=====Site will get updates soon======.
UPDATE (Oct 23, 2011) :
Kirk presented at the Santa Calra City Council meeting on Oct 11, 2011. This slide and the following comments were shared.
1. Kirk clarified the Public Works statement about costs for the development (not revenue as previously stated) by displaying the Agenda Report from November 11, 2008 showing that: "There will be additional cost to the City for providing services to the added residential units that will not be completely offset by additional tax revenue." This directly conflicts with the statement put out by the SummerHill and the Developers (in fact they campaigned on this) saying, "[the Development] creates an annual revenue surplus of approximately $73,000." Just another one of dozens of examples where SummerHill skillfully misled the public to win the vote.
2. Kirk asked how much the development will cost the City since it will come out of the General Fund (based on the above statement)
3. Requested clarification from the City Manager since she stated all the money needed for the housing development is available today and the Mercury News stated: "The builders of the senior project, Charities Housing and Santa Clara Methodist Foundation, will have to apply and compete with other nonprofits for the dwindling affordable housing funds."

The City Manager and Director of Public Works were pretty much non-responsive to the question of cost to the City. The City Manager did say that all the money for the Senior Housing portion is available and the above statement did not apply to this matter. Kirk sent a follow-up email to the City Council and City Manager asking again: How much will the development cost the City? No response to date.
SummerHill has started the process of grading the land. Here are a couple of pics: Pic1, Pic2, Pic3, Pic4.
Video of SummerHill's destruction vehicles, making the last farmland in Santa Clara extinct.

- The San Jose Mercury News publishes an article on Oct 4, 2011.
- On September 27, 2011, the following 2-minute video was presented to the Santa Clara City Council. Also, the following document was submitted to the record. Basically, it states that the two developments do not address current trends/needs, better solutions exist, and for SummerHill Homes to come up with a price to sell the land. It asks for the opportunity to buy the land from SummerHill.
- SummerHill sent a letter out to the neighborhood that they plan on beginning the grading process on the property as early as Monday, September 19, 2011.
- Based on a written petition filed with the City of Santa Clara this week, the City Council WILL have an agenda item for Tuesday, September 27, 2011. It is Item 7a. Here is the Agenda Report Additional clarification comments/requests were made.
- On Friday, September 16, 2011, someone from the Department of General Services posted a Notice of Non-Responsibility for work that SummerHill is planning on doing. Page 1. Page 2.

Traffic Light Issue:
During the Santa Clara Gardens Draft EIR circulation, the San Jose Department of Public Works (DPW) stated in a letter (which became part of the Final EIR) that it was not going to approve either of the two options proposed by the developer regarding the signal at Winchester Blvd./Forest Ave. (west) for specific reasons.  The first option was not supported due to operational and safety issues.  The second option, the one being challenged here today that removes the traffic signal, stated that it “appears acceptable from an engineering perspective, but causes neighborhood impact or livability impacts to the existing Forest Ave. neighborhood which may cause the City of San Jose to ultimately reject the proposed improvement.”

The DPW concludes that “the City of San Jose is not prepared to commit to approving the recommended new site driveway with modified Forest Avenue access without input from the affected San Jose residents westerly of Winchester Blvd. who would lose the signalized access and concurrence from the San Jose City Council District 6 Office, which represents those residents.  The proposed signal modifications appears to primarily benefit the Santa Clara Gardens Development Project in the City of Santa Clara at the expense of the City of San Jose residents’ existing access to Winchester Blvd. at Forest Ave.  The report should analyze other options, should the affected San Jose neighborhood and City Council District 6 Office not concur with the modification, such as….” And then gives a couple of suggestions.

For information on the BAREC property, please visit: www.SaveBAREC.org

We are San Jose residents that represent the voice of an area surrounded by Santa Clara. We are directly across the street from Westfield's Valley Fair mall and directly north of the former BAREC facility.

Current Issue (click for details):
Currently, the only controlled access to our neighborhood is at risk of being removed due to a development in Santa Clara (Santa Clara Gardens, the former BAREC site). The west leg of Forest Avenue (Forest west) is part of a two traffic light offset intersection. The northern light (the west leg) controls traffic from Winchester into our neighborhood. The southern light (the east leg) directs traffic to and from the back side of Valley Fair.

The planned development is requiring the removal of the Forest Ave (west) traffic light, and installing a right-in/right-out only access to the street, eliminating significant access to our own neighborhood.

The City of San Jose Department of Public Works originally protected our neighborhood by writing an official letter to the City of Santa Clara (the lead agency for the BAREC development).

The DPW has now changed its mind and feels it is OK to remove the light at the expense of the neighborhood. The City of San Jose has not conducted any outreach and the majority of the residents of the North of Forest neighborhood signed a petition stating they do not want the light removed. The City of San Jose is still moving forward. They are not listening to the residents they are bound to serve.

The Rules Committee did not feel it was worth getting more involved. The San Jose City Attorney said the City Council did not have authority on this issue so the Rules Committee just let it go. The attorney has some flawed assumptions that will be exposed very soon.