizes, 3,000 square feet plus and 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. The Guidelinesrecommend that the front setback to the first and second floor living area be at least 12 feet and 15 feetand to a porch 10 feet and 12 feet, respectively. The project provides front and porch setbacks consistentwith this guideline.

The Guidelines recommend that the side setback from living area to interior lot line is of 4 to 8 feet and acorner side of 8 feet. However, typical single-family detached under a conventional zoning is five feet,which is an appropriate setback for this type of development and is consistent with the guidelines. Theproject provides a corner side setback of 8 feet consistent with the guideline.

The Guidelines recommend a rear setback of 15 feet. The project provides a 15 foot rear setback for thelarger lot types and a 13 foot setback for the smaller lot types consistent with this guideline.


Heig_~htThe Guidelines recommend a maximum building height of 30 feet and two stories. The project proposes amaximum height of 29 feet and two stories consistent with this guideline.

ParkingThe Guidelines recommend that single-family detached units provide two covered parking spaces per unitplus one off-lot parking space for units with a driveway apron and 1.3 off-lot parking spaces for unitswithout a driveway apron. The off-lot parking spaces should be located within 150 feet of each unit,which includes on street parking. Consistent with the guidelines, the project proposes for each unit tohave a two car garage and a driveway apron, as well as, on street parking totaling 109 spaces, whichexceeds the required 94 off-lot parking spaces.

Open SpaceThe Guidelines recommend a minimum of 500 square feet of private open space per unit. The projectprovides each unit with a minimum of 500 square feet of open space consistent with this guideline. TheGuidelines recommend 150 square feet of common open space per unit for projects that exceed 20 units.As the proposed project is for 94 units, a total of 14,100 square feet should be provided. The proposedproject exceeds this amount and provides 123,218 square feet, approximately 2.8 acres of useablecommon open space.

SustainabilityThis project is located on the edge of the city and is not served by transit, thus totally auto dependent toget to jobs and shopping. The previous General Plan change set the stage for the ultimate elimination ofthe current onsite jobs that residents in the Almaden Valley Could benefit from to work closer to theirhomes reducing commute distances. The new homes are subject to the City of San Jose Green BuildingOrdinance for New Construction Private Development, currently requiring the minimum green buildingcertification of Green Point Rated or LEED Certified. The applicant has submitted a preliminary GreenPoint Rated checklist and has marked yes on the following items: recycle 100% asphalt and concrete, userecycled content in roadway, size door/window headers for load, use of engineered lumber, use energyheels on roof trusses, use of recycled content for ceiling insulation, install water efficient fixtures, use lowVOC paint, and develop a homeowner manual of the green features. While many of these items will berequired when the State Building Code (CAL Green) is adopted next year or already required by separateordinance, the applicant is thinking ahead and planning to include some additional elements now.

Fire Access

The proposed project is located on Guadalupe Mines Road which terminates just south of the entrance tothe land fill as shown in Figure 1. A second point of access is provided by means of Puerto VallartaDrive approximately 750 feet to the north of the site (shown with Blue Line). The community hasexpressed concern about adding 90 more homes in the area served by Guadalupe Mines Road that alreadyhas a large amount of traffic and in the case of an emergency that blocked Guadalupe Mines Road, theymight be trapped, or emergency crews might be delayed in response.

Figure 1


The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project and access and has concluded that the proposedhomes do not significantly impact emergency response; nor expose future residents to a high risk hazard.The majority of the residents that have shared their concerns regarding this project live in the residentialdevelopment which was developed in the late 1990’s to the northwest of the proposed project and alsohave the same access situation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated on July 8, 2010, which ends circulation on July28, 2010, and states that the proposed Planned Development Rezoning will not have a significant effecton the environment with mitigation.

The primary issues addressed in the Initial Study include the potential impacts of the physicaldevelopment of the site on: air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissionsand energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. The MND includesmitigation measures that would reduce any potentially significant project impacts to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measures are included in the staff proposed development standards of thePlanned Development Zoning. The entire MND and Initial Study are available for review on the Planningweb site at: www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/MND.asp


PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTERESTThe property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius were sent public heating notices for thePlanning Commission and City Colmcil hearings. This staffreport has been posted on the City’s web site.Signage has been posted at the site to inform the public about the proposed change. Staff has beenavailable to discuss the proposal with interested members of the public.

On June 2, 2010, a commtmity meeting was held at the Vineland Branch Public Library on Blossom HillRoad, at which 11 area neighbors were present. Those in attendance were concerned about overcrowdingin the area school district and that more units would add to the existing traffic problems at the GuadalupeMines Road and Camden Avenue intersection, especially on Sundays when the church at this intersectionmakes it difficult to get onto Camden Avenue. Also, there is a concern about the loss of the existing treesand green space on the site. Those who were involved with the project at the General Plan stage of theproject appeared to be supportive of the density of project, but did also have concerns about the existingtraffic problems and loss of green space on the site.

General CorrespondenceIn addition, multiple e-mails were received from area neighbors. All of them are in opposition to theproject and state that the proposed density is too high, a greater amount of green space should be ~preserved, an evacuation route should be designated should there be a large fire or earthquake, GuadalupeMines Road needs to be widened, and police patrols should be increased to stop speeding. In addition, allletters stated a concern that the additional homes would impact the service of Los Gatos Union SchoolDistrict. Letters received from the Los Gatos Union School District and the Los Gatos-Saratoga HighSchool District state that the number of homes proposed will put a strain on their district in serving itsstudents.

Project Manager: Lesley Xavier Approved by:

Owner/Applicant:Owner:Brokaw Interests10600 N DeAnza BoulevardCupertino, CA 95014

Applicant:Tmmark CompaniesAttn: Chris Davenport4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200Danville, CA 94506

Attachments:Neighbor e-mailsSchool District LettersDevelopment StandardsPlan Set

Staff’sProposed

Development Standards

F~LE NO. PDC10-005DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

*In any cases where the graphic plans and text may differ, the text takes precedence. *

INTE~UM USE: All of the uses permitted under File No. PDC83-104 shall be permitted until thetime of the redevelopment of the site.

UsE/MAx~rUMNUM~ER OF UNITS: 94 single-family detached units

MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 3,000 square feet

RIPARIAN SETBACK: 100 feet between the drip line of riparian vegetation and any portion of thenew development including roads and buildings. Recreational uses are permitted within thesetback area.

Riparian Setback Exception: The southern "t~mger’’ of the site qualifies for an exceptionto the 100 foot setback, as there is a disproportionate amount of riparian frontage on thissection. The minimum setback in this area shall be 30 feet. For the purposes of thiszoning the ’Tmger" shall mean the area starting at the southern most edge of the newpublic street A to the southern property line as shown on the site plan.

SETBACKS -- 3,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS:

¯ From to building- 12 feet[] Front to porch- 10 feet[] Side- 5 feet[] Side Comer- 8[] Rear- 13 feet[] From to Garage- 18 feet

SETBACKS 3,001 -- 4,000 + SQUARE FOOT LOTS:

[] Front to building - 15 feet[] Front to porch - 12 feet[] Side- 5 feet¯ Side Comer- 8 feet[] Rear- 15¯ Front to Garage - 18 feet

BUILDING HEIGHT:[] 29 feet/2 stories

PARK~G REQUIREMENTS:[] Two covered parking spaces per unit, plus one additional off-lot space per unit located

within 150 feet of each unit. Off-lot spaces can be provided as on-street parking and!orparking bays.

Development StandardsFile No. PDC10-005Page 2 of 11

DRIVEWAYS:Minimum driveway width - 15 feet

. Minimum driveway length- 18 feet

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:¯ Each unit shall have a front and rear yard., Minimum of 500 square feet of open space per unit.

ACCESSORY STRUCTURES/BUILDINGS:¯ Permitted as of right, per Chapter 20.30, Part 5 Accessory Buildings and Structures, of

the Zoning Ordinance, as amended.

MINOR ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS:¯ Minor architectural projections such as, fireplaces and bay windows, may project into any

setback or building separation by up to 2 feet for a length not to exceed i0 feet or 20% ofthe building elevation length.

Minor additions which conform to the above setbacks do not require approval of theDirector of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:The architectural design of the houses shall confolan to the standards of the Single-Family Design Guidelines and be consistent with the conceptual elevations in theapproved plan set.

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION:

I. AIR QUALITYa) The following dust control measures will be implemented by contractors during

demolition of existing structures.i. Watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures and

break-up of pavement;ii. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site;iii. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.

Watering will be used to control dust generation during transport andhandling of recycled.

b) The following construction practices will be implemented during all phases ofconstruction to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site.Water allactive construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods;i~cti;ce areas adjacent to existing land uses will be kept damp at all times, or willbe treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives;

i. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require alltrucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;

Development StandardsFile No. PDC 10-005Page 3 of 11

ii.

111.

iv.

vi.

Pave, apply water at least three times dally, or apply (non-toxic) soilstabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas atconstruction sites;Sweep daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers),all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at constructionsites; water sweepers will vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-relatedimpacts to water quality;Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with watersweepers), if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets;Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive constructionareas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more);Enclose, cover, water at least twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil bindersto exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) to prevent visible dust from leavingthe site;

vii. Limit traffic speed on unpaved roads to 15 mph;viii. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to

public roadways; andix. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESa) Any tree that is removed shall be replaced with the addition of a new tree(s) at the

ratios shown in the following Tree Replacement Ratios table.Tree Replacement Ratios

Diameter of Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size ofTree Native Non-Native Orchard Each

to be Removed Replacement Tree

18 inches or 5:1 4:1 3:1 24-inch boxgreater

12 to 17 inches 3:1 2:1 None 24-inch boxLess than 12 il:l 1:1 None 15-gallon container

inchesx:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratioNote: Trees greater that 18" diameter shall not be removed unless a Tree RemovalPermit,or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees.

b) The species and exact number of trees to be planted bn the site shall bedetermined at the development permit stage, in consultation with the City Arboristand the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

Development StandardsFile No. PDC10-005Page 4 of I 1

c)

e)

Replacement trees are to be above and beyond standard landscaping; requiredstreet trees do not count as replacement trees.In the event the project site does not have sufficient area to accommodate therequired tree mitigation, one or more of the following measures shall beimplemented, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and CodeEnforcement, at the development permit stage:

i. The size of a 15-gallon replacement tree may be increased to 24-inch boxand count as two replacement trees.

ii. An alternative site(s) will be identified for additional tree planting.Alternative sites may include local parks or schools or installation of treeson adjacent properties for screening purposes to the satisfaction of theDirector of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.Contact Jaime Ruiz, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood ServicesLandscape Maintenance Manager, at 975-7214 [email protected] for specific park locations in need of trees.

iii. A donation of $300.00 per mitigation tree will be paid to Our City Forestfor in-lieu offsite tree planting in the community. These funds will beused for tree planting and maintenance of planted trees for approximatelythree years. Contact Rhonda Berry, Our City Forest, at (408) 998-7337xl06 to make a donation. A donation receipt for offsite tree planting willbe provided to the Planuing Project Manager prior to issuance of adevelopment permit.

The following tree protection measures shall also be included in the project inorder to protect trees to be retained during construction:

i. The applicant willretain a consulting arborist. The constructionsuperintendent will meet with the consulting arborist before beginningwork to discuss work procedures and tree protection.

ii. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the tree protectionzone prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences will be 6-foot chainlink or equivalent as approved by consulting arborist. Fences are toremain until all grading and construction are completed.

iii. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown and to provide clearance.All priming will be completed or supervised by a Certified Arborist andadhere to the Best Management Practices for Praning of the IntemationalSociety of Arboriculture.

iv. No grading, construction, demolition or other work will occur within thetree protection zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitoredby the consulting arborist.

v. Any root pruning required for construction purposes will receive the priorapproval of, and be supervised by, the consulting arborist.

vi. Supplemental irrigation will be applied as determined by the consultingarborist.


vii. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it will be evaluatedas soon as possible by the consulting arborist so that appropriatetreatments can be applied.

viii. No excess soil, chemicals debris, equipment or other materials will bedumped or stored within the tree protection zone.

ix. Any additional tree priming needed for clearance during construction mustbe performed or supervised by an Arborist and not by constructionpersonnel.

x. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink withinthe root area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements onexpansive soils near trees will be designed to withstand differentialdisplacement.

f) If possible, construction should be scheduled between September and December(inclusive) to avoid the nesting season. If this is not possible, pre-construct!onsurveys for nesting white-tailed kite, non-listed raptors and other non-listedbreeding birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify active neststhat may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April(inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 daysprior to the initiation of construction activities or tree relocation or removal.Between May and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conductedno more than thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. Thesurveying biologist shall inspect all trees in and within 250 feet of theconstruction area for active nests. If an active nest is found in or close enough tothe construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall, inconsultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, designate aconstruction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the nest, which shall bemaintained until after the breeding season has ended and/or a qualified biologisthas determined that the young birds have fledged. The applicant shall submit areport to the City’s Environmental Principal Planner indicating the results of thesurvey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City’sEnvironmental Principal Planner prior to the issuance of any grading or buildingpermit.

g) A detailed bat survey shall be conducted to determine if bats are roosting orbreeding in the onsite buildings prior to demolition. A qualified bat specialistshall look for individuals, guano, staining, and/or vocalization by directobservation and potential waiting for nighttime emergence. The survey shall beconducted during the time of year when bats are active, between April 1 andSeptember 15. If demolition is planned within this timeframe, the survey shall beconducted within 30 days of demolition. An initial survey could be conducted toprovide early warning if bats are present, but a follow-up survey will be necessarywithin 30 days. If demolition is planned outside of this timeframe (September 16through March 31), the survey shall be conducted in September prior todemolition. If no bats are observed to be roosting or breeding in these structures,then no further action would be required, and demolition can proceed.


i)

If a non-breeding bat colony is found in the buildings to be demolished, theindividuals should be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement of thebuildings prior to demolition under the direction of a qualified bat specialist toensure that no harm or "take" would occur to any bats as a result of demolitionactivities. If a maternity colony is detected in the buildings, then a construction-free buffer shall be established around the structure and remain in place until ithas been determined that the nursery is’ no longer active. Demolition shouldpreferably be done between March 1 and April 15 or August 15 and October 15 toavoid interfering with an active nursery.A biologist report outlining the results of pre-construction bat surveys and anyrecommended buffer zones or other mitigation shall be submitted to the City’sEnvironmental Principal Planner and shall be approved to the satisfaction of theDirector of Planning prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit.

III. CULTURAL RESOURCESa) Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of

the Public Resources Code of the State of California: In the event of thediscovery of human remains during construction, there will be no furtherexcavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected tooverlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified by thedeveloper and will make a determination as to whether the remains are NativeAmerican. ffthe Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to hisauthority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who willattempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If nosatisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remainspursuant to this State law, then the landowner will reinter the human remains anditems associated with Native American burials on the property in a location notsubject to further subsurface disturbance.

b) Any Native American human remains that are discovered and would be subject todisturbance will be removed and analyzed, a report will be prepared, and theremains will be rebuffed in consultation and agreement with the Native AmericanMost Likely Descendant designated by the Native American HeritageCommission. Prior to obtaining a Building Permit, a copy of the report will besubmitted to the City’s Environmental Principal Planner to the satisfaction of theDirector of Planning.

c) A qualified professional archaeologist shall be required to monitor allconstruction grading and utility trenching until the archaeologist is satisfied thatconstruction will not disturb important archaeological deposits, as follows:

i. If no resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall submit a report tothe City’s Environmental Principal Planner verifying that the requiredmonitoring occurred and that no further mitigation is necessary.

ii. If evidence of any archaeological, cultural, and/or historical deposits isfound, hand excavation and/or mechanical excavation shall proceed toevaluate the deposits for determination of significance as def’med byCEQA guidelines.


111.

iv.

The archaeologist shall submit reports, to the satisfaction of the City’sEnvironmental Principal Planner, describing the testing program andsubsequent results; these reports shall identify any program mitigation tobe completed in order to mitigate archaeological impacts (includingresource recovery and/or avoidance, testing and analysis, removal,reburial, and euration of archaeological resources at a recognized storagefacility). A final report shall verify completion of the mitigationprogram to the satisfaction of the City’s Environmental PrincipalPlanner.In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, allproject-related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius in orderto proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

b)

c)

e)

A Certificate of Geologic Hazard Clearance has been obtained from the Directorof Public Works prior to any discretionary approval for all development in areasshown on the Geologic Hazards Ordinance map; and any Conditions of Clearanceincluding, but not limited to, measures identified in the geologic evaluation forslope stabilization, surface and subsurface drainage control, offsite improvements,use restrictions, erosion control and/or maintenance guarantees for privateimprovements contained therein shall be implemented as specified. A Certificateof Geologic Hazard Clearance was issued for the project on June 25, 2010.A City-approved Erosion Control Plan will be developed and implemented priorto approval of a grading permit or Public Works clearance with such measures as:1) the timing of grading activities during the dry months, if feasible; 2) temporaryand permanent planting of exposed soil; 3) temporary check dams; 4) temporarysediment basins and traps and/or 5) temporary silt fences.The proposed structures on the site will be designed and constructed inconformance with the Uniform Building Code Guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 toavoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site.The geologic hazard and preliminary geotechnical investigation report addressingthe potential hazard of liquefaction will be submitted to, and reviewed andapproved by, the City Geologist prior to issuance of a grading permit or PublicWorks clearance. The investigation should be consistent with the guidelinespublished by the State of California (CDMG Special Publication 117) and theSouthern California Earthquake Center ("SCEC") report.The upper 3 to 4 feet of all existing artificial fill shall be over-excavated andreplaced as engineered fill.

f) All of the previously-placed fill material in the former detention pond area shallbe over-excavated and replaced as engineered fill.

g) Material transitions shall be over-excavated and rebuilt with engineered fill toreduce the potential for differential movement beneath structures.A creek bank setback equivalent to a 2:1 slope projection shall be establishedfrom the base of the creek bank.


Foundations constructed within the potential co-seismic deformation zones shallbe supported on rigid mat foundations designed to tolerate increased foundationmovement compared to foundations located outside the designated zones.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGYEnergy efficient design standards including the design and exposure of windows,insulation, mechanical and electrical eqtfipment and landscaping will beincorporated in accordance with the provisions of Title 24 of the CaliforniaAdministrative Code and of the San Jose Building Code.

b) The project will be reviewed for conformance to the Green Building Policy(Policy 6-32) at the Planned Development Permit stage.

VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

b)

If a well is found during grading operations, a well destruction permit will beobtained ~om the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the well will bedestroyed in accordance with District standards.ff a septic system is found during grading operations, it will be abandoned inaccordance with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Sewage DisposalOrdinance.The structure(s) to be removed will be surveyed for the presence of asbestos-containing materials at the demolition permit stage; and if any suspect ACM arepresent, they will be sampled prior to demolition in accordance with NESHAPguidelines, and all potentially friable ACM will be removed prior to buildingdemolition and disposed of by offsite burial at a permitted facility in accordancewith NESHAP, Cal-OSHA and BAAQMD requirements.The structure(s) to be removed will be surveyed for the presence of lead basedpaint at the demolition permit stage; and if any suspect LBP is present, it will besanapled prior to demolition, and all potential LBP will be removed prior tobuilding demolition and disposed of by offsite burial at a permitted facility inaccordance with EPA and OSHA requirements.A Soil Management Plan that provides protocol for contractors in the event thatpockets of buried suspect materials (debris and/or garbage) are encounteredduring site development activities shall be prepared and implemented.Soil at the location of the boring with the mercury concentration detected abovethe residential CHHSL (SB-8) shall be over-excavated for appropriate offsitedisposal.Soil at the location of the boring with the cadmium concentration detected abovethe residential CHHSL (SB-5) shall be over-excavated for appropriate offsitedisposal.Verification samples shall be collected and analyzed for mercury and cadmium todocument that the impacted soil has been sufficiently removed from the site.

Development StandardsFile No. PDCI0-005Page 9 of 11

Regulatory agency oversight shall be requested if significantly elevated levels ofcontaminants of concern are detected in the soil samples.

j) Soil with TPHd and TPHmo detected above the residential ESLs shall be over-excavated for appropriate offsite disposal.

k) If pockets of petroleum-impacted soil are observed (i.e., soil with significantodors or discoloration) during project development, such soil shall be over-excavated for appropriate offsite disposal.

1) Verification samples shall be collected and analyzed for TPHd and TPHmo todocument that the impacted soil has been sufficiently removed from the site.

VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYPrior to the commencement of any cleating, grading or excavation, the projectwill comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (N-PDES) General Construction Activities Permit,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, as follows:

The applicant will develop, implement and maintain a Storm WaterPollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the discharge ofstormwater pollutants including sediments associated with constructionactivities; and

b)

ii. The applicant will file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State WaterResources Control Board (SWRCB)The project design will conform tothe City’s Residential Design Guidelines.

The project will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the projectto control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associatedwith construction activities.

c) The project applicant will comply with the City of San Jose Grading Ordinance,including erosion and dust control during site preparation and with the City of SanJose Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt andmud during construction. The following specific BMPs will be implemented toprevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation duringconstruction:

ii.

Restriction of grading to the dry season (April 15 through October 15)or meet City requirements for grading during the rainy season;Utilize onsite sediment control BMPs to retain sediment on the projectsite;

iii. Utilize stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks;

vi.

Implement damp street sweeping;Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help control, erosionduring construction; andProvide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces afterconstruction has been completed.


e)

Prior to the issuance of a Planned Development Permit, the applicant will providedetails of specific BMPs including, but not limited to, bioswales, disconnecteddownspouts, landscaping to reduce impervious surface area, and inlets stenciled"No Dumping- Flows to Bay" to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement.The project will comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES PermitNo. CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for themanagement of stormwater of new development.The project will comply with applicable provisions of the following City Policies- 1) Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (6-29) whichestablishes guidelines and minimum BMPs for all projects; and 2) Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (8-14) which provides fornumerically-sized (or hydraulically-sized) TCMs.

VIII. NOISEa) Mechanical ventilation will be provided in accordance with Uniform Building

Code requirements when windows are to be closed for noise control, to thesatisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector.

b) Post-construction mechanical equipment will conform to the City’s General Planlimitation of 55 dB DNL at residential property lines and 60 dB DNL atcommercial property lines by utilizing measures such as equipment selection andlocation and, if necessary, equipment enclosures.

c) Construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.Monday through Friday for any onsite or offsite work within 500 feet of anyresidential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through adevelopment permit based on a site-specific construction noise mitigation planand a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement thatthe construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance ofaffected residential uses.

d) The contractor will use "new technology" power construction equipment withstate-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustionengines used on the project site will be equipped with adequate mufflers and willbe in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorlymaintained engines or other components.

e) Stationary noise-generating equipment will be located as far as possible fromsensitive receptors. Staging areas will be located a minimum of 200 feet fromnoise-sensitive receptors, such as residential uses.

f) A 6-foot-high noise attenuation barrier shall be constructed along GuadalupeMines Road.

g) Windows and sliding glass doors shall be operable and STC 40 to 45 ratedwindows and doors and!or exterior wall assemblies including additional layers ofgypsum board shall be installed to reduce indoor noise levels to 50 dBA in


J)

bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms at all residences subject to excessive single-event noise.Windows and sliding glass doors shall be operable and STC 28 or higher ratedwindows and doors shall be installed at all living spaces on the remainder of thesite.All units shall be equipped with forced air ventilation systems to allow theoccupants the option of maintaining the windows dosed to control noise, andmaintain an interior noise level of 45 dB DNL.Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall retain a qualifiedacoustical consultant to check the building plans for all units to ensure thatinterior noise levels will be attenuated to 45 dB DNL to the satisfaction of theDirector of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.A "noise disturbance coordinator," who will be responsible for responding to anylocal complaints about construction noise, shall be designated. The disturbancecoordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginningwork too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted tocorrect the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall beconspicuously posted at the construction site.

Applicant’sRequested


Brookside Estates Development Standards

3,380+ SF - 3,875+ SF Lot1. 1. Proposed Lot Setbacks:

3,300+ SF LotProposed Lot Setbacks:a. Front Porch = 12’b. Front Living = 10’c. Side Yard = 5’d. Comer Side = 8’e. Rear Living = 9’f. Garage = 18’

a. Front Porch = 15’b. Front Living = ¯ 12’c. Side Yard = 5’d. Comer Side = 8’e. Rear Living = 11’f. Garage = 18’

Building Height:a. Plan 1 (2 Story) = 25’-8" maxb. Plan 2 (2 Story) = 28’-3" max

Minimum Lot Size:a. 46’ x 72’

Building Areas:a. Plan 1 = 2,469 SFb. Plan 2 = 2,628 SF

2. Building Height:a. Plan 3 (2 Story) = 28’-2" maxb. Plan 4 (2 Story) = 29’ max

3. Minimum Lot Size:a. 47’ x 72’b. 51’ x72’

4. Building Areas:a. Plan3 =2,802 SFb. Plan 4 = 3,011 SF

\~Nch-pbee3X!mplementation~LANNING FILES~Zonings~2010~PDC10-005 Brooksido EstateskDevelopment Standards from ApplicanLdc~


1. Site Coverage:

a. Buildingsb. Common Open Spacec. Private Open Spaced. Parkway Landscape Areae. Roadway Area (Road, Dwy, Walk, Etc.)

=152,720 SF =22.1%= 123,218 SF = 17.9%= 198,544 SF = 28.7%=23,800 SF = 3.5%= 191,568 SF = 27.8%

Total = 689,850 = 100%

2. Total Number of Parking:

a. Garage (2 Per Unit)b. Driveway (2 Per Unit)c. On Site Streetd. Guadalupe Mines road

= 188 spaces= 188 spaces= 109 spaces210 spaces

Total = 495 spaces

3. Parking Ratio = 5.3 spaces/unit

Notes:

Offsite improvements for the project consist of above and below ground infrastructurework within the Guadalupe Mines Road right of way adjacent to and along the projectfrontage. Above ground improvements include installing new curb, gutter, sidewalk,landscaping, and signing and striping. Underground improvements include installing anew water line for looping purposes, and storm drain and sanitary sewer tie-ins.

2. See Environmental Report for environmental mitigation requirements.

o Pursuant to Part 2.75 of Chapter 15.12 of the San Jose Municipal Code, no vested right toa building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land developmentapprovals and applications when and if the City Manager makes a determination that thecumulative sewage treatment demand on the San Jose-Santa Clara Water PollutionControl Plant represented by approved land uses in the area served by said plant willcause that total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control to treat such sewage adequately and within thedischarge standards imposed on the city by the State of California Regional WaterQuality Control Board for the San Francisco bay region. Substantive conditions designedto decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by theapproving authority.

\~Nch-pb ce3~Im ple m ent ation~PL ANNTNG FlLES~Zonings~2010~DC10-005 Brookside EstatesX.Development Standards from Applicant.doe

4. Private infrastructure shall be designed to meet or exceed public improvement standards.

5. Onsite existing buildings, structures, and above and below ground utilities are to bedemolished.

6. See land use plan-existing trees for tree removal.

\~Nch-pbce3X/mpleraentationkPLA~X~lTNG F1LES~Zonings~010~t’DC10-005 Brookside EstateskDevelopm~nt Standards from Appllcmat~doo

Los Gatos Union School District17010 Roberts Road

Los Gatos, CA 95032-4510Phone: (408) 335-2000

Fax: (408) 395-6481www .I ~usd .k 12 .ca.us

J. Richard Whitmore, Superintendent

April 22, 2010

LOS GATOSSCIHOOL DISTRIGT

Mr. Mike Enderby, Project ManagerCity of San JoseDepartment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor TowerSan Jose, CA 95113

BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Dear Mr. Enderby:

I am writing on behalf of the Los Gatos Union School District to express my concern about the proposedhousing on the West side of Guadalupe Mines Road referenced by APN 57502022 and City File NumberPDC10-005.

Our elementary and middle schools are currently operating at capacity. Based on the current estimate of astudent generation factor for this type of housing, this development will add more than 30 students to ourdistrict, which will require both additional facilities and additional teaching staff. Because our district is a"basic aid" district, we receive no additional funding along with the additional students. This proposedhousing will place an operational and financial strain on the district and have a negative effect on ourability to serve our children.

In addition to the impact of the housing on our educational program, the development will create newtraffic along Blossom Hill Road in the morning and at pick up time. Blossom Hill Elementary School isthe nearest school, but is four miles distant from the development. It is already highly impacted duringschool pick up and drop off and the main intersection at Blossom Hill and Chen’y Blossom is ill suited foradditional traffic, which will not only clog the road but can threaten pedestrian and bike traffic.

The capacity issues at our schools may well cause students from this development to have to drive beyondBlossom Hill to Louise Van Meter Elementary or to Lexington Elementary where overflow studentswould be sent on a space available basis. For instance, if the development were to add students in theupcoming school year, our kindergarten classes at Blossom Hill Elementary are already full and thestudents would be routed to an overflow location.

It is my belief that the project is too dense and too high in its impact on our schools to be approved in itscurrent proposal.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES oKathlee~, Rays -Phil E. Couchee ,Doug Halbert -C’’~ Miller ,Tina Orsi-Hartigan

Page 2

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have about the district’s ability to serve the studentsfrom this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proPOsal. I would appreciatereceiving notice of any public hearing or public agenda concerning this development.

Sincerely,

Richard WhitmoreSuperintendent

c~ Cary Matsuoka, Superintendent, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School DistrictLos Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees

BOARD OF TRUSTEES oKathleen Rays ,Phil E. Couchee ,Doug Halbert oC~-"~s Miller oTina Orsi-Hartigani i~

17421 Farley Road West o Los Gatos, California 95030(408) 354-2520 o Fax (408) 354-3375

GOVERNING BOARDCynthia ChangRoger Mason

Michele van ZuidenRosemary Rossi

Lorrie Wernick, Ed.D.SUPERINTENDENT

Cary Matsuoka

June 8, 2010

Mr. Mike Enderby, Project ManagerCity of San JoseDepartment of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd F1 TowerSan Jose, CA 95113 BY FACSIMILE AND US MAIL

Dear Mr. Enderby:

I am writing on behalf of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District to express myconcern about the proposed housing on the West side of Guadalupe Mines Road referenced byAPN 57502022 and City File Number PDC10-005.

Los Oatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District is operating at capacity. Based on thecurrent estimate of a student generation factor for this type of housing, this development will addmore than 20 students to our district, which will require both additional facilities and teachingstaff. The proposed housing will place an operational and financial strain on the district andhave a negative effect on our ability to serve our children.

In addition to the impact of the housing on our educational program, the development will createadditional traffic along Los Oatos Avenue, which is already significantly impacted duringstudent pick up and drop-off. Additionally, parking is at capacity at the school and development ¯will worsen this situation.

It is my belief that the project is too dense and too high in its impact on our schools to beapproved at its current proposal.

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have about the district’s ability to serve thestudents from this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Iwould appreciate receiving notice of any public hearing or public agenda concerning thisdevelopment.

Sincerely,

Ca~y~suokaSuperintendent

CO: Richard Whitmore, Superintendent, Los Gatos Union School DistrictLos Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees

DISTINGUISHED CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCELos Gatos High School Saratoga High School Adult Education Alternative Education

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: christine kay [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, July 2~8, 2010 11:47 AM

To: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Reed, Teresa; Horwedel,Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, Lesley

cc: Christine KaySubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines

Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear City Officials,

Thank you for informing us about this new development proposal.I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadalupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005.

Here are my concerns:

(1) Any new business venture must be profit driven, but it also has to keep in mind the importance of customers’ benefit andsocial impact. With so many crisis from recent national incidences such as financial collapse starting from Lehman Brothers,GP oil spill in Mexico Bay, and the so many housings on the market due to mortgage credit line issue, I feel that any newbusiness plan has to take its business conduct very seriously to prevent creating any new griefs to the customers and thesociety.

(2) The area of the proposed development is not suitable for the health and safety of prospective residents. The polluted gasfrom the diesel trucks which pass through Guadalupe Mines Road tend to spread to this proposed development area due to itslow altitude. Also, the area is well known as a snake habitat. With this information available, I wonder how many newprospective buyers will be interested in purchasing a new home in this new development area. Also, adding new housings tothe already battered housing market does not look pretty. Suppose if it is developed as planned, the new residents move in.If they begin to suffer the problems and they realize that the concerns were raised during planning process, I do not know howmuch complaints go to San Jose City. Some thing to think about from San Jose City’s liability point of view.

(3) Lastly, I concur with the concerns of our neighbors on the following points.

This development proposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homes per acre.

No new roads are to be built.

This density is far too high for the following reasons:

First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250-500 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of.caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe MinesRd. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose. html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of such incidents increases dramatically and the number ofresidents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the sameneighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all daylong 6 days a week (ref: http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to LGUSDsuperintendent, R. Whitmore the proposed number of homes proposed will put existing LGUSD schools over capacity,compromise student resources and worsen education quality. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill thegap in funding shortfall created by the development. Also Blossom Hill Elementary School is completely full and many of thechildren will have to attend Lexington Elementary, which is 25 minutes away in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This increasednumber of students could also result in the area being out of LGSUD into the Union School district, which is already at

7/28/2010

Page 2 of 2

capacity. This would cause our housing prices to lower significantly.

Third, our present home values will plummet as buyers flock to the new homes.

In addition and of great concern to us is that we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. This area being known for its habitat for the endangered Red Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander andWestern Pond Turtle, this project should warrant a full Environmental Impact Report. Futhermore, the stream that passesthrough the area attracts a large number of species, exotic birds, animals, and insects. The herds of deer are coming downfrom the hill to drink waters. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the areaand even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the > 2 year construction period.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions toour concerns.

Sincerely,

Name: Christine Kay

Address: 1663 Via Cortina, San Jose, CA 95120

7/28/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: luke cheng [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:27 AMTo: Xavier, LesleySubject: Great concerns about PDC10-005

Dear Lesley,

We are resident at the Campagna Community in Almaden and I am writing thisemail to express our following concerns regards to the proposed development onGuadalupe Mind road (PDC10-005).

1. Safety:- As you might know, with the existing Campaga residents (I believe there are 188houses) and the busy landfill trucks schedule daily, the Guadalupe Mind Road hasalready been overloaded with traffic and presented certain level of risk for theresidents (when walking, biking, and driving). If you approve to add 94 more of thehouses down the street, we are very worries the risk will be out of control.- As you might also know, there was a fire not long ago on Guadalupe minds road.Have we thought about if there is a fire in that new development, will fire engines/ambulances able to get into the house through the tiny road timely? and will thatcreate more potential risk for the existing houses on Guadalupe mind road and theCampagna community?

2. Environmental quality:- My understanding is that the big trees in the planned development will beremoved. While the world is more conscious about preserving the trees and greens,I wonder shouldn’t re-consider installing more houses to replace the trees in SanJose?- With more traffic to be expected if we add the new houses, I am sure roadcondition and air quality will be worsen especially at the cross section of Guadalupemind and Camden road.

Most of the residents share the same great concerns as I described above and wehope the City of San Jose fully understand and do NOT approve the development.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Luke & Rebecca Cheng1625 Via Campagna, San Jose, CA 95120

7/27/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: johnlisabalboni@comcast, netSent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:26 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Lesley XavierSubject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose: Permit number

PD 10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier,

We are homeowners in the Campagnas at Almaden development in San Jose, consisting of188 homes located off of Guadalupe Mines Road, 95120. We are writing to express ourconcerns regarding the proposed development of approximately 95 new homes on GuadalupeMines Road, San Jose: Permit number PD10-005. We are concerned with problems withtraffic safety, emergency access, school redistricting, and the loss of green space. Weunderstand that new development is necessary, please read our recommendations below. Westrongly urge You to consider them before approving this new housing project.

First and foremost, we are extremely concerned for the loss of safety of our entireneighborhood. The proposed large number of homes will add at least an additional 250vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow two-lanes of Guadalupe Mines Rd.The proposed development will increase the traffic on Guadalupe Mines Rd, with an increasedrisk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and collisions between autos and childrenwalking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. In addition, the design of Guadalupe Mines Roadbeyond Puerto Vallarta Drive renders it a single access road for fire and emergency vehicles.It is already an evacuation entrapment problem, and the increased population from newproposed development would make the situation much worse than it is now. The recent fire onGuadalupe Mines Rd is an example of the danger of the limited access on Guadalupe MinesRd, (ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose.htm!). If that fire had been one block closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundredsof residents. Note also that the condition of Guadalupe Mines Road is very poor because oflittle or no maintenance from the City.

With the new development of the proposed large size, the chance of safety incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep inmind that operations of the Guadalupe Mines Landfill brings scores of large trucks andvehicles careening up and down the narrow road all day.long, six days a week,(ref: http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp). ,

The large number of new students from the proposed new development will create a suddenburden on the existing school district and compromise student resource and education. Thelarge number of proposed new homes will create an overcapacity issue with the existingLGUSD schools and will likely cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district orforce new students to the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee would not be sufficient to fill the funding shortfall created bythe population from the new development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the

7/26/2010

Page 2 of 2

development. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion Of thegreen spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural greenspace will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and would cause more deer accidents withvehicles.

To alleviate these concerns, we are asking the City to consider the following suggestions:

¯ Require lower density housing to be built, no more than four homes per acre. This woulddecrease the traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate theovercapacity issue at LGUSD and maintain more trees and green space.

¯ Add an additional traffic lane to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it two lanes each way tohandle the additional vehicle loading and traffic.

¯ Add an evacuation route at the south end of Guadalupe Mines Rd to provide a backuproute in the event of a large fire or earthquake.

¯ Preserve more green space, trees, and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the greater than two-year

long construction period

We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concerns.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. John A and Lisa M Balboni1536 Via Campo AureoSan Jose, CA 95120-5006408-927-5390

7/26/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Zhengyong (Simon) Zhu [[email protected]]Monday, July 26, 2010 1:14 AMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Von Raesfeld, Darn]l; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier,Lesley

Subject: concern of PD10-005 development

Office of Mayor Chuck Reed

mayoremail@sanioseca.~ov

Office of Congresswoman for District 10 Nancy Pyle

Districtl0@sanjoseca.~ov

Office of the Fire Chief: Darryl Von Raesfeld

[email protected]

Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement: Joseph Horwedel,

[email protected]

Assistant Director Planning division: Laurel Prevetti

[email protected]

Planner II Planning Division, Lesley Xavier

Lesley.Xavier@san!oseca.gov

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express myconcerns regarding the proposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This developmentproposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homes per acre. No new roads are to be built.

My first concern is about the risk of our safety. For most part, Guadalupe Mines Rd is just a narrow twolane road, which we have to share with numerous heavy dump trucks to the landfill. With those extra94 new homes, the traffic on Guadalupe Mines Rd will get significantly worse. Also Guadalupe MinesRd is not a through street, which means there is only one narrow exit to the main road for thousandsof people. This will pose a great danger in case of fires and natural disasters.

The school district issue is also my top concern because I have a 4 years old daughter. I bought myhouse last year mainly because it belongs to the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). Thenew development is also in LGUSD and these new 94 homes will create a sudden burden on the districtand compromise student resources and education. Even worse, it may cause overcapacity issue toLGUSD, which may result in a redraw of school boundary, according to R. Whitmore, thesuperintendent of LGUSD. The change of school district will not only put my daughter to a lessprestigious school, but will also significantly reduce the house value.

7/26/2010

Page 2 of 2

With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:

- The number of houses to be built should be reduced so as to mitigate the impact on school capacityand traffic. No more than 4 homes should be built per acre.

- Make sure houses that belong to LGUSD will not be redistricted out.

- Connect Guadalupe Mines Rd to Hicks Rd, so that there will be another evacuation route

- Add more lanes and improve the condition of Guadalupe Mines Rd.

-Add left turn signal at Guadalupe Mines Rd and Coleman.

- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design. A park with playground isdesperately needed in this area.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns.

Best Regards,

Zhengyong Zhu

7/26/2010

Xavier, Lesle~,From:Sent:To:Subject:

Prevetti, LaurelFriday, July 23, 2010 6:08 PMXavier, LesleyFW: File No. PDCl0-005. Planned Development at Guadalupe Mines Road

..... Original Message .....From: Hoa Nguyen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent~ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:13 AMTo: Prevetti, LaurelSubject: File No. PDC10-005. Planned Development at Guadalupe Mines Road

Dear Ms. Laurel Prevetti:

My name is Hoa Nguyen, and I’m currently living with my family at 1727 Via Lugano, San Jose, CA95120. There is a proposed planned development with File No. PDC10-005 to build 94 homes acrossmy street, and I believe that this project will adversely affect my neighborhood.

The proposed project of building 9’4 new homes on Guadalupe Mines Road wi!l significantly increasetraffic. This will lead to increase risk of car accidents and road damage. The increased number ofresidents also raises more fire and earthquake safety risk. Since there is only one evacuation routethrough Guadalupe Mines Road, the added residents will make it more difficult for current residentsto escape to safety in case of an emergency such as fire or earthquake. New homes in this area willbring more students to the Los Gatos Union School District, and this will cause overcapacity problemat Los Gatos schools. This issue may trigger a risk of redistricting my neighborhood area out of LosGatos Union School District. I’m worried that my daughter will no longer be able to attend schools inthe Los Gatos Union School District. The above issues together with the new houses available willalso drive the house value in my neighborhood down.Moreover, the building of these new homes will eliminate green space around my neighborhood,and the feeling of being in the mountain area will be compromised.

I hope that you will reconsider this proposed planned development and help me keep myneighborhood safe and pleasurable.

Sincerely,Hoa Nguyen

1

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: wang shin [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:35 PMTo: Xavier, LesleyCc: jason_wei@sbcgobal, netSubject: PDC10-005

Dear Lesley XavierI’m a resident a Campagnas in Almaden, I’m writing to express concerns regarding the proposeddevelopmenton Guadalupe Mine rd. PDC10-005.As you know the 2 lanes road( one lane each way ) is narrow and the reach the maximum capacity to beshared bythe current residents within Campagna as well as shared by the Guadalupe Mines Landfill down theroad.The new development for adding 94 homes will significantly increase traffic and pose more threat forchildren and peopleriding or walking on the road. As a reminder there’s house fire on Guadalupe Mine Rd. On June and thefire trucks blockthe whole 2 lanes for 3 to 4 hours since the road is narrow, imagine what will happen if there’s anotheremergency at thesame time down the road in the community.sNot to mention the school overcapacity and the environmental issues caused by the development.I know in economic difficulty time city need development to bring in revenue but nonetheless safety isby far the mostimportant issue and with my concerns I’m asking the following to be addressed :1) Add extra lanes for Guadalupe Mines rd. to make it 2 lanes each way.2)Limit the house density to be no more than 50.3)Add extra route in case of large fire or earthquake.4)Preserve more green space for wildlife.I’m looking forward to your response addressing those concerns.Sincerely,Wang & Yoon Shin1642 via campagnaSan Jose, CA. 95120

7/26/2010

Xavier, Lesle},From:Sent:To:Subject:

Hoa Nguyen [[email protected]]Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:56 AMXavier, LesleyPlanned Development File No. PDC10-005

Dear Ms. Lesley Xavier:

My name is Hoa Nguyen, and I’m currently living with my family at 1727 Via Lugano, San Jose, CA95120. There is a proposed planned development with File No. PDC10-005 to build 94 homes acrossmy street, and I believe that this project will adversely affect my neighborhood.

The proposed project of building 94 new homes on Guadalupe Mines Road will significantly increasetraffic. This will lead to increase risk of car accidents and road damage. The increased number ofresidents also raises more fire and earthquake safety risk. Since there is only one evacuation routethrough Guadalupe Mines Road, the added residents will make it more difficult for current residentsto escape to safety in case of an emergency such as fire or earthquake. New homes in this area willbring more students to the Los Gatos Union School District, and this will cause overcapacity problemat the Los Gatos schools. This issue may trigger a risk of redistricting my neighborhood area out ofthe Los Gatos Union School District. I’m worried that my daughter will no longer be able to attendschools in the Los Gatos Union School District. The above issues together with the new housesavailable will also drive the house value in my neighborhood down.Moreover, the building of these new homes will eliminate green space around my neighborhood,

and the feeling of being in the mountain area will be compromised.

I hope that you will reconsider this proposed planned development and help me keep myneighborhood safe and pleasurable.

Sincerely,Hoa Nguyen

1

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: Harry Fu [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:56 PMTo: Reed, Teresa; The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of

Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe

Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005Attachments: ViaCompoVerde.pdf

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Reed, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier:

The following residents of Campagnas at Almaden have signed petitions expressing their concerns with safetyissues related to the proposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose - Permit number PD10-005.

First of all, they are extremely concerned for the risk to their safety. The new houses will add at least 250vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2-lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is easilyjammedin the morning when parents driving their children to the schools. Also the road has been in a very poorstate with little or no maintenance from the City. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill in thesame neighborhood already has scores of large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrowroad all day long 6 days a week (ref: http:llwww.sjrecycles.orgllandfills.asp). The extra 250 cars will increase therisk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children and seniorswalking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd.

In addition, the current design of the Guadalupe Mines Road, can become a trap in the case of any fire on thatroad or any disaster such as earthquake. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to ViaCampagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref: http:llfascv.blogspot.com120101051may-5-2010-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html). With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidentsincreases dramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.

Besides, they are concerned with losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development.The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces on GuadalupeMines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the areaand even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With these concerns, they are asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:

¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic loadto our existing roads today.

¯ Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additionalvehicle loading and traffic.

¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.~, Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period

Petition names are below and petition signatures are attached.

PETITIONERS CONCERNED WITH SAFETY ISSUES:

Martin Dasher - 1657 Via Campo VerdeLe Sotir - 1651 Via Campo VerdeDoug Leong, - 1645 Via Campo VerdeDuc Trat~ - 1639 Via Campo VerdeJoseph Hajost - 1633 Via Campo Verde

7/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

¯ John Dasher- 1627 Via Campo Verde¯ Afsaneh Bahrami- 1621 Via Campo Verde¯ Kevin Cerutti - 1615 Via Campo Verde¯ Tom & Verginia Delurio - 1693 Via Campo Verde¯ Paul & Veronica Majoulet - 1687 Via Campo Verde¯ Christina Chen- 1596 Via Campo Verde¯ Darren Hom- 1597 Via Campo Verde

7/21/2010

Page 1 of I

Xavier, Lesley

From: kyung ji [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:37 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Permit Number PD10-005

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This development proposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homesper acre. No new roads are to be built.This density is far too high for the following reasons:

First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe MinesRd. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.

Seconci, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to R. VVhitmore,the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the area out of the district. Union School District, the district serving my home, iswhere these students will most likely be sent. Union SD is already at capff~i’t’~;’~ ~}’;~’l~i~’Kdmber of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the the district and compromise student resources and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

Third, our present home values will plummet, as buyers flock to the new homes.

Lastly, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development. The design calls for removalof almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss ofnatural green space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or eadhquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.


7/21/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Jason Wei [[email protected]]sent: Tuesday, July 20, 20i0 3:29 PMTo: Xavier, LesleyCc: Jason WeiSubject: PDC10-005

Dear Lesley Xavier,I am a resident a Campagnas in Almaden, I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposeddevelopment on Gradalupe Mine Rd. PDC10-005.As you know the 2 lanes road ( one lane each way) is narrow and reach the maximum capacity to beshared by the current residents within Campagnas as well as shared by the Gradalupe Mine, s Landfilldown the road. The new development for adding 94 homes will significantly increase traffic~ and posemore threat for children and people riding or walking on the road. As a reminder there’s house fire onGradalupe Mine Rd in June and the fire trucks block the whole 2 lanes for 3 to 4 hours since the road isnarrow, imagine what will happen if there’s another emergency at the same time down the road in thecommunity. ~Not to mention the school overcapacity and the environment issues caused by the development.I know in economic difficulty time city need development to bring in revenue but nonetheless safety isby far the most important issue and with my concerns I am asking the following to be addressed :1)add extra lanes fo Gradalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes cash way2)limit the house density to be no more than 503)add extra route in case of large fire or earthquake ’4)preserve more green space for wildlifeI am looking forward to your response addressing those concerns.Sincerely,Jason & Lori Wei1689 Via Fortuna, San Jose CA95120

7/20/2010

,Xavier, Lesle~/From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Duc Tran [[email protected]]Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:56 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Reed, Teresa;Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on GuadalupeMines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Hi,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express myconcerns regarding the proposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This developmentproposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homes per acre. No new roads are to be built.This density is far too high for the following reasons:

First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes willadd at least an additional 250-500 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 laneGuadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents,~pedestrian and bicycle injuries, andpose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. In addition, withthe design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closesGuadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mineshad been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents.(Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm-response- in-san-jose, html)With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of such incidents increases dramaticallyand the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that theGuadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks andvehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref:http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD).According to R. Whitmore, the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will createan overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the areaout of the district. Union School District, the district serving my home, is where these students willmost likely be sent. Union SD is already at capacity and the large number of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the district and compromise student resources andeducation. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfallcreated by the development.


In addition and of great concern to us is that we will be losing the natural green space and wildlifeenvironment with the development.This area being known for its habitat for the endangered Red Legged Frog, California TigerSalamander and Western Pond Turtle, this project should warrant a full Environmental Impact

Report. Futhermore, the stream that passes through the area attracts a large number of species, exoticbirds, animals, and insects. The herds of deer are coming down from the hill to drink waters. Thedesign calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks tothe wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre.This would decrease the traffic load to our existing roads today.This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additionalvehicle loading and traffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the > 2 year constructionperiod.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. We are looking forward to your responses addressingand providing solutions to our concerns.Sincerely,Duc Tran1639 Via Campo VerdeSan Jose, CA 95120

2

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Brent Grahm [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:15 PMTo: Xavier, LesleySubject: PDC 10-005

Dear Ms. Xavier,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed Guadalupe Mines Rd. project. I have seen the draftof the housing project and I feel that it doesn’t fit the current neighborhood standards. It seem that it will alsoput in place a safety hazard, namely there is only one two lane road into and out of the area which would serveall the families south of Via Campagan. This area is up against a heavily wooded hillside.

Please consider less dense zoning for this project.

Sincerely,

Brent Graham6548 Guadalupe Mines Rd.

7/20/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: Lydia Wheeler [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:33 AMTo: Reed, Teresa; The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of

Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe

Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005Attachments: CampagnaPetitionList.pdf

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Reed, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier:

The following residents of Campagnas at Almaden and Guadalupe Mines Rd. have signed petitions expressingtheir concerns with safety issues and LGUSD impact issues related to the proposed development on GuadalupeMines Road, San Jose - Permit number PD10-005.

First and foremost, they are extremely concerned for the risk to their safety. The number of homes will add atleast an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. Thiswill increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for childrenwalking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incidentthat closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mineshad been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents(Ref: http://fascv.blogspot.com/2010/05/may-5-2010-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose, html).

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and the numberof residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in thesame neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the samenarrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http:llwww.sjrecycles.orgllandfills.asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools and causeLGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowded and distantschools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students from the development willcreate a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise student resource and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

In addition, they are concerned with losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to the wildlifein the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With their concerns, they are asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:

Require lower density housing to be built no more.than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic loadto our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD.

Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additionalvehicle loading and traffic.

Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.Increased police patrols to stop speedingIncreased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period

Petition names are below and petition signatures are attached.

PETITIONERS CONCERNED WITH SAFETY ISSUES:

7/20/2010

Page 2 of 2

o

¯

0

o

o

o

o

¯

o

¯

¯

o

¯

¯

¯

¯

o

o

¯

¯

¯

o

o

o

G. Herrel - 1530 Via Campo AureoJohn Balboni - 1536 Via Campo AureoLaura Ambrose - 1542 Via Campo AureoDennis Toohey - 1548 Via Campo AureoRalph Zimmermann - 1554 Via Campo AureoYuhua Wu - 1566 Via Campo AureoSteve Trigonis - 1578 Via Campo AureoOlga Ermolin - 1579 Via Campo AureoGerald Isaac - 1573 Via Campo AureoHong Guo - 1529 Via Campo AureoKen Schuler - 1493 Via Campo AureoChris Kavanagh - 1487 Via Campo AureoFred Safar - 1500 Via Campo AureoDave Rue - 1606 Via Campo AureoShad Krandel - 6225 Via SaronnoChristine Wang - 1635 Via FortunaDaniel Tam - 1638 Via FortunaYawen Chu - 1653 Via FortunaJulia Wen - 1668 Via FortunaYing Chen- 1696 Via Campagna ~’Sam Kim - 1684 Via CampagnaEric Bergles - 1678 Via CampagnaS. Chang - t679 Via CampagnaJanath Peisis -1673 Via CampagnaPaul Nguyen - 1667 Via CampagnaM. Walitsih - 1655 Via CampagnaAndy Tai - 1654 Via CampagnaJae Sim - 1624 Via CampagnaMark Willey - 1576 Via CampagnaK. Chy - 1571 Via CampagnaZhengyong Zhu - 1672 Via CampagnaAli Rezaee - 1582 Via CampagnaKathleen Willey - 1576 Via CampagnaKyung Ji - 1558 Via CampagnaBrent Graham - 6458 Guadalupe Mines Rd.Ron Jacobs - 6460 Guadalupe Mines Rd.

PETITIONERS CONCERNED WITH IMPACT TO LGUSD AND SAFETY ISSUES:

Jing Sung - 1726 Via CortinaVivian Chen- 1678 Via CortinaJoe Zhao - 1639 Via CortinaNick Katakis 1642 Via CortinaJJ Shen - 1672 Via CortinaS. Kim - 1707 Via FortunaM. R. Lee - 1636 Via Fortuna

7/20/2010

Xavier, Lesle~,From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Yawen Chu [[email protected]]Monday, July 19, 2010 4:06 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of CouncilmemberNancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on GuadalupeMines Road, San Jose. Permit number PDt0-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti andMs Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number ofhomes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries,and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already theroad is in a very poor state with little or no maintenance from the City. In addition, with the design ofGuadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Minesbecomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadal.upe Mines had been closer toVia Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose.ht~l)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically andthe number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that theGuadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks andvehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref:http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schoolsand cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the lesscrowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of newstudents from the development will create a sudden burden on the existing school district andcompromise student resource and education. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient tofill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the greenspaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will alsopose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.


* Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease thetraffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD.

* Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle theadditional vehicle loading and traffic.

* Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.* Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.* Increased police patrols to stop speeding* Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Yawen Chu

1653 Via FortunaSan jose, CA95120

2

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: J Wen [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:10 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember Nancy

Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darn/I; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, Lesley.Subject: Concerns of the Neighborhood .Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines


Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle; ChiefVon Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti andMs Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposeddevelopment on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005.

First and foremost, I am personally extremely concemed for the risk to our safety. The number of homeswill add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 laneGuadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, andpose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road isin a very poor state with little or no maintenance from the City.In addition, with the design of GuadalupeMines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident thatcloses Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mineshad been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref:http://fascv.blo gspot.com!2010/05/may-5-2010-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and thenumber of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe MinesLandfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehicles careening upand down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http://www.sjrecycles.org/landfills.asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools andcause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowdedand distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise studentresource and education. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in fundingshortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development.The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to thewildlife inthe area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.


* Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic loadto our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD.* Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additionalvehicle loading and traffic.

7/19/2010

Page 2 of 2

* Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.* Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.* Increased police patrols to stop speeding* Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Julia Wen and Jesse Chen1668 Via FortunaSan Jose, CA 95120

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: All Rezaee [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:21 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryi;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: RE: proposed development on Guadelupe Mlns Road

To:

Office of Mayor Chuck [email protected] of Congresswoman for District 10 Nancy [email protected]

Office of the Fire Chief: Darryl Von [email protected]

Director of:Planning, Building and Code Enforcement: Joseph Horwedel,[email protected]

Assistant Director Planning division: Laurel PrevettiLaureI.PrevettiC~.sanjoseca.Gov

Planner II Planning Division, Lesley [email protected]

RE: proposed development on Guadelupe Mlns Road

My wife, son, and I are residents of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express my concernsregarding the proposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This development proposes to build 94 new homes with 8homes per acre. No new roads are to be built.This density is far too high for the following reasons:

First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe MinesRd. In addition, with .the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to R. Whitmore,the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the area out of the district. Union School District, the distdct serving my home, iswhere these students will most likely be sent. Union SD is already at capacity and the large number of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the the district and compromise student resources and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.



With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to our

7/19/2010

Page 2 of 2

existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..~- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period,

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Best Regards,

Ali Rezaee, MD and Pantea Mahtosh, MD

1582 Via CampagnaSan Jose, CA 95120

7/19/2 010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Deborah Jacobs [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:38 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; [email protected]; Xavier, LesleySubject: Guadalupe Mines Rd. proposed development

I am the owner of 6460 Guadalupe Mines Road. Being the last house on Guadalupe Mines Rd., the proposed development,San Jose Permit Number PD10-005 has my full attention. This development proposes to build 94 new homes w~th 8 homesper acre. If this project is allowed to proceed as planned, several serious problems will occur.

First and foremost, is the issue of safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional 250 vehk~les and significantlyincrease traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycleinjuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. In addition, with the design ofGuadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuationentrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds ofresidents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and the number ofresidents affected would increase as well. In addition, the Guadalupe Dam, directly upstream of this proposed development, iscurrently being studied for its seismic stability. The upstream concrete face is badly broken. This area is in the 15 minuteinundation zone of the dam. It would be a good idea to wait until the study is completed and the dam is retrofitted.

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to LGUSDsuperintendent, R. Whitmore the proposed number of homes proposed will put existing LGUSD schools over capacity,compromise student resources and worsen education quality. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill thegap in funding shortfall created by the development. Also Blossom Hill Elementary School is completely full and many of thechildren will have to attend Lexington Elementary, which is 25 minutes away in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This increasednumber of students could also result in the area being out of LGSUD into the Union School district, which is already atcapacity. This would cause our housing prices to lower significantly.

Third, the timing of this project doesn’t make sense. This is the worst real estate market in decades. History shows that thereis likelihood that this project will go bankrupt before completion. The developer, builder and subs will be paid but not theinvestors. Empty, incomplete houses could sit vacant for years. This will seriously affect our home values.

Lastly, with this area being known for its habitat for the endangered Red Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander andWestern Pond Turtle, this project should warrant a full Environmental Impact Report.. The design calls for removal of almostall of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of naturalgreen space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:-Perform a full Environmental Impact Report.- Require lower density.housing to be built no more than 4. per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to our existing roadstoday. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security dudng the 2 year construction period.


Ron Jacobs6,460 Guadalupe Mines Rd.San Jose, CA 95120

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: [email protected]: Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:54 PMTo: Xavier, Lesley; Prevetti, Laurel; Horwedel, Joseph; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Office of ¢ouncilmember

Nancy Pyle; The Office of Mayor Chuck ReedSubject: File No. PDC10-005 Brookside Estates

I, as a resident of Campagnas at Almaden, am writing to express the significant concems that I haveregarding the proposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. I am also a physician andhave a master’s in public health with a specialty in injury control. There are serious negative publichealth and financial consequences that will likely occur as a result of the development being built at itspresent level of density, 8 homes per acre. I am snre that you do not want to be on the TV newsexplaining why you did not act to ensure the public safety of this neighborhood.

First let me describe the area since most of you have probably never been there. Guadelupe Mines Roadis a small two lane road that already has significant potholes and open trenches. The proposeddevelopment lies at the end of the road and is across from the landfill at th~ end of the road. Thus thereis already significant large truck traffic throughout the day, in addition to all the car traffic from thehomes. There are a large number of children who ride their bikes and skateboards all over the area andwho go to play in and around the creek next to the development. The entire area lies directly on the SanAndreas Fault. There is only one other alternate route out and that is on Puerto Vallarta Road which liesabout mid way between Camden Ave and the proposed development.

Building this development at the present density is likely to have"

(1) I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add an additional 250to 500 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the Guadalupe Mines Rd. Statistically this willincrease the risk of car accidents, result in more pedestrian and bicycle injuries and deaths, and endangerchildren playing on Guadalupe Mines Rd.

(2) In addition, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes anevacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. As it was the evacuation using Puerto Vallarta Road duringthe fire was snarled with traffic, slow, and dangerous. With the new development of the proposed size,the chance of such incidents increases dramatically and the number of residents endangered by this poorplanning increases.

(3) Presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). Accordingto LGUSD superintendant, R. Whitmore, the proposed number of homes will put existing LGUSDschools over capacity, compromise student resources and worsen education quality. The developer’s onetime impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development. AlsoBlossom Hill Elementary School is completely full and many of the children will have to attendLexington Elementary, which is 25 minutes away in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This increased numberof students could also result in the area being residstriced out of LGUSD into the Union School District,which is already at capapcity. This will cause our housing prices to lower significantly.

(4) Our present home values will plummet as buyers flock to’ the new homes, Many of us are already"underwater" and our housing prices have plateaued at much lower prices. I know San Jose City has alarge budget deficit, but the amount taxes generated will be significantly lower if our housing prices

7/19/2010

Page 2 of 2

remain low and the market is oversaturated.

(5) The development will decimate the natural green space and wildlife environment that we presentlyenjoy. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to thewildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.

I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease thetraffic load to our existing roads today, decrease the number of people trapped and/or evacuatingin an emergency, ameliorate the overeapaeity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety, and helpour housing prices.- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to handle the additional vehicle loading and traffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve significantly more green space and wildlife in the development design than the few areas ofgrass and benches now planned.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.


Susan M. Ditter, M.D., M.P.H.

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: janath peiris [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:01 AMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns regarding the proposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005 : A resident of

Campagnas

Office of Mayor Chuck ReedOffice of Congresswoman for District 10 Nancy PyleOffice of the Fire Chief: Darryl Von RaesfeldDirector of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement: Joseph Horwedel,Assistant Director Planning division: Laurel PrevettiPlanner II Planning Division, Lesley Xavier

Dear Sir/Madam,


First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe MinesRd. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to R. Whitmore,the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the area out of the district. Union School .District, the district serving my home, iswhere these students will most likely be sent. Union SD is already at capacity and the large number of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the the district and compromise student resources and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

Third, our present home values will plummet: as buyers flock to the new homes.


With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation reute in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.


Sincerely,

Bemini Hennadige Janath Peiris

7/19/2010

Page 2 of 2

1673 Via CampagnaSan JoseCA 95120

7/19/2010

Page i of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: Mohammad Darbandi[[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:56 AMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember Nancy

Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines


Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposeddevelopment on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will addat least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd.This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat forchildren walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or nomaintenance from the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire onGuadatupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref:http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose, html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and the numberof residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in thesame neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the samenarrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools and causeLGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowded and distantschools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students from the development willcreate a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise student resource and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development. The designcalls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to denseresidential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even causemore deer accidents with vehicles.


* Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD.

* Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to.handle the additional vehicleloading and traffic.

*Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.* Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.* Increased police patrols to stop speeding* Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Name: Mohammad Darbandi

7/19/2010

Page 2 of 2

Address: 1626 Via Fortuna, San Jose, 95120

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

Fromi Arkady Estdn [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:45 AMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Dar~yl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns regarding proposed new development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005.

Office of Mayor Chuck [email protected] of Congresswoman for District 10 Nancy [email protected] of the Fire Chief: Darryl Von [email protected] of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement: Joseph Horwedel,[email protected] Director Planning division: Laurel PrevettiLaurel. Prevetti@sanjoseca. GovPlanner II Planning Division, Lesley [email protected] am a resident of Campagna at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This development proposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homesper acre. No new roads are to be built. This density is far too high for the following reasons:First and foremost, I am extremely concerned about the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe MinesRd. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.Second, presently thedevelopment is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to LGUSDsuperintendent, R. Whitmore the proposed number of homes will put existing LGUSD schools over capacity, compromisestudent resources and worsen education quality. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in fundingshortfall created by thedevelopment. Also Blossom Hill Elementary School is completely full and many of the children willhave to attend Lexington Elementary, which is 25 minutes away in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This increased number ofstudents could also result in the area being out of LGSUD into the Union School district, which is already at capacity. Thiswould cause our housing prices to lower significantly.Third, our present home values will plummet as buyers flock to the new homes.Lastly, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development. The design calls for removalof almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss ofnatural green space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle load and traffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.Thank you for your attention to my concerns.

Best regards,

Arkady Estrin, resident of Campagna at Almaden.

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: [email protected]: Monday, July t9, 2010 12:57 PMTo: Xavier, LesleySubject: Regarding San Jose Permit Number PD10-005


First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe’~i~es~J~’°l~’~’ddition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes~GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well.

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to R. Whitmore,the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the area out of the district. Union School District, the district serving my home, iswhere these students will most likely be sent. Union SD is already at cap~’~t’~;’~’ri~"t}~’l~.~]~’r’~’~mber of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the the district and compromise student resources and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.



With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.


Sincerely Yours

Sim, Jae Kwang,Resident at 1624 Via Campagna San Jose CA 95120

7/19/2010

Page 1 of 3

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

[email protected], July 13, 2010 2:28 [email protected] Office of Ma~jor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Prevetti, Laurel; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Xavier, Lesley; [email protected] Estates Rezoning Plans - Guadalupe Mines Road -San Jose Permit PD10-005 -Mitigated Negative Declaration

Director of Planning, Building and Code EnforcementDear Mr. Horwedel:

We are residents of Campagna (1669 Via Cortina) and just read the Mitigated NegativeDeclaration. We have several concerns that were not included in the Mitigated NegativeDeclaration and would like these addressed. If there is anyone else we should contact, please letus know.

Here are our concerns and that of many other homeowners in the Campagna development:

1. Traffic: This planned development has too many homes (94 planned) which will increase trafficon Guadalupe Mines Road by

around 250 - 500 cars per day, This is in addition to the truck traffic heading to thelandfill almost every day. The

trucks are carrying heavy loads (many without tarps) and are placing daily stress on theroads (potholes) already.

Guadalupe. Mines Road should be expanded to two lanes each way to handle the extravolume of traffic no matter how

many homes will be built, In addition, the roads are already filthy from the debris anddust from the trucks. The City

of San Jose should double up efforts to do street sweeping and picking up the debris leftby truckers to the landfill.

Lastly, the lights and turning lanes to/from Camden Avenue will need to improved tohandle ~e additional traffic.

Right now, the left turning lanes from Guadalupe Mines Road onto Camden Avenuearound 8:00 am during the school

year is crowded already. Sometimes, it takes two light switches to make the turnsafely. At this time in the morning

many cars are coming from Coleman Avenue and crossing Camden to get into the Hicksturning lane for the Catholic

School. Someone needs to do a study of these traffic patterns so it doesn’t become amorning traffic nightmare in

the future.

2. Schools:Richard Whitmore, Superintendent of the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District,

has already written to youabout his concerns due to current overcapacity already. He believes that the planned 94

new homes is too muchat one time and may even create future financial and/or redistricting issues. Who will

take responsibility for this?The developer or the City of San Jose? Whitmore states ’It is my belief that the project

7/13/2010

Page 2 of 3

is too dense and too high inits impact on our schools to be approved in its current proposal’. Has anyone contacted

him to address his concerns?

3. Evacuation Route:A recent fire on Guadalupe Mines Road caused some access issues to the Campagna

neighborhood. Fortunately,in this instance, we could gain entry/exit via Puerto Vallarta, Others have stated that

this already poses a safetyissue in case of earthquake or fires..How will emergency vehicles gain access to the

neighborhood? Has anadditional evacuation route been planned especially with this plannned 94 home

development? Has the Fire Chiefprovided his input to this situation?

4. Construction Delays and Dirt:During construction, who will be responsible for safety, security and delays due to

construction equipment anddirt and water haulers? We would ~ike increased police patrols to stop speeding, enforce

current tarp requirements,and monitor security of the area. Who will be responsible for this and keeping the roads

free from debris? ~

5. Construction Hours:The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that during the week construction will take

place between7:00 am and 7:00 pm. That twelve (12) hours is a long time for extra noise, dirt, and

traffic. Even the landfillhas the following hours: M-F, 8 a.m.- 4:45 p.m. which is more reasonable for a

residential area.

6. Green Space and Wildlife:We’ve walked this area many times. It’s considered a Wildlife habitat. In fact, signs say

that it’s a native ’snakehabitat’. We’ve seen deer all of the time along the Guadalupe River. What is the

developer or the City of San Joseplanning to ensure that this wildlife is not exterminated or evacuated to make room for

the massive changes to thisarea?

In summary, we hope that you can see the significant impact on the environment, the schools, thetraffic as well as the

neighborhood if you place such a high density project in this area. We hope that youreevaluate the density, and

do the necessary impact planning to ensure safety for the tax paying San Jose residentswho will be effected by

your decisions. The existing Mitigated Negative Declaration looks like it is mostly a’rubber stamped’ document

to rush this rezoning project through.

Thank you for your consideration and attentiveness to these matters.

Sincerely,

7/13/2010

Page 3 of 3

Gary and Adriana Weiner and Family408-227-51401669 Via Cortina

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more.

7/13/2010

Page 1 of 3

Xavier, Lesley

From: dennistoohey [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:40 AMTo: Xavier, LesleySubject: FW: EMAIL SUBJECT: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed

Development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Lesley,Please include me in public hearing notifications regarding this development.Thank you,

Dennis Toohey

From: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, 3uly 08, 2010 10:53 AMTo: dennis tooheySubject; RE: EMAIL SUBJECT: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development onGuadalupe Mines Road, San 3ose. Permit number PD10-005 -:

July 8, 2010

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Toohey,Thank you for taking the time to write to Mayor Reed regarding the proposed development on Guadalupe MinesRoad. We appreciate that you have shared your very well-informed concerns regarding the project with our office.Mayor Reed will be informed of your thoughts on this matter.The proposed development plans are currently under review by our Planning Department staff and we are waitingfor their completed report.The Planning Staff will consider and include information from traffic, environmental, and biologic analysis in theirreport.However, the Los Gatos School District is a separate entity and the city is limited in its evaluation of this impact.It is very likely that the plans will include some revisions based upon comments from the Planning Department.Property within 1000 feet of the site will receive notification of any public hearing (Planning Commission or CityCouncil) and the staff report and analysis will be available on line.If you have further questions, please contact Lesley Xavier at [email protected] or 535-7852.To ensure that you receive notice of the meetings, please contact Lesley and ask to be added to her notificationlist.Please let me know if you need anything else.

Sara WrightAgenda Services ManagerOffice of San Jos~ Mayor Chuck ReedSan Josd City Hall [ 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 17th Floor [ San Jos~, California 95113408-535-3887I [email protected]

From: dennis toohey [mailto:dmtoohey@earthlink,net]Sent: Monday, 3uly 05, 2010 11:16 AMTo.’ The Office of IVlayor Chuck Reed; ’Nancy’; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, .Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier,LesleyCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: EMAIL SUB3ECT: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development onGuadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council MemberPyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti

7/12/2010

Page 2 of 3

and Ms Xavier,


First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number ofhomes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 laneGuadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, andpose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road isin a very poor state with little or no maintenance from the City. In addition, with the design of GuadalupeMines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes anevacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna,it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref: http:l/fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose, html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and thenumber of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the GuadalupeMines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehiclescareening up and down thesame narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http://www.sjrecycles.org/landfills .asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools andcause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowdedand distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students fromthe development will create a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise studentresource and education. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in fundingshortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development.The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks tothe wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.


¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease thetraffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue atLGUSD.

¯ Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle theadditional vehicle loading and traffic.

¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.

¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.

¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding

¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.

7/12/2010

Page. 3 of 3


Sincerely,

Dennis and Jean Toohey1548 Via Campo AureoSan Jose, CA 95120

7/12/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Sudheesh Nair [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:59 AMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, Lesley

Respected Madams/Sirs

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden/Guadelupe Mines Road area. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development, San Jose Permit Number PD10-005. This development proposes to build 94 new homes with 8 homesper acre. No new roads are to be built.

This density is far too high for the following reasons:

First and foremost, I am extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narroW2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the dsk of caraccidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadaiupe MinesRd. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes GuadalupeMines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents. With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of resideqts affected would increase as well.

Second, presently the development is in the Los Gatos Saratoga Union School District (LGUSD). According to Ro Whitmore,the superintendent of LGUSD, the number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools, and could cause LGUSD to redistrict the area out of the district. Union School District, the district serving my home, iswhere these students will most likely be sent. Union SD is already at cap~’d~t~;’fffi~ ~fi~ |~i~’~’L~mber of new students from thedevelopment will create a sudden burden on the the distdct and compromise student resources and education. Thedeveloper’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

Third, our present home values will plummet as buyers flock to the new homes.


With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:- Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic load to ourexisting roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD, improve the road safety..- Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading andtraffic.- Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.- Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.- Increased police patrols to stop speeding & monitor security during the 2 year construction period.


Sudheesh Vadakkedath ~

7/7/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:04 AMTo: Sutherland, Kathy; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Re: Guadalupe Mines Road Project

Dear Ms Sutherland,

Thank you for your response acknowledging our email petition regarding our concernson the proposed housing development on Guadalupe Mines Road.(PD-10-005).Additional concerns from our end that were not mentioned in the previous petition letterare:

The plac_e is not safe for_.the new residents once developed becausethe area is known as the snake habitat. The employees of the

-com~a-n3-escurrently olo-cated in the pTo=po-sedarea use-dbewarned tobe careful about the snakes.

In addition., the stream which passes through the area attracts so manyspecies, exotic birds, animals, and insects. The herds of deer arecoming down from the hill to drink waters. We want the place to beprotected for the preservation of eco-systems.

Our concerns are very valid and we hope that Ms Pyle who represents our area givesdue attention to the points we have raised and voices our concerns to the planningboard.

Best regards,

Soumen Ghosh1733 Via LuganoSan Jose, Ca 95120

.....Original Message ......From: Sutherland, Kathy <[email protected]>To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 5:28 pmSubject: Guadalupe Mines Road Project

Good Afternoon -On behalf of Counciimember Pyle, I would like to express her wish to thank all of you for writing in with yourconcerns regarding the housing project on Guadalupe Mines Road,I would also like to let you know that I will be following up with staff regarding your concerns and comments.I should be able to get back to you by the end of the week.

6/29/2010

Page 2 of 2

Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to you.

Kathy SutherlandChief of StaffCouncilmember Nancy PylePhone 408-535-4981Fax 408-292-6478

I~.$.Councilmember Pile would like to keep you apprisbd of current issues in Disirict 10 and the City of sanJos~, if you’d like to be added to our newsletter distribution list, please sign-up online here.

6/29/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Hankh Han [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:53 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember Nancy

Pyle; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines Rd, San Jose Permit # PD10 - 005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chick Von Rasesfeld, Ms Prevetti andMs Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagna at Almaden and writing to expressmy concerns of the proposed development on Guadalupe Mines Rd, San Jose permit # PD -10 - 005.

First of all, I am extremly concerned for the risk to our safety.

The proposed number of homes will add at least an additional 250 or more vehiclesand significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd.

With the new development of the proposed size, not only increase the chance of incidents dramatically.It also becomes an evacuation entrapment issue.If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines Rd. had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents.(Ref:http:/)fascv.blog~pot.com/2010/05/may-5-2010-4-alarm-esponse-in-san-jose.html)

And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighbor which already hasscores of large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days aweek.

With my concerns, I am asking for couple of things to alleviate the issues above"

1. Ask for lower density housing to be built (No more than 4 per acre - would decrease the traffic loadto the Guadalupe Mines Rd). ._2. Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire o)~arthquake.


Sincerely,

Han Family

1645 Via Cortina San Jose, Campagna.Residents

7/6/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Cc:Subject:

dennis toohey [[email protected]]Monday, July 05, 2010 11:16 AMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; ’Nancy’; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti,Laurel; Xavier, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] SUBJECT: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development onGuadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevettiand Ms Xavier,


First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number of ’homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 laneGuadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, andpose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road isin a very poor state with little or no maintenance from the City. In addition, with the design of GuadalupeMines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes anevacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna,it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref: http:l/fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose, html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and thenumber of residents affected would increase as well, And please keep in mind that the GuadalupeMines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehiclescareening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http://www.sjrecycles.or.q/landfills .asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools andcause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowdedand distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students fromthe development will create a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise studentresource and education. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in fundingshortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development.The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to. dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks tothe wildlife in the. area and even cause morse deer accidents with vehicles.


Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease thetraffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue atLGUSD.

7/6/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Cc:Subject:

Douglas Kay (dkay) [[email protected]]Monday, June 28, 2010 5:16 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Horwedel, Joseph;Prevetti, Laurel; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Xavier, LesleyChristine Kay; Douglas KayConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Yon Raesfeld, MsPrevetti and Ms Xavier,Recently, I noticed that there was a development proposal posted on Guadalupe Mines Road,San Jose. Permit number PD10-005.

I would like to express my extreme concerns againstthe development proposal as follows:

.... First, The place-is n~t safe for the n~v re~ident-s-~nce~le~eloped be-~au~e~the area is known .....as the snake habitat. The employees of the companies currently located in the proposed areaused be warned to be careful about the snakes.

Second, the.stream which passes-through the area attracts so many species; exotic birds,animals, and insects. The herds of deer are coming down from the hill to drink waters. I wantthe place to be protected for the preservation of eco-systems.Third, there is the risk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional 250vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This willincrease the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and pose much more of athreat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poorstate with little or no maintenance from the City. In addition, with the design of GuadaiupeMines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomesan evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to ViaCampagna, it would have trapped hundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot.com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose, html)With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep inmind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scoresof large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 daysa week (ref: http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools and cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new studentsto the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the largenumber of new students from the development will create a sudden burden on the existingschool district and compromise student resource and education. The developer’s one timeimpact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the

6/29/2010

Page 2 of 2

green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural greenspace will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents withvehicles.With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:

¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decreasethe traffic load to. our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.


¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.,, Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security duringthe > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,Douglas & C-hi:~s~ne Kay

1663 Via CortinaSan Jose, CA 95120

6/29/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Cc:Subject:

Fan, Karen [[email protected]]Monday, June 28, 2010 9:28 AMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, [email protected] of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, MsPrevetti and Ms Xavier,

1 ama resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The numberof-homes-will add. at least-an-additional.250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on.the -narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant!ncident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of reside nts (Ref: http:llfascv.blogspot.coml2OlOlO51may-5-2OlO-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep inmind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scoresof large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 daysa week (ref: http:llwww.sjrecycles.orgllandfills.asp).

The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools and cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new studentsto the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the largenumber of new students from the development will create a sudden burden on the existingschool district and compromise student resource and education. The developer’s one timeimpact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.

In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of thegreen spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green.space will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents withvehicles.


¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease

6/28/2010

Page 2 of 2

the traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle theadditional vehicle loading and traffic.Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.Increased police patrols to stop speedingIncreased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.

We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concems.

Sincerely,

Yunkun Fan and Bo Qi

1697 Via Lugano,San Jose, CA 95120

6/28/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Wuyi Zhao [[email protected]]Friday, June 25, 2010 9:29 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;Horwedel, Joseph; Horwedel, Joseph; Xavier, LesleyRe: petition info for Guadulpe mines road project

Dear Mayor Reed, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier,


First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The numberof homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2_la_ne Guadalupe Mines .Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupeJVlines Rd.. Already_the road is in a veL¥_poor state with little_ormo, maintenance ............from the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm-response- in-san-jose, html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep inmind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scoresof large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 daysa week (ref: http://www.sjrecycl es.org/landfills .asp).


In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of thegreen spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural greenspace will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents withvehicles.


Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decreasethe traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.Addextra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the

6/28/2010

Page 2 of 2

additional vehicle loading and traffic.¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.° Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols tomonitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Jinlin and JoeZhao

1639 Via Cortina, San Jose, CA 95120

6/28/2010

Page 1 of 1

Xavier, Lesley

From: Lydia Wheeler [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 t1:02 PMTo: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Office of Councilmember Nancy. Pyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl;

Horwedel, Joseph; Horwedel, Joseph; Xavier, LesleyCc: Malavika; Jin; Susan Ditter; Todd S WheelerSubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines


Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Van Raesfetd, Ms Prevetti and Ms Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, SanJose. Permit number PD10-005First and foremost~ I am personaliy extremely concerned for the dsk to our safety. The number of homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles andsignificantly increase traffic on the narrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, andpose much more of a threat for children walking or dding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significant incident that closes Guedalupe Mines becomesan evacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, itwould have trapped hundreds of residents(Ref: ~. blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm- response- in-san-jose, html)

-Withffhe-new development of the proposed-size; the chance of incidentsincreasesdramatically and the-number-of residents affected would-increase aswell. And please keep in mind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehiclescareening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week (ref: http://www.s!recvcl es.org/landfills .asp).The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools and cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out ofthe district or force new students to the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new studentsfrom the development will create a sudden burden on the existing school di~tdot and compromise student resource and education. The developer’s onetime impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development, The design calls for removal of almost all of thetrees and the conversion of the green spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose dsks tothe wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.With my concerns, I am asking for the following to alleviate the issues above:

* Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease the traffic lead to our existing roads today. This would alsoameliorate the overcapacity issue at LGUSD.

*Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the additional vehicle loading and traffic.*Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.*Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.* Increased police patrols to stop speeding* Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.

We are looking fon~vard to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concerns.Sincerely,Lydia & Todd Wheeler1632 Via Fortuna, San Jose CA 95120

6/25/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier,

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Lesley

[email protected] on behalf of John Wu [[email protected]]Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:10 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005



First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The numberof ~omes will add at lea~t an additional 250-v~hicles and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2 lane Guadalup~ Mines Rd. Th!_s.wi_ll increase the ris~_o.f_car accidents, ped_es_t[i_a_nand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna~ it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5- 2010-4-alarm-response- in-san-jose, html)





¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This woulddecrease the traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the

6/22/2010 "

Page 2 of 2

overcapacity issue at LGUSD.,, Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle

the additional vehicle loading and traffic.¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction

period.


Sincerely,

Name:Xingqiang John Wu

Address1717 Via CortinaSan Jose, CA 95120 .......

6/22/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier,

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Lesley

Pradeep Chandra [[email protected]]Monday, June 21, 2010 8:15 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, ..C.p..n.g.r..e..s..s...m...a..n....H...o..n..d...a., Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, MsPrevetti and Ms Xavier,

I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development on Guad_a!_upe Mines Road, San__ Jose. Permit number PD10-005

First and foremost, I am pers_onal!_y extremely concer._ne_d for the risk to our sa_f.ety. The numberof homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines .Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In. addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-5-2010-4-alarm-response- in-san-jose, html)



In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with thedevelopment. The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of thegreen spaces on Guadalupe Mines to dense residential homes, The loss of natural greenspace will also pose risks to the wildlife in the area andeven cause more deer accidents withvehicles.


6/22/2010

Page 2 of 2

¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decreasethe traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.


¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop Speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.

We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concems.

Sincerely,

Name:Shamzozaman & Pradeep CHANDRA

Address --

1-718 Via Lugano,San Jose, CA 95120email:[email protected]

This mail addressed to the following

Office of Mayor Chuck Reed

Office of Congrssman Mike Honda

Office of Council Member for District 10 Nancy. Pyle

Office of the .F.!.r.e,..C..h.!.e.f.: Darryl Von Raesfeld

Director of Planning, Building and .C...o..d,.e,..E..n.f..o..r.c..e..m...e..n.t.: ~Joseph Horwedel,

.A...s.s.!.s..t.a..n..t..D..i,r..e.c..t..o.r. Planning division: Laurel Prevetti

Planner II Planning Division, Lesley Xavier

6/22/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: Steve Krandel [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:34 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle;

Von Raesfeld, Darryl; [email protected]; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleySubject: Concerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe Mines

Read, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005



First .an_d.foremost, I am persgn_ally extremely concer=ned for the risk to our_.safety. The numberof homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on the

. narrQ~._2_l_ane Guadalupe_Mi.oe_s_ Rd. This will increase the risk of car.accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http:llfascv.blogspot.coml2OlOlO51may-5-2OlO-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)





¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decreasethe traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity

6/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

issue at LGUS[~.¯ Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the

additional vehicle loading and traffic.¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Name: Steven Krandel

Address: 6225 Via Saronno, San Jose

6/21/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier,

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Lesley

Manjeshwar S Bhat [msbhat@pacbell. net]Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:02 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti,. Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, ..C..o...n.g.r..e..s..s...m...a..n....H...o..n..d...a., Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, MsPrevetti and Ms Xavier,

We are residents of Campagnas at Almaden. We are writing to express our concernsregarding the proposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit numberPD10-005

First ai~d foremost, we are e~tremely concerned about the risk to our safety. The number ofhom.es_w!ll add at least..an., a_dditional 250 vehicles_and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, and pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http://fascv, blogspot, com/2010/05/may-.5-2010-4-alarm-response- in-san-jose, html)


The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools and cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new studentsto the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the largenumber of new students from the development will create a sudden burden on the existingschool district and compromise student resource and education. The developer’s one timeimpact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development..


With our concerns, we are asking for the followi,ng to alleviate the issues above:

Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease

6/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

the traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.


¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2.year long construction period.

We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concerns.Thank you.

Sincerely,

Manjeshwar S and Nina S Bhat1518 Via Campo AureoSan Jose, CA [email protected]

6/21/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

[email protected], June 20, 2010 6:39 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; Prevetti, Laurel; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of the Neighborhood Residents Regarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005



First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The numberof homes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuriesl andpose much more of a threat for children walking or riding onGuadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http:llfascv.blogspot.coml2OlOlO51may-5-2OlO-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)

With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increasesdramatically and the number of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep inmind that the Guadalupe Mines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scoresof large trucks and vehicles careening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 daysa week (ref: http:llwww.sjrecycles.orgllandfills.asp).The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSDschools and cause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new studentsto the less crowded and distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the largenumber of new students from the development will create a sudden burden on the existingschool district and compromise student resource and education. The developer’s one timeimpact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in funding shortfall created by the development.



Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decreasethe traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity

6/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

issue at LGUSD.¯ Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle the

additional vehicle loading and traffic.¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.,, Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,

Name: Soumen Ghosh

Address: 1733 Via Lugano,San Jose, CA 95120

6/21/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier,

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Lesley

Shari Krandel [[email protected]]Sunday, June 20, 2010 8:23 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xavier, LesleyGuadalupe Mines Rd.


I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development on Guadalupe Mines. Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The numberof homes will add at least an additional 250vehicles and significantly increase traffic on thenarrow 2 lane Guadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrianand bicycle injuries, arid pose much more of a threat for children ~valking or riding on ....Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road is in a very poor state with little or no maintenancefrom the City. In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake orsignificant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. Ifthe recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trappedhundreds of residents (Ref: http:llfascv.blogspot.com/2OlOlO51may-5-2OlO-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)





¯ Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease

6/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

the traffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacityissue at LGUSD.


¯ Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire or earthquake.¯ Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.¯ Increased police patrols to stop speeding¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.


Sincerely,Shad Krandel6225 Via SaronnoSan Jose, CA 95120

6/21/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier,

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Lesley

Allen Pang [[email protected]]Monday, June 21, 2010 1:26 PMThe Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; [email protected]; Office of Councilmember NancyPyle; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel, Joseph; [email protected]; Xavier, LesleyConcerns of theNeighborhood ResidentsRegarding Proposed Development on Guadalupe MinesRoad, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005

Dear Mayor Reed, Congressman Honda, Council Member Pyle, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Prevettiand Ms Xavier,I am a resident of Campagnas at Almaden. I am writing to express my concerns regarding theproposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit number PD10-005First and foremost, I am personally extremely concerned for the risk to our safety. The number ofhomes will add at least an additional 250 vehicles and significant_ly_!ncrease traffic on the narrow 2 laneGuadalupe Mines Rd. This will increase the risk of car accidents, pedestrian and bicycle injuries, and

_pose much more of a threat for children walking or riding on Guadalupe Mines Rd. Already the road isin a very poor-~t~{e~vith little or no m~inten~nce from the Cit~f~ Ifi a~dition, with the d~si~n ~f GuadalupeMines Road, any fire~ earthquake or significant incident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes anevacuation entrapment issue. If the recent fire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna,it would have trapped hundreds of reside nts (Ref: http://fascv.blogspot.com/2010/05/may-5-2010-4-alarm-response-in-san-jose.html)With the new development of the proposed size, the chance of incidents increases dramatically and thenumber of residents affected would increase as well. And please keep in mind that the GuadalupeMines Landfill is in the same neighborhood which already has scores of large trucks and vehiclescareening up and down the same narrow road all day long 6 days a week(ref: http://www.sjrecycles.org/landfills.asp).The number of homes proposed will create an overcapacity issue with the existing LGUSD schools andcause LGUSD to redistrict the area either out of the district or force new students to the less crowdedand distant schools in the Santa Cruz mountains. In addition, the large number of new students fromthe development will create a sudden burden on the existing school district and compromise studentresource and education. The developer’s one time impact fee is not sufficient to fill the gap in fundingshortfall created by the development.In addition, we will be losing the natural green space and wildlife environment with the development.The design calls for removal of almost all of the trees and the conversion of the green spaces onGuadalupe Mines to dense residential homes. The loss of natural green space will also pose risks tothe wildlife in the area and even cause more deer accidents with vehicles.With my concerns, I am asking for the followingto alleviate the issues above:

Require lower density housing to be built no more than 4 per acre. This would decrease thetraffic load to our existing roads today. This would also ameliorate the overcapacity issue atLGUSD.

.Add extra traffic lanes to Guadalupe Mines Rd to make it 2 lanes each way to handle theadditional vehicle loading and traffic.Add another evacuation route in the event of a large fire o.r earthquake.Preserve more green space and wildlife in the development design.Increased police patrols to stop speeding

6/21/2010

Page 2 of 2

¯ Increased police patrols to monitor security during the > 2 year long construction period.We are looking forward to your responses addressing and providing solutions to our concerns.

Sincerely,

Allen Pang

1636 Via CampagnaSan Jose, CA 95120

6/21/2010

Page 1 of 2

Xavier, Lesley

From: J W [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June21, 2010 1:48 PMTo: Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle; [email protected]; Von Raesfeld, Darryl; Horwedel,

Joseph; Prevetti, LaurelCc: Xavier, Lesley

Dear Council Member Pyle, Congressman Honda, Chief Von Raesfeld, Ms Horwedel, Ms Prevetti an~l MsXavier,

We are residents of Campagnas at Almaden. We are writing to here to express our concernsregarding the proposed development on Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose. Permit numberPD10-005.

.First of all, we are very concerned about the school capacity at LGUSD. As all the informationthat we have-grabbed, schools at [GUSD are already mier packed. The clas~sizes are overstate average class sizes alre_ad_y.__This year, the biggest element school in LGUSD, Blossomhill eler~e-fi-t ~-chool, has 5 classes in kindergarten Witi~ 5-nly 4 classroom~ ~va~-Iable. Withalmost 100 new houses added in this new development, at least 30 more kids would be addedto school each year. This would stress even more on the school resources and some childrenmight have to be routed, to off school site according to LGUSD superintender. We are veryworried about the the eduation quality and children’s safty under this condition.

Currently there are only two narrow-lanes on Guadalupe Mines Rd, one on each side. with lotstraffic already from the residents and the landfill trucks. The new development would add morethan 200, up to 500 vehicles to this road, according to the development plan. This would cause¯ more traffic issues and increase incidents dramatically.In addition, with the design of Guadalupe Mines Road, any fire, earthquake or significantincident that closes Guadalupe Mines becomes an evacuation entrapment issue. If the recentfire on Guadalupe Mines had been closer to Via Campagna, it would have trapped hundreds ofresidents.

With these concerns, we are hoping that you will consider the following suggestions:1) Lower the density of the housing in this new developement or replace some commercialhouses with senior residents housing. This would decrease the traffic especially during therush house, and make overcapacity issue at LGUSD a bit better.

2) Add one extra traffic lanes on each way to the Guadalupe Mines Rd.

Thank you very much for your considerations and we are looking forward for your helpsregarding these issues.

Thanks,

Jianfei Shao, Jin Wang1708 Via Cortina, San Jose, CA, 95120

6/21/2010

Page 1 of i

Xavier, Lesley

From: Enderby, MikeSent: Monday, April 19, 2010 3:10 PMTo: Xavier, LesleySubject: FW: Zoning Change west of Guadalupe Mines Road

FYI.

From: Ina Vaughn [mailto:[email protected]]Sent= Monday, April 19, 2010 3:03 PMTo; Enderby, MikeSubject= Zoning Change west of Guadalupe Mines Road

Almaden area is overcrowded now, what is the City thinking? Traffic, water, city streets, we’renot equipped to handle it all. Please build somewhere else, or utilize San Benito County foradditional houses.

Ina VaughnAlmaden Valley

7/15/2010

LULU<--.I

m<

z

/ /\., \

I

!

2 2

C ~_2

\\Liii

i

[] []

3SVHd 1V±±I~tf3S NDIS3(3

3SVHd 1V_I_/IW~tlqS NOIS::I(3

3SVHd -1V_I__LllA!{IDS NDIS3CI

3SVHa 1V±±IIA/fl/3S NDIS30

qSVHd lV/_I. IW~INS NDIS:tC]

~SVHd 1V/±lV~flS NDIS3(]

r-------- .~,.n

/ ~z::::~ ,,, E~-_-

3SVHd 1V_LIIB/{tPIS NDIS3(3

3SVHd IV/IliaDS NDIS~{3

~ISVHd 1VfllW{]FIS NDIS:IC]

[] []

3SVHd -IV_L.LI~q~]DS NDIS3C]

-q

]SVHd -IV ]_/I W ~1 Iq g NDIS3CI

:::1 S V H (I 1 V_l_ / I B~ {] i’1 S NDIS~CI

I1

3SVHd NDIS3(]

3SVHd 1V//IVq{]AS NDIS3CI

:ISVHd lV//I~/~iflS NDIS3CI

3SVHd 1V±_LllA/{t~S NDIS~]CI

Z;©

i

L

i

1V//IW{]PIS NDIS3(I

rq

DL_[]

oo

900-0!, OOcl "ON BI!-~

_J

’\ \

SO0-O~ O(]d ’oN elH esor ues jo/q!O

LL

~;00-01. OOd ’ON ol!~ osoF ueS jo ~!0

©

900-0 I, Oa~l ’ON el!_H esor ueB ~o ,~I!o

z

z0N

SJ Homes

Documents

SJ Homes