County of. Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Planning Office

County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose. California 951 l 0-1 705

. (408) 299-5770 FAX (408) 288-9198 www.sccplanning.org

MEMORANDUM

To: County of Santa Clara,_ Planning Commission

From: Department of Planning and Development, Marina Rush, Planner III

Date: April 22, 2014

Re: Young Ranch Preliminary Development Plan - Revised Phase 1 Proposal

File #10256-12CSP

The applicant, YCS~ submitted documentation proposing revisions to the proposed Phase 1 Preliminary Development Plan to reduce the overall development area and the number of lots from 3 8 to 30 (Attachment A). The documentation includes the cun-ent cluster plan-proposal, comparison between the current and prior proposals, and mapped resources. Staff has revised the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table to address the revisions (Attachment B).

The project revisions are summarized as follows:

Density bonus

The project proposal removes the density bonus component. The County required slope­density calculation for the property allows for a maximum of 3 0 units based on a gross area of 906.37 acres with an average slope of 25.3%. Based on the slope density calculation, the allowable density is one dwelling unit per 30.2 acres, which equates to 30 units.

Open space and clustering

The open space area increased from 818 acres to 830 acres, or 92% of the project site. The lots are more clustered to the north, but remain within the footprint of the prior proposal. In addition, a proposed road segment was deleted between lots AS and B 1.

Sensitive habitat

The revised project increases the buffer distance between lot lines and Bay Checkerspot Butterfly habitat to one hundred feet and between lot lines and serpentine grassland to

I

Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman. Cindy Chavez. Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager. s. Joseph Simitian . County Executive : Jeffrey v. Smith · 1

Im 8· 008

fifty feet, based on the analysis completed by applicant's biologists at WRA Environmental Consultants (Attachment A). The applicant states in its documentation that Phase 2, when proposed, will also include these increased buffers.

County Septic/Leachfield Requirements

The revised project increased setbacks from site features, such as steep slopes, to comply with County's recently adopted Ordinance NS-517.85.

Correspondence

The County has received new correspondence regarding the project, and is attached to this memo (Attachment C).

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

A. Consistency Determination Regarding the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

Find the proposed 30 lot subdivision inconsistent/consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance .

. Attachments:

A. March 28, 2014, YCS correspondence regarding project revisions.

B. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (revised)

C. Correspondence

a. Gary Strohbehn, email dated February 27, 2014.

b. YCS Investments, letters to Greenbelt Alliance and Committee for Greenfoothills, dated March 24, 2014.

c. YCS Investments, letter to Planning Commission Chair, dated March 26, 2014.

2

ATTACHMENT A

3

. · . -

. YCS Investments

March 28, 2Q 14

Marilla Rush Planner ill . 70 West !Ieq~ing Street San Jose, CA.95110. -

Property Dev~lop:inent & M_anagem~nt

Re: General.P·I~ and Zoning Cons~steucy .Detennmation for Y ~~g RanC'.h Revised Phase 1. Cluster Subdivision (29 Residential L6ts, 1 Coinlrlunity Center Lot and 1 Open Space· .. Parc~n;·File·# l025.6-12CSP - . --

·· .. De.a!Madn~ .... · ., ' I

Ip. r~spqtise· to th~ f~edback YCS 'Invesl~~nts has· rec~iveq :fi:01p· the County Plamiliig -:· · · · · · Co~ssioners at receJ!t worksbpps, hearings and.a site yisi~, YCS has revised ifs Pha~~ 1 . ·.P~~elirri~n~Y:Developrn,el1:t:flan:. We,hav:e· Hsten~d carefully :to Commi.ssione~s' concerns ~qout. c~u:st~rirtg am;l environmental.sensitivity· and b~lieve t4e ~·evis.ed.Phase l Plan,-which has few~r -

-.units and ~s ~ore comp~ct, _responds. tO those conc~ms;: .· . .- . . . . . . . . : ' ~ . .. ' .

· • Thdot~ number ~f ~t:sidentiaj lo~ ~ Ph~e U~a~ ~~eh, redliced ~om }7 tb 29. . . . .... · ..

• Specifi<;al~y, 21.<?ts (Bl3 '-aQ.dB14) h!lve·b~en removed~ and 6 lqts (B .9-·lO and ~19::-2+) · ... · have been·rdocated icd:>hase·2. · _ . · . .. · -· · .. :

• J r: .. . • . I I •

•·- . The ~~ber ofr~sideJJ.tial.~ots ~ the·~~vis.~d Ph~~e·r P-~~'is ~~sed,sole.l:ton.~he.~~~ ;· . -pe.rmitted _py -µi~ ~aunty·, s _slcipe-d~~~ity caleuiatlon; ·p.o -de~~ity b6nus l9ts :a~~, propos·e<l. · · . · .·

. . .· . ' ~. The revi~~iPiiasd ~Plan c~~tin~e~ to 6o~ply ~h tile ·c~nnfy.;·s 9.0% oP.en s;ace:t~ f0% ·.•. . . . . ' dev~loped-~r~~·reqii~emeµt~iUn.d0r_'General·Plan Polfoy-R-LU:20 .. 8?0 acies-or ?2%__,_ of: · •

. . . t;b.e sit~ is· s~t,asi~e as COJ.?-tigjlmis.opeti spa~·e,. w~tp.'th~_vast µJ.ajo:dtr- ~u~table for the. I. • •• ~· . ·. · . · .. .- 'propqsed regio:p.~l hab~tat:Reserve ofthe 'Santa Clata.Valley Habitat Plan:. · ·.. · - . . . · ,.-

• • " •' " • ' l I , o,. I' • 1

' ..... ·: .. '' • ,. I t ,., '

•' • ., ' : ' ' r " .. - ' • ' •· • ) • ,. r • • : : : ..,. I • •

. • The revised pl.an givei? ac;Iditiorial sp.~6ial co~sider~tionth_prest:rv~tion of sensitive · . ,· .. · - ]tabitat;as req1:1ii~;d·by Geli.eral.Pl~n Po1icy R-RC 24: It retains prior1mffers aroundrnre

·. ·. - ·" plants, wetlands .and channels .. Each 16t aiso preserves a ''P,Jatural Ar~a~' buffer, equal to a · _ ·roughly 80) or,de.eper rea~ yard)etback. The plan now":further protects BCB habitat with

:·a new 100' hi_iffer .. .l3iologi~ts at WRA recoip°mend~d 100·: based o;p. oth~r buffers ·and · • • .. ,l •

I I •

i70 M.a~den.Lane,.Suit~ 800, San Francis~o, California 94108 9 (415J 7?1.-12ll ° Fax. (415} 781~1220

Table 1. Summary of Plan Layout Changes

AREA A • Adjusted lots to meet new leach field requirements

• Deleted road

AREAB • Removed lots B13 and B14, which were the closest to unoccupied BCB habitat and rare plants as reviewed on the January 29th site field trip. The new 100' buffer to BCB habitat and to rare plants is entirely outside of the private lot lines. The pre-existing Natural Area buffer within the lots is still in place.

• To create the 5 0' buffer from serpentine grassland, Lots B 11 and B 12 were adjusted.

• Several lots moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (B9-10; B19-22) .

• B 17 was adjusted for leach field considerations .

AREAC • Moved homesites C-1 and C-2 northeast to allow for leach field location on C-3 . This creates. a new open space between lots C2 and C3.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

Memorandum To: Marina Rush, Planner, Santa Clara County From: Geoff Smick

smick@wra-ca.com Cc: Ext. 150

Subject: Young Ranch Development - Habitat Buffers

Date: March 27, 2014

This memo addresses the biological basis for changes to the Young Ranch plan.

The Young Ranch plan originally proposed internal, 1-acre Natural Areas within the lots to buffer nearby sensitive habitats from potential disturbance. The Natural Areas that surround the internal development allow for only very limited uses, such as trails. Owners will be required to keep the Natural Areas free of noxious weeds for the benefit of sensitive species. Because of WRA's extensive knowledge of the key species to be preserved, the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, and its serpentine grassland habitat, WRA concluded that the Natural Areas provide an adequate buffer to these key site resources.

County Policy RC-24 requires that projects give "special consideration" to protecting sensitive site resources, and, in WRA's judgment, the prior plan did. In response to Planning Commissioner queries about whether the plan gives enough special consideration to BCB habitat and serpentine grasslands, WRA recommended adding a 100 foot buffer around BCB habitat (occupied and unoccupied) and a 50 foot buffer from non-BCB serpentine grassland. This is in addition to the buffer that the Natural Area provides for each lot and in addition to other buffers for rare plants and aquatic features.

WRA based the new buffer distances on similar buffers for other sensitive habitats, such as creeks and wetlands, partly due to its own experience with these habitats and partly due to the dearth of scientific literature regarding serpentine grassland buffers. 50- and 100-foot buffers for sensitive and regulated aquatic habitats are common throughout municipalities in California. Furthermore, these habitats are not only sensitive in the regulatory sense; they are also very delicate physically. In contrast, serpentine habitats are sensitive from a regulatory perspective but not extremely delicate physically. In fact, these habitats are relatively robust, because their unique chemical composition lacks essential nutrients needed for most plant to survive. This favors native plant assemblages which have evolved to cope with these limited resources. Similarly, these generally thin-soiled habitats prohibit the development of many deep-rooted exotic plants that may thrive in nearby non-native grasslands with deeper soils. Therefore, because the new plan buffers are based on more physically sensitive habitats, they provide an extra degree of protection when applied to serpentine related habitats.

The appropriateness of this buffer distance is also corroborated by WRA's 10 years of scientific monitoring of serpentine grassland and BCB habitat at The Ranch on Silver Creek, at the northern end of Coyote Ridge. Unlike Young Ranch, The Ranch on Silver Creek impacted many acres of

2169-G East Francisco Blvd,, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 fax ilifo@wrd-ca.com www.wra-co.com

suitable BCB habitat and high quality serpentine grassland. Despite nearby impacts, the preserved serpentine habitats just outside of the Ranch's development footprint retained their high quality native plant assemblages over the duration of the 10 year monitoring period.

In conclusion, the refined development plan incorporates additional buffers to ensure the sensitive serpentine communities at Young Ranch are preserved as high quality habitats. All other pre­existing buffers, such as those applied to creeks, wetlands and rare plants, still apply per Santa Clara County regulations.

2

ATTACHMENT B

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY TABLE (rev. 4-15-14)

Policy Number or

Zoning Ordinance

Section

R-LU20

R-LU21

Summary

The building envelopes for residences and development of other pennitted uses, such as accessory structures, shall be specified in the design and the combined area of which shall not exceed 10% of the gross acreage of the site:

a) if the property 1s under Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contract, the contract must be canceled or modified to exclude the portion of the site that is to be developed;

b) no individual parcel created for residential development shall be less than 2 acres in size;

c) and those portions of the land permanently preserved as open space shall be configured as large, contiguous and usable areas

Is the Proposed Preliminary Development Plan with the

General Plan Policy or Zoning Ordinance?

The development confo1ms to the clustering requirement of minimum lot size of 2 acres each, and will preserve 92% of the property m dedicated open space. The property is not in Williamson Act contract. The open space is m large contiguous and usable area.

The property has several known hazards and resources, which include mapped geologic faults, sensitive biological habitat including prime serpentine soil, rock outcropping, and plant areas, oak woodlands, onsite Silver Creek, mapped potential historic resources, areas of steep slopes, and lands of high visibility within the Santa Clara Valley viewshed.

Site layout shall demonstrate efficiency, shall be of adequate design, capacity, and construction to accommodate traffic associated with the development safely, location of roads, building sites, septic system leach fields, or other major features of development ·must be accurately identified on the proposed subdivision map, and avoid areas of natural hazards and natural and heritage resources, particularly regarding water quality,

The proposed development area primarily avoids these resource areas

Building sites and access roads should and would be located in areas with avoid significant hazards, such as slopes of less than 20%. However, a landslides, very steep slopes, fault portion of the access road from

1

traces, or floodways, are placed within Silver Creek Valley Road the portion of the site that is dedicated encroaches into a portion of the as permanent open space. mapped Landslide Hazard Zone. All

Roads, building sites, and other facilities shall not be allowed to create major, lasting visible scars on the landscape

Structures on or near ridgelines shall be located, constructed, and/ or landscaped so that they do not create a significant ·adverse visual impact as seen from the Valley floor.

Related Zoning Ordinances:

5.45.050(D)(5)

The open space incorporates those noteworthy and most valuable natural features of the land, is generally configured as a large contiguous area capable of serving the various purposes of open space, recreation, agriculture, viewshed protection, and habitat preservation, and has been configured · with appropriate consideration of access requirements, geologic hazards and other forms of development constraints which may be present.

5.45.050 (E)

Vehicular circulation shall conform with the County's applicable road development standards. In hillside areas with significant slopes, road and driveway locations and designs shall minimize the need for grading and earthwork to the maximum extent possible, in accordance with the provisions of the County Grading Ordinance (Division · CJ2-400). Adequate non-vehicular circulation, including trails, paths, sidewalks, and equestrian paths shall also be provided as appropriate to the

of these resources and mapped hazard areas are shown on the GIS The development area generally avoids the resource and hazard areas, which will be preserved within the dedicated open space areas.

The preliminary development plan shows that the road system will be private, and access will be obtained through a city maintained road, Silver Creek Valley Road. The individual lots would have driveways off internal private roads that primarily connect through the subdivision; only one is a cul-de-sac road and is less than 3 00 feet in length. An emergency vehicle access road would extend from Metcalf Road to the development area. And a utility road, for sole use of utility vehicles to service and maintain the water line and water tank, . would be developed from Tennant Avenue to the future tank site.

The property is located within the eastern foothills of Santa Clara County, just east of the Edenvale area of San Jose, and west of the Silver Creek development and Silver Creek Country Club. Based on initial GIS analysis, substantial portions of the development would be visible from Silver Creek, but the majority of the proposed lots do not appear to be in locations that are highly visible from the Santa Clara valley floor.

2

C-RC 1

R-RC 24

C-RC 33 and R-RC 51

R-RC 52

urban or rural setting, and in accordance with any adopted plans and design guidelines.

Natural and heritage resources shall be protected and conserved for their ecological, functional, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values

Areas of habitat richest in diversity, of particularly fragile ecological nature, or necessary for preserving threatened or endangered species should receive special consideration for preservation as open space and protection from development impacts. Examples include baylands and riparian areas identified by local legislative bodies.

Linkages and corridors between habitat areas should be provided to allow for migration and othe1wise compensate for the effects of habitat fragmentation.

For rural area development proposals subject to open space dedication requirements ~nd adjacent to other open space lands, the County shall

The development area generally avoids the natural and heritage resources, and 92% will be preserved in dedicated open space

The property contains very sensitive habitat of high ecological value, notably serpentine bunchgrass habitat that supports several endemic plant species and the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, a federally threatened species. The development area generally avoids these sensitive biological resources. The proposal, as revised April 2014, includes buffer area for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly habitat of one hundred feet and between the serpentine grasslm.~d and lot lines of fifty feet. 92 % will be preserved m dedicated open space.

The project is located within the Santa Clara· Valley Habitat Plan Area, and future processing of the proposal (as part of the tentative map submittal) would include evaluation of the project's consistency with the standards and requirements of the Habitat Plan.

The development area generally avoids the most sensitive biological areas on site; however the proposed project is located within a wildlife corridor that generally spans the ridgeline of the property, as mapped within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Any future processing of the proposal (as part of a tentative map submittal and CEQ A evaluation) will include evaluation of the project's interface with this mapped corridor.

The development area is generally clustered near the Silver Creek Valley Road, it generally avoids the resource and hazard areas, and 92%

3

R-LU24

R-RC9

R-LU 19

encourage project design which will be in dedicated open space of maximizes the contiguity of the prime resource areas. undeveloped, open space areas, reducing fragmentation of habitat.

New development, whether through subdivision or on existing, legal parcels ("single-site development") shall be discouraged on building sites in excess of 3 0% average slope

Development in rural unincorporated areas shall be required to demonstrate adequate quantity and quality of water supply prior to receiving development approval.

If development 1s proposed as a residential cluster, the allowable density shall be determined by the "20-160 acre variable slope-density formula."

Related Zoning Ordinance:

5.445.050 (A)

The proposed density of development (total number of dwelling units or lots) shall not exceed and may be reduced from the maximum density allowed under the applicable general plan land use designation and zoning district, unless the application includes additional dwelling units allowed in accordance with the density bonus regulations as provided in Section 4.20.030.

The development area is located on slopes less than 20% average.

The applicant submitted a will-serve letter with the current application indicating water service would be provided from Great Oaks Water Company.

The minimum lot size for Hillsides is between 20 and 160 acres and is based on the slope density formula, which considers the average slope of the land. The slope density formula prepared for the project sets forth for purposes of density a minimum lot size of 3 0 acres per dwelling unit or lot. This density allows for a total of 30 lots on the 906 acre project site.

The project density relies on the slope density calculations for the two unincorporated parcels allowing for 30 lots.

4

ATTACHMENT C

Napier, Michele

From: Sent: To: Subject:

gary strohbehn <garystrohbehn@comcast.net> Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:17 PM Commission, Planning Silver Creek Valley Road development

I am totally and absolutely opposed to the proposed housing development off of Silver Creek Valley Road in San Jose. There is no piece of land, no matter how much we citizens prize it as open space, that some developer will not try to plant houses on. Enough, already. Preserve these hillsides. Preserve this natural beauty. Preserve this place for deer and elk and other wild animals to roam.

We are not running out of flat land for development. But when the hills and mountains surrounding our communities are developed, those beautiful open spaces are gone forever. Gone for ourselves. Gone for our children. Gone for our grandchildren. Gone forever for everyone. I ask you; stop this.

We voters approved the idea of the San Jose green belt, and we want it preserved. Please, do not disappoint us on this.

Gary D. Strohbehn

5882 Gleneagles Circle San Jose, CA 95138 Home: 408 440-2855 Cell: 650 888-8119

\

1

YCS In;vestments

March 24, 2014

Michele. Beasley . Regional bfrector, South Bay ·Greenbelt Alli~n9e· .. 111 W. St. John Street! .Ste 420. S<:m Jose·, CA 951.13

Property D~ve.lopment &: Management

Re:··.' Young Ranch, A Conservati.on Gom~un,iti

Dear Michele:· " .

_ I thought I should respond to Greenbelt.Alliance1s. r.ecent cpmments to the: · County of Santa Clara Planning <:;omrriis~iort ·regarding the' Young Ran.ch develnpment · . plan. · · : .' , · · .. · ·" · · ·

,. ' • .. - • c

r µnde'rstand and re~pe~t Greenpelt Alliance's mission:to protect the regions ·ap_en ·spt?ces and reqo·gnize it mµst ti~ve been.difficult to oppose the Ypulig Ranch conservation communityr considering your vigorous support ofthe Santa Clara Valley·

· Habitat Plan. · · · · · · ·

. As you know, the ~ay Checkerspot butterfly (BCB) is the Habitat Plan's corner&tone specie.s (Habitat Plan, .. fi .. :14):. Young Ranch is one of only· a handful of a(eas of· car? B.CRhabltat in private ownership ·within the Habitat Pf.an1s plan area. Our. p·lan preserv~s Yoe.mg R,arych's BCS .ba.qi,tat and all of its.rare and' endangered pl~nts.' · Our conservation prdposaf i$ essenti~I tQ the H·abitat Plan'~ !?Uc'cess.l as Young Ranch alon~ rf?presents ~early· 25% ofthe:BCB habit~t required to b~.'prese;ffved. r;>n.Coyote· Ridge,, and .as. much as '70% of its rare and threaf~ned plants.' it iS· highly:, unlikely, if not h!lpossibl~, for the Habitat Pl<;in~s Conservation'Strate·gyto be succes:sful without.Young· Ranch ~e~ause of th~ rarity of such fQbust BCB habitat~, ·

YCS reco.gnizt?s the Habitat Plan's significant impli9ations for our· property .. over the. past sjx.yearsf we have worked to make the.Habit~t Pfan better and· more effic'ie.rit to implement, while demonstrating .a cornmitmenf tq its succ~ss., We ·were the onJy·priv~te stakeholder during this process ~hat m~de a significant inVestn.ient in char.acterizing :our p~operty's bioJogy. Vye hC\Ve looked hard at th~ ec~nomics of alter_tiative. uses and. have con9h.tded that i'ndE?finitely pres·erving. Young Ran.ch's habitat witt10ut any finanCial return .Js nQ.t ~l!sta!nable and economicaliy uhtealistlo. , ·

. Our plan will protect 1,950 acres of habitat, while at the· same· time cre:ating .economic value through an fnnovative co~servation community that will be the first of its ·kind in Santa Clar.a County. Greenbe·lt AHiance may disagree with whether our,

170 Maiden Lahe, :Suite 8001 San F~ancisco, California 94108 • (~15) 7.81-1211 •·fax: {415) 781-l220

Ur. to. M. Beasley March -24, 2014 Pag·e 12

community is rural enough, ·sensitive enough, or eveh appropriate,: Indeed, you may legitimately suggest another conservation pran. That is exactly the type of input ano analysis· that wm· come from the land .use planning and environmental review process

= th~t w~ invit$. However, your current opp.osition at what.is a very preliminary·stage at the Goµrity Plahning Commissibff suggests that you do·not believe thatthe process should run, itS course. That i~ disappoin.tihg and .inconsistent with your normal advocacy

. for a full ~nd .complete environmental review.. . .

When I rn~ched ou·t to Greenbelt Alliance last year~ I did not expect ah _ endorsement or your support for our proposal l do believe, howev~rJha~· Gre~nb~lt All.iance~ as wel! .as others that oppose the project]' has a responsibility to propose sorutions anq arternatives fo achieve the regional planning goals that you have wo~~ed to put:i,n place. VVe ar~ pn?pared to consi<;fer· alternatives that achreve an equitabl~ bala'nce. Simply saying "no11

, or erroneously assuming that conservation will be · achieved. by' -stopping this project,. risks jeopardizing the Habitat Plan. Instead ofhalting progress·1 we. welcome a practic9I discussion of economically viable alternatives 'that balance appropriate developmf1nt alitj specie~ and open sp~c~ protection.

YGS wm return to the Planning Com.mission i'n April with a reviSed preliminary development plai:-i· fqr our conservation community at Young Ranqh~ )"he Planning Com.misslon's i'np.ut has enpouraged us to, take a Qfos.~r took at our prel.iminary developmenf plan. I absolutely .agree with Staff1s. conclusion and. recommendation· that' our application is .. alr~ady consistent with the Countis General Pl.an. We -are revising our plan to continue our positive and proactive approach toward conservation and commqn.ity building. The revised plan that. we wm pring to the· PJa~nryirig. Comfnission, informeq 1.~rgely by their f~edback* will only strengthen .our commitment to protection 'of the Bay Cheqkerspot butterfly,. rare plants and serpentine habitat at Young Ranch. .

. -On the .assumption that the Plaqning .Gommi'ssion agrees. that our revised p·taff is

substantial.ly' fry conformance with the County's Ge~e.ral Plan,, YCS' will immediate I~/ proceed with lh.e· CEQA process. We wHi. a.lso conduct a series of workshops and dlscusskms to engage the environnierital advocacy cornmu.nity on how Young Ranch

·could bec'ome a n:iodel for thoughtful pfanning rn sensiti.v~ landscap·es. I invite you to jo~n us· as we continue:fo wqrk vvith our rieighbors and conservation partners to realize ·our shared visfon for the region. , ·

Sincerely.

~cc.~ Wayne· Costa · · · -Vice President

cc~. County of Santa Clara Pl·annJng Commission County of Santa Cl~ra Departm~nt_ of Planning & D~velopment ·

170 Maiden Lane1 Suite. 800, San Frandsco, California. 94108 • (415) 781-1211 ° Fax (415) 781~1220

Y CS !~vestments

March ·17. 2014

Hon. David Cottese County of Santa Clara Board of-Supervisors 7n West.Hedding Street1· 1.oth Ffoor . ·

.· San Jose.l CA ·~.5.110

~e: Young Ranch, A GohservatiOn Commu~i.ty

Dear Supervisor G~rtese:

Property peve~qpme11t & Management

We nave,recehred C:t copy·o.f q. communica~ion s:eni t~· you on FebrUcffY 24, .. 2014 by Mr .. Jo~n-Leggior a r~sident of s·nver·Creek,. referring to a petition opposing Young Ranch'~r proposed conservation community.

.,

Mr. Leggio and n:iany of his nefghbors have attended briefings on our project toured ·our property1 anq engaged with me directly to discuss our proposal. WhiJe Mr .. ~eggio and his. neighbors have every right to oppose ourprojecl1 YCS must respqno · When their statement~ are inaCCLJfate~ . .

Mr. Leggio focused on a two-year· old letter froni th~ City of $an Josf:? Planning Departmen.t d~ted February 14, 2012-1 that he· says. raises i'significant concerns" about our Young! R:anch proposal.. This City Planning Department letter) however,, is not : .

. . ·referring to the .. p.lai1 that f:S currently before'. the-County Planning Qommi$s_i6n. As you know, p-ortions of Young R~nch fall withio uniticorporated Santa: Clara Coun~y_and .-also within the City· of Sar:i Jos.e. The City letter is. responding to ·a ·very ·e:~:trly vers~on of our prop.osal that i11cluded rural homesites. on the C)ty portion of the.· prop~rty. Hmyever, as a direct r~sult ofour 2012 City and County pre-applica~fon discussion$~ YGS made 1 •

sig·nificant chang·es to f.hat. early draft plan. Mo.st impo.rtantly.~ we eliminated all of the proposed hom·esites _on the City portion of the pn;1perty .. Instead, Young Ranch's City lands are designated entirely as a Preserve for .the Bay CheckeFsp:ot. butterfly (BCB). Our pl~n co1,1tim)es to include limited and se11sitb1.e hqmesite develop:ment on 'the . northern portion of the .~ite 1 elitfrely,withih th~ County; guarantees perpetua·I .­preservption of Yowng Ranch BCE habitat; and prbvides an essentiE\l shofln tf)e arm to. the Santa Clara V~Bey· Habitat Plan,. at zero cost to taxpayers.

Mr. Leggro also alleges that the CiW ·of San Jose's "s.igni.Ti.cant con·cems ar~ not being addressect at this criticar stage/1 indicating he,may mJsun.cterstanc;f th~ land use process. The current item b~fore the· County ·pJ~n.ning_ Commission i~ a preliminarY. development pla'n (PDP)forYoung Ran.ch's Phas·e 11 a County process.r~qLifring t_he· County· Plann·ing Commission to dete.rmine whether the Phase 1 PDP· is Jn substantial co'nformance with the County G~nel·al Plan. This step is only-the.heginning of a ·

. compre.henslve l~nd use ·process th.a.t wiU involve the.Ci.ty of San Jose. Onc.e the. ___ : ... :

170 Ma~den Lane, Suite S?O, San..-FranciscQ1 Callforni~ ~4108 • (415) 7'8i-12°11 •·Fax (415.J 781-12~0

.Ltr. to Hon. David Cortese March 241 2014 Page J2

Planning Commission finds t.hat the Phase.· 1 PDP is in substantial conformanc~ with. the County General Pl9n,. YCS will make a formal application to the County for· a cl'uster d.ev.elopmerif pl~rt~ Based on that appflcation, the County will initiate the CEQA process and will make a referral to the City of Sf;ln Jose for its review and c.omments. Our prbposar also will require YCS to apply to the City for t!Je. appropriate· permit for our proposed intersection at Sllv?r Gre.ek Valley· Road.· YCS wiH .make that apptication at the appropriate tirne in the process. We also will consult closely With the City to obtain feedback about our current plan, and plntfcipate.a con,strucfive dJalog, hopefully drht~n by our" proposaPs regional benefits, particul~rry Young Ranch's esse.nfjal confribution to the success of the Santa Clara VaUey Hab_itat Plan.

We encourage all of out.neighbors to allow the PDP and subsequent envirqnmental review process to proceed, whi"ch will provide ampl~: opportunity for feedback on .. our revised plan.ba.~ed on comprehensive envrronmental studies .. rt you have any questions about our plans, please feeJ-free to call me at 415-781-.1211. x11.3 ..

Sinc~rely,

""'t-t ~k Wayne Costa Vice President

cc: County of Santa GJara Plarmlng Commission Supervisor Mik~ Wasserman · Laurel Prevetti; City of San Jose Aarqn Quigley, City of San Jose Hon, Rose Herrera , Mr. John Leggio

170 Maiden Lane, Suit~ 8001 San . .FranGisco1 CaHfornia 94108 • (41S) 781~1211 •Fax (415) 781-1220

!

I I I ·!

I ·1

I

YCS Investments·

March--44, 20.14-

Julie Hutches·on Environmental Advocate . Committee for Green Foothills

. , 3921 ~~ B.ayshore Road

. P~lo Altor. CA 94303

Property Development &. Managen;ient

Re: · Y9.ung Ranch,, A .c6nse~Yation Community

Dear JuliE?: . . . ~

. I want to ·take this ·opportunity to address the Committee for Gre~n Foothjlls' (CGF) decision. to oppose the Young Ranch preliminary dev~lopment plan at the County of Santa q1ar~ Planning Gommis·sfon. · · · · · -

When our-.team -made presentations ·and conducted a site visit forC'GF .. and other environmental advocacy groups l~st yea( it was rrtY hapel ·however optimistic, that it could be th~ $tart of a d·iaJogue.. I hoped tpat CGF would approach us with an open. mind and that WE? might at least have. a common interest in ·the prop9sal;s conservation components. · · '·

. ' .

. . My optimism was- past?.d on my appreciation for CG F's· mission· tq preserve Santa -.Clara County~s open space:S and hillsides through advocacy. and thoughtful regto·nal planning and conservatkm;_ particularly your s.upport of the.Santa Clara Vall~y Habitat Plan. YCS:. Ji~s made.the Habitat Plan a: foundational element for our con.servatfon . community propo.sat.. I am di.sappointed t~at, as.~ Habitat Plan advocate, CGF did not .even ·aGknowledge our conservation strategy hJ its recent comments· to. the Plannfng Commission. · .. ·

As yo,u· know, ttie B·ay Ch~c~~rspot Q.utte~Jy (BCB) is. the Hahitat Plan's corh~rstone species'(Habitat Plan, 5·-14) .. YqLmg R?nch is one of onfya. handful of. areas ·of core B.CB habitat fn: private ownership ·within the Habltat ~Ian's plan ar~a. '<Jµr plan pres:erves You.ng Ranoh's BCB .habitat c,md ~II or its rare; and endangered plants .. Our conservation proposal ts essential ta· the· H~bitat Plan':s succ~ss, asYoun°f:J Ranch alone.repr~s:ents nearly.25% of the serpentine grasslands required.tp be preserved oh Coyote 'Ridge, and as m~rch as 70% of ifs rare and threatef!ed. plants.· It is .highly · .unlikely~ if n·ot impossible, for the Habitat Plan's Conserv9tiari Strategy to be ·succem~ful w{thout Young Ranqh !;Jiven the r~rity of such robust BCB habitat. · · ·

170 Maid.en L~ne, Strite 800, S_an Fran~!sco, CaHfotnia 94108 .• (4'15) 78~-1~11 ~-Fax (415) 781-1220

Ltr. to J. Hutcheson March 24, 2014 pag~ 12

YC.S recognizes the Habifat Plan1s sign.lficant implication? for oµr property~ Ov~r the past six year$, we h~ve worked to make the Habitat Plan _better and more· elficient to iJ11p(ement, while demonstrating· a commifrnent to. its success. We were. the only private stakeholder during this process· that made a significant investment in characterizing our ·propertis biplogy. We have ro9Red hard ~t the economics of alternative uses and have concluded that indefihitery pres·erving Young Ranch1s habitat withouhuiy financial return is not sustainable: and ·economically unre1::11isti'q.

Instead, our plan Will protect 11950 acres of habitat and open spa9e1 whil.e ~t the same time. ~re~ting economic.'vaf ue. through an innovative. conservation. community that will be the first of its: kind in Santa Clara County .. CGF may disagree with whether our community is· rural enough, setisUive enough, or even approp~iate. Indeed, you may legitimateiy suggest another conservation plan. That i:s exactly the·type of input and . analysis: that wiJI collie from the Jah.~. use p.lanrilng and. environmental re_v.ievJ' process that we. invite~ However, your current oppositi~:m at what is_ a vety preliminary stag.e at. the County Planning Comi:nission suggests ·that you do. not ·belieye that the process should run its course. That is disappointing and inconsistent.with your normal advocacy for a full and compl'ete environ.nientar. review. · · ·

. . .

. When f reached out to. CG.F fast year, I did not .expect an endorsement oryc:)ur -support. We do peJieve1 .however, tnat CGF, as. well as others that. oppose the project, has a r~sponsibHity to propo.se sorutions and alternatives to achieve the regional · pfanning ·goals that. you have worked to put lt,l place. _We are prepared to consider a1ternatives that achieve. <:lD equitable l?alance.. Simply s~ying {'no", or erroneously asstim'ihg that conservation wm be ac.hieved by stopping this proj~ot,, risks jeopardizing the .Habitat Plan.· ln~t~~d of' halting progre!?s, we WeJ9ome a practical discussion of · economically viaqle alfernative.s·that balance ·appropriate development and coriservatitui. · ·

YCS will return to the Planning Commission irl: April with a revised p·reliminary . development plan for our conservation community at Young Ranch. The Planning Commission's input.l)as encouraged us to take a Closer look at our preliminary · deyelopmen·t plan. 'We ~bsolutely-agree wi.t~ Staff's coqcJusion and recqmhien9ation that our applic~tion is already consistent with the Countis General Pran. We.are revising our plan to .-continue our pqsitive and proactive· ·~pp roach toward conservatiqn and co'r:nmunity building. The ~evised plan thf;lt we witr bring to the· Planning. ·

. Commissi.an, Informed largely by their feedback, will. only· strengthen our commitment to protection qf the Bay Ch.e.ckerspot b~tterfly 1. rare p!ants and serpentine habitat' at.Young

·Ranch. · · , ·

On the as-sumption that the Planning Commission agrees that our revised plan is substantially in conform:ance with the Couhty1s General Plan, YCS. will immediately

. . . . - •. .

17Q Maid'en.Lane:i Suite 800) San Francisco, California 94108 ° (415.) 781.-1211 •Fax (415) 781.::1220 · '.

ttr. to J. H utche.son March 241 2014 Page f 3

proceed with the CEQA process. We 'will also conduct a series of worKshops an.d discuss.iqns to eng.age the ~nvironmental.advocacy comm.unity on tiow Young_ Ranch CO.Ufd pecome a model fo( thoug~tful. planning in ~ens:itive fandscapt?S. 1· invi.~e you to join us as we continue to work with our neighbors ·and conservation partners to realize our shared ~is_ion for th~ re,g.ion.. · ·

$incer~ly,

.,,~£.~ Wayne -C:osta . · Vice Pr$$ident ·

oc.:. County t)f Santa Clara Planning C_ommission. County of Santa Clar~ Department of Planning· & Development

170 Maiden Lane, S·uite 800, San Fra~dsco1 California 94108 ° (4ISj 781-1211 8 Fax (415) 781-1220

\' .·. --

'-· ... __ ::, : -'

.. '. .l ")'

\·; t ,•:I•'::· 'I,/ • • ,. - \, .

-4 ~ l 0

~ / : f I .~ : > '; • : • , .~ • • ' ' , - { 0 1 : ':'

- o ' l 0

' • 0 0

• 1 1

' ·- I .. .,. • 7~ t• ~ ~ • •

,. .. :,·

- ' -: -:... • - • •• • .. -· - • j• ,_ ·: \_,. :1,.:; I l I :,.J •

. · .... ·: · ; .·YCS1dvestfuentS: .. : ·:·. ··.··. · .•.•. · ... •: · :· : . ·•.·.· •Pro~~~ue~elop1ti~n.t~~ag~inepf • • · .· ... > ~' I . \ ·.... . ... , ..

. -·: ·~ .. :.: .. .' .. . . . . _· . ' . ·. : . .'' . . . ' ... ··' • •' ; • • •,. I:• .·'::..Jo - ~ )' • 't ' " •

;,.. . -- . .- ...... ,. ,_,-

. ~ ' . . . .. . .

, . ...:. ... --

. • '· .. _. ••• •• '; J'", •• .. , J • ' '. ,• • I

'·' r·.,

1

, •: 0

,:- ,' ·., - • ,.'-I, , • f , • ) .. f ~ "

0

• • ' ( ' I ' ' "'" , , ·, .: , ' ......

~} . · .... ·" ,• , . '.

- \. ·.· . .. • ·,' •' • I

.. ...': .

.r ...... }•

. ; :. , ·~~~~26,'2~i,4'.: < . : . .: ::' . • : ·~ >,. ; .. ·, ·~. I •I I\-. o ·, o

-, < ' \. • ., ' ·: '~ I• I ' ' ": - • • • i '• • \ -· • !.·

• i· : ~ ...

- .

•<' :· ·:~~tfu!~=~~~g~o~s~ion ... :. ': ·:· ...... : . •~ >:·, .~;>' :· ~:.· ·:'; .·· .··:.· ,",: ... ~· ... ·· ·Gov:µty·Govermne11tC.ei?:ter·· .. ·. '. :: .' --: ··.: .' ~: ". ·. ~-- .. " ... ,· · .. ·.·< · ..

• • .. • I - • • ) j I • I .. • • - • .., .. • - I • - - - • •• • , ., I • • • ·~· '.; f ..- • . : ._ .. : . ._··-.-.... ·, 10-:west Fte.<ldwg ·street:<: 1· ...... • • •• : ... ·_ ••• ., _< · · -..:· .. · · · · ·· .. ._~:.:. · ·,:,. ~. ·:· ... « , · ·· · .. · .. . : ___ ..... : · ·"~-~sirlJcl~e-'cA.·9·5.11()' "--. · ""· ... :· ... · · , · · · ··· · .. :·> ... ·... .. .. ~ .....

l • • • ,... f ' ' : •, '• ,: - - I f.. • ', • .,' , , • l ; ' , : 1

I , ' 1

,:- •, ' • ,

•._.., ',lt I •, \ I ., '

< : R~:· • ~~t~b1araG6~tY;i~gCo~sio~,fyj:aTCh27,20f4MCeting •·· .· ./ • .. ··.. ·• , · • • ~ ' • • - " " ' • • ' ,. - • ' .o 'I ,."" } • • • • ~ ·:<· · ._-.. · · . , ... ..- Agenda Item 3,. 6.V.erv1ew and bistussiori .of Santa Clara Va1ley· Habitat ·Plan:·-. ,. " : :: . . . ' .. ·,: .

• ' • • • • , ., ".. " •• • - '· ,. • • ' .. " - • • .... ... , - • • • ' ·, ; - .1

• • .. :. ' • • f .. , l .. - "°'- .. · . . \1 .~:: • , • I ..... ._ ,· - , L·; .- • •• - 1 - " .. \ ' • • - • I ·~ 1'- ·, ._ '. l, ... '

'; , . . . ' ,. ' . . . . . , . . . . ·~' ., . . • . . : . . - , . . • . r· . . : : '-, ". ,·,.

· ; ·/· . · · · · · Dear .Chairman Lefaver: · .- · ·.~ · · ... .· · · " . : . · · · " " · ·: ... · . . . . . · · '· .. · .... , '. · , . -. ... :·~ .>·.· .. ·\·,.,·~·~·~, ,: :· _. • ,.' , ... • ,:'' • .. -.,, :,,'•, • .. :· I-, .. '.~ ..... ,,•' '.t_,,'•,! _- • •.(, ,~

• : • • . j •. t • ' r'. • ' ; • - • • ., ~ '- • ,. • • ~ • • •

', ' • • ' <~ ' '• ', • : : • <' • ' : : '• I •: • :. •" " • .... • "',' . ' . ; ' • ' ; ~ •' '_ ';'I• • : ·!' -: •' : : :. ·:. : :' ~ ·:' : : " • =-.' ' • ;. •I .... " " : I : : ~ "· '

: · . ·. · , ~ -yes fu~e~~tJ.1i~nt~. wi~l ·~~".before t1:1-e}?!anrting. Com¢issiori with: a r~vi~ed Pli~se J ·prel.lip.h1ary . · '. .. . . .. d~:veloP,~~nt .plarl.(~DP).fo~.'f~~.pr9po~~~ y o~g:I{~ch GO~~er:vatl.oJ:i.·corillii~iY ifl.'Ap#l.'. ·:since ". : . ... , .. ~-

' >, ,.- : · · · .. :. th~.co~s:sion is .. holdiiig:~t'.wb~b~<?t>'.:on the· s~f.ita.'C.lar~rVa~fefHabifat :etan.this we~k~ric:I.the:_i_. . ":-._~ , ... ·. -~ "·. · ·· ·"< :. .. Hahitat r.~~·h~s driven .. the 6o~~~~ati9P. ~e~lgn.fbr Ycilµig'Ran:9h,:I.tbpught it wol!ldJJe·~~~iui:to. ·,. · ·. ·· . ._ .::

- . ·. - .. - .. -'. · :r. ~ 'ddcrll)e ho~\,-:y~tiiig··R~nch)s"e;s.~nti~l i~-.th~ f{~bit~t-Pl~;s· sµcces~:: · ···.~. " ·. .: ·-·.~, :· · · ~-: -. .. :~ ~. '·

· :::··· ,-,,. '. rhi~~re:•~r,the.Ha~i:~t:~I~~:iii: ~o~~e~aLs~~t~, , ... : · ., ; '. :. ·: ·. ·· : .. ·>'.::, • ·" .·. · . .. ' I .. \. .. • 0 f • , ..

0 , ' • ', O •

0

I ·... I • • O ·' f - • 00

O :, '• , ; J J I ... . ' :, . , ' \ ~ - . . •' • • • I I - ) •: : ~ I ,1 ,. .- • • , t ' .' • • '~ ~ ~ ~ 'C • - 1 I ' • I f' J: • ; " • ' f ' •I • ~ ' ' • I ; I - ~ ~' " •: ' \ •I t ~I • '.' '• :. • I ' i •

· _'·· ..... , ,' · .. :TlieH~~Ha(Plari is ·no~fus{about streamli;µed.endc;iligered-.species::Perii1ttitig. -.Mori import~~tly~ . _ .. , ·-. ·:, -.' · .. ~ :·, Ji is'the. oy~rri(ling co~serV~H9;·tool;for..protebtirtg.~a~y·of Saiita·'ci~&:co~fy,.s-vital ;' '. .. :--· ; . '; ... L •• ~.'' - •• : •

· · · _· - ... ~ .. '.tlyeate~e4·~ci"end~ger~cl:~al ~~ci ~l?llltsp~~fos.·~a·h~bffat, kl1.ile:.ail6wfug·m~ny.~i~port~nt.· '-: .. ·: :<. .-. .. . : --p~b~i~:-project~ to"mC?:ve· fo~a~cf ·:~here .are_.n~~ei~u:~-p~~-~i~ mfrast~~~~ alid_.hea\th~.~~d s:~fety'.: ··:

.. : : · ·_. ptoj~cts tljat are 'iniport~t fo. the regfoii thiit··~::ii:Li~f~e ~i.iilt.~~er the_ hexf SO ye.ars. U~ottun~tdy, -... " · . ._ ... . ' .. -1U~y:'~:fth~sej~roje~~s'.aJ~6' w:iil imp~t(h~bit~t, imp~~t~; ~h~t m~st.be .. ~ffset befo~'e ~h~ ,proj~cfs· .. ·:· ... :'_ .... : ..

J -. ~ I ' I I .I • - ' , , ~ l \ 0 ; • • "•{ .:, 0 \ " 0 • • • • •

·:' .. m~:f pro eyed: . T~e ijabitat_.-Plan' s ·C,9~s.~rvati9ri· ~frat~gy; w,hi~4 .reqUi!-~~ the' cre,~t~~n of a 46, QOO. .. ·: ~,. ..... ' ... ' . . . .~cre.J.?-1~~ag~d habi~~t .R~s'e~~d.s .. the ·keY; t~ p~ovidirtg'th~se o~fsets~;: ~he. Res~r~e j~ fo ,~~:·created <"

-. .<< ... , PY \r.phmt~ty'land srxles or th~ .. ~rea~i<?~: 6fconservat1~~·e~sefueJ:1:fS~ ·Fa~l~dd·'c)orµpiete the . " . .. ·. ·-. ~ -. : .' · . · Rese~ve cqµI4· I~~d.to a rbir. ba~k of th~ Habi~~t. ;E>l~ and cel;use tP.~: d~lay if noJ c~~cellaiicin .. of · .< . .~._-.-'.· '. inany ~{the:vital·projeds;thafth~.·Fiabit~tPi'an contemplates. . '. - . . . . .. . I ·~ ·,

. • . • ' • ' .. ' • , •' ' ~ ; • ' •' : ', ' , I , , . • -~• . " .1 I , • • • • ,•. !..

. ~ . .. ' '\ . ' \ - ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . • lo -. ~ • • ) I .,

r ' -· . ... . -

. {.

• ,,,1 .. ,

'/ ',. ... - ., ... ,/ ,. .' ,1' -•.

. ' ., . \ (• '

.. :-.-.>1.?o Ma~de~·'.~-~~;,· sui~e-~·oo!-.s~n,Fr;~ci~c~-,--~.~Hfor_~i·~·~~-~q~.· ;,:_c4is).7.81"~·1211. ;.p.~~- C41S)·:·ts.1~~·1zio:. : ... '.' .· '•, ,_; - .,. • , ; ·- •. , :'"' - .. •. - . . .. • ' • •• . -· ". I

r ' • 1

• .. • t · ' ~ ." ·

~ " ' ' ' • • l •I• t - - I I 1

I •) '• . . ~ , . '· '',.

:, '~... • t •• " '. ·~

. ,• ,·

'', __ ... . ..

: '. ".

·ur. to s.c. Planning Commission ... -. · ':Mar~h ·2.6, 2014. · _ . . : . .

:: · Pagff 1. ·2· . . I ' • ·.· .. I ;

I '

y ou~g R;m~h .is Esstintial tO the ~iic~ess oi the ~:ibitat 'rla~ C~nservatiou strategy ' ·. .·._·' ' • ..

·. . : - . -. . ' . . . : _ ' . . . . . : - ... ~ . .- . . . : . , . . . . .. . ' . , ~ . ~ . . '.. . - .. . . . While ~i1 ohl1;e Res~rve~s A6,0.00 act,es are irilportant,-not all pf_it ii? equal.~ ·The. portibns 9f th~· · · · · Reserv~ desigl;led fod:he .. Bc:iy Che¢+cerspqt butter.fly .(BCB) ar~ partic\i~arly vital.to the Habita~ . ._ . PJan. The.H~b~tat.Plari recogniz~s,-the BCB as its ·cohi~rstone species and that Coyoh:rRidge, . :i~cluding.Yoll}.ig RanGh, iirkey·i9.the°B:CB'·~ s~rv1yaL 1;·:. .- . - . .

. . . -. . - . •' .. :· . ' . ,

-- .·Coy~~e-Ridge-\s .ho~e.-tq 73%.of:the_~osfi.~b:tistr~maming·:B·cB po~l;tlitio-~s ·~d.habi~at~~:i~· ·: an: ess~rttial landscape linkage· for t4e bu:ttetfly' s:migration.2: That .is why the. Ha~itat PiajJ_:: . · ,

_ . . .. requi;es Ptotectiqn of all' of ~he ·'.BcB ·habitat.-"miits'~ on .Coyote Rl~{ge. 3:· 'Young Rarich inCiudes a . . . ·:large p~rt of on_e ofthose:·Coy6te Wdge."umts" and.provides a' critfoal lllk~ge for all o.thet BCB - -

· ·. · populati ... o.µs: - .:. · · : · -'· · · .. ... -· · - · · , , · · .. · .· -• "'! .. '•: · •.

' ,·

. . ~. ,. .. ,·,

-~ ·.-y~ling R~nchhas 674'actes. Qfpfiip.aiy. occupi~d.BC:J;3·h~~bitat, ai1,of i~ desQribed.as· a·: . _ · . ''High',' priority forth~ R~serve. 4 · · _ ... ·-. - .--_ · · ~._ .- > · · .. - _ · · "_ < _ · ·. · >_

• Y~'ili1g R!inch;:s :BCB-hapit~t ~s ~hriost:~~%: ~f tll:e: BCB .ha~itat t~~t .rri~st .be· -~~qliired on . , . . · · .al1 'C?f Coypte.~dg.e. 5 · · .· . · ... · ' . ._· .... : · · . ~ ._ :·: . . .. . _·· : . . . ". ·

··• Y O'img Ranch. is aiso 7~-% ·of Coyote"Riclge "~if' thai-the H~bitat _;p1~~tefer~ to a~-.· · . • • . 6" ",. "i'. I ,. . •, •. . .. . . ' ' • ' • ..•

. . :'~Coypte· 6"" . · . ·, _ -. . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . .. . · -· · . -. . ·- ' •' ~ ' •. ' t ' • J # It ' • -. • - • ~ I • ~ •I o.1' t ' : • l I o

· , • --Coyote ~ has the l~rge~t, niost_studi¢d aJ1-d most cohsis~ent BCB ·popula~iorns qn Coyote '. .

•" ·.~~g,¥•; ·~·~.-·-,,r:, ).·· -,: .'• •; "' • •' ·~ • • • ; .· '. <c .·· .··'- • '• • :.·

• Young ·Ranch is-Ftlso J/3·ofa vital BCB migratory lap,ds_cape linkage on :Coyot~ Ridge " ·. ·. · · thtit the .. Hab1tat::elan:caiis ~iink~ge. 6,,~ 8 - .· : .. _. • · · , ~· · -.. ·.' · ... : _. .. · · · · ~ - ·

. ~ L.lljkag~: 6 ~~st ~b~ pr~sety~4. beca~~e ii j.oms -'ali of th~ iemaim~g B~B popul~~fops. · · - , ~long Coyote Ridg~ frorri Silver Creek in the' north to· Anderson Rese~voir in the south.?' .

I l 0 • • ' ~ 0

• • • I - 1 •

1 0

• \ ' , ' 1 j

~e f oungRan~~:c~nie~ation communify, bysetlin~ itsid.e i,970 aC:res as ~e~allent~pen : .. , .. spa~e/will proyide certaintY-~hat c'oyote- 6 ang .Llnkage. 6. are P!es.e~ved~ 'With~'ltt f Qung Ranch:· ... . ,-· .. . , . the "ilabifat_Plan 's .requiremen~s for the BCB 's corlser~aiio~ cr;u:1no(be· pafisflf!d and it is . . . ~;sentia.l 'to th~ HaqitaiPlari 's succ~ss_ th~t. o~r proposal: be. view-e'tizn th,i~· co~text~ ·,. ·. . ·,

~ • ,_ 1

I ' • • ~ ~ • , I I • • ~ • • o •

' .... 1

t~e-Yo~g Ra~ch ~ons~rv?J.tlon'pian ens~res that its BCB habitat is:p~eserved aµ.d managed in.

perpetuity. The alternatives do-nqt-pr~v1·tle this certainfy: The ranch ~urrently co~tsYcs··~110re . ~~;uaily .in property.taxes alone than~~-rec~ive from .it_s ·sole illco~~- source.;..: cattle ·gr~z.ing.~ .· .. ·

·Cattle grazittg iS ·the essenti~l tool'for nJ.ffiiagepient ofl?CB h~bitat. 10 . YCS' pr~posal protects· ·

.. Uno :acr~s of.ope~ space that itidudes .th~ entire core BCB.··habitat.at Young Ranch, while . . . . . . . . . - .

170 Maide~ L~n~·, S~ite 800, S~J._1 Fra:ncf.srn, -Califor~ia _9410~ ~- (415} 7Si'~i21 l··· Fax (415) 78°I-l2Z6 . ' ·. . ; . . . . . .

· •..

.I • ' • I

Ltr. to--S..C. Planning Commis.sion. ··-- :

. March·2,6~ io1~ Page j' 3 ~ -' · .- .::

·~ ._ ' ' - .·'.

·,· '\ I

•• J. ,I,

· .. ·. ·c~~lliiu~g· graifug ana ~re~titig addi~i~nai value tlu:ough an i~~~ati~b ¢o~;p~atio~ co~~ty, t1:w··first o.f i~s kind ~~.~~t~ Cl~~ Cou~ty. It i~· ~imply e_cono~diliy_.~su~t,a~~ahi~-iQ 17t~s~~·e· · ..

-: . . Young Ranch's ~CB h;:i.bitaf~ithout' s_ome ~alap.ce 9f.c~nunullityhuild.il].g and cmis~rvat,ion. " .. :, ...

_ , The altemativ~· is .an e~of:~o~s outlay of public ~oney :t~ .. pµrciia~e the. property;_.shiftirtg·the ~. :. . .. . . : -· . 'eµt1r~'4a~itat ma~ag~riient htirden.'tq;th~ ta;xpay~r.- .-·,. •. ' . :·. . . . '. •,. ' . . ' ' . . -. . .. -.

\ ,· • ., I',• • I , ... •I r' _. • • .- •

I' • ·-. '•

·:·. Our.pl':ill·fot_Y~~~ ~;m_~h is built upon the.~~ai?ent~l..c~µ~~pt of 0r~afhlg··~ con~erv'at~o~· . _:_··

.'comm Unity. b~sed ·611 ··~.rural $e:ttlemerit pattern that h9n9~~ the· property.' s: fa:ndsc~p~ ·ffi:Jd tich .. · · · ·

e~virorinlentC:tl.res.ourc~s., This is:~ .direct·t~qogilltion'of thtt Habitat Plan's c~nsiderabl~~ ... · .. ·: · · · ·

uilp1ica#orn{for~~~ properfy ~<l ~h.e ~port~npe 9f th.~ :Habi~at r1an.'·s su~cess-.to the regi6~.:- dur ·

I' •" I

. . ,,,

. · proposal must be vi.~~ed ill that light~nd .'1 10.ok fotWard_ fo .. c011iing oef~re tlie PlanniIJ.g . . . · ·Cb-~i~sforr again to ~ontinue our, di~logue.'. ·. · -- · · · · · . ~ ._: · .. · · ... · . . · · .: .' . · . '·. "· . · ·

1 0 • f • • • - • \,... " O • .. O L : 'o O I • t, \ • • O { • :

• I 'I . . .Sinp~r~ly, · · . .. : ... . ' . . - - .

·~-~--~.····· . ',W~y~t;C6~~!\ •, .· ... · •... , · ..

. .... -

. . · : Vic~ .'.President·.-... · .-. · . . ·,; ~ . . ' ' . ' .,

~ .c.~.: '· · "f!cl~e¢l'_St~t~s .. ~i~h ~ Wil(1life·-s~rvice . _ . · · - . . · California Department of Eish & Wildlife · · · -

·,.. · ·:sant~"~l~a Valiey:Hab1tatAgen6y · • ,. ' • • ... ~·. - • :· ' ~ 1' • • • ( ' ~ • • • • • - ' • • •

· . -1 Habitat.P-lan" 5-:14: · .

;. _2 Habitat PJa11,, 5:.53, . · .

. · ~ Habitat Plan, ·5~137. : "

, •'

4 Hcib.itat Pl'an,.~F,igur~·5-8. . .. ·.s " . . . . . '' . . . . ·.Habitat P,lan, 5-:'135, Tab I~ ~-2a (LAND-LS), )able 5-19.- · 6 . . . • . . .

Habitat Plan, Table' 5-19. . ·: · 7 FWS 2008 Retover Plan and Wejss 2oo'9. 8 Habitat ·Plan, Table 5-9 ~ Fig~re 5-6. 9

H,abitat Pian, 5-52 ~Table 5"=9 .. 10 Habi.t~t ·Plan _App~l}dix, BG_B-Specie~ Account ..

. . ... :

..... '\ -~ .

\ ..

'r' ,.

,·.

,· •• I •

·'

r.

. \.

. f'. J

-17.0 Malden Lane,.Suit~dmo, .San Fran~isco,' Califoniia.941.os··:C4IS)-781""121'.l • Fa?':--(4-i's).781.:-1220. ' . . . ·. . ~ •'

t" . j

.....

.• •· .....

'·

. ·'

1.:

YCS INVESTMENTS YOUNG RANCH PHASE 1 CLUSTER 170 MAIDEN LANE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94108 San Jose, California

- ~ s_----=--=--=----_-_-\:~·_.-.-- ~-~------------ ---- 'lill~ll'iil!···§il!~~=-=;s:= - --~~----- . -- - ~ . PHASE 1 - LAND USE

Number of homesites

Open space

Homesites +community center

Road R.O.W.

Total Phase 1 Area:

PLAN

percentage of Phase 1 Area

29 +community center

829.8 acres 91.5 %

63.1 acres 7.0%

13.5 acres 1.5 %

906.4 acres

600' 1200'

r. - -, !,

MARCH 28, 2014

..--_-0 600' 1200' 2400'

YCS I N v E s T M E N T s YOUNG RANCH PHASE 1 CLUSTER PLAN MARCH 28, 2014 170 MAIDEN LANE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94108

San Jose, California

-----0 600' 1200' 2400'

Current Plan (acres) Previous Plan (acres)

Number of homesites 29 +community center 37 +community center

Open Space 829.8 813.6

' 1 Homesites +community center 63.1 78.3 ' •-. I l--------------+------------+--------- -------1

Road R.O.W. 13.5 14.5

Total Phase 1 Area: 906.4 acres

YCS I N v E s T M E N T s YOUNG RANCH PHASE 1 PLAN COMPARISON MARCH 28/ 2014

170 MAIDEN LANE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94108 San Jose, California

HOMESITE LEGEND

-- - - --- Homesite Boundary

r ------- -i Natural Area L _____ J

Improvement Envelope

~· Transition Area

[_ ______ _] Private Area

Septic Feasibility Area

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES LEGEND

\889 BCB Habitat

------ BCB Habitat 100' Buffer

Serpentine Bunchgrass

Serpentine Grassland 50' Buffer

Federal Plants

------- Federal Plants 100' Buffer

Wetlands

------- Wetlands 100' Buffer

- Waters

------- Waters 35' Setback

Slopes 30% or greater

BUFFER AREAS March 28, 2014 .- 0 150 300 600

PLANNING COMMISSION

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 THROUGH PRESENT MEETING

,. COMMITTEE FOR

GREEN FOOTHILLS

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Chair Lefaver

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

70 W. Hedding Street, 7th Floor

San Jose, CA 95110

r;{l~c;;;_ 7 . S~p1 - <I

'Piernentai p :-r Itelll.#~t

Re: Agenda Items 5, File 10256-12CSP YCS Investments

Dear Chair Lefaver and Commissioners,

The Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) has been closely following the YCS Investments' Young

Ranch cluster subdivision proposal (for 87 housing units and a community center at full build­

out) for more than two years. We have visited the site, reviewed the documentation and now

respectfully submit the following comments.

Deny Request for a Continuance

Each applicant who comes before the Planning Commission is entitled to a fair hearing. In the

case of YCS Investments' Preliminary Development Plan review, the Planning Commission has

held two hearings and has visited or had opportunity for a site visit to the property in question.

The two hearings and site visit gave YCS Investments more than ample opportunity to present

their plan and answer questions. YCS Investments has also gone to great lengths to provide the

Commissioners and all concerned with access to the Yes.staff (consultants included), their

reports, plans, presentation materials, diagrams, and other additional ~esources (much which

can be accessed at any time via their website) so that Commissioners' questions could be

addressed outside the public hearing process as well. In addition, the Commission has

reviewed two County Planning Dept. staff reports and had almost 3 months' time to ask staff

questions regarding the plan during hearings or otherwise.

All this information is more than sufficient at this juncture for the Planning Commission to make

a well-informed decision on whether the preliminary development plan is in substantial

conformance with the County General Plan. There is no reason to further delay your decision

unless a significant change to the plan is being proposed and thus a new staff report is

COMMITTEE FOR

GREEN FOOTHILLS

392I E. Bayshore Road

Palo Alto, CA 94303

650.968.7243 PHONE

650.962.Sz.34 FA)(

info@GreenFoothills.org

www.GreenFoothills.org

warranted. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the continuance and make your

decision at this Febrµary 27, 2014 hearing.

Lack of Conformance with County General Plan

Policy C-GD 2, R-GD 2 and R-GD 6.1 These three policies refer to the County's commitment not

to permit urban type development and services in the rural/unincorporated lands outside

cities' urban service areas. This is a long standing, fundamental principal that has provided the

foundation for County land use plans and policies for several decades. Adhering to these

policies maintains the stability of County land use policies and honors the County's established

obligation to the cities. It is also an essential component of countywide urban development

policies.

This project, however, will receive three urban services: fire protection via the San Jose Fire

Department, road service/access via a City of San Jose road (Silver Creek Valley Road) within a

City Maintenance District2 and, potable water by a private urban water service provider. The

provision of three urban services alone is a troubling component of this project and contradicts

basic General Plan policies.

In YCS Investments' November 21, 2013 letter to the Planning Dept., they state (on pages 3, 6,

and 7) that the Young Ranch project is consistent with the County General Plan because the

1 C-GD 2 Urban development shall occur only within cities' urban service areas (USAs) and under city jurisdiction. The County shall not allow urban development on unincorporated lands outside cities' urban service areas. R-GD 2 For lands outside cities' Urban Service Areas (USAs) under the County's land use jurisdiction, only non-urban, low density uses shall be allowed. R-GD 6 Urban types and levels of services shall not be available outside of cities' Urban Service Areas

from either public or private service providers.

2 Prohibiting urban service outside of cities' urban service areas also fulfills another important function

of minimizing costs to the general public of providing and maintaining roads. (See Policy R-GD 3 c. and

General Plan Book B, K-2, Low Density, Non-Urban Land Use). For the Young Ranch property owners, .

costs for their main access certainly are minimized as they are not funding the Maintenance District that

services that road. The· District is instead financed by the San Jose property owners in the district area.

This unfairly puts full responsibility for funding the benefits of road maintenance on San Jose property

owners.

3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968. 7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothiils.org

Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org

project will requir'e no urban services and thus it cannot be considered an urban development.

The provision of the three urban services makes this an erroneous statement.

R-LU 16 and R-LU 18.3 The project will receive urban services and intends to maximize the

number of units to be built through a state affordable housing density bonus program. This will

result in the highest density YCS Investments can achieve through all means possible for Phase

1 of the project. This fails to meet the intent set out in the General Plan Hillside policies R-LU

16 and R-LU 18 f., for mountainous areas not intended for urban development, but instead for

very low density rural residential development. Thus, again the Preliminary Development Plan

is inconsistent with the General Plan.

Additionally, on page 12 of YCS Investments' November 21, 2013 letter to the Planning Dept.,

they conclude that the project not only conforms to the County General Plan but also to that of the City

of San Jose. As you are aware, YCS Investments received a letter from the City of San Jose Planning

Dept. almost two years before their Nov. 21/13 letter was written. The City's letter clearly outlined the

incompatibility of this project with the Envision 2040 plan. It would appear that conflicts with more

than one jurisdiction's general plan are occurring here.

However, we recognize that the decision before you is that of substantial consistency with the

County General Plan. And for the significant contradictions listed above, we urge the

Commission to deny a finding of consistency with the County General Plan.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Julie Hutcheson, Environmental Advocate

3 R-LU 16 Hillsides: Mountainous lands and foothills unsuitable and/or unplanned for annexation and urban development. Lands so designated shall be preserved largely in natural resource related and open space uses in order to: a. support and enhance rural character; b. protect and promote wise management of natural resources; c. avoid risks associated with the natural hazards characteristic ofthose areas; and d. protect the quality of reservoir watersheds critical to the region's water supply. R-LU 18 All allowable uses must be consistent with the basic intent of the 'Hillside' designation. The range of allowable uses shall be limited to: f. very low density residential development;

3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968. 7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothills.org

Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org

Y CS Investments

February 20, 2014 ' '

Chairman Scott Lefaver

County of Santa Clara Planning Commission

1o·w. Heddi~g Street, i 11 Floor

San Jose, California 95110

Property Development & Management

Re: File 10256-lZCSP; Young Ranch Phase 1 Preliminary Development Plan

Dea-r Chairman Lefaver:

I am writing to request that the hearing on the Young Ranch Preliminary Development Plan, currently on -

the Planning Commission's February 27, 2014 agenda, be continued until April 24, 2014. In light of the

input and questions we heard from you and the other Commissioners at the Dec.ember workshop, the

January hearing an.d recerit site visit to Young Ranch, we are working on putting.together additional

information about Young Ranch for the Commission to consider in your.deliberations over-the Young

Ra,nch preliminary development plan's substantial conformance with the County's General Plan and

Zoning Ordinance. 1 lo.ok forward to rnming before the Commission in April and having an opportunity

to again present our vision for Young Ranch as a Community within a Preserve.

' ' '

If you should have .any questions, ple.ase feel free to contact me at 415-781-1211, x 113. You can also

visit the Young Ranch website (www.youngranchcommunity.com). Thank you.

Sincerely,

~CW! Wayne Costa

cc: Planning OffiCe, Department of Planning and Development

l70 Maiden Lane, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94108 • (415) 781-1211 ° Fax (415) 781..:1220

Napi·er, Mkhe!·e This item relates to: h·=•~§!iii• h·4&inv'-'•'4P¥¥8 ayiil•fo"zC~ ~•93?fi,.i#+£#%1 ·k5U?¥Af-M·r5"""""Z?'H 1 *%?-5§§' BM· ;;:,,1.;i ·-·-"t F5f fiPi§'"5 K"" F •• :qo?>£i-5 ... >tj'"""Plk·4'~Lwtrr:.S:;;&? a-:•~ &£90fl¥•~-rn$ ·-B5?f?#:£t5k¥if?§Oi#§Af!Jrni,,:1§i©1¥Wiz ,r;lfF¥?@&J~§i?.t£ij d

from: Rush, Marina Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:39 AM To: Napier, Michele Subject: FW: Evergreen resident opposed to Young Ranch development

From: Tony [mailto:tseebach@msn.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:38 AM To: Rush, Marina Subject: Evergreen resident opposed to Young Ranch development

To Marina Rush, Thank you for including me as an Interested Party in proposed Young Ranch development.

I attended the Planning Commission meeting on 1/23/2014. I am opposed to the project as I do not think that almost 40 units proposed for phase I followed by another 50 units in phase II is appropriate development under County jurisdiction. I think County Planning staff and Planning commissioners need to address the primary and other concerns raised in the letter from John Baty, City of San Jose Project Manager, dated Feb. 14, 2012.

This development needs to be done under City jurisdiction, as project will rely on City Urban Services including primary Fire protection, Water plus primary access from project to City Streets will require a traffic signal on City street that is part of a City maintenance district. I also do not agree that Developer's use of affordable housing to increase nuniber of units is appropriate for this site.

AnthonyJ.Seebach 4175 Loganberry Dr San Jose, CA 95121

1

Recipient: County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, Kathy Schmidt, Dorsey Moore, Forrest Linebarger, Mary Ann Ruiz, Jack Bohan, Therese Couture, and Scott Lefaver

Letter: Greetings,

We ask the County Planning Commission to deny YCS Investments' plan to build a new community off of Silver Creek Valley Road sprawled over 200 acres of beautiful open hillside property in the San Jose's voter-approved greenbelt (also known as the San Jose Greenline). Allowing this inappropriately-located development of 87 single-family homes, roads, and a community center on our sensitive open space would weaken the integrity of this greenbelt. The plan will add an intersection and more traffic to Silver Creek Valley Road which raises serious concerns over traffic safety and equitable cost-sharing of road maintenance.

In addition, approval of this project could incentivize proposals for other new housing developments in the hillsides adjacent to our community that could further burden our community's schools, roads and services. Since this new housing project was not anticipated in the planning for the Evergreen vicinity, it amounts to overdevelopment of our area.

One of the many reasons our region is so special is because of the open space and natural habitat which surrounds us. This misguided project would substantially diminish the scenic views of open hillsides and grasslands from the valley floor and the Silver Creek community. The endangered species and sensitive wildlife that forage and live on this land also would be adversely affected during and after the construction of this subdivision.

The County will be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing urban development on highly ecologically sensitive land outside our Greenline. As residents of the City of San Jose and of Santa Clara County, it is imperative that we stand together to protect the beauty of our hillsides and stop sprawl from permanently damaging our open space. We call on the County Planning Commission to respect and maintain the integrity of our voter-approved Greenline and the Open Hillside designation of this area under the San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan.

Signatures

Name Location Date

Jennifer Krenzin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

lana krenzin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

John Leggio San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Jennifer Labarbera San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Geraldine Leggio san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Kerry Kirchenbauer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Randy Krenzin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

don herd San Jose, CA, United States 2014~02-06

Steve Wilson India 2014-02-06

Christina leggio SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-06

marisa leggio san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

jayden leggio san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Deb Karstetter San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Greg Gaches San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

vanessa leggio san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-06

Deborah Deverse San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cindy Thompson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sean Graham San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tonia Baker San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

kim novielli san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Deb Facchino San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Larry Krenzin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Richard Luker San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Peter Ligeti San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Helen Daniel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Kendra Pacheco San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Terence Murphy San JOse, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Concerned Citizen New City, NY, United States 2014-02-07

Robert De La Rosa San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Scott Angel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Herb Muya San Jose, CO, United States 2014-02-07

Dennis Kottke San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Eric & Karen Peters San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Erwin Trautmann San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Dai Luong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Francine Bellson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michael Lien San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tod Fryfogle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Linda Jacobs San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Bob Moore San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tracy Huang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Josephine Silva San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Shanna Pacheco San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Aliasgar Lakhia San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Keith Stephens San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Patrick Dunkley San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Suman Goel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Carol Murray San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Alicia Mendeke San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Diane Loverde San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Heather Shermer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Gayle Goodson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jack Loverde san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Rob Facchino San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tracy Rodriguez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sterling Larnerd San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jorge Rodriguez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Diane Kottke Sanjose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Roya Hosseini San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tricia Stephens San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sharon Engdol San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sandhya Ballak San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Hanna Kim San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michael McGEough San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Beatriz Quezada San jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Andrea Richter San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Glendon Wash San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Starr Tiano San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Laurie Fryfogle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Peter Tran San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ralph Rodriguez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

SANJAY Kumar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Kyle Fryfogle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

William Wallace San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Betty Jean Leal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Kathryn Kolder San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Chase Fryfogle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Anitha Katha San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lynne Semkiw San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Rachna Ahlawat San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lisa O'Neill San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Stacy Oliver San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michelle Tang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Caleb Wu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

paul yamamoto san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Rebecca Kim San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Srinivas Burli San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Anthony Seebach San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Patricia Mckiinnie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Catherine Azevedo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

George Azevedo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Maria Quillard San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Simona Nistor San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Deborah Gaches San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Virginia Gulick San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lisa Himawan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tricia Erickson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Kris Chase San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

DeDe Ebner San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lisa Cendejas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Margo Jordan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jennifer Preeshl San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jeet Harika San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mark Marley SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lynn Tso San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Laura Beauchesne San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

gary strohbehn san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Yasiu Kruszynski Chicago, IL, United States 2014-02-07

Dhanya Sukumaree San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Valerie Kwai Ben San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sheila Ellam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ke Huang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Deanna Kietzke San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Denise Lew San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sydney Thomson M.D. San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Charles Welsh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Dennis Mozingo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tamara Welsh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sean Ellam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Pamela Robichaux San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Diane Kay San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Krisztian Toth San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Yanhuan Cheng San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Susan Huang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tania Van Besouw San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michael Triantos San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Thien Tran San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Liang Xie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mir Baqar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Bob Mathews San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ron Thomas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Chaya Prasad San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Swati Ramachandran San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Huyen Nguyen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mark Hudson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Srini Gali San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Wilfred Agbayani San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Christopher Sagen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

juan carrillo san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tom Reynolds San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mike Ma San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

John Ordaz San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ron Davis San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sing Tan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

eve huang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jorge Titinger San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ryan Murray San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

· Ajitkumar Natarajan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

steven ja San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Donna Corsell San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sandhya Khandekar United States 2014-02-07

yifei wang ~ • fflt¥JJ, Netherlands 2014-02-07

Phillip Thai San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Khambham Ramachandran United States 2014-02-07

Jessica Geis San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sue Leege San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sunil Mehra San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lynda Shatsky San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Michael O'Toole San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Diane Mitchell San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Dan Vivoli San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Susan Davis San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

James Cirincione San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Renayda DelaRosa San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Joanne Chin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Carolyn Koehle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Dipti Vachani San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Christopher Koehle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

JENNY BITTEL SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Scott Rohlfing san Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Barbara Valluru San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Micheline Nijmeh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Susan Doh San Jose, CA, United States. 2014-02-07

Rajendra Mohabir San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sharon Zeman San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Gayn Erickson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Brenda Zawatski San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jagmohan Gill San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Debbie Chan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Haresh Patel Sa jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

nadine tevis san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Bhavana Anklesaria San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Lisa Allen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Thora Tam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Nina Chan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Brian Spoutz San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cathleen Capogeannis San Jose, CA, United States . 2014-02-07

Anna Ensell San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Suneeta Aggarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mohsen Hosseini San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

James Baker San Jose, CA, ,United States 2014-02-07

Vladimir Milutin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

PhaniBodd san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

robert valiton San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jaclyn Woodward San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Katie Wilson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Rachel Rodriguez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

charu mallempati san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07 .

Steve Mensor San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Nancy Moore San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cindee Van Vleck San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Debbie Roelands San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

K Kinkaid San Jose, CA, United States 2014~02-07

Qiang Lin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Don Bittel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ana Thompson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Hoa Pham San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michael Kietzje San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cheryl Brashears San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mandeep Dhillon San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jim Linaberry San Jose; CA, United States 2014-02-07

Mary Kauzlarich San Jose, CA, United States . 2014-02-07

Mick Davoudian Santa Clara, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jay Aggarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cheryl Sole San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Cristina Crimaudo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Manish Gupta san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Stephen Kay San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Erika Kirchenbauer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Elizabeth Anaya San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07.

Oliver Weber San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Vasanthi Iyer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Name Location Date

Tri Huynh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Garth Vivier San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Yvonne Covello San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Daniel Hems San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

lipika bhattacharya san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Margarita Stephens San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Ron McKelvie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Sathvik Krishnamurthy San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Thao Vo san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Jeff Fisher San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Michelle Dickman San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Rajesh Ananth San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Corrine Fabie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Susan Jenkins San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Peter Pappas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

nancy dougherty san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Tracy Davis San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

Melanie Onandia San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-07

DJ Mendonca San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Gergana Angelova San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

lvelin Angelov San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Irma Trejo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

RachelKhattab San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Brandi Sosa San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Rebecca Baumann San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Ted Tevis San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Hien Nguyen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Carlos Gamero San Jose, CA, United States, 2014-02-08

Mario Quezada San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Larry Tu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Jane Nettemeyer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Jeannette Castro San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Name Location Date

Bepsy Paul San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Alice Tu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Edward Laurson Denver, CO, United States 2014-02-08

Kathryn Anderson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

kellylanspa new almaden, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Albert Ooi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Barbara Ogrey San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Sarita Bhola San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Alisha Collier San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

chris collier San JOse, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Jerry Simms San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Gerry Logan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Brian Nguyen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Kimberly Ross San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Kim Mckelvie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Sungeun Choi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Srikanth Puranam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Meg Virick San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Mike LaBarbera San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Shellie Aguilar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Victoria Hill San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-08

Diane Ordaz San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Karen Uhlin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

ramin nemany san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Murthy Parthasarathi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Ananthi Srikanth San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Michelle Smith San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

nela babomian san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Rajeev Vachani San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Erika Marcuccillo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Arthur Knapp San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Lydia Thomas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Name Location Date

Lekha Raghunath Sn Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Tracy Nees San Jsoe, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Debbi~ Condensa San JOse, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Geoffrey Thomas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Balakrishna Raghunath San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Tish hare san joase, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Shawn Tripathi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Suresh Padmanabhan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-09

Shelley Chen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Larry McArthur San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Stacey Middleton San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Chris Allingham San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Aaron Rosenberg San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Shirley Stern San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Carmen Hipona San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Kushal Patel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

meri coleman san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

John Tobey San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Craig Crandall San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Sarika Thakur San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Sandra Lowe San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Venkat Sundaranatha San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

sudha michel san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Angelina Lu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Estela Marin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Ajay Padgaonkar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

John McFarland · San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Christopher Bittel SAN JOE, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Yaneth Milutin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Lillian Moore San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Ashish Agarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Cassandra Briggs San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Name Location Date

Brian Allen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Dean Do San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Parisa Mirza-Khan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

L Huu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Andrew Hartland San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-·10

Jon Orlin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

mary ann kempner san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Vanita Aggarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Ashu Kamboj San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Chris Fernandez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Scott Bordelon San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Ashok Agarwal san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

savitha hoskote San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

brandon coker san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Paige Facchino San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-10

Eric Wong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Krish Ramdass San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Tawny Parsons San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Jen Clark San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Martin Reed . San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Susan Reynolds San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11 ·

Michael Pacheco San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Suzette Mack San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Kavita patel San Jose, CA, United States 2014.;02-11

Vimal babu Mani San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

JoAnn Hunter San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Karen Ketner SAn Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

hsinshen Tai San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Sandra Meditch San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Tracy Patino San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Madhavi Padgaonkar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-11

Rosella Weber San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Name Location Date

Zeenat ( Zenith) Ashary San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Helen Chapman San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Steve Kline San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Tina West San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Sean Cusiter San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Jill Chesler San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

rick bernard san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Frank Bosche San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Dave Erisman San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Jean Dresden San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Joni Purcell SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Megan Medeiros San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Garik losilevsky San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Brian Haberly Santa Clara, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Nancy Fradette San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-12

Elizabeth Sarmiento San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

amanda henry San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

EM Wilkinson Sunnyvale, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Liz Snyder Mountain View, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Susan Price San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Steven Sergeant San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Jynelle La Pointe Gilroy, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Yonara acevedo san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

William Kirkpatrick Santa Clara, CA, United States 2014-02-13

David Marsland San Jose, CA, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Alice Ringer Scotts Valley, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Elaine Haight Palo Alto, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Margaret Okuzumi Sunnyvale, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Alison Akin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Ted Okuzumi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Teri Rogoway San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Richard Tejeda San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Name Location Date

Audrey Stapleton San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Tanya Tejeda San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Stephanie Wilson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

David Coldren San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-13

Paul kao san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Quang-Tuan Luong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Colleen Grzan Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Kristjana Eyjolfsson Campbell, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Emily Green Santa Cruz, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Kevin Liao Sacramento, CA, United States 2014-02-14

brent luna san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Alyssa Herrera San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Carla Dick-Peddie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

John Dick-Peddie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Miidred Pylatyk San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Cynthia Welch san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Christina Pecota san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Scott Karstetter San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Andrew Tubbs San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Diana Weir San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Cynthia D'Agosta San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Cody Fickes San Jose, CA, United States. 2014-02-14 .

David Gord San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

cuzak alcantar san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Taoyu Zhang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Adriana Martinez Madera, CA, United States 2014-02-14

Richard Acosta San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-15

Vanessa Luna San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-15

Maryanne Tupper San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-15

Reina Stevens Santa Clara, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Bill Highlander San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Lynn Shi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Name Location Date

Amy Karabinas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Patrick Lord San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Bernadette Lord San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Gerald Lord SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-16

Darren Mitton Avondale Estates, GA, United States 2014-02-17

Susan Marsland Campbell, CA, United States 2014-02-17

Sandra Coats Campbell, CA, United States 2014-02-17

Lisa Sato Palo Alto, CA, United States 2014-02-17

Belinda Espino San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-17

Gary Heidenreich San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-17

Joe Wu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Lillian Oatman San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Edward Bough San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Maggie La Ragy San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Anne Stauffer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Sanjay Gupta San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-18

Liang Yin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-19

Kristal Caidoy Milpitas, CA, United States 2014-02-19

Anthony Cardott Santa Cruz, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Peter Fysh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Pamela Belknap San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Sally Lieber Mountain View, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Robin lwai Mountain View, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Geoff Smick San Rafael, CA, United States 2014-02-20

Sandeep Vij San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-21

Priya Vij San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-21

Gio Leggio san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-21

Christine Grenier San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-21

Sukh Johal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Debby Gong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Ro hit Aggarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Paul Cairns San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Name Location Date

Satya Rao San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Kristian Gordon San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Scott Ellner San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Dmitry Egorov San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Ben Spencer-Cooke San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Manoj Keshavan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Amie Chuong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Danny Luong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Amit Chakravorty San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Pam Hudson San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Olga Follett San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Philip Sansone San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Brian McDonald San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Mitch Seigle San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Jeff Gritten San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

·Ravi Bhat San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Jeff Lockwood San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

charles follett san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Carolyn Crandall San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Jerry Borden San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Lee Thorpe-Gritten San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

TAHSIN KHAN SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Sunil Patti San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-22

Donald Fernandez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-23

Mary Ewing San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-23

Ult Sandberg United States 2014-02-23

Frances Urbina San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-23

ivan karim san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-24

romina karim san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-24

chantele karim davis, CA, United States 2014-02-24

Charm Hartland San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-25

Cat Urbas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-25

Name Location Date

Linda Z. Rahmer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Trushita Patel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Kavitha Mariappan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Al Amezquita San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Hasmukh Ranjan San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Diem Minh Ha San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Luis Blando San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Nadine Nader San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Jessica Mendonca San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Fatima Mendonca Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Sam Mendonca Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-26

khanh Minh Ha san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

My Bui San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Archana Rao San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

mithun harkara san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Cynthia Stewart San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Paula Thomas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Pamela Robichaux San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Devender Narala San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Jyothi Suresh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Catherine Valentine San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Vishal Sadhnani San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Akshay Agarwal San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Ayman Habib San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Terry Huang San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Lynne Wingrove San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Sangeetha Raghuraman Sanjose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Ram Iyer San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Deepali Halepete San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Keith Uhlin San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-26

Shyam Johari San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Lawrence Cargnoni San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Name Location Date

Alpesh Desai San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Ken Choi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Russell Steinweg San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Darlene Vales San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Sriya Kantipudi Sanjose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Kathleen Cargnoni San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Kathleen Helsing san jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Jacqueline Bogard San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Betty Wu San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Bev Locsin Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Himawan Gunadhi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Loretta Brown Delhi, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Patrick Vales South Lake Tahoe, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Serafim Mendonca San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

DJ Mendonca San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Anh Nguyen San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Virginia Fournier San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Nipa Shah San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Ian Li San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-27

Shannon Souza Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-28

Dan Stickel San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-28

sophie lord San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-28

claire olivia lord San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-28

Mary Catherine Le Ruyet Morgan Hill, CA, United States 2014-02-28

Jigna Vyas San Jose, CA, United States 2014-02-28

Ralph Waggitt SAN JOSE, CA, United States 2014~03-01

Robert Sinn San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-02

Cameron McKelvie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-02

Samir Sharma San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-02

Andrew Haaser San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-03

Shradha Gupta San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-03

Jana and Tony Cira San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-03

Name Location Date

Bill Rieger San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-03

Frank Jao San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-04

Lisa Stanziale San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-04

Valorie Boucher San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-04

Pavithra Krishnam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-04

Rosanne Mancuso San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-05

Rebecca Iverson Pacifica, CA, United States 2014-03-05

Murali Krishnam San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-06

Debbie Adams San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-06

Josiah Durham Everett, WA, United States 2014-03-06

Sabrina Escobedo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-06

Terri Burtin Mountain View, CA, United States 2014-03-10

Serena Tavassoli Campbell, CA, United States 2014-03-10

jessica farzande San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-10

Mohamed Abushaban San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-11

Jethroe Moore San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-26

Judy Kane San Jose, CA, United States 2014-03-27

Lisa Coffman Palo Alto, CA, United States 2014-04-06

Valeri Heyberger Modesto, CA, United States 2014-04-07

Dan Leong San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-10

V. Kaul San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-11

Ritu Bajpai San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-11

Sandra Steiger Santa Cruz, CA, United States 2014-04-11

Shashank Chaturvedi San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-12

Joy DeVito San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-12

Billie Hunley San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-12

Robin Hahn San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-12

Raj Kaul San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Barry Siebenthal! San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Julie Slater West Hollywood, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Patrick Watson Denver, CO, United States 2014-04-13

Carolyn Mohr,MD. Paradise, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Name Location Date

dan cappello. lawrence, PA, United States 2014-04-13

Kaileen Reynolds Mission, TX, United States 2014-04-13

Jon Mangana Baltimore, MD, United States 2014-04-13

Barbara Vieira Staten Island, NY, United States 2014-04-13

Brian Henderson Athens, GA, United States 2014-04-13

Lisa Salazar Foster City, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Noel Mellish Midland Park, NJ, United States 2014-04-13

melissa tucker college station texas, TX, United States 2014-04-13

Jen Davison Cambridge, MA, United States 2014-04-13

Mariam Andalibi Andover, NJ, United States 2014-04-13

lisa parsons fitchburg, MA, United States 2014-04-13

Mailin Hernandez San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Hamedi Sotoudeh San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Violet Sinnarkar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

vandana sinnarkar San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-13

Ron Leedy San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-14

Martha Plazola San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-14

neela s san jose, CA, United States 2014-04-14

Darlene Vales San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-15

Maribeth Berlie San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-15

Chao Zhong Carlsbad, CA, United States 2014-04-15

Leo DeVito San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-16

Andrea Lacy Mount Morris, Ml, United States 2014-04-16

Gabriel Lopez-Allen Aurora, CO, United States 2014-04-16

franchezska zamora pasadena, CA, United States 2014-04-16

Dr. Monty Thornburg Couherville, CA, United States 2014-04-16

Ryann Coulas Kailua, HI, United States 2014-04-16

Sy Nashiro Honolulu, HI, United States 2014-04-16

ZohalKhan Allentown, PA, United States 2014-04-16

Jami Bigham Traverse City, Ml, United States 2014-04-16

Candy LeBlanc Placerville, CA, United States 2014-04-16

ZILKA DAMIEN France 2014-04-16

Name Location Date

JOHN RICHARD YOUNG East Norriton, Manteo., PA, United States 2014-04-16

sara whitedove so. lake tahoe, CA, United States 2014-04-16

Dwight Anderson Minneapolis, MN, United States 2014-04-16

Kiana Montalvo Roscoe, IL, United States 2014-04-16

Nicole Gillespy Maple Shade, NJ, United States 2014-04-16

Johnathan Hunt Carrollton, TX, United States 2014-04-16

Mary Beth Till Flagstaff, AZ, United States 2014-04-16

Gail Daniels Burlington, NC, United States 2014-04-16

Hilda Rivera San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-16

Lananh Vo San Jose, CA, United States 2014-04-16

change.org

Recipient:

Letter:

County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, Kathy Schmidt, Dorsey Moore, Forrest Linebarger, Mary Ann Ruiz, Jack Bohan, Therese Couture, and Scott Lefaver

Greetings,

We ask the County Planning Commission to deny YCS Investments' plan to build a new community off of Silver Creek Valley Road sprawled over 200 acres of beautiful open hillside property in the San Jose's voter-approved greenbelt (also known as the San Jose Greenline). Allowing this inappropriately-located development of 87 single-family homes, roads, and a community center on our sensitive open space would weaken the integrity of this greenbelt. The plan will add an intersection and more traffic to Silver Creek Valley Road which raises serious concerns over traffic safety and equitable cost-sharing of road maintenance.

In addition, approval of this project could incentivize proposals for other new housing developments in the hillsides adjacent to our community that could further burden our community's schools, roads and services. Since this new housing project was not anticipated in the planning for the Evergreen vicinity, it amounts to overdevelopment of our area.

One of the many reasons our region is so special is because of the open space and natural habitat which surrounds us. This misguided project would substantially diminish the scenic views of open hillsides and grasslands from the valley floor and the Silver Creek community. The endangered species and sensitive wildlife that forage and live on this land also would be adversely affected during and after the construction of this subdivision.

The County will be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing urban development on highly ecologically sensitive land outside our Greenline. As residents of the City of San Jose and of Santa Clara County, it is imperative that we stand together to protect the beauty of our hillsides and stop sprawl from permanently damaging our open space. We call on the County Planning Commission to respect and maintain the integrity of our voter-approved Greenline and the Open Hillside designation of this area under the San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan.

Comments

Name Location Date Comment

lana krenzin San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 We currently live in this area and are opposed to more building here for the

very reason we moved to this area to get away from traffic, noise and

congestion etc. WE love the quiet as well as the abundance of wildlife that

surrounds us. It is wonderful living in this "retreat like" community.

Randy Krenzin San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Greenbelt!

don herd San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 intersection and accidents on Silver Creek Valley Road

Greg Gaches San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 I do not want to see the foothills cluttered with more homes and I do not wat to

see added pressure on our supporting infrastructure (roards, schools, etc.)

Tonia Baker San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 The area outside of our Greenline is intended to serve as a permanent

greenbelt of open space and natural habitat specifically along the eastern and

southern edge of San Jose where the Young Ranch property is located, and

the additional roads through endangered species habitat are not in-line with the

spirit and purpose of the Greenline or Open Hillside designation

terry murphy SanJOse, CA 2014-02-07 This will create further traffic safety issues on Silver Creek Blvd and increase

the risk of more accidents and it will damage a fragile ecosystem.

Herb Muya San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Too much overcrowding and pollution. Area Is already crowded and the wild

animals will have no place to go.

No more houses up here please

Bob Moore San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 There are a lot of rare plants and flowers in this area. This should not happen.

Patrick Dunkley San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 To maintain the quality of our community, to avoid an increase in traffic and to

protect our environment.

Tracy Rodriguez San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 It is important to preserve the land and home of the wildlife that live there I

There's enough homes, concrete and roads in the areal!!

Sterling Larnerd San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 The area has been overbuilt in recent years.

Beatriz Quezada Sanjose, CA 2014-02-07 Preserving wild life. Preserving the environment. Safety. Value of r~al state in

Silver creek. Potentisl depletion of services.

Srinivas Burli San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Preserve Open Space

Kris Chase San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 I'm worried about the traffic light at Silver Creek Valley Road. This is already a

dangerous road!

Lisa Cendejas San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Preserve the greenbelt area, protect open space and habitat for wildlife to

remain in the area, preserve the pristine undeveloped space. The beauty of the

area would be horrifically damaged by overdevelopment.

Arup Gupta SANJOSE, CA 2014-02-07 Keep Silver Creek Green and Safe

Gary Strohbehn San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 I moved here because of the marvelous open spaces surrounding the SCVCC

community. I don't want that experience wrecked by a new development.

Valerie Kwai Ben San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 when we purchased at SCVCC they told us the greenbelt would be preserved.

charles welsh San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 It is very important to the quality of life of our community to preserve the open

space we have dedicated. We must not allow the value of this land to drive

unwanted development that diminishes our city.

Dennis Mozingo San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Traffic burden, wildlife impact, overcrowding of community resources and

schools already, destruction of natural habitat and landscape unique to our

community

Liang Xie San Josi~. Ci\ 2014-02-07 Traffic will be even worse.

Name

Bob Mathews

Christopher Sagen

juan carrillo

Sing Tan

Sandhya Khandekar

Khambham

Ramachandran

Sunil Mehra

Michael O'Toole

Renayda DeLaRosa

Carolyn Koehle

Chris Koehle

Sharon Zeman

Haresh Patel

nadine tevis

Bhavana Anklesaria

Lisa Allen

Nina Chan

Brian Spoutz

Cathleen Capogeannis

Vladimir Milutin

robert valiton

Katie Wilson

Qiang Lin

Cheryl Sole

Location

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

sunnyvale, CA

sanjose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

Date Comment

2014-02-07 Too much density. Already crowded

2014-02-07 More pressure on traffic, water supply, schools, sewer, fire, watershed, all for

money.

2014-02-07 Preservation of our undeveloped greenbelt region is of prime importance.

2014-02-07 Protect the natural green belt in the area.

2014-02-07 To preserve the natural habitat

2014-02-07 Preserve GreenBelt.

2014-02-07 We moved here for the pristine country side and the peace and quiet.

2014-02-07 Silver Creek was not allowed to build houses that could be seen on the hills

from the freeway. Why now is this development allowed? Money, of course.

Keep the hills looking like hills.

2014-02-07 Too much traffic and it will ruin some of the natural habitat

2014-02-07 wildlife, overcrowding, aesthetics of our beautiful community

2014-02-07 Safety, Traffic, Greenbelt

2014-02-07 . These green spaces are essential for controlling population density, traffic

management, resource consumption, air quality and most importantly for

preserving a habitat for wild life.

2014-02-07 It will ruin Environment

2014-02-07 Less suburban human sprawl, better urban city planning.

2014-02-07 The main reason for us to live in this area is so we can enjoy the beautiful open

green areas, less congested housing and scenic views.

2014-02-07 Traffic congestion, burden on roads, services, general overdevelopment of

such a beautiful greenbelt.

2014-02-07 I'm very concerned about the already threatened Tule Elk and Mountain Lion

species. The Tule Elk were introduced to these foothiils back in 1978 and

forage in this area in the early fall and spring. If we continue to diminish the

food source for the Mountain Lion we will see them closer to our

neighborhoods.

2014-02-07 This is a TERRIBLE place to have a major community situated - SCV Road just

cannot support the inclusion of traffic on such a steep winding roadway!

2014-02-07 I have twice witnessed accidents,one with a fatality, at the area of proposed

junction. Pull your traffic records!

2014-02-07 Openspace is both important to our earth and our community. We are

overdeveloped.

2014-02-07 The proposed development is in the heart of a greenbelt area where migrating

elk, deer, mountain lions, bobcats and other wildlife are frequently seen.

Coupled with the already heavy traffic and frequent accidents resulting in

serious body harm mskes the proposed development a seriously bad idea.

2014-02-07 Green space

2014-02-07 Humans are not the only residents in the area. There are a lot of wild lives here

too, and we should not simply take their home away!

2014-02-07 I live in the area and do not want the extra congestion.

Name Location Date Comment

Oliver Weber San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 I think there will be a serious impact to the Thule Elk and mountain lion

populations that frequent this area. Further, we moved here so that we could

enjoy the open space and reduced congestion.

Garth Vivier San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Silver Creek Valley road is already prone to accidents. We should be

preserving open space not developing it. Strongly opposed to development that

would impact on wildlife. Negatively impacts on the reasons we live out here.

Yvonne Covello San Jose, CA 2014-02-07 Wildlife

ron mckelvie sanjose, CA 2014-02-07 It is important to preserve SOME of our open spaces

Jeannette Castro San Jose, CA 2014-02-08 Don't need more congestion in our area. And wild life

Kathryn Anderson San Jose, CA 2014-02-08 Just do not want more house built in our area. More traffic and spoil are nice

area.

kellylanspa new almaden, CA 2014-02-08 the silicon valley has always prided itself on its open space. We need this for

animals, plants and breathing space.

Jerry Simms San Jose, CA 2014-02-08 Love the open space as is. Love seeing the wildlife that roam the hills .. Elk

especially.

No way to development on such precious land.

Diane Ordaz San Jose, CA 2014-02-09 Save the open space green belt

Karen Uhlin San Jose, CA 2014-02-09 Traffic concerns and quality of life concerns.

ramin nemany sanjose, CA 2014-02-09 This is the reason I bought this house, to get away from all the congested area

in San Jose and at that time the realtor told us that this is part of greenbelt and

will never be developed.

nela babomian sanjose, CA 2014-02-09 To protect the wildlife around us.

Rajeev Vachani San Jose, CA 2014-02-09 Enough is enough. We've overbuilt this area in San Jose and continue to

destroy the natural habitats of birds, animals, and insects. "YCS" needs to be

stopped. YCS is an investment company that is purely driven bY making a

profit. As residents in this area we must stop this urban sprawl.

Lydia Thomas Saratoga, CA 2014-02-09 Open space and wildlife will be impacted negatively.

Saumya Tripathi sanjose, CA 2014-02-09 becos I live in the neighborhood and wanna protect the natural surroundings of

this beautiful community ...

ChrisAllingham San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 Maintain the integrity of San Jose's urban growth boundary.

Aaron Rosenberg San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 Loss of Green Belt and Traffic on Silver Creek Valley Road

meri coleman sanjose, CA 2014-02-10 Traffic concerns, over crowing in schools, keep evergreen green and a small

community. This is voter approved greenbelt, not a housing development.

John Tobey San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 I do not want to have another impact on traffic on Silver Creek Valley Road as

well as the loss of the grazing area for a herd of Elk that provide entertainment

for all that live in the area.

Sandra Lowe San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 Developers have already taken away much of the habitat from the wildlife. All

too often we see brazen coyotes already impeding into neighborhoods looking

for hunting grounds amongst pets due to their habitats being taken over by

overdevelopment. In addition, we've seen the incidence of mo.untain lion and

bobcat sightings within the area increasing as their habitat has been

encrouched upon. This needs to stop. Stop looking at the almighty dollar and

preserve some of the natural landscape for the inhabitants that were here far

longer than we were!

Venkat Sundaranatha San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 traffic safety and preservation of natural habitat

sudha michel sanjose, CA 2014-02-10 Overdevelopment and congestion

Name Location Date Comment

Angelina Lu San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 Traffic concerns, overcrowding in schools, preserve natural habitat

Lillian Moore San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 This could be an environmental disaster due to land movement below the

SCVCC homes.

Lillian Moore San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 Land Movement,

This area has been mined for silver and ore for several years. The land on the

hillside here is unstable and could lead to a major land slide. The current road

conditions of Silver Creek Valley Road below and around this proposed site

already show signs of ground movement. Rare Animals, planets and insect will

be displaced or lost forever.

There needs to be a study done by an environmental agency to understand the

issue mentioned above.

Again this proposed project will lead to environmental disaster on the hillside

around SCVCC

Cassandra Briggs San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 When we purchased our home we were told that no development would _ever_

be allowed in that area -- this is why we chose to buy in Silver Creek. This

proposed development will violate the integrity of the views and environment,

increase traffic accidents on an already dangerous road, and cause noise

pollution for the very protracted (20 years?) building period. It's a disaster.

Brian Allen San Jose, CA 2014-02-10 This development is very poorly conceived and endangers wildlife and the

hillsides.

Ashok Agarwal sanjose, CA 2014-02-10 I live in the neighborhood and I am concerned about the implications to the

peace and quiet of our area.

brandon coker sanjose, CA 2014-02-10 Leave this hill side as the beautiful

sight it is:

Martin Reed San Jose, CA 2014-02-11 This area is already overdeveloped. There is not an

adequate infrastructure of schools, roads, parks, shopping and additional

services to support another development of this size. As planners, government

employees and citizens of Santa Clara County we ask and expect that you be

stewards of our open space and natural environment. Do not let this

suburbanization sprawl continue on our hillsides to the benefit of a few already

wealthy land owners/developers at the expense of the many families in our

community who live here in order to enjoy the natural beauty of the open space

that remains.

JoAnn Hunter San Jose, CA 2014-02-11 We were told as others when we first purchased our property as original

owners in the country club, that the country club would be the only housing

development going up along Silver Creek Valley Road and the hills would

remain undeveloped.

This ia an exclusive area and we never expected that we would be misled and

have to fight to have an over-developed area with congestion and noise. This

would be totally unacceptable to say the least. We will not tolerate this and will

definitely fight this act.

Karen Ketner San Jose, CA 2014-02-11 I do not want the beauty and wonder of our natural environment altered.

Madhavi Padgaonkar San Jose, CA 2014-02-11 No developments required. This will cause more congestion, pollution and will

destroy the surrounding natural beauty. Please stop.

Jean Dresden San Jose, CA 2014-02-12 It is outside San Jose's Urban Service Area and surrounded by San Jose

lands. Developer is trying to leverage County to avoid following San Jose rules.

Name Location Date Comment

Nancy Fradette San Jose, CA 2014-02-12 I want to protect the wildlife in this area. We regularly see lots of wildlife in

these hills (including some very rarely seen animals) and I don't want their

habitat destroyed.

Elizabeth Sarmiento San Jose, CA 2014-02-13 Because nature has value!

amanda henry mountain view, CA 2014-02-13 This is important to me because I value the health and economic benefits of

open space and want to protect this ecologically sensitive area.

EM Wilkinson Sunnyvale, CA 2014-02-13 Preserving pristine open space, especially on hillsides is hugely important for

our ecosystems and wildlife health. And this plan in particular is dangerously

precedent setting.

Susan Price San Jose, CA 2014-02-13 Because sprawl hurts Neighborhoods like mine which are closer to the

downtown area would suffer because limited City resources would be spread

over a larger area ..

Alice Ringer Scotts Valley, CA 2014-02-13 I work near this area and enjoy the open spaces near my work. I don't want to

see sprawl take over these green hills!

Margaret Okuzumi Sunnyvale, CA 2014-02-13 important to protect the integrity of the greenbelt and the beauty of our hills.

Teri Rogoway San Jose, CA 2014-02-13 Because these natural areas are a carbon sink that help us make up for

greenhouse gas pollution. And its a home for wildlife so it can continue.

Carla Dick-Peddie San Jose, CA 2014-02-14 I live in the neighborhood and having cross traffic cut accross silver crek valley

road will be extremely dangerous. Especially given the accident level on the

road currently.

John Dick-Peddie San Jose, CA 2014-02-14 wildlife (Elk, others),+ dangerous to cross silver creek valley road by putting in

an access road.

Miidred Pylatyk San Jose, CA 2014-02-14 I drive this dangerous road daily and adding an access road to the extreme

grade of Silvercreek valley road will make it more hazardous.

Cynthia Welch sanjose, CA 2014-02-14 Impacts wildlife habitat, unsafe place for an intersection into the proposed

community

Scott Karstetter San Jose, CA 2014-02-14 Stop urban sprawl and limit traffic on Silver Creek Valley Road

Sandra Coats Campbell, CA 2014-02-17 We need to act now to preserve the open space that is left in our valley

Gary Heidenreich San Jose, CA 2014-02-17 This is some of the last open land in the greater San Jose area. We need to

minimize the city's sprawl and this is a good way to start. Besides, we don't

have adequate fire and poice protection now; why would we add yet mpre

house to watch over.

Edward Bough San Jose, CA 2014-02-18 There is just so little undeveloped land left.

Liang Yin San Jose, CA 2014-02-19 Please leave some open space!!

Kristal Caidoy Milpitas, CA 2014-02-20 We need open space for biodiversity, recreation and wildlife.

Peter Fysh San Jose, CA 2014-02-20 An intersection on this downhill section of Silver Creek Valley road will pose a

significant traffic safety risk.

Name Location

Geoff Smicl< San Rafael, CA

Jennifer Krenzin San Jose, CA

John Leggio San Jose, CA

Date Comment

2014-02-21 This petition is misguided and not based in fact. I am a biologist with WRA, an

environmental consulting firm that has extensively studied the habitat at Young

Ranch and throughout Coyote Ridge. In addition we have contributed to the

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The motivating principle of the Young Ranch

proposal is the long-term preservation and management of the property's

sensitive biological resources. The plan is for a rural community that is in

balance with both the natural resources of the site and the public's demand for

viewscape and slope protection. Young Ranch is crucial to ensuring early

success of the SCVHP. It accounts for nearly a quarter of the SCVHP's goal of

protecting 2,900 acres of serpentine grassland on Coyote Ridge. Overall,

1,950 acres of land would be perpetually preserved and managed according to

a resource management plan. No development is proposed in areas with

sensitive species or habitats. Alternatives to this sustainable plan could be far

worse for species protection, and in fact, could ensure their demise. For more

information, including our research, the project plans, and viewshed

simulations, visit: youngrancticommunity.com.

2014-02-21 Geoff, since you are in the employ of YCS Investments, the developer of this

project, it is hard to take your comments as unbiased. As a matter of fact, they

are right out of the YCS playbook. We are well aware of how YCS Investments

has packaged up this proposal to cover up the fact that they will be putting

homes in a very sensitive hillside area that should be left in its natural state as

much as possible. We are well aware of all the maps outlining the amount of

sensitive habitat and resources there are on this property. To say the

development completely avoids them is simply untrue. If the motivating goal of

YCS Investment's proposal was the long-term preservation and management

of sensitive biological resources, then they would have worked with the Valley

Habitat Plan to put the whole property in their care.

The City of San Jose Planning Dept. made it very clear in their letter to YCS

that they have serious concerns with a proposal to put 87 homes and a

community center in an area they have designated as greenbelt. This proposal

does not fit the intent of the Green line whatsoever.

2014-02-21 Geoff,

What is really "misguided" is that "the motivating principle of the Young Ranch

proposal is the long-term preservation and management of the property's

sensitive biological resources." This is nothing more than a marketing spin.

The developer YCS is motivated by making money.

1. There is not much being disclosed about YCS but they appear to be a

Delaware registered company "Yeung Chi Shing Holding (Delaware) Inc."

Yeung Chi Shing Estates Ltd is a company out of Hong Kong & Yeung Chi

Shing is a banking executive out of China who is heavily involved in real estate

investments.

2. The truth is that the County requires YCS to keep 90% of the property in

open space in order to build those homes. And the other truth is that YCS

would never be able to build in that 1,950 acre area because the Federal and

State Wildlife Services would never allow it.

Name

Gio Leggio

Christine Grenier

Rohit Aggarwal

Kristian Gordon

Scott Ellner

Pam Hudson

Olga Follett

Brian McDonald

Ravi Bhat

charles follett

Donald Fernandez

Mary Ewing

ivan karim

romina karim

Location

sanjose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

Elwood, Australia

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

sanjose, CA

San Jose, CA

San Jose, CA

sanjose, CA

sanjose, CA

Date Comment

2014-02-22 Geoff,

What is really "misguided" is that "the motivating principle of the Young Ranch

proposal is the long-term preservation and management of the property's

sensitive biological resources." This is nothing more than a marketing spin.

The developer YCS is motivated by making money.

1. There is not much being disclosed about YCS but they appear to be a

Delaware registered company "Yeung Chi Shing Holding (Delaware} Inc."

Yeung Chi Shing Estates Ltd is a company out of Hong Kong & Yeung Chi

Shing is a banking executive out of China who is heavily involved in real estate

investments.

2. The truth is that the County requires YCS to keep 90% of the property in

open space in order to build those homes. And the other truth is that YCS

would never be able to build in that 1,950 acre area because the Federal and

State Wildlife Services would never allow it.

2014-02-23 Overcrowding.

Animal control.

Traffic congestion.

Aesthetics.

2014-02-23 We need to keep some open space!!

2014-02-23 Outlet onto Silver Creek Valley Rd would provide more fatalities on an already

dangerous stretch of road.

2014-02-23 Enough already with the development!

2014-02-23 Were promised open space that is why we bought here. Silver Creek Valley

Road is an accident ridden bobsled run, with many fatalities. A stop sign will be

run over in a heartbeat.

2014-02-23 The increase in traffic, and the intersection at an already treacherous roadway

is a major concern. Releasing Pristeen Land to development is a crime,

especially when the original developers were not permitted to develop any land

facing 101 FWY.

2014-02-23 I am a resident and want to preserve land values, quality of life and wild life

preservation,

2014-02-23 We love our peaceful community and the surrounding wildlife and gree~ line.

We don't want to over crowd this area and create further threat to the wildlife

than we already have. Take this development down further south. There is a lot

of open land.

2014-02-23 I'm concerned with the increased risk of road accidents.

2014-02-23 Traffic, noise, safety and destruction of the hillside. Potential for rainwater

runnoff causing problems on the street.

2014-02-23 We have enough traffic already

on Silver Creek Valley Road.

2014-02-24 we need to preserve our Green Belt and protect the wild life land

2014-02-24 it is very crucial to save what ever green belt we have left for all these animals

whom call it home.

Name Location Date Comment

Cat Urbas San Jose, CA 2014-02-25 1) Currently SJPD's traffic monitoring of driver violations seems to be strained

given their staffing challenges in recent tough economic years. Not sure how

new growth in residential vehicle transportation stemming from this proposed

additional neighborhood will improve the historical record of traffic violations

and fatalities. Already, there have been some serious accidents and deaths on

Silver Creek Valley Road in the past 6 years. 2) Another development of 87

houses contributes to traffic congestion on all key arteries in & out of the

specific site and surrounding vicinities. This would likely contribute to longer

commutes in peak hours. 3) Our Evergreen roads' maintenance and capacity

does not anticipate funding/planning/100%-readiness for the period of actual

construction nor eventual occupancy for 87 new parcels.4)New construction

comes will daily debris, flat tires, and other messes associated with the building

process, despite best efforts and promises of the developers. 5) Meanwhile,

other infrastructure elements need intelligent planning for growth in demand

for: telephony, PGE, H20, and internet services which anticipate a change in

occupancy by 87 new parcels. 6) We need to rethink further expansion or

erosion into our green belt, and to preserve our surrounding ecosytem for local

wildlife and indigenous flo_ra and fauna. Many animals perish crossing our

neighborhood streets. The incidence of animal deaths would increase. 7)

Finally, do not believe a new development will adversely impact public schools.

But to the contrary, this will assist with enrollment in the Evergreen School

District and its local schools.

Cat Urbas. Member of Citizen Oversight Committee for Measure T Parcel Tax

for Evergreen School District

Nadine Nader San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 Green Belt preservation.

Jessica Mendonca San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 I want to protect the environment in our area.

Fatima Mendonca Morgan Hill, CA 2014-02-26 We need to protect the wildlife and their habitat and not develop here.

Sam Mendonca Morgan Hill, CA 2014-02-26 I have lived here my entire life and do not want to see the destruction of the few

remaining open areas where wildlife and nature can thrive.

Cynthia Stewart San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 Protection of our greenbelt and serious safety concerns on the SVCC Road.

Jyothi Suresh San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 We have already spoilt our environment enough. Pl do not encroach on

anymore of the greenbelt area.

Ayman habib San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 Wildlife protection and reduce traffic, pollution and crowding

Ram Iyer San Jose, CA 2014-02-26 Environment, Green belt area, Traffic and congestion, Pollution. Also, since this

area is a high accident prone zone(silver creek valley rd), it would be

dangerous for new residents there ..

Darlene Vales San Jose, CA 2014-02-27 We need to stop developer greed, and save our designated greenbelt and the

threatened local animals and plant life that reside in this area. Traffic is already

intolerable in the area and our schools overpopulated. More homes will

exacerbate the problem and destroy our hillsides

Kathleen Helsing sanjose, CA 2014-02-27 don't go into green belt!

Jacqueline Bogard San Jose, CA 2014-02-27 Preserve the Green Bell per the City Plan.

Betty Wu San Jose, CA 2014-02-27 More homes = more traffic, more noise and disturbance, chance of more crime

and it is an intrusion. Every square inch of green space does not need to be

developed. It also displaces the natural habitat.

Enough - go find some other city to destroy.

Name Location

Bev Locsin Morgan Hill, CA

Himawan Gunadhi San Jose, CA

Patrick Vales South Lake Tahoe, CA

DJ Mendonca San Jose, CA

virginia fournier sanjose, CA

Dan Stickel San Jose, CA

Robert Sinn San Jose, CA

Cameron McKelvie San Jose, CA

FrankJao San Jose, CA

Judy Kane San Jose, CA

Sandra Steiger Santa Cruz, CA

Billie Hunley San Jose, CA

Barry Siebenthal! San Jose, CA

Leo DeVito San Jose, CA

Date

2014-02-27

2014-02-27

2014-02-27

2014-02-27

2014-02-27

2014-02-28

2014-03,02

2014-03-02

Comment

One of the main reasons our family loves the Silver Creek Valley area and

Morgan Hill is the open space, green hills and the natural habitat. Another

reason this is important, is because the voters have already agreed to preserve

this area. Why the change of heart? Please respect the Greenline and the

grasslands that surround it.

No more development in the greenbelt! It's over-developed.

THIS DISTRUCTION MUST END !

Preserve San Jose's open space and the natural habitat which surrounds us.

Preserve the greenbelt as approved by voters, and protect sensitive flora and

fauna inhabiting this area.

I'm told that this is within the voter-approved Green Belt. If so, it would be

inexcusable to flout the will of the people.

This land should not be developed as it is a designated greenbelt area.

We dont need more homes on that side of the area. this is a part of san jose

that distinguishes Silver Creek from the rest of the city. the panoramic view of

hillsides full of cattle, coyotes, fox, eagles, and elk is not something "we the

people" should want to replace with more corporate - commercial - selfcentered

·developments. big picture - lets keep the wildlife thriving.

2014-03-04 Green Belt area is suppose to be off for development as the San Jose City

planned

2014-03-27 Open space is needed for everyone's enjoyment. There is enough infil to meet

needs.

2014-04-11 Do not want to see more open space cemented over especially in hillside land

areas.

2014-04-12 Preserving hill lands where homes do not belong

2014-04-13 We need to protect our remaining green belts. Also, the intersection location is

at a hazardous place even in its current state.

2014-04-16 From the lte 1980's onward Verba Buena ridge and the new proposed Young

ranch Development were designated as preserves and protected. The North

end of the ridge was somehow developed despite the protections. Now Young

ranch, and this is only Phase 1 of Young ranch. All the ridge top should be

non-home building, and remain natural undisturbed, perhaps for Cows. Don't

reverse all the good planning that was agreed to. Stop Young ranch from

creeping into our wonderful natural resources.