The 1821 Almaden Road Residential Project Initial Study was

Transcription

The 1821 Almaden Road Residential Project Initial Study was noticed and circulated to affected
public agencies and interested parties for a 20 day review from February 17 to March 9, 2015. The
following comment letters were received pertaining to the environmental review of the project.
The comment letters are presented below with responses from the Lead Agency. A copy of the
comment letters is attached in Appendix B.
Since publication of the Initial Study on February 17, 2015, more clarification was provided by BKF
Engineers to confirm the initial findings of the setback distances estimated by the consulting
biologist. Two new figures, attached as Appendix A, shown the specific distances between the
building and the topographic top of bank. These figures are here by incorporated in the public record
by reference.
Comment Letter A: Bill Schworer, 1725 Almaden Road – February 25, 2015
Comment A-1: The I.85 Acre Site consisting of 96 proposed Condos has commercial zoning to the
north and east of the project. I expect that the city will prevail on the rezoning of the property no
matter what we as the concerned area residents object.
I believe as a builder/developer for over 40 years in the bay area we are better served by focusing our
concerns and objections on the project itself.
Of interest, EIR’s unless changed in recent years, do not have to be “approved” by the city,
only”accepted”, read or not. In this EIR “Nothing has an” significant impact on the area or city”
[sic] It is a great law required waste of money by developer to be passed on the buyers [sic].
Response A-1: This comment is acknowledged.
Comment A-2: The 96 units (54 per acre) will have 184 parking spaces. Parking will be 2 stories,
one below grade and one on grade. The height of the building facing Almaden Rd is 63+ feet high
and 5 stories. The tallest building on Almaden Road is 4 stories. The building on the read is 4
stories. The recreation facility and pool on the rear of the property back up to the residents on
Guadalupe Ave in some cases within 20+ ft.
The monolithic designed building mass is 314 ft long facing Almaden Rd. It is the length of a
football field. Facing on the Rd on grade is a row of units with a 25 ft set back from the property line
(what is the property lien?). In the landscape plan it looks like patios will ne [sic] allowed in the
front set back between the unit and sidewalk Fences?
The on grade parking is behind the first row of units.
Response A-2: This comment is a reiteration of the project description. This comment is
acknowledged.
Comment A-3: With the good access to the adjacent first floor units Parking should be banned
along Almaden Rd. Garage access is in 2 narrow lanes on each side of the project. With parking
along Almaden Rd there is a very limited sight line to approaching traffic. The tenants at
1821 Almaden Road Residential Project
City of San Jose
Responses to Comments
March 2015
Summercrest Villas have a very difficult time leaving the parking lot for the same problem with cars
parked along Almaden on the left turn.
Response A-3: The commenter’s suggestion that street parking be prohibited along
Almaden Road in front of the project site is acknowledged.
Comment A-4: The traffic study is a joke. My focus is on the Willow Glen Way intersection at
Almaden Rd. The traffic study shows at peak time of 7 cars [sic] in the AM and 8.1 cars in the PM.
When the project is completed they project just an increase of one in the AM and PM.
Response A-4: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the data presented in Table
4.16-4 (page 130) of the Initial Study. The table does not show the number of cars estimated
to enter the intersection, it shows the average delay for cars traveling through the intersection.
For the Almaden Road/Willow Glen Way intersection, the average delay under existing
conditions is 6.9 seconds in the AM Peak Hour and 8.1 seconds in the PM Peak Hour. With
the addition of project traffic, the average delay would not increase in the AM Peak Hour, but
would increase to 8.3 seconds in the PM Peak Hour.
As shown in Table 4.16-3, the project would generate 93 AM and PM Peak Hour trips of
which 58 trips will go through the Almaden Road/Willow Glen Way intersection in the AM
Peak Hour and 50 will go through the Almaden Road/Willow Glen Way intersection in the
PM Peak Hour. The project trip distribution is shown on Figure 7 of the traffic report
(Appendix K of the Initial Study). The project traffic would not result in a significant traffic
impact based upon the City’s thresholds of significance.
Comment A-5: As is, the curved yield right turn lane at the corner is an accident trap because of the
speed of the cars accelerating. It is only a one hundred [sic] ft from the driveway at Summercrest
Villa and will be 800 ft from the new project. There is already a signal at the corner. The right turn
yield land [sic] should be removed and case [sic] required to obey the signal for right turns as well as
left turns for safety.
Response A-5: The commenter’s concerns about the safety of the existing operations of the
Almaden Road/Willow Glen Way intersection are acknowledged. No safety issues were
raised by the traffic engineer for this intersection.
Comment A-6: I noted a couple of statements in the Draft EIR. Construction will be allowed on the
project from 7 AM to 7 PM. Contractor parking and traffic will be a nightmare on Almaden Rd.
Response A-6: The times of construction are consistent with City policy. The project
applicant will be required to provide the City with a staging plan to address construction
traffic and parking.
Comment A-7: The EIR states that there is enough capacity for sewer and storm drains and the
underground lines are large enough to take the increase. This means that the street will not have to
be torn up to build new pipe lines. I don’t believe it for a minute.
Response A-7: The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Comment A-8: We should demand a series of residents meetings to object to the building plans.
The Aesthetic Policy on the San Jose General Plan on pages 20 to 23, 4.1 says there will be no
significant impact on the area. DON”T YOU BELIEVE IT FOR ONE MINUTE.
Visualize a 63 foot high 5 story building as longs [sic] as a football field facing Almaden Road
certainly does have a significant impact on the area and the city.
Response A-8: The determination of significance regarding visual impacts is based on the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist and thresholds of significance and
the City’s General Plan. While the building will be larger than the current development onsite and will be visible from the surrounding land uses, that in and of itself does not constitute
a significant impact under the CEQA.
Comment A-9: The EIR is a total waste of money.
Response A-9: The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged.
Comment Letter B: April Funcke, 1975 Creek Drive – March 5, 2015
Comment B-1: I am a Creek Drive resident opposed to re-zoning the property at 1821 Almaden
Road to build a five story apartment complex. I believe that the Planning Commission has ignored
the concerns of the neighborhood about parking, traffic, noise, loss of privacy and the size of the
development. At the first community meeting about this project, the neighborhood was adamantly
opposed.
Response B-1: The commenter’s concerns about parking, traffic, noise, loss of privacy and
the size of the development are acknowledged. Please see responses to the specific issues
raised below.
Comment B-2: Property owners along Guadalupe Avenue and Creek Dr would lose privacy and
light, impacting existing solar panels on some resident’s roofs.
Response B-2: As discussed in Section 4.10.2.1 (page 97) of the Initial Study, the project
includes design features to limit visual intrusion, especially to the adjacent single-family
residential backyards and windows. As shown on the site plan, the proposed residential
building will be located along the eastern property line with a minimum setback of 25 feet
from the western property line and the project will include plant screens and a fence to
obscure views westward. Adjacent single-family houses are set back an average of 40 feet
from the shared property line. Furthermore, the design of the building will be stepped so that
the portion of the building nearest the western property line will be four stories, consistent
with the nearby senior apartments. The taller portion of the building will be along the
roadway frontage. The fence and landscaping will act as screens and, together with the
setback and stepped building design, will limit direct line of sight into private open space or
windows
City of San Jose
March 2015
There is one house on Guadalupe Avenue (1706) with solar panels. This house is located
approximately 130 feet northwest of the project site.1 As shown on Figure 4.10-1 of the
Initial Study, the longest northwest shadows from the proposed building would be in the
winter morning hours. The shadows extend to the southeast corner of the backyard of the
property in question but do not extend to the house with solar panels itself. In addition, there
are very large trees on the property adjacent to the house at 1706 Guadalupe Avenue which
likely shade the solar panels during that same time period. Lastly, the California Solar Rights
Act (AB 3250, 1978) and the Solar Shade Act (AB 2321, 1978) only protect existing solar
panels and solar easements from trees and shrubs planted after installation of the solar panels.
There is no guaranteed solar access as it pertains to new building construction. Therefore, the
proposed project would not impact any existing or future solar systems on nearby properties.
Comment B-3: Traffic and parking along Creek Dr, Willow Glen Way and Almaden Rd would
greatly increase. The proposal calls for 184 parking places for 96 units, or 1.91 cars per unit. This is
inadequate. People who live in the apartments at Alamaden [sic] and Malone already park their cars
on Creek Dr, sometimes leaving the car for a week or more because of insufficient parking at those
complexes along Almaden Rd. San Jose Department of Traffic and Parking does not have enough
officers to police the situation.
Response B-3: The commenter’s concerns about existing parking problems are
acknowledged. As discussed in the traffic report (Appendix K of the Initial Study), the
number of parking stalls required for the proposed project per the City’s Zoning Code is 158.
The project is proposing 184 on-site parking spaces, 16 of which will be tandem. Therefore,
the project as proposed provides sufficient parking consistent with City standards.
Comment B-4: Additional noise from the pool area and common areas along the west of the project
would greatly increase the ambient noise. Noise is amplified along the creek corridor.
Response B-4: While there could be intermittent noise when the outdoor recreational areas
of the project site are in use, the use of these areas would not permanently increase the
ambient noise levels in the project area and would be comparable to noise from other
residential properties in the area. Furthermore, the City does not regulate the normal/typical
noise generated by recreational uses on residential properties. This is not a significant
impact.
Comment B-5: The size of the project, a massive, low slung box, would tower over the
neighborhood.
Response B-5: While the proposed building would be five-stories along Almaden Road, it
would step down to four stories on the western side of the building, nearest the single-family
residences. The four-story element is consistent in height with the senior apartments located
approximately 330 feet north of the project site, which is also adjacent to the residences on
Guadalupe Avenue. Furthermore, as discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.10.2.1 of the Initial
1
As measured from the northwest corner of the project site to the nearest point of the house.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Study, the proposed height of the building is consistent with the City’s General Plan
designation for the property which allows residential development from three to 12 stories in
height. For these reasons, the City found the height of the proposed building to have a less
than significant impact on the adjacent and nearby residential land uses. Please refer to
Response A-2.
Comment B-6: Dust and air pollution from construction of the development would affect the elderly
at the senior housing directly north of the project. The elderly are defined as ‘sensitive receptors’
according to BAAQMD.2 I don’t see that the mitigation proposed is adequate.
Response B-6: The dust and air pollution mitigation listed in the Initial Study (pages 33-35)
are consistent with BAAQMD’s recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) as noted
on page 33 of the Initial Study. In addition to the recommended BMPs, additional measures
have been included to further reduce particulates and air toxins from diesel exhaust emissions
during construction.
Comment B-7: The project is along a riparian corridor and would affect wildlife habitat along the
adjacent Guadalupe River.
Response B-7: Section 4.4.3.1 of the Initial Study (page 43) provides an analysis of the
project’s effects on the adjacent Guadalupe River. It was determined that the nearest point of
the project site is 100 feet from the top of bank. In addition, the project proposes to dedicate
560 square feet of riparian setback area to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Another
6,055 square feet of passive open space would be provided to further separate the developed
portion of the site from the riparian corridor. The proposed development will be set back
from the river more than the surrounding residential development. As a condition of project
approval, the project is required to comply with the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy. For all
these reasons, the City concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact
on the Guadalupe River.
Comment B-8: In conclusion, the Planning Commission should not vote to re-zone this parcel, and
the development should not go forward.
Response B-8: This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers
as part of the public record.
Comment Letter C: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter – March 9, 2015
Comment C-1: Overall Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Comments
1. Due to the location of this project along a sensitive riparian corridor the project should be in the
lower range of the general plan density allowed for this designation. It is more appropriate for a
project in this location to be about 45 DU/AC, still an increase in density for this neighborhood.
Response C-1: The commenter’s opinion regarding the density of the project is
acknowledged. The City of San Jose has established through the General Plan that higher
2
BAAQMD refers to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
City of San Jose
March 2015
density housing is appropriate for the project site and is not incompatible with the Guadalupe
River.
Comment C-2: 2. Protect the creek. Remove the path from the riparian setback. Access to the
corridor would create impacts on wildlife and water quality that have not been discussed or analyzed
in the IS/MND.
Response C-2: The riparian setback area is part of the project site and the path is internal to
the project and separate from the riparian corridor. The Riparian Corridor Policy allows for
paths and passive recreation, such as seating areas, in the riparian setback area. The project
will not provide any direct access to the river.
Comment C-3: 3. There must be greater certainty about the 100’ riparian setback. The IS should
include a to-scale diagram showing top of back [sic] and setback that allows the riparian impact to be
analyzed and commented on. Without this information is not [sic] possible for stakeholders to
analyze impacts or the necessity for additional mitigation. It is not sufficient to say “it appears that
the nearest point of the project site is 100 feet from the top of bank.”
Response C-3: As discussed on page 43 of the Initial Study, based on the best available
data, the consulting biologist estimated that the nearest point of the project site (as proposed
to be developed) is 100 feet from top of bank and will not infringe on the riparian corridor
due to distance and existing development between the riparian corridor and the project site.
The biologist determined that the topographic top-of-bank defines the limits of the riparian
habitat. The topographic top-of-bank was surveyed by the project engineer and determined
to align with the existing SCVWD fence lines. The project biologist is in agreement with
the results of the project engineer’s survey. The attached figure shows the surveyed
topographic top-of-bank which aligns with the existing SCVWD fence lines.
Comment C-4: 4. The parking provided for this project is more than sufficient. To dis-incentivize
single occupant auto usage, car parking should be decreased to accommodate additional bicycle
parking and residents should be provided with transit passes.
Response C-4: The project site is over parked by 10 parking spaces. Ten additional parking
spaces would not generate a significant number of single occupant auto trips. The project,
as proposed, meets the City’s requirements for bicycle parking. There is no City policy
requiring trip reductions measures for residential development.
Comment C-5: Project Description
5. Grading and excavation is a large part of the impact of this project and must be described in more
detail. Mitigation also needs to be described in more detail including a preliminary discussion of Site
[sic] Management Plan (pg. 81) and mitigation measures that will be required. Preliminary
grading/excavation plans should be included in the IS/MND to allow analysis of impacts, including
any information about anticipated dewatering.
Response C-5: Grading and excavation would result in increased dust, air emissions and
noise from construction equipment, possible increases in soil erosion and pollutants in
stormwater, and potential exposure of contaminated soil. All of these impacts would be
temporary. As discussed on pages 33-35 of the Initial Study the project includes mitigation
City of San Jose
March 2015
measures consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate dust and air emissions. Additional mitigation
measures are included to further reduce heavy equipment emissions.
Standard permit conditions required by the City of San Jose, consistent with the Municipal
Code, are included in the project as discussed on pages 108-109 of the Initial Study to reduce
temporary noise impacts.
Temporary increases in soil erosion and pollutants in stormwater will be mitigated through
standard permit conditions consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction and City policies.
Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance.
Consistent with the General Plan Final EIR, the analysis concluded that with the regulatory
programs currently in place, temporary increases in soil erosion and pollutants in stormwater
would be less than significant (pages 90-91 in the Initial Study).
As disclosed in the Initial Study, the project site may have localized shallow soil
contamination related to previous automotive related activities and historic agricultural
operations. The mitigation include specific requirements for soil sampling and preparation
and implementation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP). Components of the SMP are listed
on page 81 and include preparation of a Health and Safety Plan, notification procedures, soil
stockpiling protocols, etc. Until such time as the soil contamination is characterized, the
specific measures that would be required in the SMP cannot be finalized. For this reason, the
SMP will be developed and approved after soil sampling is complete and prior to issuance of
grading permits. No additional mitigation measures are required to reduce the identified
impacts to a less than significant level.
Comment C-6: 6. Likewise preliminary erosion control plans, pre and post-construction, should be
included to allow the public to understand the changing runoff patterns and volumes and assess
proposed mitigation.
Response C-6: As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Initial Study, the project will be required
to conform to City policies pertaining to stormwater runoff pre and post-construction and
hydromodification. Furthermore, the project will be required to conform to the NPDES
General Construction Permit and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit for post-construction runoff and
hydromodification management. Because the project will comply with the regulatory
requirements, the project would have a less than significant impact related to erosion.
Preliminary stormwater management plans are available at the City for review. An overview
of post-construction stormwater treatment/management is provided on page 92 of the Initial
Study.
Comment C-7: 7. Please also include a land use overview with information such as Flood Zone,
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations, etc. It is not clear that FAR meets requirements.
Response C-7: The flood zone for the project is described on page 85 of the Initial Study.
As noted on page 96 of the Initial Study, the FAR of the project is 1.7. This was calculated
City of San Jose
March 2015
based on the total project site size of 1.85 acres (80,586 square feet) and a building size of
45,048 square feet. This is consistent with the allowable FAR of 1.0 to 4.0.
Comment C-8: 8. A discussion of the potential ramifications of the Flood Zone D, undetermined
but possible flood hazard, is also needed to understand flood risks.
Response C-8: Consistent with CEQA and the City’s Flood Plain Management Ordiancne,
the project would not result in a significant flooding impact because it is outside the 100 year
flood zone.
Comment C-9: Biological Resources Analysis and Mitigation
9. The light and noise and trash impacts of this project on the Guadalupe River riparian habitat have
not been sufficiently discussed, analyzed, or mitigated. Any increase in human activity and
associated noise and light and glare can impact wildlife. The increase in light and noise will have a
significant impact on biological resources and therefore the MND must analyze and mitigate these
and other relevant impacts of human presence that are known to impact wildlife. See recent New
York Times article, “Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again” by Christopher Solomon, February 15,
2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/leaving-only-footsteps-thinkagain.html?_r=3).
Response C-9: In the project area, the Guadalupe River is completely lined with exisitng
development. While the project proposes to increase the density of development on the site,
that increase is consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, the project site is not directly
adjacent to the river (there is development between the river and the project site) and active
use areas for the project are proposed along the western edge of the property adjacent to the
single-family houses and not near the river. Lastly, the project will be required as a condition
of project approval (page 43 of the Initial Study) to comply with the Riparian Corridor
Policy. For all these reasons, the project would not have significant light, noise, and trash
impacts on the river.
Comment C-10: 10. In addition to decreasing the size of the project, stronger mitigation for these
impacts is needed. At a minimum, the fence along the riparian setback line should be replaced with a
solid sound wall to reduce noise, trash and light and glare from encroaching on the wildlife habitat.
Response C-10: Please refer to Response C-9. Please note that the water district has
specifically requested that solid fencing/walls not be utilized on-site in the area near the
riparian corridor. Additionally, the Riparian Corridor Policy states that walls should not be
used adjacent to riparian corridors.
Comment C-11: 11. In addition, the impact of a path and access to the riparian corridor is not
discussed in the MND. The path and all access to the riparian corridor should be restricted to
mitigate for other increased impacts on biological resources.
Response C-11: Please refer to Response C-2.
Comment C-12: 12. The introduction of a massive structure adjacent to the riparian corridor is
likely to result in increased bird collisions and deaths due to the project. Bird-friendly design
guidelines should be required to mitigate for this impact.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Response C-12: As shown on Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4, the façades of the building will be
primarily hard surface materials which are not reflective. The City could, as a condition of
approval, require specific window coatings to reduce the reflectiveness of the windows, but
given this is a residential structure, interior window treatments would be common and would
significantly reduce the likelihood of birds mistaking windows for open sky.
This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers as part of the
public record.
Comment C-13: 13. Specific species of interest to be analyzed include Steelhead, Western Pond
Turtle, and Red-Legged Frog.
Response C-13: The river is not located on the project site, which is a fully developed site,
and no improvements to the river bed, bank, or channel are proposed. There is no direct
access to the channel from the project. Furthermore, indirect impacts from stormwater runoff
would be improved over existing conditions because the project will be required to treat
stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system and ultimately the river. Lastly, the
setback from the river is consistent with the setback established in the Riparian Corridor
Policy and the HCP. For all these reasons, the project would not have a significant impact on
wildlife species within the river channel and no specific biological analyses are required.
Comment C-14: Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation
14. Incidental trash and illegal dumping have impacts on the water quality in the river and
consequently in the Bay. The potential for additional trash due to the increase in people in the
vicinity should be analyzed and mitigated.
Response C-14: There is no evidence provided that the proposed project would result in an
increase in trash in the river.
Comment C-15: 15. To mitigate for this additional trash, require a solid fence or wall along the
riparian setback line to prevent trash from blowing into the creek.
Response C-15: Please refer to Responses C-10 and C-14.
Comment C-16: 16. The path and all access to the riparian corridor should be restricted to mitigate
for increased impacts on water quality.
Response C-16: Please refer to Response C-2.
Comment C-17: 17. Include condition for use of recycled water for dust control.
Response C-17: It is assumed that the reference to dust control is in regards to construction
of the project. Specific dust control measures, consistent with Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Best Management Practices, are included in the project (page 35 of the
Initial Study). These measures include watering of exposed surfaces twice a day with a water
truck.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Comment C-18: Land Use Analysis
18. There clearly other opportunities [sic] for agglomeration of properties to pursue similar projects
along the creek in this area of San Jose. This should be analyzed. This project will set a precedent
for creek-adjacent development that will not be easy to reverse. Due to the impacts of medium to
high-density residential development, we believe low to medium-density is needed along riparian
corridors, especially national riparian corridors. The light and noise impact of this project will be
detrimental to wildlife and the riparian habitat, and the likelihood that this development pattern
would be replicated could destroy the substantial natural habitat value provided in this un-channeled
portion of the river.
Response C-18: The parcels on this section of Almaden Road that have not yet been
redeveloped are further away from the river than even the project site. While it is possible
that remaining parcels could be combined for intensification, it would be speculative to make
any assumptions about possible development or timing. In addition, it would not be a direct
effect of the proposed project as the General Plan calls for intensification of development in
this area.
Comment C-19: 19. The density of this project must be decreased to project [sic] the riparian
corridor.
Response C-19: The commenter’s opinion regarding the density of the project is
acknowledged.
Comment Letter D: Santa Clara Valley Water District – March 9, 2015
Comment D-1: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) – 1821 Almaden Road Residence Project – City File PDC13-034.
The District has been working with the applicant and City on this project since 2013. The project as
described in the MND is substantially the same as the last version of the project plans reviews by the
District in March 2014 with the inclusion of some of the comments we provided in March 2014
regarding incorporation of the riparian setback area as an amenity to the project as instead of a walled
off area as previously proposed. Though the applicant has incorporated most of the comments
provided to date we have some specific comments regarding the MND.
1. The MND references the riparian corridor setback area in terms of square footage instead of
distance measured form the riparian corridor to the development. The inclusion of the square footage
is informative; however, it doesn’t aid in understanding how the project conforms with the Riparian
Corridor Policy, as the policy calls for a setback distance, not area.
Response D-1: Please refer to the attached figure which shows the distance between the
proposed building and the top of bank. The setback ranges from 105 to 120 feet.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Comment D-2: 2. The MND notes that a portion of the riparian corridor setback area is to be
dedicated to the District; however, there is no information provided regarding why the dedication is
proposed. As has been discussed previously with the applicant and City a portion of the proposed
development, APN: 455-21-055, is located within Reach 9 of the District’s Upper Guadalupe River
Flood Protection Project, which will improve the Guadalupe River from Highway 280 to Blossom
Hill Road. The flood project includes widening the east side of the river to increase capacity and
require acquisition of approximately 0.008 acres of the south westerly corner of the APN: 455-21055 as shown on the site plans included in the MND. For clarity the MND should explain the need
for the small portion of land within the riparian corridor setback area.
Response D-2: By reference to this comment, the public record will show the setback area
that will be dedicated to the District to provide the District with the land necessary to
construct Reach 9 of the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
Comment D-3: 3. The discussion of the riparian setback area on page 12 notes that the area would
include native plantings; however, in the Biological Resources section on page 43 of the MND only
states that non-invasive species would be planted. The discussion in the MND regarding how the
riparian setback area will be developed needs to be consistent as planting with natives and avoiding
invasive species are not the same thing. As started in previous correspondence we highly
recommend this area be restored with native plantings in accordance with Design Guides 2, 3 and 9
of the Guidelines and Standard for Land Use Near Streams. In particular, to protect the genetic
integrity of the native riparian plants found in the Guadalupe River watershed, locally native plants
used at the site need to be grown from Guadalupe River watershed stock. Plants that have the
potential to hybridize with the local natives should not be used at the site. District staff is available
to assist the applicant with developing an appropriate plant palette for this area.
Response D-3: The final landscape design will be determined by the City of San Jose
consistent with the Riparian Corridor Policy, as stated on page 43 of the Initial Study, and in
consultation with District staff to ensure compliance with the Guidelines and Standard for
Land Use Near Streams.
Comment D-4: 4. Page 12 of the MND notes decorative fountains are proposed in the common
open spaces areas. The MND should discuss how the inclusion of fountains conforms to existing
drought restrictions on water use.
Response D-4: Revised project plans, dated February 27, 2015, do not include any
fountains. The City currently has no specific restrictions on the use of decorative fountains.
There are currently no recycled water lines in the vicinity of the project.
Fountains, however, recirculate water and would not require substantial quantities of potable
water to operate. Nevertheless, the City could condition the project to limit or preclude the
use of decorative fountains on-site due to current drought conditions.
Comment D-5: 5. Page 43 of the Biological Resources sections [sic] notes the top of bank of the
Guadalupe River, defined as the edge of the riparian corridor by HT Harvey & Associates, was not
surveyed and shown on the plans. Therefore, the APN map was used to determine that the project
property is more than 100 feet from the top of bank/riparian corridor. The APM map shows the river
and has a note for the top of bank (which is closer than 100 feet to the site); however, there are no
criteria for plotting the creek or top of bank on the APN maps to ensure accuracy. These maps are
City of San Jose
March 2015
for property assessment purposes and information other than property lines should not be used
without additional information to substantiate accuracy.
Response D-5: The consulting biologist observed the riparian habitat to the south of the
project site to determine the edge of the riparian corridor for this specific reach of the
Guadalupe River. The biologist determined that the topographic top-of-bank defines the limits
of the riparian habitat. The topographic top-of-bank was surveyed by the project engineer and
determined to align with the existing SCVWD fence lines. The project biologist is in
agreement with the results of the project engineer’s survey. The attached figure shows the
surveyed topographic top-of-bank which aligns with the existing SCVWD fence lines.
Comment D-6: 6. The MND states on page 43 as a condition of approval that the project will
conform to the Riparian Corridor Policy. The MND should more specifically state how the project
will conform as the Riparian Corridor Policy is a set of guidelines with various exemptions that can
be broadly interpreted.
Response D-6: The general development guidelines of the Riparian Corridor Policy
(Chapter 3) include building orientation, incompatible land uses, setbacks, and habitat
protection (including lighting, noise, and traffic). The City has already established through
the General Plan that higher density housing is appropriate for the project site and not
incompatible with the Guadalupe River. As shown on the attached figure, the building meets
the setback requirements. The guidelines state that consistency with the setback
requirements is sufficient to protect sensitive species and their habitat from human activity
impacts includes lighting, noise, and traffic. As previously discussed, the final landscape
plan will be determined by the City and will be required to be consistent with the Policy and
District standards. Guideline A1, Orientation, is not applicable to the project as it only
addresses new urban development areas and the project site is an infill location.
Comment D-7: 7. District information indicates that in the easterly portions of the site depth to first
groundwater may be more shallow (10-20 feet) than the 20 feet noted on page 88.
Response D-7: As discussed in the Initial Study (page 88), “According to the Department of
Conservation, groundwater would likely be found at a minimum depth of 20 feet below the
ground surface (bgs). In March 2013, the geotechnical investigation reported groundwater at
40 feet bgs during a soil boring test.” No other specific data has been provided. Therefore,
the analysis was based on the best available data.
Comment D-8: 8. Page 120 notes that potentially a future connection to the trail from the riparian
setback area may be possible. Please note such a connection will need to be evaluated by the District
and the City at such time that the trail is designed and such access points need to be open to the
general public.
Response D-8: The City concurs with this comment. The project does not currently propose
a connection to the creek trail from the riparian setback area and, as a result, no analysis is
provided in this Initial Study. If the project is approved, it would not include a future trail
connection.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Comment Letter E: Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society – March 9, 2015
Comment E-1: The following are comments on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
(SCVAS) regarding the proposed residential project at 1821 Almaden Road (Project) as well as the
Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and accompanying documents
that comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the Project.
The mission of SCVAS is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public awareness of native
birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. SCVAS has been an advocate for
protection of San Jose’s creeks from harmful development for more than two decades, and we
continue to maintain a strong position in favor of rigorous implementation of the San Jose Riparian
Corridor Policy, which the Project appears to violate.
SCVAS recommends that this project be denied until clarifications are made regarding the
relationship of the Project to the Guadalupe River and until greater setbacks and protections for the
river are included as part of the project plans.
Response E-1: The commenter’s opinions on the project are acknowledged.
Comment E-2: Unclear and inaccurate information makes it impossible for the public or decision
makers to judge the impacts of the Project on the Guadalupe River.
SCVAS accepts the determination by H.T. Harvey and Associates that any setback on this property
be measured from the top of bank of the Guadalupe River, given that the vegetation along the
frontage of this parcel is comprised almost exclusively of nonnative plants. That said, the Initial
Study and MND are unclear in some aspects of the relationship of the Project to the River, and in at
least one place, the CEQA documentation has provided false information to the public and the
decision makers in this project proposal. Until these issues are clarified and/or corrected, the Project
should be deemed in noncompliance with CEQA and rejected.
The Initial Study, at page 7, state the basic relationship of the Project to the Guadalupe River: “The
project would provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback along the southern boundary of the site.
Approximately 560 sf of the riparian setback would be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD). The remaining 6,055 sf would be maintained by the homeowners association.
The building would be set back a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area.”
The Initial Study does not state what the setback is from the proposed development to the top of bank
of the Guadalupe River, and thus the public cannot accurately determine compliance or
noncompliance with the basic standard of a 100-foot setback for development of this type. In fact,
the Initial Study acknowledged that the Project proponents have provided no map depicting the tope
of bank, “The visual survey of the Guadalupe River did not formally determine the distance between
the property line and the top of bank, which is the boundary of the riparian corridor.” (Initial Study,
page 43)
In addition, if Figure 3.1-2 is accurate, then it becomes clear that the statement that the building
would be set back “a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area” is false. Figure 3.1-2
shows a distance of 43’ 5” from the land to be deeded to the Santa Clara Valley Water District to the
edge of the riparian set back. (Initial Study, page 9) On that same scale, Unit B5 appears to be less
than 10 feet from the riparian set back. The impervious surfaces of the Project extend fully to the
City of San Jose
March 2015
edge of the proposed riparian setback.
As a result of these unclear and inaccurate measurements, the public has no ability to determine
compliance with the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy, and thus little ability to determine whether
significant impacts remain regarding the Guadalupe River and associated riparian environment.
Response E-2: The riparian setback, as shown on Figure 3.1-1 is the open space area of the
project site between the riparian corridor and the developed portion of the site. Adjacent to
the riparian setback is the building, which is set back from the riparian setback area five feet.
Comment E-3: The Initial Study and proposed MND do not adequately discuss compliance with
the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy, as incorporated into the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.
(Policies ER-2.1. 2.2, and 2.3 – Initial Study, page 41) Thus, it becomes impossible to determine
whether the Project as proposed would “Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (included, but not limited to the general
plan…” (Initial Study Land Use checklist, page 95) Compliance with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix
G is thus in question and until this issue is resolved approval of the Project is unlawful. (See Title
14, Article 5 of the CEQA Guidelines, Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study)
Response E-3: As discussed on page 43 of the Initial Study, based on the best available
The project engineer surveyed the site on November 6, 2013 and confirmed that the
topographic top of bank aligns with the existing SCVWD fence lines, which is shown in
attached figure and field notes. The Initial Study further states that as a condition of project
approval, the project will be required to comply with the Riparian Corridor Policy.
The general development guidelines of the Riparian Corridor Policy (Chapter 3) include
building orientation, incompatible land uses, setbacks, and habitat protection. The City has
already established through the General Plan that higher density housing is appropriate for the
project site and not incompatible with the Guadalupe River. Since publication of the
Initial Study, more specific survey work was completed to confirm the initial findings of the
setback distances. As shown on the attached figure, the building meets the setback
requirements of the Riparian Corridor Policy. The final landscape plan will be determined by
the City and will be required to be consistent with the Policy standards. Guideline A1,
Orientation, is not applicable to the project as it only addresses new urban development areas
and the project site is an infill location.
For all these reasons, the project was determined to be consistent with applicable City
policies. No further analysis is required.
Comment E-4: The riparian setback area will bring human activity within a few feet of the river,
potentially leading to significant, unavoidable impacts to wildlife and to water quality.
Response E-4: There is existing development between the project site and the riparian
corridor, including housing, and large impervious parking areas. The project will remove
some of the existing buildings and hardscape in proximity to the riparian corridor and replace
City of San Jose
March 2015
them with a passible open space area. The limited activity that would occur along the
walking path would be comparable to activity along any established creek trail (though with
greater setbacks to the riparian corridor and top of bank then a typical trail) and would be
more consistent with the riparian corridor than the existing development on-site. The project
would not result in significant impacts to wildlife and water quality.
Comment E-5: Further, Figure 3.1-1 shows that the “riparian setback” would in fact be landscaped
with what appears to be a walkway and gathering area, encroaching to within approximately 10 feet
of the proposed Water District land dedication. Given that there are no requirements in the Project
documentation that the riparian setback area be landscaped with native, riparian associated species,
one can assume that this area will essentially become a pocket park-like amenity for the Project’s
tenants and their pets. As a result, trash and contamination from human and pet activity could easily
enter the area of the Guadalupe River, leading to water quality and bank stability degradation. This
area may also become an attraction to the homeless, who are often associated with intrusion on
riparian areas in San Jose and potentially bring a host of problems.
Response E-5: The commenter’s opinions regarding usage of the riparian setback area are
acknowledged. Page 43 of the Initial Study specifically states that the riparian setback, as
proposed, would be planted with non-invasive species. It also stated that the project will be
required to comply with the Riparian Corridor Policy as a condition of approval. Through
this process, the City can require native plant species to be used instead. The final landscape
plan for this area will be determined by the City consistent with adopted policies.
Regardless of how the area is utilized and landscaped, the potential for homeless persons to
occupy the area exists. This is, however, a citywide issue and would not be a direct result of
the project. It would be speculative to try and quantify the impact. Furthermore, an increase
in residents on the project site would make it less likely that homeless persons would occupy
this area.
Comment E-6: SCVAS recommends that the Project fully comply with the 100-foot setback
contained in the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy. This would allow for a larger setback area, from
which the public and pets should be excluded. Ideally, this area would be landscaped with native
riparian vegetation, compensating to some extent for the significant increase in population the Project
proposes to place adjacent to the river.
Response E-6: Please refer to Responses E-2 though E-5.
Comment E-7: Conclusion. SCVAS understands that full compliance with the Riparian Corridor
Policy on this site would require a redesign of the Project, leading to the loss of some residential
units. However, the General Plan designation for the site allows for a range of density from 30 to 95
units per acre. (Initial Study, page 94) Given that the project as proposed would contain 54 units per
acre (Initial Study, page 7), a small reduction in the number of units would still allow the Project to
build within the General Plan parameters.
In order to comply with CEQA, the Project documentation must be revised to address the concerns
related above. In order to protect the environmental values of the Guadalupe River and the integrity
City of San Jose
March 2015
of San Jose planning, the Project should be revised to fully comply with the San Jose Riparian
Corridor Policy.
Response E-7: Please refer to Responses E-2 though E-5.
Comment Letter F: Committee for Green Foothills – March 9, 2015
Comment F-1: This constitutes the comments on the Committee for Green Foothills on the abovereferenced project. Committee for Green Foothills is a nonprofit organization working to protect
open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have been advocating
with the City of San Jose for years concerning the need for a riparian corridor setback ordinance that
would codify the existing Riparian Corridor Policy. We have a strong interest in protecting the
creeks and rivers of Santa Clara County, including the Guadalupe River.
As you know, San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy requires a 100-foot setback from top of bank or
outside edge of the riparian vegetation. The Initial Study for this project states that the project will
“provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback along the southern boundary of the site” and that the building
will be set back “a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area.” Initial Study, p.7. The site
plans included in the Initial Study (Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2) indicate an area labeled “riparian
setback” but do not indicate where the actual top of bank is located. Without this information, it
cannot be stated that the project site does not encroach on the riparian buffer zone.
Response F-1: Please refer to the attached figure which shows the distance between the
proposed building and the top of bank. The setback ranges from 105 to 120 feet.
Comment F-2: The Riparian Corridor Policy has been incorporated into the Envision 2040 General
Plan (Policy ER-2.1: “Ensure that new public and private development adjacent to riparian corridors
in San Jose are consistent with the provisions of the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study…” and
Policy ER-2.2: “Ensure that a 100-foot setback from riparian habitat is the standard to be achieved in
all but a limited number of instances, only where no significant environmental impacts would
occur.”). Without a determination that the project is not in conflict with these policies of the General
Plan, the Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot find that there are no significant land use impacts
from the project.
These issues must be resolved, and if necessary the project must be redesigned to eliminate any
encroachment into the 100-foot riparian buffer zone, in accordance with the General Plan.
Response F-2: Please refer to Response F-1. Also, please note that the project will be
required as a condition of project approval to comply with the Riparian Corridor Policy, as
discussed on page 43 of the Initial Study.
Comment Letter G: Larry Ames – March 9, 2015
Comment G-1: I would like to submit the following comments regarding the proposed development
at 1821 Almaden Road (PDC13-034).
City of San Jose
March 2015
The proposal is for a 5-story solid frontage complex of buildings (Fig. 3.1-3). The plans that are now
online at http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40172 seem to be little changed from those
presented to the public last May. As I recall from that meeting, there were many complaints from the
audience, with concerns of overcrowding, parking impacts on surrounding residential streets, noise,
and traffic.
While the design for the proposed development does give the feel of “Urban Living” and might be
fine for downtown or perhaps an Urban Village (for example, at Bascom and San Carlos), it is totally
out-of-place at this site.
The site has poor freeway access and poor connection to any transportation nodes; there’s not even
bus service within blocks of the site.
Response G-1: The commenter’s opinion’s regarding the proposed development are
acknowledged. Please refer to Response G-4, regarding alternative modes of transportation.
It is unclear what the commenter considers appropriate freeway access. Page 122 of the
Initial Study discusses regional access to the project site via freeways and State highways.
Comment G-2: Project does acknowledge that SCVWD will want to widen the channel as part of its
planned flood-control measures, and it does have some riparian setback. But the setback is
apparently only 43’ 5’ from this new channel, whereas the Riparian Setback Policy require 100’ for a
project like this. (And the developers should be well aware of this requirement, as their
representative served on the Envision 2040 Task Force where this policy was discussed and
reaffirmed.)
Response G-2: Based on the existing conditions of the project area, the proposed building
will have a sufficient setback to the existing top of bank to meet the requirements of the
Riparian Corridor Policy. The final design of future flood control improvements is not
known and cannot be speculated on under CEQA. The land dedication to the District is,
however, in anticipation of the future flood control improvements. It is unlikely that the new
top of bank would be at the eastern edge of the District dedication area, but if it were, there
would still be a 69.5 foot setback between the building and the top of bank, which is greater
than the minimum 50 feet allowed by exception under the Riparian Corridor Policy.
Comment G-3: The plans on p. 13 show that the developer plans to build a small 4-foot-wide
decomposed granite footpath that connects to various portions of the project. However, the plans do
not have any indication of how it could accommodate the planned extension of the Guadalupe River
Trail, which is part of the regional trail network that is planned to pass through this region. In fact,
there does not even appear to be room for such a trail; this is one of the reasons for the 100’ riparian
setback requirement. (The future Guadalupe Trail would probably be like other regional trails; 12foot-wide, paved, and with decomposed-granite shoulders.)
Response G-3: The land dedication to the District was determined based on conversations
with District staff. It is reasonable to assume that any future improvements to the river,
including flood control and trails, will be within the District’s existing right-of-way and the
proposed land dedication. The trail would not be placed on the project site.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Comment G-4: I believe that any project at this site will have challenges with transportation. It
should be a requirement of any developer there that the developer construct the Guadalupe River
Trail from the site northward to Tamien Station; it’s not far at all, and it would encourage at least
some of the residents to take alternative transportation. As it now [sic], there would be no convenient
connection to any nearby public transportation, and everyone will be forced to drive. And even
driving s problematical, as there are no good road connections to the site, either, which would cause a
lot of cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets, adversely impacting the neighborhood
community.
Response G-4: As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Initial Study, the proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on the local roadway network. As such, there is no nexus
under CEQA for the City to require improvements to the roadway network or trail network.
Page 123 of the Initial Study provides an overview of the available bicycle lanes in the
project area and the Guadalupe River Trail which is accessible near Curtner Avenue and
Almaden Expressway. The trail, which is within easy biking distance from the project site,
provides access to the Curtner Light Rail Station. There are also multiple bus routes within
one mile of the project site. Therefore, future site occupants have multiple transportation
options and the project will have a less than significant impact on the local roadway network.
Comment G-5: I wish that I had more time, as I’m sure that there are additional concerns that may
or may not have been addressed (What about parkland dedication? What are the impacts to the local
schools?, etc.), but the deadline on provided comments quickly approaches!
Response G-5: Please note that parkland requirements are discussed on page 117 of the
Initial Study. The impact to local schools is addressed on pages 115-116.
Comment Letter H: Jean Dresden – March 9, 2015
Comment H-1: The IS/MND is incomplete and appears to be in conflict with various land use
policies. A negative declaration finding is inappropriate without further information.
Specifically, with regard to riparian –
The site map doesn’t show the top of bank, the consultant’s riparian boundary. Nor does it show the
100 ft. setback line. Future, the document references two different numbers for setback. The
language is unclear.
For example:
On page 7: “The building would be set back a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area.”
This language does not tell me how far the building will be from the top of bank. Is the riparian
setback 100 feet and the additional setback 26.5 ft? Or is 26.5 ft. proposed for the setback from the
top of bank? Or does the “riparian setback area” refer to the 560 sq ft that is going to the SCVWD?
Nor does this language tell me where hardscape begins compared to the top of bank. Is this the 26.5
ft of hardscape driveway next to the building?
City of San Jose
March 2015
Response H-1: As stated on page 7,” The project would provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback
along the southern boundary of the site. Approximately 560 sf of the riparian setback would
be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The remaining 6,055 sf
would be maintained by the homeowners association. The building would be set back a
minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area.” As clearly shown on the site plan and
aerial (Figures 2.2-3 and 3.1-1), the riparian setback area is the southern end of the project
site and the SCVWD dedication area is within the riparian setback area. This is not in
reference to the required riparian setback specified in the Riparian Corridor Policy, but a
designated open space area of the site. The drive aisle is clearly shown adjacent to the
setback area. Based on the width of the drive aisle, the building is set back 26.5 feet from the
riparian setback area. This discussion focuses on describing the project. The project’s
setback to the riparian corridor is discussed in Section 4.4 of the Initial Study, Biological
Resources.
Comment H-2: The report state that “The project would provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback along
the southern boundary of the site.” No further summary information is provided about the depth of
the setback. For this thin description, it could be ten feet from the top of bank and 600 ft long. More
specificity is needed in the narrative.
Response H-2: Please refer to Response H-1.
Comment H-3: On page 13, the plans show a dimension of 43ft 5 inches from the “dedication. Is
the “dedication” the “top of bank”? Is the 43 ft 5 inches the “riparian setback”? And is the 26 ft
really just the driveway – that is, hardscape?
Comment H-4: On page 13, the plans show a “riparian setback” that is shaded. Within the setback
are trails and a circular structure. Is the circular structure a gazebo or similar? Structure other than
trails are considered incompatible with riparian setbacks.
Response H-4: As discussed on page 12 of the Initial Study, the proposed riparian setback
area would include “a meandering decomposed granite path that connects to the proposed
pool, children’s playground, and open space area at the ground level on the west side of the
property.” It is not part of the riparian corridor, but part of the project site. The circular
object shown on the plans is a conceptual seating area labeled as “bench”. The final design
of the riparian setback area would be determined by City staff consistent with the Riparian
Corridor Policy.
Comment H-5: On page 13, the top of bank for the environs is not labeled, nor does the consultant’s
report nor the initial study indicate the location. For all we can tell from this report, the top of bank
might be very close, but not on this property line. Maybe it is here at the asterisk in the drawing
below (the commenter inserted a graphic into the letter with an asterisk added – please refer to the
attached copies of the comment letters for reference).
City of San Jose
March 2015
Response H-5: While not labeled on the landscape plan, the top of bank is shown,
represented by two dashed, parallel lines to the south of the project site. The top of bank is
not adjacent to the site as discussed in Section 4.4 of the Initial Study, Biological Resources.
Comment H-6: In reading the biologist’s report, it’s pretty clear that he had to “eyeball” the
environment where there were different property owners. (He described looking from the road.)
However, the map should use the very best estimate of top of bank by using aerial photos, eyeballing,
and triangulation strategies. An estimate beats the heck out of no information. The absence of
information about the riparian boundary line makes it impossible to make a decision about the
significance of environmental impacts.
When I read this document, I am wondering whether the applicant would like an exception to the
General Plan land use policy of 100 ft setback from the riparian boundary. Why isn’t this explicitly
discussed in the IS/MND?
Response H-6: As discussed on page 43 of the Initial Study, based on the best available
The project engineer surveys the site and confirmed the topographic top of bank aligns with
the existing SCVWD fence lines, as shown in the attached figure and field notes. As shown
on the attached figure, the building meets the Riparian Corridor Policy’s 100-foot setback
requirements.
Comment H-7: Yet, when I look at the photo on page 44, it looks like the situation is much more
confused. Where is the top of bank??? Why is there a proposed land dedication to SCVWD?
Response H-7: Based on the graphic inserted into the commenter’s letter (the commenter
inserted a graphic into the letter– please refer to the attached copies of the comment letters
for reference), it is assumed that the commenter is referring to the Tree Survey Map (Figure
4.4-1) on page 39 of the Initial Study. This figure is not intended to show the top of bank or
reference the land dedication area. The purpose of this figure is to show the locations of
existing trees on-site as they correspond to the tree survey. Please refer to Responses H-1
through H-6 regarding the top of bank.
The land dedication to the SCVWD is the result of discussions between the applicant and the
District regarding the future need for land for flood control improvements. Please refer to
Response D-2.
Comment H-8: On page 43, the applicant uses a top of bank analysis based on an Assessor’s Parcel
map that has a very small line for top of bank. See below (the commenter inserted a graphic into the
letter– please refer to the attached copies of the comment letters for reference).
Consider the Santa Clara Valley Water District either owns or has easements on properties #57 and
#68 and #17, it seems that a really good estimate of the top of bank could be made.
Applicant writes “The General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts to riparian habitats resulting from
proposed development under the General Plan will be less than significant with adherence to adopted
City of San Jose
March 2015
plans and policies and existing regulations. (Less Than Significant Impact). But how can anyone tell
if no one knows where the top of bank is located?????
Comment H-9: Land Use/Riparian/Guadalupe River
The Water district has a long term plan for flood control. There are published maps. While the
project is not funded, it is planned. Just as the city prevented development within the ROW for
Highway 85 and 87 when they were not funded, I am wondering why this project is not being
analyzed with respect to the water district’s plans. Shouldn’t there be a discussion with the plans
details linked to the project’s details.
Response H-9: As previously noted, the applicant is dedicating 560 square feet of land to
the District for right-of-way for future improvements. This land area was determined based
on discussions with District staff.
Comment H-10: Soil
The consultants’ report described two layers that were subject to liquefaction, but overall concluded
things would be fine with careful building. Though there is a tendency for modern consultants to use
their mathematical models to predict things, there are limits to the predictions because soils are
infinitely variable.
From local history I note that there have been several soil impacts in this neighborhood. This is
where the Hwy 87 freeway suffered from severe compaction. The soil couldn’t handle the weight of
the freeway. The neighborhood – Guadalupe Road behind the project and Northern Road north of
the project – suffered more soil, house and foundation cracking during the decades than other areas
of Willow Glen. First mention of the problems appears in newspapers shortly after construction.
The roads are like roller coasters. The Geologist doesn’t note that the current alignment of the river
is the Lewis Canal and not the original river alignment. The area was once called Sycamore Grove
for all the Sycamores sipping water on the side of the large swampy marshy area that was the sink of
the Upper Guadalupe River. The location has a high probability of soil compaction from the weight
of the building. Will pilings be driven to support the structure? Or will it be designed in segments to
float separately and minimize damage to the whole as one part settles and another part sites on top of
a less compressible location?
Response H-10: First, it should be noted that the statement that the “The consultants’ report
described two layers that were subject to liquefaction, but overall concluded things would be
fine with careful building” is incorrect. Page 65 specifically states that “The project site is
located in a liquefaction zone3; however, a liquefaction analysis of soils on-site showed that
soil layers between 1.5 feet and 66 feet are primarily stiff and dense silt, gravel, and silty clay
soils, which are not liquefiable (emphasis added). The marginal liquefiable soil layers and
the flat topography create minimal risks of liquefaction on the project site.” The conclusion
of the report (page 68) states “By complying with regulations identified in the General Plan
FEIR, the identified Standard Permit Conditions, and the latest California Building Code,
3
California Department of Conservation. Regulatory Maps. <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm>
Accessed September 22, 2014.
March 2015
City of San Jose
implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant geology and soils
impact.”
The geologic report fully characterized the soil conditions on the project site. With this
information, the building can be properly engineered to address the soil conditions on-site
consistent with the California Building Code.
No piles are proposed for this project.
Comment H-11: Bird Safe Design
Given the proximity to the Guadalupe River/Lewis Creek, and the west facing, bird safe design is a
critical element. In order to protect bird species, it should be included as one of the mitigations.
Response H-11: As shown on Figure 3.1-4, the western façade of the building will be
primarily hard surface materials which are not reflective. The City could, as a condition of
approval, require specific window coatings to reduce the reflectiveness of the windows, but
given this is a residential structure, interior window treatments would be common and would
significantly reduce the likelihood of birds mistaking windows for open sky.
This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to the decision makers as part of the
public record.
City of San Jose
March 2015
Appendix A – Figures
SiliconSage™
Builders, LLC.
1821 ALMADEN ROAD, SAN JOSE, CA 95125
GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN - EXHIBIT C
1821 ALMADEN ROAD
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
3333 Bowers Ave,
Suite 236
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel. No. (408) 520-7695
Email: [email protected]
No.
Description
Date
© COPYRIGHT 2013 REPRODUCTION OR USE OF ANY MATERIALS HEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SiliconSage™ Builders,
LLC. VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.
DATE
SCALE
20136035
11-14-2014
Appendix B – Comment Letters
February 25, 2015
Bill Schworer
Summercrest Villas
1725 Almaden Rd #405
San Jose CA 951125
[email protected]
650 924 0530
CITY OF SAN JOSE
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT
Notes on DRAFT EIR 182121 ///ALMADEN RD.
DDC13-034
The 1.85 Acre Site consisting of 96 proposed Condos has commercial zoning to the north and
east of the project. I expect that the city will prevail on the rezoning of the property no matter
what we as the concerned area residents object.
I believe as a builder/developer for over 40 years in the bay area we are better served by focusing
our concerns and objections on the project itself.
Of interest, EIR's unless changed in recent years, do not have to be" approved" by the city, only"
accepted", read or not. Inthis EIR "Nothing has an" significant impact on the area or city" Itis a
great law required waste of money by the developer to be passed on the buyers.
The 96 units (54 per acre) will have 184 parking spaces . Parking will be 2 stories, one below
grade and one on grade. The height of the building facing Almaden Rd is 63+ feet high and 5
stories. The tallest building on Almaden Rd is 4 stories. The building on the rear is 4 stories. The
recreation facility and pool on the rear of the property back up to the residents on Guadalupe Ave
in some cases within 20+ ft.
The monolithic designed building mass is 314 ft long facing Almaden Rd. It is the length of a
football field. Facing on the Rd on grade is a row of units with a 25 ft set back from the property
line (what is the property line?). Inthe landscape plan it looks like patios will ne allowed in the
front set back between the unit and sidewalk Fences ?
The on grade parking is behind the first row of units. With the good access to the adjacent first
floor units Parking should be banned along Almaden Rd. Garage access is in 2 narrow lanes on
each side of the project. With parking along Almaden Rd there is a very limited sight line to
approaching traffic. The tenants at Summercrest Villas have a very difficult time leaving the
parking lot for the same problem with cars parked along Almaden on the left turn.
The traffic study is a joke . My focus is on the Willow Glen Way intersection at Almaden Rd.
The traffic study shows at peak time of 7 cars in the AM and 8.1 cars in the PM. When the
project is completed they project just an increase of one in the AM and PM.
As is, the curved yield right turn lane at the corner is an accident trap because of the speed of the
cars accelerating. It is only a one hundred ft from the driveway at Summercrest Villa and will be
800 ft from the new project. There is already a signal at the corner. The right turn yield land
should be removed and case required to obey the signal for right turns as well as left turns for
safety.
Page 2
I noted a couple of statements in the Draft EIR. Construction will be allowed on the project from
7 AM to 7 PM. Contractor parking and traffic will be a nightmare on Almaden Rd.
The EIR states that there is enough capacity for sewer and stonn drains and the underground
lines are large enough to take the increase. This means that the street will not have to be torn up
to build new pipe lines. I don't believe it for a minute.
We should demand a series of residents meetings to object to the building plans. The Aesthetic
Policy on the San Jose General Plan on pages 20 to 23, 4. lsays there will be no significant
impact on the area DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT FOR ONE MINUTE.
Visualize a 63 foot high 5 story building as longs as a footba ll field facing Almaden Road
certainly does have a significant impact on the area and the city
The EIR is a total waste of money
From: april funcke <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 4:08 PM To: Berry, Whitney Cc: Schuller, Elizabeth; Oliverio, Pierluigi Subject: 1821 Alamden Road I am a Creek Dr resident opposed to re‐zoning the property at 1821 Alamaden Rd to build a five story apartment complex. I believe that the Planning Commission has ignored the concerns of the neighborhood about parking, traffic, noise, loss of privacy and the size of the development. At the first community meeting about this project, the neighborhood was adamantly opposed. Property owners along Guadalupe Avenue and Creek Dr would lose privacy and light, impacting existing solar panels on some resident's roofs. Traffic and parking along Creek Dr, Willow Glen Way and Almaden Rd would greatly increase. The proposal calls for 184 parking places for 96 units, or 1.91 cars per unit. This is inadequate. People who live in the apartments at Alamaden and Malone already park their cars on Creek Dr, sometimes leaving the car for a week or more because of insufficient parking at those complexes. I often see two cars pull up, one parks and then the driver gets in the other car for a lift back to the existing apartment complex along Almaden Rd. San Jose Department of Traffic and Parking does not have enough officers to police the situation. Additional noise from the pool area and common areas along the west of the project would greatly increase the ambient noise. Noise is amplfied along the creek corridor. The size of the project, a massive low slung box, would tower over the neighborhood. Dust and air pollution from construction of the development would affect the elderly at the senior housing directly north of the project.The elderly are defined as 'sensitive receptors' according to BAAQMD. I don't see the mitigation proposed as adequate. The project is along a riparian corridor and would affect wildlife habitat along the adjacent Guadalupe River. In conclusion, the Planning Commission should not vote to re‐zone this parcel, and the development should not go forward. Sincerely, April Funcke 1975 Creek DR SierraClubLomaPrietaChapter
Celebrating80yearsofprotectingtheplanet
3921EastBayshoreRoad,Suite204,PaloAlto,CA94303
[email protected] ｜ TEL‐(650)390‐8411｜ FAX‐(650)390‐8497
MitigatedNegativeDeclaration,1821AlmadenRoadResidentialProject
PlannedDevelopmentRezoningApplicationFileNumberPDC13‐034
SierraClubLomaPrietaChapterComments
March9,2015
OverallInitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(IS/MND)Comments
1. Duetothelocationofthisprojectalongasensitiveripariancorridortheprojectshouldbeinthe
lowerrangeofthegeneralplandensityallowedforthisdesignation. Itismoreappropriatefora
projectinthislocationtobeabout45DU/AC,stillanincreaseindensityforthisneighborhood.
2. Protectthecreek. Removethepathfromtheripariansetback. Accesstothecorridorwouldcreate
impactsonwildlifeandwaterqualitythathavenotbeendiscussedoranalyzedintheIS/MND.
3. Theremustbegreatercertaintyaboutthe100’ripariansetback. TheISshouldincludeato‐scale
diagramshowingtopofbackandsetbackthatallowstheriparianimpacttobeanalyzedand
commentedon. Withoutthisinformationisnotpossibleforstakeholderstoanalyzeimpactsorthe
necessityforadditionalmitigation. Itisnotsufficienttosay“itappearsthatthenearestpointofthe
projectsiteis100feetfromthetopofbank.”
4. Theparkingprovidedforthisprojectismorethansufficient. Todis‐incentivizesingleoccupant
autousage,carparkingshouldbedecreasedtoaccommodateadditionalbicycleparkingand
residentsshouldbeprovidedwithtransitpasses.
ProjectDescription
5. Gradingandexcavationisalargepartoftheimpactofthisprojectandmustbedescribedinmore
detail. Mitigationalsoneedstobedescribedinmoredetailincludingapreliminarydiscussionof
SiteManagementPlan(pg.81)andmitigationmeasuresthatwillberequired. Preliminary
grading/excavationplansshouldbeincludedintheIS/MNDtoallowanalysisofimpacts,including
anyinformationaboutanticipateddewatering.
6. Likewisepreliminaryerosioncontrolplans,preandpost‐construction,shouldbeincludedtoallow
thepublictounderstandthechangingrunoffpatternsandvolumesandassessproposedmitigation.
7.
PleasealsoincludealanduseoverviewwithinformationsuchasFloodZone,FloorAreaRatio
(FAR)calculations,etc.ItisnotclearthatFARmeetsrequirements.
8. AdiscussionofthepotentialramificationsoftheFloodZoneD,undeterminedbutpossibleflood
hazard,isalsoneededtounderstandfloodrisks.
Page 1 of 2
BiologicalResourcesAnalysisandMitigation
9. ThelightandnoiseandtrashimpactsofthisprojectontheGuadalupeRiverriparianhabitathave
notbeensufficientlydiscussed,analyzed,ormitigated. Anyincreaseinhumanactivityand
associatednoiseandlightandglarecanimpactwildlife. Theincreaseinlightandnoisewillhavea
significantimpactonbiologicalresourcesandthereforetheMNDmustanalyzeandmitigatethese
andotherrelevantimpactsofhumanpresencethatareknowntoimpactwildlife. SeerecentNew
YorkTimearticle,“LeavingOnlyFootsteps?ThinkAgain”byChristopherSolomon,February15,
2015http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/leaving‐only‐footsteps‐think‐
again.html?_r=3).
10. Inadditiontodecreasingthesizeoftheproject,strongermitigationfortheseimpactsisneeded. At
minimum,thefencealongtheripariansetbacklineshouldbereplacedwithasolidsoundwallto
reducenoise,trashandlightandglarefromencroachingonthewildlifehabitat.
11. Inaddition,theimpactofapathandaccesstotheripariancorridorisnotdiscussedintheMND.
Thepathandallaccesstotheripariancorridorshouldberestrictedtomitigateforotherincreased
impactsonbiologicalresources.
12. Theintroductionofamassivestructureadjacenttotheripariancorridorislikelytoresultin
increasedbirdcollisionsanddeathsduetotheproject. Bird‐friendlydesignguidelinesshouldbe
requiredtomitigateforthisimpact.
13. SpecificspeciesofinteresttobeanalyzedincludeSteelhead,WesternPondTurtle,andRed‐Legged
Frog.
HydrologyandWaterQualityAnalysisandMitigation
14. Incidentaltrashandillegaldumpinghavehugeimpactsonthewaterqualityintheriverand
consequentlyintheBay. Thepotentialforadditiontrashduetotheincreaseinpeopleinthe
vicinityshouldbeanalyzedandmitigated.
15. Tomitigateforthisadditionaltrash,requireasolidfenceorwallalongtheripariansetbacklineto
preventtrashfromblowingintothecreek.
16. Thepathandallaccesstotheripariancorridorshouldberestrictedtomitigateforincreased
impactsonwaterquality.
17. Includeconditionforuseofrecycledwaterfordustcontrol
LandUseAnalysis
18. Thereclearlyotheropportunitiesforagglomerationofpropertiestopursuesimilarprojectsalong
thecreekinthisareaofSanJose. Thisshouldbeanalyzed.Thisprojectwillsetaprecedentfor
creek‐adjacentdevelopmentthatwillnotbeeasytoreverse.Duetotheimpactsofmediumtohigh‐
densityresidentialdevelopment,webelievelowtomedium‐densityisneededalongriparian
corridors,especiallynaturalripariancorridors. Thelightandnoiseimpactofthisprojectwillbe
detrimentaltowildlifeandtheriparianhabitat,andthelikelihoodthatthisdevelopmentpattern
wouldbereplicatedcoulddestroythesubstantialhabitatvalueprovidedinthisun‐channeled
portionoftheriver.
19. Thedensityofthisprojectmustbedecreasedtoprojecttheripariancorridor.
Page 2 of 2
' 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 951 18-3614
I
(408) 265-2600
File:
I
www.volleywoter.org
Sana ClaraValley
Waler Distric(J
32545
Guadalupe River
March 9, 2015
Ms. Whitney Berry
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject:
Mitigated Negative Declaration - 1821 Almaden Road Residence Project - City
File PDC13-034
Dear Ms. Berry:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) - 1821 Almaden Road Residence Project - City File PDC13-034.
The District has been working with the applicant and City on this project since 2013. The
project as described in the MND is substantially the same as the last version of the project plans
reviewed by the District in March 2014 with the inclusion of some of the comments we provided
in March 2014 regarding incorporation of the riparian setback area as an amenity to the project
as instead of a walled off area as previously proposed. Though the applicant has incorporated
most of the comments provided to date we have some specific comments regarding the MND.
1. The MND references the riparian corridor setback area interms of square footage
instead of distance measured from the riparian corridor to the development. The
inclusion of the square footage is informative; however, it doesn't aid in understanding
how the project conforms with the Riparian Corridor Policy, as the policy calls for a
setback distance, not area.
2. The MND notes that a portion of the riparian corridor setback area is to be dedicated to
the District; however, there is no information provided regarding why the dedication is
proposed. As has been discussed previously with the applicant and City a portion of the
proposed development, APN: 455-21-055, is located within Reach 9 of the District's
Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project, which will improve the Guadalupe
River from Highway 280 to Blossom Hill Road. The flood project includes widening the
east side of the river to increase capacity and require acquisition of approximately 0.008
acres of the south westerly corner of the APN: 455-21-055 as shown on the site plans
included in the MND. For clarity the MNq should expl in tre nee for the sal! poion
of land within the riparian corridor setback area.
3. The discussion of the riparian setback area on page 12 notes that the area would
include native plantings; however, in the Biological Resources section on page 43 of the
MND only states that non-invasive species would be planted. The discussion in the
Our mission is lo provide Silicon Volley safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment, and economy.
Ms. Whitney Berry
Page 2
March 9, 2015
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
MND regarding how the riparian setback area will be developed needs to be consistent
as planting with natives and avoiding invasive species are not the same thing. As
stated in previous correspondence we highly recommend this area be restored with
native plantings in accordance with Design Guides 2, 3 and 9 of the Guidelines and
Standard for Land Use Near Streams. In particular, to protect the genetic integrity of the
native riparian plants found in the Guadalupe River watershed, locally native plants used
at the site need to be grown from Guadalupe River watershed stock. Plants that have
the potential to hybridize with the local natives should not be used at the site. District
staff is available to assist the applicant with developing an appropriate plant palette for
this area.
Page 12 of the MND notes decorative fountains are proposed in the common open
spaces areas. The MND should discuss how the inclusion of fountains conforms to
existing drought restrictions on water use.
Page 43 of the Biological Resources sections notes the top of bank of the Guadalupe
River, defined as the edge of the riparian corridor by HT Harvey & Associates, was not
surveyed and shown on the plans. Therefore, the APN map was used to determine that
the project property is more than 100 feet from the top of bank/riparian corridor. The
APN map shows the river and has a note for the top of bank (which is closer than 100
feet to the site); however, there are no criteria for plotting the creek or top of bank on the
APN maps to ensure accuracy. These maps are for property assessment purposes and
information other than property lines should not be used without additional information to
substantiate accuracy.
The MND states on page 43 as a condition of approval that the project will conform to
the Riparian Corridor Policy. The MND should more specifically state how the project
will conform as the Riparian Corridor Policy is a set of guidelines with various
exemptions that can be broadly interpreted.
District information indicates that in the easterly portions of the site depth to first
groundwater may be more shallow (10-20 feet) than the 20 feet noted on page 88.
Page 120 notes that potentially a future connection to the trail from the riparian setback
area may be possible. Please note such a connection will need to be evaluated by the
District and City at such time that the trail is designed and such access points need to be
open to the general public.
Please provide additional information on this project as it becomes available for District review;
notification of the MND availability was provided to us via a resident the day before the close of
public comment not by the City. Reference District File No. 32545 on further correspondence
regarding this project. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me
at (408) 630-2322.
Sincerely,
Colleen Haggerty, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc:
S. Tippets, C. Haggerty, C. Elias, L. Nishijima, N. Nguyen, L. Spahr, File
32545_57497ch03-09
Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society
March 9, 2015
Whitney Berry
San Jose Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Via email to: [email protected]
Re:
1821 Almaden Road Residential Project—File No. PDC13-034
Dear Ms. Berry,
The following are comments on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS)
regarding the proposed residential project at 1821 Almaden Road (Project) as well as the Initial
Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and accompanying documents that
comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the Project. The
mission of SCVAS is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public awareness of native
birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. SCVAS has been an advocate for
protection of San Jose’s creeks from harmful development for more than two decades, and we
continue to maintain a strong position in favor of rigorous implementation of the San Jose
Riparian Corridor Policy, which the Project appears to violate.
SCVAS recommends that this project be denied until clarifications are made regarding the
relationship of the Project to the Guadalupe River and until greater setbacks and protections for
the river are included as part of the Project plans.
Unclear and inaccurate information makes it impossible for the public or decision makers
to judge the impacts of the Project on the Guadalupe River
SCVAS accepts the determination by H.T.Harvey and Associates that any setback on this
property be measured from the top of bank of the Guadalupe River, given that the vegetation
along the frontage of this parcel is comprised almost exclusively of nonnative plants. That said,
the Initial Study and MND are unclear in some aspects of the relationship of the Project to the
River, and in at least one place the CEQA documentation has provided false information to the
public and the decision makers in this project proposal. Until these issues are clarified and/or
corrected, the Project should be deemed in noncompliance with CEQA and rejected.
The Initial Study, at page 7, states the basic relationship of the Project to the Guadalupe River:
p. 1 of 3
22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850
email: [email protected] * www.scvas.org
“The project would provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback along the southern boundary of the site.
Approximately 560 sf of the riparian setback would be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD). The remaining 6,055 sf would be maintained by the homeowners
association. The building would be set back a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback
area.”
The Initial Study does not state what the setback is from the proposed development to the top of
bank of the Guadalupe River, and thus the public cannot accurately determine compliance or
noncompliance with the basic standard of a 100-foot setback for developments of this type. In
fact, the Initial Study acknowledges that the Project proponents have provided no map depicting
the top of bank, “The visual survey of the Guadalupe River did not formally determine the
distance between the property line and the top of bank, which is the boundary of the riparian
corridor.” (Initial Study, page 43)
In addition, if Figure 3.1-2 is accurate, then it becomes clear that the statement that the building
would be set back “a minimum of 26.5 feet from the riparian setback area” is false. Figure 3.1-2
shows a distance of 43’ 5” from the land to be deeded to the Santa Clara Valley Water District to
the edge of the riparian set back. (Initial Study, page 9) On that same scale, Unit B5 appears to
be less than 10 feet from the riparian set back. The impervious surfaces of the Project extend
fully to the edge of the proposed riparian setback.
As a result of these unclear and inaccurate measurements, the public has no ability to determine
compliance with the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy, and thus little ability to determine whether
significant impacts remain regarding the Guadalupe River and associated riparian environment.
The Initial Study and proposed MND do not adequately discuss compliance with the City’s
Riparian Corridor Policy, as incorporated into the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.
(Policies ER-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3—Initial Study, page 41) Thus, it becomes impossible to determine
whether the Project as proposed would “Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan….” (Initial Study Land Use checklist, page 95) Compliance with CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G is thus in question and until this issue is resolved approval of the Project
is unlawful. (See Title 14, Article 5 of the CEQA Guidelines, Preliminary Review of Projects
and Conduct of Initial Study)
The riparian setback area will bring human activity within a few feet of the river,
potentially leading to significant, unavoidable impacts to wildlife and to water quality
Further, Figure 3.1-1 shows that the “riparian setback” would in fact be landscaped with what
appears to be a walkway and gathering area, encroaching to within approximately 10 feet of the
proposed Water District land dedication. Given that there are no requirements in the Project
documentation that the riparian setback area be landscaped with native, riparian associated
species, one can assume that this area will essentially become a pocket park-like amenity for the
Project’s tenants and their pets. As a result, trash and contamination from human and pet activity
could easily enter the area of the Guadalupe River, leading to water quality and bank stability
p. 2 of 3
degradation. This area may also become an attraction to the homeless, who are often associated
with intrusion on riparian areas in San Jose and potentially bring a host of problems.
SCVAS recommends that the Project fully comply with the 100-foot setback contained in the
City’s Riparian Corridor Policy. This would allow for a larger riparian setback area, from which
the public and pets should be excluded. Ideally, this area would be landscaped with native
riparian vegetation, compensating to some extent for the significant increase in population the
Project proposes to place adjacent to the river.
CONCLUSION
SCVAS understands that full compliance with the Riparian Corridor Policy on this site would
require a redesign of the Project, leading to the loss of some residential units. However, the
General Plan designation for the site allows for a range of density from 30 to 95 units per acre.
(Initial Study, page 94) Given that the Project as proposed would contain 54 units per acre
(Initial Study, page 7), a small reduction in the number of units would still allow the Project to
build within General Plan parameters.
In order to comply with CEQA, the Project documentation must be revised to address the
concerns related above. In order to protect the environmental values of the Guadalupe River and
the integrity of San Jose planning, the Project should be revised to fully comply with the San
Jose Riparian Corridor Policy.
If you have any questions, please contact SCVAS Environmental Advocate Shani Kleinhaus at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Craig K. Breon, Esq.
p. 3 of 3
March 9, 2015
Whitney Berry
San Jose Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Re:
File No. PDC13-034, 1821 Almaden Road Residential Project
Dear Ms. Berry,
This constitutes the comments of the Committee for Green Foothills on the above-referenced project.
Committee for Green Foothills is a nonprofit organization working to protect open space and natural resources in
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have been advocating with the City of San Jose for years concerning the
need for a riparian corridor setback ordinance that would codify the existing Riparian Corridor Policy. We have a
strong interest in protecting the creeks and rivers of Santa Clara County, including the Guadalupe River.
As you know, San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy requires a 100-foot setback from top of bank or outside
edge of riparian vegetation. The Initial Study for this project states that the project will “provide a 6,615 sf riparian
setback along the southern boundary of the site” and that the building will be set back “a minimum of
26.5 feet from the riparian setback area.” Initial Study, p. 7. The site plans included in the Initial Study (Figures
3.1-1 and 3.1-2) indicate an area labeled “riparian setback” but do not indicate where the actual top of bank is
located. Without this information, it cannot be stated that the project site does not encroach on the riparian buffer
zone.
The Riparian Corridor Policy has been incorporated into the Envision 2040 General Plan (Policy ER-2.1:
“Ensure that new public and private development adjacent to riparian corridors in San José are consistent with the
provisions of the City’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study . . .” and Policy ER-2.2: “Ensure that a 100-foot setback
from riparian habitat is the standard to be achieved in all but a limited number of instances, only where no
significant environmental impacts would occur.”). Without a determination that the project is not in conflict with
these policies of the General Plan, the Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot find that there are no significant
land use impacts from the project.
These issues must be resolved, and if necessary the project must be redesigned to eliminate any
encroachment into the 100-foot riparian buffer zone, in accordance with the General Plan.
Thank you for your attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
Alice Kaufman
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills
3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968.7243
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.968.8431
PHONE
FAX
[email protected]
www.GreenFoothills.org
March9,2015
WhitneyBerry
SanJosePlanningDepartment
CityofSanJose
RE: 1821AlmadenRoad,PDC13‐034
DearMs.Berry:
ThisIS/MNDisincompleteandappearstobeinconflictwithvariouslanduse
policies. Anegativedeclarationfindingisinappropriatewithoutfurther
information.
Specifically, withregardtoriparian—
Thesitemapdoesn’tshowthetopofbank,theconsultant’sriparianboundary.Nor
doesitshowthe100ft.setbackline.Further,thedocumentreferencestwodifferent
numbersforsetback.Thelanguageisunclear.
Forexample:
Onpage7:
“Thebuildingwouldbesetbackaminimumof26.5feetfromtheripariansetback
area.”
Thislanguagedoesnottellmehowfarthebuildingwillbefromthetopofbank.
Istheripariansetback100feetandtheadditionalsetback26.5ft? Oris26.5ft.
proposedforthesetbackfromthetopofbank?Ordoesthe“ripariansetbackarea”
refertothe560sqftthatisgoingtotheSCVWD? Nordoesthislanguagetellme
wherehardscapebeginscomparedtothetopofbank. Isthisthe26.5ftof
hardscapedrivewaynexttothebuilding?
Thereportstatesthat“The project would provide a 6,615 sf riparian setback along the
southern boundary of the site.” No further summary information is provided about the depth
of the setback. From this thin description, it could be ten feet from the top of bank and 600 ft
long. More specificity is needed in the narrative.
On page 13, the plans show a dimension of 43 ft 5 inches from the “dedication”. Is the
“dedication” the “top of bank”? Is the 43 ft 5 inches the “riparian setback”? And is the 26 ft
really just the driveway—that is, hardscape?
On page 13, the plans show a “riparian setback” that is shaded. Within the setback are trails
and a circular structure. Is the circular structure a gazebo or similar? Structures other than
trails are considered incompatible with riparian setbacks.
On page 13, the top of bank for the environs is not labeled, nor does the consultant’s report
nor the initial study indicate the location. For all we can tell from this report, the top of bank
might be very close, but not on this property line. Maybe it is here at the asterik in the
drawing below:
Inreadingthebiologist’sreport,it’sprettyclearthathehadto“eyeball”the
environmentwherethereweredifferentpropertyowners.(Hedescribedlooking
fromtheroad.) However,themapshouldusetheverybestestimateoftopofbank
byusingaerialphotos,eyeballing,andtriangulationstrategies. Anestimatebeats
theheckoutofnoinformation. Theabsenceofinformationabouttheriparian
boundarylinemakesitimpossibletomakeadecisionaboutthesignificanceof
environmentalimpacts.
WhenIreadthisdocument,Iamwonderingwhethertheapplicantwouldlikean
exceptiontotheGeneralPlanlandusepolicyof100ftsetbackfromtheriparian
boundary? Whyisn’tthisexplicitlydiscussedintheIS/MND?
Yet,whenIlookatthephotoonpage44,itlookslikethesituationismuchmore
confused. Whereisthetopofbank??? Whyisthereaproposedlanddedicationto
SCVWD?
Onpage43,theapplicantusesatopofbankanalysisbasedonanAssessor’sParcel
mapthathasaverysmalllinefortopofbank. Seebelow.
ConsidertheSantaClaraValleyWaterDistricteitherownsorhaseasementson
properties#57and#68and#17,itseemsthatareallygoodestimateofthetopof
bankcouldbemade.
Applicantwrites“TheGeneralPlanFEIRconcludedthatimpactstoriparianhabitats
resultingfromproposeddevelopmentundertheGeneralPlanwillbelessthan
significantwithadherencetoadoptedplansandpoliciesandexistingregulations.
(LessthanSignificantImpact). Buthowcananyonetellifnooneknowswherethe
topofbankislocated?????
LandUse/Riparian/GuadalupeRiver
TheWaterdistricthasalongtermplanforfloodcontrol. Therearepublishedmaps.
Whiletheprojectisnotfunded,itisplanned. Justasthecityprevented
developmentwithintheROWforHighways85and87whentheywerenotfunded,I
amwonderingwhythisprojectisnotbeinganalyzedwithrespecttothewater
district’splans. Shouldn’ttherebeadiscussionwiththeplansdetailslinkedtothe
projectsdetails?
Soil
Theconsultants’reportdescribedtwolayersthatweresubjecttoliquifaction,but
overallconcludedthingswouldbefinewithcarefulbuildling. Thoughthereisa
tendencyformodernconsultantstousetheirmathematicalmodelstopredict
things,therearelimitstothepredictionsbecausesoilsareinfinitelyvariable.
FromlocalhistoryInotethattherehavebeenseveresoilimpactsinthis
neighborhood.ThisiswheretheHwy87freewaysufferedfromseverecompaction.
Thesoilcouldn’thandletheweightofthefreeway. Theneighborhood—Guadalupe
RoadbehindtheprojectandNorthernRoadnorthoftheproject—sufferedmore
soil,houseandfoundationcrackingduringthedecadesthanotherareasofWillow
Glen.Firstmentionoftheproblemappearsinnewspapersshortlyafter
construction.Theroadsarearollercoaster. TheGeologistdoesn’tnotethatthe
currentalignmentoftheriveristheLewisCanalandnottheoriginalriver
alignment. TheareawasoncecalledSycamoreGroveforalltheSycamoressipping
wateronthesideofthelargeswampymarshyareathatwasthesinkoftheUpper
GuadalupeRiver. Thelocationhasahighprobabilityofsoilcompactionfromthe
weightofthebuilding. Willpilingsbedriventosupportthestructure? Orwillitbe
designedinsegmentstofloatseparatelyandminimizedamagetothewholeasone
partsettlesandanotherpartsitsontopofalesscompressiblelocation?
BirdSafeDesign
GiventheproximitytotheGuadalupeRiver/LewisCreek,andthewestfacing,bird
safedesignisacriticalelement. Inordertoprotectbirdspecies,itshouldbe
includedasoneofthemitigations.
Sincerely,
JeanDresden

The 1821 Almaden Road Residential Project Initial Study was

Transcription

Similar documents

Colleen Farrow - All Occasions Management

Aschbacher-Hecher-Development plan

Mickey Mouse Bush / Ochna Ochna serrulata

Using hydroscapes to maximize the benefits of

Streams in the Desert - Archaeology Southwest

Templin Beach Park

Tunica RiverPark

SJECCD District Headquarters