Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important [External Email]
FW: Support for Proposed Temple located at 2740 Ruby Avenue City Clerk <
Tue 3/28/2023 7:56 AM
To:Agendadesk <
From: Sophaline Mao <
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:59 PM
To: Mahan, Ma < Kamei, Rosemary < Jimenez, Sergio
< Cohen, David < Doan, Bien < Batra, Arjun
< Candelas, Domingo < Davis, Dev < Or z,
Peter < Torres, Omar < Foley, Pam <
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: Support for Proposed Temple located at 2740 Ruby Avenue
Dear Honorable Mayor Mahan & Distinguished City Council Members,
I am Sophaline Mao, a 1.5 generation Cambodian-American refugee who arrived in the United States 43 years ago after my parents survived the genocide in Cambodia. Today, I am writing to garner your support and vote to approve the building of the Proposed Temple located at 2740 Ruby Avenue here in San Jose. Wat Khmer Kampuchea Krom will become not only a historic landmark in the Evergreen community, but a religious place for all who seek solace, peace and comfort. As a Theravada Buddhist temple, the community members will be able to participate in meditation, Dharma lessons that speak of loving-kindness, compassion and acceptance of all living beings.
For the Cambodian-American community, a Buddhist temple is a place to practice mindfulness, seek healing through the Buddhist monks' spiritual guidance, and find stillness as life's events can become tumultuous. It is not a place where one engages in activities such as partying, gambling nor heavy drinking as I heard individuals bring up from the Planning Commission meeting on February 22, 2023. The Cambodian-American community is starving for a cultural center that will connect, engage and preserve language, culture and religion for future generations of Americans of Cambodian heritage. As the new member of the Evergreen community, Wat Khmer Kampuchea Krom will serve the community , enhance its safety and be a source of neighborhood pride, and not a nuisance.
When we leave this world, what will be left for our next generation should be a beautiful monument to show how much our generation values community, diversity and inclusion. Our country’s forefathers built America on the core values of religious freedom, an abundance of opportunity and liberty to live in a multicultural society.
Mayor Mahan & City Council Members, I urge you to support this project in carrying on your legacy in continuing to build San Jose’s diverse, vibrant and culture of acceptance. This temple will be YOUR legacy that you get to leave behind for future generations. Thank you.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Best regards,
Sophaline Mao, M.A., M.B.A.
US Mobile:
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
FW: Council Meeting Agenda Item#10.4 - Oppose Rezoning & SUP - C20-12 & SP20-24 City Clerk <
Tue 3/28/2023 7:55 AM
To:Agendadesk <
From: 2740Ruby Concerns <
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:20 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Council Mee ng Agenda Item#10.4 - Oppose Rezoning & SUP - C20-12 & SP20-24
Hello City Clerk,
Please review and request you to forward this to all relevant parties reviewing this application.
Residents have met/presented to the Mayor, Council members, city planners and the representa ves of the applicant to express our concerns about this incompa ble project over the last 4 years. The issue is of land-use and not about this being a religious facility. We oppose the project due to the intensity, mass, loca on, size, extended hours, opera onal uses, safety, traffic, and noise concerns. This project does not meet the 2040 GP code for a R-1-5 zone. The project is located in a R-1-5 well established residen al neighborhood and surrounds a single-family private home on three sides. Now rezoning to PQP will allow the applicant to further intensify the use that is not consistent to a residen al neighborhood.
We have made repeated requests to the applicant to either propose a project that is compa ble with the neighborhood or find a more appropriate loca on in our community. None of the Evergreen Neighborhood Associa on is suppor ng thi this project due to the reasons men oned above.
Till date we have over 1400+ pe oners who have signed this below pe on opposing the project. https://www.change.org/NoRezone2740RubyAv
A er evalua ng their current proposal, finding an alternate site in Evergreen, San Jose seems to be win-win for all par es.
We would request you to make the same recommenda on when it comes to vote so that the a ached list of pe oners and their families can con nue to enjoy the safety and lifestyle that made them choose Evergreen as their home.
Please let us know if you need any addi onal informa on.
Thanks
EV Core Team
[External Email]
Council Meeting Agenda Item#10.4 - Oppose Rezoning & SUP - C20-12 & SP20-24 Nick Pham <
Tue 3/28/2023 2:29 AM
To:City Clerk <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear honorable Mayor and Councilmember:
I am a resident living less than 1,000 feet away the proposed Rezone site. I am wri ng to urge you to DENY the Rezoning of this property to allow the building of an incompa ble commercial-like facility that is also inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Here are the reasons for DENYING the rezoning:
1. Per T61-061 and H17-006, the parcel was appropriately approved for 6 single family homes that is consistent with the neighborhood per the General Plan 2040. It should remain R-1-5!
2. When the applicant applied for a Condi onal Use Permit to build a 20,000 Sq facility, Staff has indicated that: “the project is inconsistent with LU-10.8, that the project sit e is located within the R-1-5. Given the site’s loca on adjacency to exis ng single- family residence and completely surrounding an exis ng single-family residence, staff is concerned about the poten al impact of the size of the Project at points when the use is at full capacity”.
3. If the same project was found to be INCONSISTENT with a Condi onal Use Permit, how is changing the (appropriately) designated R-1-5 land-use zone to P/QP to make a project fit where it DID NOT fit before an appropriate decision?
4. The Project clearly Does NOT meet Policies as men oned in staff report:
a. CD-4.4 “…new development and subdivisions to reflect the character of predominant exis ng development of the same type in the surrounding area through the regula on of lot size, street frontage, height, building scale, si ng/setbacks, and building orienta on.”
b. VN-1.12 “…San José’s General Plan includes several goals and policies to ensure that infill development is compa ble with the prevailing neighborhood character”
5. Staff indicated the project meet Senate Bill 330
a. This Bill was signed into Law to address the NEED of HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Project b. First Para of SB-330 - “The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or condi oning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, ”a” housing development Project …or an emergency shelter
c. SB-330 DOES NOT jus fy the request to Change a Residen al Neighborhood (RN) Zone designa on in the General Plan to Pubic-Quasi Public (PQP) to build a 14,000 Sq Ft Private Gathering Facility, not a Housing Project. d. The proposed Project is a 14,000 Sq PRIVATE GATHERING FACILITY , IT IS NOT a housing development project
6. The proposed project DOES NOT meet many other policies. These finding were submi ed to staffs during public mee ngs. They were all ignored and not addressed in staff report.
a. LU-11.4 - “Discourage new commercial uses on small exis ng residen al streets unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the commercial use can integrate with the exis ng residen al neighborhood without crea ng adverse impacts.
Discourage primary access to large commercial parking lots and structures through residen al neighborhoods.” b. LU-11.6 - “For new infill development...The form of such new development should be compa ble with and, to the degree feasible, consistent with the form of the surrounding neighborhood pa ern.” c. VN-1.11 - “Protect residen al neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompa ble ac vi es or land uses which may have a nega ve impact on the residen al living environment.” d. VN-5.4 - “Carefully consider exis ng and poten al future proximate land uses when loca ng Private Community Gathering Facili es to avoid health and safety risks and minimize incompa ble land uses.” e. CD-4.9 - “For development subject to design review, ensure the design of new or remodeled structures is consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood fabric (including but not limited to prevalent building scale, building materials, and orienta on of structures to the street).” f. CD-4.12 - “For structures other than buildings and including structures on top of building… Locate such structures to minimize public visibility and avoid significant adverse effects on adjacent proper es.”
7. The applica on to Rezone this R-1-5 lot to P/QP is incompa ble and inconsistent within the Residen al Neighborhood district of Predominant detached single-family residence.
a. “The PQP Public/Quasi-Public District is intended to provide for publicly serving uses”
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. b. Public/Quasi-public Zoning District is defined in the same Zoning Code with the Commercial Zoning Districts (Chapter
20.40)
c. The Opera ng Plan contains Commercial-Use Characteris cs, banquet/wedding hall with a commercial size parking lot and a bus shu ling plan.
d. If rezone, how’s the city going to regulate the max 300 occupancy any me of the week? e. If rezone, how’s the city going to enforce the opera ng hours and commercial-use allowable in a P/QP zone? Example:
Noise level in P/QP can go up to 70db (equivalent level of a conven on center, amphitheater facility)?
8. The propose project is completely incompa ble and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in term of characters, architecture design, size and height
a. It is not aesthe cally compa ble with any adjacent homes and surrounding neighborhood. b. Other religious facility that the applica on compares the project to is at least consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in term of size and height and architectural design. This project IS NOT!
9. Real Safety and traffic concerns are ignored.
a. In the council’s memorandum dated 03/24/2023, the council has acknowledged that there’s limited PARKING and that an off-site parking plan is required. This is a major TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONCERN men oned by many residents. b. How is the REZONING of the residen al lot from the R-1-5 to P/QP to make something fit where it DOES NOT fit a good decision?
c. Also, how is a facility with a wedding/banquet hall that allow alcohol-use in a highly dense Residen al Neighborhood NOT a major safety concern?
d. Many supporters are from-out-town. Many come as far as San Francisco, Livermore, Stockton. Added traffics and safety concerns on top exis ng concerns will make the problem worse, not be er for the surrounding neighborhood. e. Busing visitors from local elementary schools during any me of the week through small residen al streets is a major safety concern.
10. One minute per speaker is simply not enough me for the neighbors to present all the reason to support a “NO” vote.
11. I sincerely ask that you to open the a ached document and carefully review all the factual suppor ng data that clearly indicate that this proposed rezoning project is WRONG for this R-1-5 lot.
12. You hold the power to change the lives of the residents adjacent to this project. Please put yourself in our shoe. If the role is reversed, and you family is living at the ny 996 sq home next to this proposed 14,000 sq 65 tall facility with a “COMMERCIAL-USE” opera ng plan, I would “NO” without a doubt.
Please don’t make decision that will impact and change the lives of many hardworking residents. We work hard to provide an enjoyable, safe and quiet environment for our families. The project of this size and scale is not compa ble with surrounding neighborhood. It will destroy what we all have work so hard to keep. We are not rich like to owner of this project, where we could just buy anything and do whatever we want.
Please vote “no” to the rezoning proposal.
Sincerely,
Nick Pham
Ruby Ct Resident
Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
“NO” to Rezoning
“NO” to Special Use Permit
“NO” to C20-012 & SP20-024
The neighborhood is against an INCOMPATIBLE Land-
Use proposal, that is also INCONSISTENT with the
General Plan designation and Policies for a Residential Neighborhood…
Please keep the R-1-5 zone to be consistent with the
adjacent residences in a Residential Neighborhood!
City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
⮚ This presentation contains factual supporting reasons for DENYING the Rezoning of this Residential Lot to P/QP
⮚ As you listen to the neighbors & during your deliberation, please help provide specific reasons showing how the project actually meet each of the following policy requirements??? CD-4.4, VN-1.12, SB-330, LU-11.4, LU-11.6, VN-5.4, CD4.9, CD-4.12 ⮚ Neighbors strongly disagree with staff report. The project is not COMPATIBLE & CONSISTENT with:
• CD-4.4 “…new development and subdivisions to reflect the character of predominant existing development of the same type in the surrounding area through the regulation of lot size, street frontage, height, building scale, siting/setbacks, and building orientation.” • VN-1.12 “…San José’s General Plan includes several goals and policies to ensure that infill development is compatible with the prevailing neighborhood character”. • SB-330 DOES NOT justify the request to Change a Residential Neighborhood (RN) Zone designation per the General Plan to Pubic-Quasi Public (PQP) to build a 14,000 Sq Ft Private Gathering Facility!!!! This is not a Housing Project…
Pg 2 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Questions re: Mayor’s Memorandum dated 3/24/2023
⮚ If the Council is considering the approval to rezone, how would the city enforce all of the allowable-use in P/QP zone?
⮚ How’s the city going to control the max 300 occupancy at anytime? ⮚ It seems that the memorandum has acknowledged that there’s limited PARKING and that an off-site parking plan is required. This is a major TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONCERN mentioned by many residents. How is the REZONING of the residential lot from the R-1-5 to P/QP to make something fit where it DOES NOT fit a good decision? Also, how is having a wedding/banquet hall that allow alcohol-use in a highly dense Residential Neighborhood NOT a major safety concern?
⮚ How is the City going to enforce the operating hours and commercial-use allowable in a P/QP zone? Example: Noise level in P/QP can go up to 70db (equivalent level of a convention center, amphitheater facility?
⮚ Many public comments were sent to staff regarding several General Plan Policies that the project does not meet. None were addressed! Also why is SB-330 an appropriate justification for the Rezone?
If the same project was found to be INCONSISTENT when a Conditional Use Permit was applied, how is changing the (appropriately) designated GP Land-use zone to make a project fit where it DID NOT fit before an appropriate decision? Pg 3 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Rezone to Public/Quasi-Public is Wrong
⮚ “The PQP Public/Quasi-Public District is intended to provide for publicly serving uses” • Public/Quasi-public Zoning District is defined in the same Zoning Code with the Commercial Zoning Districts (Chapter 20.40)
• Applicant has indicated that this is a Private Gathering Facility in Planning Commission meeting. It is not for general public benefits. “Visit by invitation only” per applicant. • The Operating Plan contains Commercial-Use Characteristics, banquet/wedding hall with a commercial size parking lot and a bus shuttling plan.
⮚ “The publicly serving land uses within this district can include schools, colleges, research institutions, corporation yards, homeless shelters, libraries, fire stations, water treatment facilities, convention centers with integrated hotels and restaurants, auditoriums, museums, governmental offices, airports, stadiums, and…” – This is INAPPROPRIATE for this parcel surrounded predominantly by Single Family Home
⮚ All applicable Policies clearly indicate that the project needs to be “consistent” and “compatible” with the surrounding neighborhood, without creating “negative impact on the residential living environment”
Project was found to be INCONSISTENT when the applicant applied for a Condition Use Permit (CUP) in a Residential Neighborhood. The project DOES NOT meet current General Plan Land Use Policies, Zoning Codes, rezoning to allow the same INCOMPATIBLE/INCONSISTENT is even MORE WRONG! Pg 4 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 CD-4.4 & VN-1.12
Project Does NOT meet Policies as mentioned in
staff report.
CD-4.4 “…new development and subdivisions
to reflect the character of predominant existing
development of the same type in the
surrounding area through the regulation of lot
size, street frontage, height, building scale,
siting/setbacks, and building orientation.”
VN-1.12 “…San José’s General Plan includes
several goals and policies to ensure that infill
development is compatible with the prevailing
neighborhood character”.
⮚ The proposed Project DOES NOT meet Policy
CD-4.4 & VN-1.12
Pg 5 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
Policy CD-4.4
“…new development and
subdivisions to reflect the character
of predominant existing
development of the same type in
the surrounding area through the
regulation of lot size, street
frontage, height, building scale,
siting/setbacks, and building
orientation.”
⮚ The proposed Project DOES
NOT meet Policy CD-4.4
Pg 7 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Policy CD-4.4(cont)
⮚ Buildings ~ 13 times the footprint
of the neighbor in the middle
⮚ Within 2,000 ft Radius of the site
(12,560,000 sq ft area), NO
BUILDING the size of this Private
Gathering Facility exist!
⮚ The proposed Project DOES NOT
meet Policy CD-4.4
Pg 8 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
In addition to the General Plan Policies &
State Bill that the project does NOT meet
as mentioned in Staff’s Report
The following are additional Policies that it
does not meet - LU-11.4, LU-11.6, VN-1.11,
VN-5.4, CD4.9, CD-4.12
Pg 11 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Addition Policies that The Project does NOT meet
⮚ LU-11.4 - “Discourage new commercial uses on small existing residential streets unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the commercial use can integrate with the existing residential neighborhood without creating adverse impacts. Discourage primary access to large commercial parking lots and structures through residential neighborhoods.”
⮚ LU-11.6 - “For new infill development...The form of such new development should be compatible with and, to the degree feasible, consistent with the form of the surrounding neighborhood pattern.” ⮚ VN-1.11 - “Protect residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses which may have a negative impact on the residential living environment.” ⮚ VN-5.4 - “Carefully consider existing and potential future proximate land uses when locating Private Community Gathering Facilities to avoid health and safety risks and minimize incompatible land uses.” ⮚ CD-4.9 - “For development subject to design review, ensure the design of new or remodeled structures is consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood fabric (including but not limited to prevalent building scale, building materials, and orientation of structures to the street).” ⮚ CD-4.12 - “For structures other than buildings and including structures on top of building… Locate such structures to minimize public visibility and avoid significant adverse effects on adjacent properties.” Pg 12 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Policy LU-11.4
“Discourage new commercial uses on small existing residential streets unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the commercial use can integrate with the existing residential neighborhood without creating adverse impacts. Discourage primary access to large commercial parking lots and structures through residential neighborhoods.”
⮚ PQP is designed for public/Commercial Use! The Private Gathering Facility has all the Characteristic of a Commercial Use, not a Residential Use ⮚ Any 14,000 sq ft facility IS NOT residential
⮚ Any facility that has an Operating Hours from 7AM-10PM (-midnight activities) is not a Residential Use ⮚ Any Private Gathering Facility has a commercial size parking lot, plus a shuttle bus plan will CREATE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
⮚ Any Private Gathering Facility that has a wedding/banquet hall and promote Alcohol Use is not residential.
No other known churches, temples in San Jose promote Alcohol Use. It will CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ⮚ Applicant has mentioned multiple times that the congregation has over “100 families” (not 300 visitors) and growing and need a large Gathering Facility. Crowds, Alcohol, will CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ⮚ The proposed Rezoning DOES NOT meet Policy LU-11.4
Pg 13 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Policy LU-11.6
“For new infill development...The
form of such new development
should be compatible with and, to
the degree feasible, consistent with
the form of the surrounding
neighborhood pattern.”
⮚ 14,000 sq ft, 64’10” ft tall Private
Gathering Facility is NOT COMPATIBLE
w/ the surrounding neighborhood
pattern
⮚ The design is NOT CONSISTENT with
existing neighborhood.
Pg 14 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
Policy VN-1.11 & VN-1.12
VN-1.11: “Protect residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses which may have a negative impact on the residential living environment.” VN-1.12: “Design new public and private development to build upon the vital character and desirable qualities of existing neighborhoods.
⮚ The 4-story, 65 ft high, 14,000 Sq Ft facility with its intended large crowd use, long-hour daily commercial-use plan, will impact the current living environment, the existing quality of life will be impacted.
⮚ This is a Private Gathering Facility with an event/banquet hall, karaoke, amplified sounds – it is NOT CONSISTENNT with the Residential Neighborhood Characteristic. Non-typical Residential Neighborhood activities = INCOMPATIBLE/INCOSISTENT Land-Uses. This project will have NEGATIVE IMPACTs to this predominantly residential living neighborhood! ⮚ The proposed Rezoning and Special Permit Use highlight INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES that encroach on the residential living environment. It DOES NOT meet Policy VN-1.11 Pg 16 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Policy VN-5.4
“Carefully consider existing and potential future proximate land uses when locating Private Community Gathering Facilities to avoid health and safety risks and minimize incompatible land uses.”
⮚ The facility is 14,000 Sq Ft, capable of holding over 2,500 people. It has a commercial size parking lot. It serves alcohol, allows smoking, and a shuttle bus through small residential streets. These are major Health and Safety risks. ⮚ Applicant has on multiple occasions, indicated that there are 100+ families in the congregation and growing! Thus, their proposal for a 14,000 sq ft facility. ⮚ If PQP is approved, the noise limit, the capacity will be uncontrollable ⮚ The proposed Rezoning and Special Permit Use highlight INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES that encroach on the residential living environment. It DOES NOT meet this Policy Pg 17 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Policy CD-4.12
“For structures other than buildings and including structures on top of building… Locate such structures to minimize public visibility and avoid significant adverse effects on adjacent properties.”
⮚A spire 65 ft tall is not COMPATIBLE with any typical 35ft max height Residential Home and Neighborhood
⮚How is this massive facility in size and height compatible with the residence @ 2720 Ruby Ave?
Pg 18 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
Other Facilities Aesthetically Consistent…
Grace Cathedral, 2650 Aborn Rd
R-1-8 Conditional Use Permit -Consistent with
neighborhood
Evergreen Valley United Methodist Church, 3520 San Felipe Rd
⮚ Both Grace Cathedral and Evergreen Valley Methodist have CUP in a Residential Zone, they are both consistent w/surrounding Residential Neighborhood and conform to Residential Zoning Code ⮚ PQP is for NON-Residential Use: Schools, College, Convention Center, Fire Station, Auditoriums, etc. ⮚ Rezoning will destroy the Residential Neighborhood, appropriately designated per the General Plan 2040 Pg 23 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
INCOMPATIBLE “Commercial-like” Operational Plan
⮚ Activities occur between 7AM to 12AM Midnight daily, 7 days-a-week. No other Private Gathering Facilities in a Residential Neighborhood have same activity hours . ⮚ Facility can easily hold 2673 people for the 14,000 Sq Ft indoor & outdoor use. • Community Hall capable of holding 785 people
• Temple Building can easily hold 391 people
• Outdoor Courtyards can hold 1408 People
⮚ Page 5&6 of Operation Plan indicates:
• 7 of 11 events contains activities that UTILIZE “FULL SITE” - TEMPLE, COMMUNITY ROOM & OUTDOOR COURTYARD.
• Activities include “games outside, including music, dance, karaoke and tug of war.
Sound system is used for music.”
• Wedding/banquet hall events allowed any day of the week. (Typical Asian wedding will have alcohol, and NONE will end before 10PM) ⮚ Commercial capacity parking. How is this NOT a public safety concern? • 48 “standard” parking spaces, 4 ADA spaces, plus other 15 stacking spaces that WILL BLOCK both the standard and the ADA spaces.
• Busing plan in small residential street any day of the week • How is this COMPATIBLE in a Residential Neighborhood Zone ⮚ Alcohol at wedding/banquet in the middle of a Residential neighborhood is a serious public safety concerns
⮚ Smoking zone near 2720 Ruby resident, is allowed. 2nd hand smoke is a Heath Hazard (no matter which direction the wind blows)
Pg 26 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Private Gathering Facility with “Commercial-like” Operational Plan is NOT CONSISTENT with surrounding detached SFR neighborhood INCOMPATIBLE Festival-like Events Year-Round
⮚ In addition to the 7AM-12PM DAILY activities, there are “9 annual events” that run 2-day continuous to 5-day continuous.
⮚ There are several religious holidays, where the celebration will be 5 consecutive days, any day of the week. How is this not going to impact this small residential neighborhood? This will have MAJOR IMPACTs this quiet Residential Neighborhood. ⮚ The fact that there are: (1) Original plan for underground parking, (2) Limited parking spaces that require a bus/shuttle plan of 300+ people, indicates that the Private Gathering Facility will be operating more like a Commercial business offering a Facility for festive events
⮚ Traffic study/EIR does not address the impacts to the neighborhood associated with the bus/shuttle plan, route of any kind. This is a serious problem for many neighbors near existing Asian temples throughout the City. (Most are on a large +4-lane road) ⮚ A busing/shuttle plan to carry hundreds, potentially thousands of guests from the local Elementary schools via small residential street DURING ANY OF THE WEEK is MAJOR PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN!
⮚ “Spilling over to residential is the inevitable”. This problem is seen with many neighborhood near similar Private Gathering Facilities
⮚ The site has a 14,000 Sq Ft Facility capable of holding THOUSAND of people indoors and outdoor, It is complete INCONSISTENT with the declared 300 guest capacity. This is very deceiving. If the PQP Rezone is allowed, the owner can change its plan of operation, PQP for noise, traffic, there will no code enforcement, there is no control of what the PQP would allow.
There are no known comparable ethnic temples or churches in the City of San Jose that have the equivalent operating hours, including the two nearest religious facility - the “Iglesia De Dios Church” at 3095 Norwood and the “East Valley Church” at 2827 Flint Pg 27 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
Applicant False Declaration!
➢ At each public meeting, neighbors have mentioned the same concerns:
• “The project is too big”,
• “It is still too big”
• “The project is inconsistent, out of character for the dominantly Residential Neighborhood ➢ During the last scoping public meeting (6/2/21), neighbors continue to share that the REZONING this R-1- 5 parcel to PQP is INCONSISTENT.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wddxiuSQFzk
• @1:14:00, Pastor Goldstein pointed out that any ministries would grow, "that the max of 300 visitors is hard to believe... How do you deal with the issue of growth? Especially for a group where meals is very important."
• Numerous temple members ignored the neighbors’ concerns about the “impact of the project” & “land-use issue”, and accused the neighbors of “being ignorant”, and talked about “Asian-hate”, “hate-crime”, and accused the neighbors of hatred, etc. ➢ Applicant IGNORED all the neighbors’ comments regarding the impact of the REZONE to the surrounding Neighborhood! There is not a single proper justification about why the applicant think the project is appropriate in this space!
** It is about the INCOMPATIBLE/INCONSISTENT LAND-USE of a 14,000 sq ft “Private Gathering Facility” in a dense detached Single-Family Residence (R-1-5)** Pg 32 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4
Applicant Spent $$$ to Buy Votes???
⮚ OUT-OF-TOWN residents have
ZERO knowledge and
consideration of the impact to
the neighborhood
⮚ Again, the applicant has proven
that the Private Gathering
Facility IS NOT for the benefit of
the LOCAL residents
⮚ It does not represent the fabric
of neighborhood
⮚ Traffic and safety concerns are
real and will be a serious
problem to the neighborhood
Pg 34 - City of San Jose Council Meeting 3/28/2023, Agenda Item # 10.4 Applicant continues to provide misleading information. The Private Gathering Facility WILL NOT SERVE the local residents and DOES NOT HAVE THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD WELLBEING IN MIND.
Supporters are from out of town, San Francisco, Livermore, Stockton… Speaker received hundreds of
thousands of $$$$ from the applicant!