April 7, 2006

Planning Commission to meet about Pan Clair development

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

Things don’t appear to be running smoothly for a proposed housing development near the end of San Felipe Road.

A number of homeowners in the California Oak Creek and Meadowland developments are not happy with the proposal of 22 new homes on approximately six acres of the 18-acre Pan Clair property. Most are concerned about the density—providing large 3,800 to 4,000 square foot homes on 8,000 to 10,000-square foot lots. Lots in the older two developments range from a quarter to a full acre.

The group of 70 to 100 homeowners also worry the high density housing will further complicate traffic, result in the loss of established and older trees, disrupt the Riparian environment around Thompson Creek and further impact an already full Silver Creek Elementary School.

Because the group has protested the mitigating negative declaration, there will be a planning commission meeting on April 12 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall.

Monster homes?
The planning department calls it, “A 22-single family detached residential development on approximately 6.7 acres of an approximately 18-acre site on the northeasterly side of San Felipe Road about 400 feet northwesterly of Silver Creek Road.”

The developer calls the homes “multi-generational.” They are designed with two master bedroom suites for families that include older generations. Current residents are concerned that the above $1 million cost of the homes may generate more than one family to buy the same house.

DAL Properties LLC, however, plans to market the homes to families from cultures that live with aging parents and children. They plan to sell the homes to executives or “those with means.”

Density, traffic
Current area residents feel the developer shouldn’t cluster all the homes on one side of the property. They voiced concern that DAL is clustering large homes on small lots and eventually will fill the remaining acreage with more large homes on small lots.

“I think the main issue of concern [among the current residents] is not so much the number of units but the method the developer is using to cluster homes on one part of the property. They fear the developer will later subdivide the rest of the property,” said Mike Enderby, a senior planner with the city of San Jose’s planning department.

“There is nothing [currently] that would allow them [the developer] to do more construction [than they have asked for permits to do],” he added.

Currently, the developer “doesn’t have the right to put homes on the entire property,” said District 8 City Council member Dave Cortese.

“We’re worried that the current proposed development is Phase I, and that eventually there will be 75 homes,” said Michael Mace, a homeowner in the Meadowlands development, north of the proposed Pan Clair acreage. “Those first 22 homes are just the appetizer. I think they plan to subdivide the remaining acreage into more homes. We’ve been told by the property owners that they are trying to buy more land.”

Residents in the Meadowlands signed a covenant when they bought their homes; they are unable to break up their lots.

“We bought out here because it was rural. There were open spaces. The green space is nice and there are cows, deer and coyotes that don’t bother us,” said Larry Cargnoni, who lives in the California Oaks development.

“They want to put monster houses on small lots. They want to cluster them on 6.7 acres and hold the remaining estate for future development. DAL plans five to eight feet between the side of the house and its fence. It’s out of character with the rest of the neighborhood,” Cargnoni added.

Although they talked about the rural atmosphere in that area over the past 10 or so years, the residents, like the city, are also concerned about traffic congestion.

“Evergreen is in a unique area of transportation policy dealing with traffic. Its intersections are congested. The city has an allocation ruling that developers from individual parcels pay into a fund for traffic,” said Enderby.

“The allocation for that site was set up in 1992 and it allowed for 21 units. That was established before the California Oaks development was even built. The developer is only allowed 21 units plus the one that currently exists on the property. There is no program to buy additional allocations, but 22 units is all they can get,” he added.

The number of cars generated by even 22 homes can tighten up already impacted roadways, according to the homeowners.

Environment
The addition of cars leads to more pollution, too, said the residents. But it’s not just air pollution; it’s also trees and the creek lands.

California environmental law offers three levels of investigation for area impacts. One is for very small developments such as additions to a home or a single home. Another is an environmental impact report.

Between those is a mitigating negative declaration. This report discloses traffic, biotic resources, trees and other environmental concerns, according to Enderby. It also assesses impacts, their significance and what sort of mitigation the developer needs to take.

About70 homeowners, including Mace and Cargnoni, have protested the mitigating negative declaration, so the planning department has to determine if the report and the mitigation meets necessary criteria.

One reason for the protests are the trees on San Felipe Road. Mace cited a particular Eucalyptus that is over 80 feet tall, which Cargnoni said was about 150 years old. Other trees include oak and walnut.

“San Felipe Road is designed by the city as a scenic corridor,” said Mace.

Enderby noted that trees are an environmental issue. However, he added that while there may be a loss of some trees, the developer must replace them at his own expense.

Mark Lazzarini, a managing principal at DAL agreed with Enderby and said his firm wants to save as many trees as possible.

“When we worked on the study, we assumed the worst case scenario. If we take out trees, we have to replace them,” Lazzarini said. “We don’t know which trees will have to go. A lot depends on the Thompson Creek Trail and how far the [Riparian] setback extends. If we change the configuration and expand the setback plan to save as many of the existing trees as we can, we should be able to save many of those trees.”

“From our standpoint, we want to keep the trees because they are mature. They enhance our site so it’s in our best interest to save as many of them as we can,” he added.

Elementary students
The current residents also are uncomfortable with the student-generation factor. Silver Oak Elementary School is full, they said. Any children from the new area will likely have to go to other schools in the district instead of the neighborhood school.

Lazzarini, however, said DAL received the student-generation factor from the district.

“I do know there are other school sites that children from this area would be attending and the district is adding new capacity for the future,” he said.

In addition, he said, the homes will not be completed for two to three years. He also questions when students will be generated for school and, with the cost of the homes, whether some will be going to private school.

For more information on the April 12 meeting, go to www.sanjoseca.gov.planning/hearings.