To Donald Rocha and the San Jose City Council:

Regarding the proposed development of 13 homes on the site at Pearl and Adamo Avenues, tenants at Tanglewood, which borders this property, would like to voice their concerns. There were a few hearings earlier this year at Tanglewood and the Pearl Avenue Library about this proposal, and many residents voiced their concerns. However, it appears that the proposal for 13 homes is steamrolling forward in spite of the many objections. None of the objections raised by those attending seem to have been taken seriously.

At these earlier hearings it came to light that the number of homes approved for a 1-1/4 acre site had been 8 maximum, but the number had been revised at the request of the owners/sellers to be 13 homes. Why was this not discussed at some community forum beforehand? No one was made aware, via community forum or discussion that such a development was being planned. Such lack of communication gives the appearance that the development is a fait accompli and that hearings after the fact are only a formality.

There is another public hearing on October 15th. Some people in this area are preparing petitions against this development as it is now proposed, but on such short notice wonder how much effect we may have.

1. Who has the final approval for this proposal?

2. How far has the approval process proceeded so far? Not much information is being provided by Project Manager Candace Louie.

3. To what extent is the City Council willing to voice concerns of the residents in your district, and to what extent will/can you intervene?

4. What is the most effective way to present objections? How many signatures are needed on petitions to have an effect? Can decisions be postponed to give us time to gather more signatures if needed?

Even though most or all of residents of Tanglewood are opposed to this development, the hearing is at 9AM on a weekday, making it difficult to people to attend.

1. Parking is already tight, and the new development offers only 3 “free” parking spaces, however at least one parking space on Adamo will be eliminated due to a driveway and fire hydrant.

The proposed homes would not have driveways, so residents wouldn’t have the option to park in front of their own homes. With 13 homes, the likelihood of 13 or more additional spaces on Adamo or bordering streets being taken by the new residents is very high.

2. The large oak tree would be cut down. This is a quality of life issue for people that live here. Those developing the property would benefit financially, but they will not reside here and have no interest in the character of the neighborhood. Their interests should not take precedence over those of us who care about the neighborhood.

3. The developers stated that they are required to plant a certain number of trees per site or per acre. In one of our meetings the developers stated that there would not be room to plant trees, but are given permission to plant trees elsewhere in San Jose to fulfill this requirement. Again, the developers would benefit at the expense of the quality of our neighborhood.

4. Removal of the barn. There has been some discussion that it could be a historical site to preserved. There should be more discussion about that.