Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, September 27, 2022 (part 4 of 8)

Municipal Regional Permit Provisions C.3:

The RWQCB renewed the MRP on May 11, 2022 (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008).

Page 91 ends

Ordinance description will be REVISED as follows:

Valley Water operates as the flood control agency and the wholesale water supplier for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration (including borings 45 feet or deeper), and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

Page 92 ends

will be REVISED as follows:

Valley Water. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 20162021.

Page 93 ends

as follows:

The City of Santa Clara owns and maintains the storm drainage system which serves the project site. There is no overland release of stormwater directly into any creek from the project site; all stormwater enters the San Tomas Aquino Creek Guadalupe River through the existing stormwater drainage system.

Page 167 ends

follows:

Civic Center Family Housing Project 26 Response to Comments Memo The geographic area for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the San Tomas Aquino Creek Guadalupe River watershed. Cumulative developments within the watershed would have similar hydrological and urban runoff conditions. All projects occurring within Santa Clara would be required to implement the same standard measures/BMPs related to construction water quality as the proposed project (including preparation of a SWPPP if disturbance is greater than one-acre). In addition, all cumulative projects that would disturb more than one-acre of soil or replace/add more at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would be required to meet applicable San Francisco RWQCB requirements and the City’s SWCP requirements on a project-specific basis. For these reasons, the cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would not result in significant cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 08/03/2022

2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
Recommendation: Alternatives: 1, 2 and 3

1. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

3. Adopt a resolution to recommend City Council approve a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

Associate Planner Debby Fernandez provided the staff presentation.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions as to whether or not other sites had been considered for the development, as well as what rent amounts would be, given Area Median Income (AMI) limits for the project.

Applicant Charities Housing, Joe Head and Hai Nguyen provided a presentation and clarified the property location was very important and also provided an overview of AMI limits.

Commissioners asked questions regarding the applicable state and federal laws for residents; whether or not there would be a right of refusal for residents; whether Section 8 housing be allowed; how rental amounts are set; whether there would be flexibility in the architectural design due to shadowing concerns; sufficiency of parking and methods for parking spot allocation; and methods for residents to communicate with the developer as problems arise, and how the developer will respond to such problems.

Vice Chair Herro expressed concerns that the original management of the site was lacking in response time and actions; other concerns included outreach provided to neighboring residents on the project to date.

Commissioners expressed the desire to have housing as well as acknowledged concerns presented to them by the public. Vice Chair Herro stated that oversight was needed by the Applicant for timely resolution to concerns brought up by nearby residents now, during the construction phase, and on an ongoing basis.

The Applicant agreed to having a meeting with nearby residents to City of Santa Clara Page 5 Printed on 08/17/2022

DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
August 3, 2022 Planning
Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 08/03/2022
discuss concerns before the item is heard by Council.

Commissioner Biagini asked about ensuring that the developer comply with all mitigation measures, and more specifically that adequate dust control measures be in place. In response, Environmental Consultant Shannon George/David J. Powers and Associates introduced herself and explained that best management practices for dust control are included as a mitigation measure in the MMRP. She also explained that there would be a visible sign on the project site during all periods of construction with contact information for the on-site superintendent and the air district, in the event complaints arose concerning dust or other issues.

Public Speakers:

Ken Rosenbarg
Venee
Ssatpathi
Kalisha Webster
Maria
Corey Smith
Ingrid Granados
Brent Strysko
Jeff Houston
Kathryn Hedges
Lalo Mendez
Jean S.

Sunil B.

Ctalyze SV
Events SVH
Igor
Morteza Sahfiei
Pkliza
Keyhan Sinai
Anna
Jamie
Deepa
Braydon Qian
William Huang
Gregory Kepferle
Sytnthi Strysko
Noah McDonald
Betsy Jegas
Suanya Tu
Congyao Tang
City of Santa Clara Page 6 Printed on 08/17/2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 08/03/2022
Meeting went into recess at 8:41 p.m. and reconvened at 8:51 p.m.

Staff read ecomments received between 5 p.m. and before the close of the public hearing. Ecomments received before 5 p.m. were sent to Commissioners before the meeting and are posted on the City's website as Post Meeting Material.

A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Saleme to close public hearing.

Aye: Commissioner Biagini, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, and Commissioner Saleme
4 -
Nay: 1 - Commissioner Patrick
Excused: 2 - Commissioner Bhatnagar, and Chair Cherukuru A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Huang to approve staff recommendation 1.

Aye: Commissioner Biagini, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Patrick
5 -
Excused: 2 - Commissioner Bhatnagar, and Chair Cherukuru A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Huang to approve staff recommendation 2.

Aye: Commissioner Biagini, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Saleme, and Commissioner Patrick
5 -
Excused: 2 - Commissioner Bhatnagar, and Chair Cherukuru City of Santa Clara Page 7 Printed on 08/17/2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 08/03/2022
A motion was made by Commissioner Biagini, seconded by
Commissioner Huang to approve staff recommendation 3 with seven additional recommendations:

1. Charities Housing to include transit pass upon request for each tenant.

2. Continue community outreach with neighbors with oversight program provided by Applicant to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development.

3. Designate a ride share area within the Project Site to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development.

4. Include Venue for Display of Public Art with consideration towards Native American artists.

5. Give serious consideration to establishing a shared parking arrangement with commercial and City buildings in area.

6. Failure by developer or any contractor to comply with mitigation measures or other conditions (including, but not limited to, emissions, noise, street cleaning, and dust control) will subject the developer to code enforcement under the City Code.

7. Charities shall install a security system approved by the Director of Community Development, with security to be recorded and monitored with approximately 50 cameras. At the Director’s discretion, monitoring may be required to be conducted in real-time by security personnel.

Aye: Commissioner Biagini, Vice Chair Herro, Commissioner Huang, and Commissioner Saleme
4 -
Nay: 1 - Commissioner Patrick
Excused: 2 - Commissioner Bhatnagar, and Chair Cherukuru City of Santa Clara Page 8 Printed on 08/17/2022
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
22-930

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@Santa Clara City
Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive

REPORT IN BRIEF
Applicant: Kathy Robinson, Charities Housing
Owner: Charities Housing
General Plan: Community Commercial
Zoning: General Office (OG)
Site Area: 1.4 acres (61,409 square feet)
Existing Site Conditions: The property is developed with a 28,950 square foot two-story office building, surface parking lot and site landscaping. The office building and site improvements were constructed in 1974. The existing site has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.47.

Surrounding Land Uses:
• North: Church
• South: Civic Center Drive, hotel, and commercial development • East: Lincoln Street and City Hall campus
• West: Townhome development
Issues: Consistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendation: That Planning Commission approve resolutions recommending City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), approve the General Plan Amendment, and approve the Rezone for the property located at 1601 Civic Center Drive.

BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2021, Charities Housing ("Owner") filed an application to redevelop the property located at 1601 Civic Center Drive from office use to residential with a 100 percent affordable housing project that includes private and public amenities and on- and off-site improvements. The proposal requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the property to change the land use designation and zoning of the site, and environmental analysis of potential impacts associated with project development as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The requisite applications have been submitted and are the subject of this staff report.

The original submittal proposed a six-story structure with podium parking at-grade and five stories above consisting of 11 O affordable rental units at a residential density of 78 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with podium parking and a small surface parking area for a total of 96 on-site parking spaces.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar"'
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
Access to parking and trash pick-up was provided by a single driveway on Civic Center Drive.

Following community outreach by Charities Housing, and in response to comments and concerns expressed by neighboring residents regarding building height and parking, the proposal was revised to a five-story structure with surface and podium parking at-grade and four-apartment floors above with a total of 108 affordable units at 76.6 du/ac and 82 on-site parking spaces. A driveway was added on Lincoln Street to distribute parking, limit access on Civic Center Drive, and relocate the trash enclosures for trash pick-up. While all comments and concerns conveyed by the neighboring residents are not integrated into the project, the Development Plans presented in Attachment 8 to this report reflect the changes made up to the time this staff report was prepared and is the project under review.

The project site is located adjacent to the El Camino Real Corridor. While it is not located in the El Camino Real Focus Area, it was encompassed in the Draft El Camino Real Specific Plan (Draft Specific Plan) that was initiated by the City Council in 2017 to provide a more detailed level of policy and design guidance to support the successful transformation of the El Camino Real corridor. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed to guide the Specific Plan planning process. The Draft Specific Plan included three proposed land use designations, as recommended by the CAC, supporting residential and mixed-use development at low (Corridor Residential), medium (Corridor Mixed Use) and higher (Regional Mixed Use) densities. As proposed by the CAC, the project site was recommended to be designated as Corridor Mixed Use, allowing four- to five-story residential development at 45 to 65 du/ac.

The Draft Specific Plan was presented to City Council for adoption at the June 15, 2021 City Council meeting. At the conclusion of the City Council's consideration of the item, the City Council directed staff to modify the proposed specific Land Use designations to establish reduced height limits and densities as follows: no more than two-stories for Corridor Residential, no more than three stories for Corridor Mixed-Use, and no more than four stories for Regional Mixed-Use. On July 6, 2021, the City Council affirmed their direction for staff to prepare an alternative form of the Specific Plan that reduces densities from the prior draft. At their October 19, 2021 meeting, the City Council again directed staff to proceed with modification of the Specific Plan to include height limits; to continue consideration of the first Draft Specific Plan; and to prepare an analysis comparing the economic feasibility of the two different land use plans. At the time of this staff report, the additional Specific Plan work has been funded within the City's budget, and staff is now initiating a work program to modify the Plan per City Council's direction.

DISCUSSION
The proposed project includes a MND and MMRP (SCH#2022060217); a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential, and a Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) (File No. PLN21-15206). These entitlements together, along with a Density Bonus, would allow construction of a five-story multi-family housing development with 108 affordable rental units at 30 to 50 percent Annual Median Income (AMI) levels, public and resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements. The following analysis considers how the proposed project would or would not be consistent with the applicable City policies.

General Plan Conformance
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar"'
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
The site is currently designated Community Commercial and is intended for retail and commercial uses that meet local and neighborhood demands. Supported uses include shopping centers and supermarkets, professional offices, medical facilities, banks, restaurants, neighborhood services and gas stations. Development with this designation has a maximum FAR of 0.50 which would allow up to 30,705 square feet of community commercial uses with redevelopment of the project site and zoning consistency. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential, which is intended for residential development from 37 to 50 du/ac adjacent to major transit corridors, transit or mixed-use. Development is foreseen as having an urban feel with mid-rise buildings, structured or below-grade parking, and shared open space.

Density Bonus
The project includes a "super density bonus" to allow higher residential density with development of 100 percent affordable housing pursuant to the State's Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915, the "DBL"). The intent of the DBL is to facilitate the development of affordable and senior housing; and to provide developers incentives and concessions, such as higher densities, setbacks, and building heights, that allow these housing types to be economically feasible to construct. For 100 percent affordable projects, the DBL provides for a bonus of 80 percent of the number of units for lower income households. For a project building 100% affordable units at the maximum density allowed by the High Density Residential designation, this would allow for a density of up to 90 du/ac. Per Santa Clara City Code Section 18.78.060, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits for the parcel or units.

The proposed project is consistent with existing General Plan Policies as follows:

General Land Use Policies
• 5.3.1-P2: Encourage advance notification and neighborhood meetings to provide an opportunity for early community review of new development proposals. • 5.3.1-P26: Support a community-initiated planning process so that existing neighborhoods can participate in developing more detailed plans for street, landscape and pedestrian facility improvements.

The applicant has conducted public outreach through meetings with Home Owner Association members residing in the surrounding neighborhood and three virtual community meetings to involve neighboring property owners and interested individuals in the design of the project; as well as to address specific design, environmental and property management concerns. Notices were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 500 feet of the project boundaries and interested parties. • 5.3.1-P8: Work with property owners to improve or redevelop underutilized and vacant properties.
• 5.3.1-P9: Require that new development provide adequate public services and facilities, infrastructure, and amenities to serve the new employment or residential growth.

The project would redevelop an underutilized and currently unoccupied parcel to construct 108 affordable housing units and serve to the community. The project site is located in an urban environment surrounded by residential, commercial, and public uses, including recreation, and is served by existing public services, facilities, infrastructure, and amenities.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar'"
22-930 Agenda Date: 81312022
• 5.3.1-P1 0: Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees at a minimum 2: 1 ratio onor off-site replacement for trees removed as part of the project to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.

The proposed development plan includes landscaping of the site and the project frontages with a variety of plant and tree species and would replace the 19 trees removed with redevelopment at greater than the minimum 2:1 ratio requirement with a total of 74 trees. • 5.3.1-P12: Encourage convenient pedestrian connections within new and existing developments.

The project includes the replacement of the existing sidewalks along the street frontages of the site with a landscape park strip and sidewalk consistent with the Complete Streets design standards.

Street trees are proposed within the park strips and incorporate drought tolerant plantings. The treelined separated sidewalk is designed to facilitate pedestrian access and link neighboring land uses.

Residential Land Use Policies
• 5.3.2-P1: Encourage the annual construction of the housing units necessary to meet the City's regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) by reducing constraints to housing finance and development.
• 5.32-P2: Encourage higher-density residential development in transit and mixed-use areas and in other locations throughout the City where appropriate. • 5.3.2-P3: Encourage indoor and outdoor private and common spaces as part of all new residential developments, including clustering of units to maximize open space opportunities where appropriate.
• 5.3.2-P6: Provide adequate choices for housing tenure, type and location, including higher density, and affordability for low- and moderate-income and special needs households. • 5.3.2-P7: Construct and preserve affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households through the use of public subsidies, regulatory incentives, and flexible development standards.
• 5.3.2-P9: Encourage senior, and group residential facilities, and affordable housing developments near neighborhood retail, support services and transit facilities. • 5.3.2-P1 0: Create opportunities for affordable housing and housing to support special needs populations, including Extremely Low-Income households.

The project would contribute 108 multi-family residential units to the City's housing stock at 76.6 du/ac in proximity to public transportation and a mixed use corridor with ease of connection to local and regional transit facilities and access to neighborhood and community commercial uses, support services, and outdoor open space and recreation areas. The project would provide housing opportunities for individuals and families with income levels between 30 to 50 percent AMI and assist the City in achieving RHNA targets for production of affordable housing units as mandated by the State. The building footprint and height allow the project to maximize open space and private use by the residents, while providing housing at a higher density, and includes common space that is available to the community.

Transition Policies
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar"'
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
• 5.5.2-P1: Require that new development incorporate building articulation and architectural features, including front door, windows, stoops, porches or bay windows along street frontages, to integrate new development into existing neighborhoods. • 5.5.2-P3: Implement site design solutions, such as landscaping and increased building setbacks to provide a buffer between non-residential and residential uses. • 5.5.2-P7: For buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower intensity residential uses.

The proposed building is 54'6" in height and is oriented toward the frontage of the property to provide a significant building setback of 67 feet from the neighboring residential property lines and incorporates patios, balconies, doors and windows in the design oriented to look-out onto the public streets and away from the adjoining residential neighborhood. The design also incorporates offsets along the building planes and a mixture of exterior materials and architectural features to create visual offsets and interest in the design to integrate into the surrounding neighborhood. • 5.5.2-P9: Improve pedestrian amenities, including sidewalks and bicycle paths, to promote neighborhood compatibility.

The project includes pedestrian amenities such as complete street sections with separated tree lined park strips and landscape setbacks behind the sidewalk to link adjacent land uses. The landscape plan for the site also includes an outdoor courtyard at the front of the building (near the entry on Lincoln Street) as common space for resident and community gathering and seating. • 5.5.2-P11: Restrict loading, trash and noise-generating activities to protect adjacent residential uses.
• 5.5.2-P12: Screen loading and trash areas to preclude visibility from off-site and public streets.

The trash enclosure serving the project is located at the northeast corner of the building inside the podium parking garage and is screened from public view. Pick-up of trash and recycling materials is to occur from Lincoln Street to protect the adjacent residences along the western property line of the project site from noise and disturbances.

Zoning Conformance
The project site is currently zoned for General Office (OG) uses. The OG zoning designation is intended to provide an environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of administrative facilities and business office centers. It is a heavy employment zone bordering and contiguous to the central business area or community and regional commercial area. This zoning district allows a maximum building height of up to 100 feet and lot coverage based on the OG building setback standards (no less than 15 feet along the front and rear of the property and 1 O feet along the side property lines) and parking requirements set forth in Chapter 18.74 of the City Code.

The proposed rezone to PD would allow residential development of a 100 percent affordable housing development consisting of 108 apartment units within a five-story structure, on-site parking, resident and public amenities, and site and public right-of-way improvements and landscaping. Chapter 18.54 establishes a process and the requirements for PD zoning districts. PD zoning districts are intended to allow for creative design solutions and land uses not otherwise allowed in standard zoning districts while maintaining compatibility with the existing community. The proposed PD zoning would establish City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistarm
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
standards for the multi-family residential development which take into consideration existing and approved land uses and development surrounding the project site.

Site Design and Architecture
The project is a five-story structure designed with podium parking that is wrapped by residential units, tenant amenity services, common areas and building operations on the first floor, with four floors of residential above. The building is oriented toward Lincoln Street and Civic Center Drive and is setback from neighboring homes at a distance of 67 feet by a driveway aisle, perpendicular parking stalls and landscape buffers. An outdoor courtyard is located at the front of the building facing Lincoln Street for tenant and public use that is integrated into the landscaped setback.

The four floors of residential units are divided into two wings that are separated by a shared outdoor area on the second level and linked by bridged corridors. The unit mix includes studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments with private outdoor patios on the first level and balconies on levels 2 - 5. The average unit size ranges from 379 square feet to 1,139 square feet of living area. The outdoor patios and balconies range in size from 63 square feet to 190 square feet and face the public streets to the east and south and church property to the north; they do not face the residential properties to the west. Rooftop mechanical equipment is screened from view along the public right-of -way by a roof parapet. Maximum building height is 54'6" at the top of parapet.

The proposed building architecture has a modern design aesthetic that is clad with a stucco finish and integrates a mixture of stone veneer, cement board, wood siding into the exterior finish and decorative metal panels and railings to provide textural and visual interest. The use of divided light windows and alternating use of materials provides a rhythmic cohesion and symmetry in the design.

Offsets in the building elevations, recessed windows, and varied roof planes provide breaks in mass and scale of the structure.

Circulation and Parking
The existing curb-cut on Civic Center Drive and sidewalks would be replaced with a new curb-cut, two-way drive aisles and separated sidewalks along both frontages that include a tree-lined landscape strip next to the curb and sidewalk behind. Sidewalks along the project frontages and interior to the site would provide pedestrian access to the site and link adjacent land uses.

The driveway on Civic Center Drive serves the surface lot with 32 parking spaces at the rear of the building. The driveway on Lincoln Street provides access to the podium parking garage with 50 vehicle spaces, bike room with 80 bicycle spaces, and access to the trash enclosure. Of the 82 parking spaces provided, eight are identified as electrical vehicle (EV) parking stalls. The number of parking spaces is appropriate for an affordable housing project located adjacent to a major transit stop. In discussions with neighboring residents, Charities Housing has agreed to install an electronic gate across the Civic Center Drive entrance for access to the site and to provide and manage assigned tenant parking.

Landscaping and Open Space
The project includes a landscape plan for the site that incorporates a mixture of plant species and trees for planting the common areas and setbacks, as well as the planter strips fronting the project site. There are 19 trees on-site and all are proposed for removal with project development; 13 of which are protected trees (11 olive trees and two trees greater than 11 inches in diameter as measured from 48-inches from grade). The project includes a tree replacement plan, as part of the City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar""
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
landscape plan, that exceeds the minimum 2:1 requirement with 24-inch box trees for mitigation with 60 trees on-site and 14 street trees along the project frontage, ranging in size from 15 gallon accent trees and 24-inch and 36-inch box specimen trees.

The project provides common open space that is shared specifically for the tenants and open space that is shared with the public. A 6,711 square foot common outdoor open space for active and passive uses is provided on the second level (above the podium) for use by the residents. This area is designed with landscaping, barbeques, break-out space with seating, and recreation area with a ping-pong table. This area is designed to be screened from view by adjacent land uses. A 1,377 square foot Community Room is available for shared use with the public on the first floor and an 8,479 square foot outdoor courtyard at the front of the building (near the entry on Lincoln Street) is a landscaped open space for community gathering and seating.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with City policies and help to achieve the City's goal of providing much needed affordable housing. Based upon this analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND and Notice of Availability were posted on the City's website at <https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planninqdivision/environmental-review-ceqa> and circulated for 30-day review on June 13, 2022 and ending on July 13, 2022, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Planning Department received agency comments on the MND from Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Department of Toxic Substances Control and public comments from Jamie Lau, Keyhan Sinai, Jean Song and David Bayto which are provided as Attachment 2 to this report, along with responses to comments for review.

The MND examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified air quality, biological, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts that with incorporation of mitigation measures into the project would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project are specified in the MND and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney's Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
On July 21, 2022, the notice of public hearing for this item was posted in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of the project site and was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project City of Santa Clara Page 7 of9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistarw
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022
site boundaries. A notice of public hearing was also published in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, on July 20, 2022. The Planning Department has received comments on the project and are provided in Attachment 7 to this report for review.

Community Meetings
Virtual public outreach meetings were conducted by Charities Housing on November 10, 2021, June 29, 2022, and July 20, 2022 to engage the neighborhood community in the planning process. Notices of the meeting were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project boundaries and interested parties and was also posted on the City's website. These meetings provided the community the opportunity to convey their concerns to Charities Housing regarding their property management (both past and future); the type and density of housing proposed for the site; five-story building height and shade/shadow effects on neighboring residential properties; driveway access on Civic Center Drive; impacts of reduced parking and off-site parking on Civic Center Drive; construction related impacts and enforcement of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts; noise from construction and tenants following occupancy; and crime and security.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

4. Recommend the City Council deny a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

5. Recommend City Council deny a rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a five-story affordable housing development with 108 rental units, on-site parking and amenities, landscaping, and off-site improvements.

RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives: 1, 2 and 3

1. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Civic Center Family Housing Project.

2. Adopt a resolution to recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential.

Prepared by: Debby Fernandez, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistar"·'
22-930 Agenda Date: 8/3/2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Responses to Comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Resolution Recommending Council Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4. Resolution Recommending Council Approve the General Plan Amendment

5. Resolution Recommending the Council Approve the Rezone

6. Conditions of Rezoning Approval

7. Public Correspondence

8. Development Plans
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 9 Printed on 7/27/2022
powered by Legistarn•
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - MND and MMRP Page 1 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CIVIC CENTER FAMILY
HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 1601 CIVIC CENTER

DRIVE, SANTA CLARA
PLN21-15206 (General Plan Amendment and Rezone)
SCH# 2022060217 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, Charities Housing (“Owner”) filed a development application for the 1.4- acre site located at 1601 Civic Center Drive, currently developed with a 28,950 square foot two-story office building, surface parking lot and landscaping (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the Owner applied for a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential and Rezone of the Project Site from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow a 100 percent affordable housing development consisting of 108 multifamily units in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements (“Project”) as shown on the Development Plans, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include Resolution No. _____ (“City Council General Plan Amendment ”); Resolution No. _____ (“City Council Rezoning Resolution”); and this California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Resolution (collectively, the “Approvals”); WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the regulations implementing the Act, specifically 14 Cal. Code of Regs § 15070, this Project was determined after an Initial Study to identify potentially significant effects on the environment which could be avoided with the implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in the drafting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the MND was noticed and circulated for a 30-day public review period to the State Office of Planning and Research, Santa Clara County Clerk’s Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - MND and MMRP Page 2 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
Office, interested parties, and property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site from June 13, 2022 to July 13, 2022, where during that period comment letters were received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and public comments from Jamie Lau, Keyhan Sinai, Jean Song and David Bayto; along with the attached Responses to Comments Received on the MND are made part of the record;
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2022, a newspaper notice for this item was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, for the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2022 and City Council meeting of September 27, 2022; on July 21, 2022, notices of the public meeting for the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2022 August 3, 2022 and City Council meeting of September 27, 2022; were posted in three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the Project Site, and mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site boundaries; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Project, MND, MMRP and all pertinent information in the record including public testimony, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the MND and MMRP, approve the General Plan Amendment and rezone to allow a 100 percent affordable housing development consisting of 108 multifamily units in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the MND prepared for the Project, City staff report pertaining to the MND and all evidence at a duly noticed public hearing on September 27, 2022.

All these documents and evidence are herein incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - MND and MMRP Page 3 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

2. That the City Council hereby finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts that may directly or indirectly result from the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level by the mitigation measures specified in the MND and MMRP.

3. That the City Council hereby finds that the MND is complete, prepared in compliance with CEQA, and represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

4. That the City Council finds that the MND and MMRP completed for this Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that approval of this Project as mitigated will have no significant negative impacts on the area’s environmental resources, cumulative or otherwise, as the impacts as mitigated would fall within the environmental thresholds identified by CEQA.

5. That the City Council adopts the MND and MMRP for the Project as required by the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15074).

6. The City Council hereby designates the Planning Division of the Community Development Department as the location for the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based and designates the Director of Community Development as the custodian of records.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - MND and MMRP Page 4 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

7. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:
___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

2. Responses to Comments Received on the MND

3. Development Plans
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - General Plan Amendment Page 1 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.4-ACRE
PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT 1601 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE,

SANTA CLARA, FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO HIGH

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PLN21-15206 (General Plan Amendment and Rezoning)
SCH# 2022060217 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, Charities Housing (“Owner”) made an application for a General Plan Amendment in connection with development of a 1.4-acre site located at 1601 Civic Center Drive (APN: 224-49-006), which is currently developed with a 28,950 square foot two-story office building, surface parking lot and landscaping (“Project Site”), in order to change the General Plan Land Use Designation to allow a 100 percent affordable multifamily housing development;
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the existing land use designation for the Project Site from Community Commercial to High Density Residential (37 to 50 units per acre);
WHEREAS, Owner has simultaneously applied for a Rezone of the Project Site from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow redevelopment of the project Site with the construction of 106 affordable multifamily dwelling units and two caretaker units, for a total of 108 residential units, in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements (“Project”); WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Charter Section 1007 requires that the Planning Commission provide input to the City Council on any proposed General Plan Amendment; WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on July 20, 2022 for the Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - General Plan Amendment Page 2 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2022 and City Council meeting of September 27, 2022;
WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on July 21, 2022 for the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2022 and City Council meeting of September 27, 2022;
WHEREAS, notice was mailed to each local agency expected to provide water, sewage streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the project, including the Santa Clara U WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, at the conclusion of which the Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65355 requires the City Council to hold a public hearing prior to adopting a General Plan Amendment;
WHEREAS, and before considering the General Plan Amendment for the Project Site, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Project (SCH# 2022060217);
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the City Council has conducted a public hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. General Plan Amendment Findings: That the City Council finds and determines that the General Plan Amendment is in the interest of the public good for the following reasons:

Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - General Plan Amendment Page 3 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
A. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest, in that:

The Project is located in an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure municipal services. The Project would contribute 108 multi-family dwelling units to the City’s housing stock in proximity to a mixed use and transportation corridor with access to neighborhood and community commercial uses, support services, local and regional transit facilities, outdoor open space and recreation areas. The Project provides 106 affordable dwelling units to low income households and two market rate caretaker units for on-site management and security. The Project would contribute to the City’s housing stock and lessen the jobs/housing imbalance in support of The City’s General Plan Land Use and Housing goals and policies. The Project incorporates Transition Policies of the General Plan in site and building design to integrate into the community and would implement project conditions of approval to avoid and reduce impacts of development.

B. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected, in that:

The Project would redevelop an underutilized and currently unoccupied parcel to construct 108 housing units and provide housing opportunities for individuals and families with income levels between 30 to 50 percent AMI; which support the City’s Housing Goals and assist the City in achieving RHNA targets for production of affordable housing units as mandated by the State. The General Plan Amendment to allow residential development along with a density bonus would facilitate affordable housing development on the Project Site through an increase in residential density and building height to make the Project economically feasible to construct.

The building footprint and height allow the project to maximize open space and private use by the residents, while providing housing at a higher density, and includes common space that is available to the community.

Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - General Plan Amendment Page 4 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
C. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND”) was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City circulated the MND and Notice of Availability to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site and interested persons and organizations; and the City sought the comments of such agencies, organizations and persons.

D. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, in that:

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for implementation with Project development to reduce potentially significant impacts identified in the MND to less than significant.

3. That the City Council, pursuant to Government Code § 65358, amends the General Plan by changing the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Project Site to High Density Residential (37–50 du/ac) to allow high density residential development on the Project Site.

4. That the City Council amends the General Plan by revising Figures 5.2-2 (“Land Use Diagram, Phase II”) and 5.2-3 (“Land Use Diagram, Phase III”) of Subsection 5.2.2 (“Land Use Classifications and Diagram”) of Section 5.2 (“Land Use Diagram”) of Chapter 5 (“Goals and Policies”) of the General Plan, to reflect the General Plan land use change.

5. That based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report and such other evidence as received at the public hearing on this matter the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment.
///
///
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - General Plan Amendment Page 5 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

6. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - Rezone Page 1 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A REZONING FROM GENERAL

OFFICE (OG) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) TO ALLOW
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 108
DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT 1601 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE,

SANTA CLARA
PLN21-15206 (General Plan Amendment and Rezone)
SCH# 2022060217 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, Charities Housing (“Owner”) filed an application for the 1.4 acre parcel located at 1601 Civic Center Drive (APN: 224-49-006), which is currently developed with a 28,950 square foot two-story office building, surface parking lot and landscaping (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Owner simultaneously applied for a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential and Rezone of the Project Site from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to allow an affordable housing development consisting of 108 multifamily units in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements (“Project”), as shown on the Development Plans, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, a rezone of the property from OG to PD is required to allow creative development standards for site and building design, that are not otherwise allowed in standard zoning districts, to construct 106 affordable housing units at 30 to 50 percent AMI and two market rate caretaker units for on-site management and security;
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Project was noticed and circulated for a 30-day public review period from June 13, 2022 to July 12, 2022;
Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - Rezone Page 2 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the MND identified potential significant impacts of Project development that with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) will reduce potential mitigation measures to less than significant and will be incorporated into the Project;
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 18.112.030 provides for the review and recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of all rezoning requests before action is to be taken by the City Council;
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, MND, MMRP and all pertinent information in the record, including public testimony, at the conclusion which the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the MND and MMRP, approve the General Plan Amendment and rezoning to allow an affordable housing development consisting of 108 multifamily units in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Councill held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Rezoning application, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and evidence offered in favor and in opposition to the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That the City Council hereby rezones the Project Site from OG to PD to allow development of the Project, as shown on the attached Development Plans and conditioned as specified in the attached Conditions of Rezoning Approval, incorporated herein by this reference.

Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - Rezone Page 3 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

3. Pursuant to SCCC Code Section 18.112.040, the Planning Commission determines that the following findings exist in support of the rezoning:

A. The existing zoning is inappropriate or inequitable in that, the existing zoning for the Project Site does not allow for residential development and the creation of housing opportunities envisioned by the 2010-2035 General Plan. A PD zoning of the Project Site to allow residential development would implement the General Plan’s Land Use and Housing goals and policies to provide affordable housing in proximity to existing residential, neighborhood and community commercial uses, support services, local and regional transit facilities, outdoor open space and recreation areas.

B. The proposed zone change will conserve property values, protect or improve the existing character and stability of the area in question, and will promote the orderly and beneficial development of such area, in that the proposal redevelops an underutilized commercial parcel for residential development that incorporates Transition Policies of the General Plan for site and building design, on- and -off-site improvements to integrate into the community, and would implement project conditions of approval to avoid and reduce impacts of development.

C. The proposed zone change is required by public necessity, public convenience, or the general welfare of the City in that the proposed zone change would allow for high density residential development within a five-story structure, managed on-site parking and security, tenant private and common open space, and community space for outdoor public gathering and indoor meeting space. Construction of the project would contribute to the City’s housing inventory and assist in production of affordable housing units to achieve RHNA targets as mandated by the State.

D. The proposed zone change would allow imaginative planning and design concepts to be utilized that would otherwise be restricted in other zoning districts in that the proposed zone change would allow flexibility in the development standards to minimize building Resolution/ 1601 Civic Center Drive - Rezone Page 4 of 4 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
footprint and increase building height to provide high density housing with tenant private and common open space that is significantly setback from neighboring residences, and that also provides common space that is available for public use. .

4. That based on the findings set forth in this resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, MND and MMRP, the City Council rezones the Project Site to allow a 108 multifamily dwelling units consisting of 106 affordable units at 30 to 50 percent AMI and two market rate caretaker units in a five-story structure with resident amenities, 82 surface and garage parking spaces, landscaping, and public and private improvements, as shown on the attached Development Plans and conditioned as specified in the attached Conditions of Rezoning Approval.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Rezone Conditions of Approval

2. Development Plans
ATTEST:

NORA PIMENNTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1 of 19

CIVIC CENTER FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT

CONDITIONS OF REZONE APPROVAL

GENERAL
G1. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

G2. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
A1. The Developer agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorneys' fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities arising from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of developer's project.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING DIVISION
BD1. Informational: Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor access-ways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review. Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet.
o Any building or structure that is demolished shall have its address retired and a new address/s shall be issued for the project.

BD2. Informational: The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a copy of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. The project drawings shall indicate how the project complies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.
 FEMA Flood Zone map designations and requirements are based on the map in effect at date of Building Permit issuance.

BD3. Informational: The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Low Impact Development (LID) practices http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/nd_wp.shtml. All projects that disturb more than one acre, or projects that are part of a larger development that in total disturbs more than one acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMP): http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/construction_bmp.shtml, and shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). All site drainage and grading permit applications submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a city of Santa Clara "C3" data form, available on this web page:https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g- 2 of 19
z/public-works/environmental-programs/stormwater-pollution-prevention and will be routed to a contract consultant for review.

BD4. Informational: no California construction code review is being done at this time. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis, including; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (19' CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (19' CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (19' CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fire rated penetrations proposed (19' CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (19' CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (19' CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (19' CBC Ch. 10). -Noncombustible exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged.  During construction retaining a single company to install all fire rated penetrations is highly recommended.
 The grade level lobbies shall be min.1 hour rated all sides and above.  All stair shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
 All elevator shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
 All trash chute shafts shall be min. 1 hour rated.
 Recommendation: provide a minimum of two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room.
 Any trash rooms shall be min. 1 hour rated all sides and above.

BD5. Informational: The overall project construction permit application shall include the geotechnical, architectural, structural, energy, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing drawings and calculations. Prior to the issuance of the overall project construction permit, a conditions of approval review meeting must be held in city hall, which meeting must be attended by the on-site field superintendent(s). The meeting will not be held without the attendance of the on-site field superintendent(s). The on-site grading permit shall be a separate permit application to the Building Division.

BD6. Informational: Temporary Certificates of Occupancy will not be routinely issued and will be considered on a very limited basis only when there is a clear and compelling reason for city staff to consider a TCO. A TCO will be approved only after all applicable City staff have approved in writing; Planning, P.W./ Engineering, Fire Prev., Santa Clara Water, Silicon Valley Power, and any other applicable agencies such as the Santa Clara County Health Dept., with the Building Division being the final approval of all TCO.'s.

BD7. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.

BD8. This project is subject to the provisions of the City of Santa Clara 2022 Reach Code, effective January 2022 See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
 Chp. 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction. i. Subject to CA Energy Commission acceptance and approval and on this project’s entitlement date.
 Chp. 15.38 – Green Building Code for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.

HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION
H1. The applicant’s current housing development proposal of 106 affordable units meets the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requirements. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with the City that will determine the affordable rents and apply all terms and covenants guaranteeing the 3 of 19
prescribed affordability, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.

Satisfaction of the affordable housing obligation shall be memorialized in the AHA and subject to City Council approval. There will be a fee for the AHA preparation in the amount of $5113 that will be due prior to execution of the AHA. Additionally, there is an annual monitoring fee per affordable unit in the amount $119. Please note all fees are based on the current Municipal Fee Schedule in effect at the time the project is approved. The adopted fees for FY2022-23 are $5,610 for the AHA preparation and $122 for annual monitoring fee per affordable unit. The new fee will be effective July 1, 2022.

PLANNING DIVISION
P1. It shall be the developer's responsibility through his engineer to provide written certification that the drainage design for the subject property will prevent flood water intrusion in the event of a storm of 100-year return period. The developer's engineer shall verify that the site will be protected from off-site water intrusion by designing the on-site grading and storm water collection system using the 100-year hydraulic grade line elevation provided by the City's Engineering Department or the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, whichever is more restrictive. Said certification shall be submitted to the City Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits.

P2. The project site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone as identified by the State Geologist for potential hazards associated with liquefaction, pursuant to the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (Div.2 Ch7.8 PRC), and the developer shall prepare and submit a geotechnical hazards investigation report acceptable to the City of Santa Clara Building Official prior to issuance of permits.

P3. Obtain required permits and inspections from the Building Official and comply with the conditions thereof. If this project involves land area of one acre or more, the developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board prior to issuance of any building permit for grading, or construction; a copy of the NOI shall be sent to the City Building Inspection Division. A storm water pollution prevention plan is also required with the NOI.

P4. Submit as-built on-site plans prepared by a registered civil engineer showing all utilities serving the subject property.

P5. Submit plans for final architectural review to the Planning Division and obtain architectural approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plans to include, but not be limited to: site plans, floor plans, elevations, landscaping, lighting and signage.

P6. Submit complete landscape plans, including irrigation plan and composite utility and tree layout overlay plan, for Planning review and approval with installation of required landscaping prior to the issuance of occupancy and or final building permits. Landscape plan to include type and size of proposed trees. Type and size of tree replacement on project site shall be at the direction of the City Arborist and require Planning review and approval. Coordinate with the Street Department and City Arborist for the type, location, installation and maintenance of street trees fronting the project site along the public right-of-way. Installation of root barriers and super-soil may be required with the installation of trees where electric, water, and sewer utilities are in proximity.

P7. The overlay plan is to show the location of all utilities, storm drains, catch basins, sewer mains, joint trenches, building footprints, driveways, walkways, and trees. Trees are required to be 10' from public water, storm and sewer facilities unless a City approved Tree Root Barrier (TRB) is used. If a City approved TRB is used the TRB must be a minimum of five feet from the public water, storm and sewer facility with the tree behind the TRB and specified on the plan. Landscaping installation shall meet City water conservation criteria in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Inspection. 4 of 19
P8. Developer is responsible for collection and pick-up of all trash and debris on-site and adjacent public right-of-way.

P9. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, Developer/Owner shall have an asbestos survey of the proposed site performed by a certified individual. Survey results and notice of the proposed demolition are to be sent to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). No demolition shall be performed without a demolition permit and BAAQMD approval and, if necessary, proper asbestos removal.

P10. The developer shall submit a truck hauling route for demolition, soil, debris and material removal, and construction to the Director of Planning and Inspection for review and approval prior to the issuance of demolition and building permits.

P11. Construction activity not confined within a building shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and not permitted on Saturdays and Sundays for projects within 500 feet of a residential use. Construction activity confined within a building shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Saturdays for projects within 500 feet of a residential use and prohibited on Sundays.

Construction activity shall not be allowed on recognized State and Federal holidays.

P12. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Civic Center Family Housing Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Measures and Reporting Program.

P13. Charities Housing to include transit pass upon request for each tenant.

P14. Charities Housing to continue community outreach with neighbors with oversight program provided by Applicant to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development.

P15. Designate a ride share area within the project site to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development.

P16. Include venue for display of public art with consideration towards Native American artists.

P17. Give serious consideration to establishing a shared parking arrangement with commercial and City buildings in area.

P18. Failure by developer or any contractor to comply with mitigation measures or other conditions (including, but not limited to, emissions, noise, street cleaning, and dust control) will subject the developer to code enforcement under the City Code.

P19. Charities shall install a security system approved by the Director of Community Development, with security to be recorded and monitored with approximately 50 cameras. At the Director’s discretion, monitoring may be required to be conducted in real-time by security personnel.

FIRE
F1. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided so that all portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the buildings are located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Ariel access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building, or the project team will be required to mitigate the lack of compliance. If these conditions cannot be met the project team will be required to complete an Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment application. The required mitigation measure will be determined by the Fire Department.

F2. At time of Building Permit application provide documentation to show the minimum required fire-flow for the building based on the construction type and square footage in accordance with the California Fire Code, Appendix B, Table B105.1 can be met. A 75% 5 of 19
reduction in fire-flow is allowed with the installation of a automatic fire sprinkler system designed in accordance with California Fire Code § B105.2. The resulting fire-flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute (or 1,000 gallons per minute for NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems) minute for the prescribed duration.

F3. At time of Building Permit application, the required number, location and distribution of fire hydrants for the building based on the California Fire Code, Appendix C, Table C102.1 shall be incorporated into the construction documents. The required number of fire hydrants shall be based on the fire-flow before the reduction.

F4. At time of Building Permit application, construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division.

F5. Prior to the start of construction, fire protection water supplies shall be installed and made serviceable prior to the time of construction or prior to combustible materials being moved onsite, unless an approved alternative method of protection is approved by the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division.

F6. At time of Building Permit application, construction documents for the fire department apparatus access roads are required submitted to the Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Division. Access roadways shall be provided to comply with all of the following requirements:
a. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
b. Fire apparatus access roadways shall have a “minimum” width of a fire apparatus access roadway for Engines is 20 feet. The “minimum” width of roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. Ariel access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building and the sides of the building requiring access shall be approved by the Fire Department. Trees, overhead wiring, etc. shall not conflict with any means of fire department access. c. Fire access roadways shall have a “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Aerial apparatus access roads may require additional vertical clearance.
d. Fire access roadways shall All fire department access roadways shall be an allweather surface designed to support the imposed load of fire apparatus with a gross vehicle weight of 75,000-pounds.
e. Fire apparatus access roadways shall have a “minimum” inside turning radius for fire department access roadways shall be 36 feet or greater. f. Dead-end fire apparatus access roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around.
g. Traffic calming devices are not permitted on any designated fire access roadway, unless approved by the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. h. All Fire Department Access roadways shall be recorded as an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE) on the final map. No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, ingress/egress easements and/or City right-of-way.
i. All gates installed on designated fire department access roads are required to electrically automatic powered gates. Gates shall be provided with an emergency battery power supply, or shall be a fail-safe design, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment. To control the 6 of 19
automatic gates a detector/strobe switch shall be installed to allow emergency vehicles (e.g., fire, police, ems) to flash a vehicle mounted strobe light towards the detector/strobe switch, which in turn overrides the system and opens the gate. The gates shall be equipped with a TOMAR Strobe Switch or 3M OPTICOM Detector to facilitate this override. Said device shall be mounted at a minimum height of seven feet (7’) above the adjacent road surface and is subject to an acceptance test witnessed by the Fire Department prior to final approval of the project.

F7. Provisions shall be made for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) equipment, including but not limited to pathway survivability in accordance with Santa Clara Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Standard.

F8. Prior to issuance of a Building Demo Permit, Steps 1 through 3 summarized below must be addressed during the planning phase of the project. Submit Phase II environmental documents:
a. Step 1 – Hazardous Materials Closure (HMCP): This is a permit is issued by the Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. Hazardous materials closure plans are required for businesses that used, handled, or stored hazardous materials. While required prior to closing a business this is not always done by the business owner, and therefore should be part of the developer’s due diligence. The hazardous materials closure plans demonstrate that hazardous materials which were stored, dispensed, handled, or used in the facility/business are safely transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates any threat to public health and environment. b. Step 2 – Site Mitigation: Site mitigation is the cleanup or management of chemical contaminants in soil, soil vapor or groundwater. The type and extent of contamination on site(s) governs which of the regulatory agencies noted below will supervise the cleanup.
 Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division (CUPA)
 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
 State Water Resources Control Board
 Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health. c. Step 3 – Community Development, Building Division Demolition Application: For the majority of projects within the City of Santa Clara, Steps 1 and/or 2 described above need to be completed prior to proceeding to demolition application in order to avoid permit approval delays. The purpose of a demolition permit is to ensure that the parcel is clear of debris and other health hazard material (lead, asbestos, etc.) and that the utility connections have been plugged and sealed.” If the project intends to contract with a State or County Agency for onsite/offsite environmental remediation activities the following documentation shall be provided to the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or grading:
 Oversight agency case number; and
 Oversight mangers contact name, phone number.

PARKS & RECREATION
PR1. This review assumes the Project is not a subdivision and the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) provisions will apply. The project will generate an estimated 259 residents (2.4 persons/household x 108 units). Based on the MFA standard of 2.6 acres/1000 residents, the amount of public parkland required for this Project to mitigate the impact of the new resident demand is approximately .05728-acres with a 15% credit applied for 7 of 19
this 100% affordable project. The equivalent fee due in lieu of parkland dedication is therefore $3,388,154 with a 15% credit applied for this 100% affordable project.

PR2. In lieu fees imposed under Chapter 17.35 shall be due and payable to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit.

PR3. Calculations may change if the number of units change, if any areas do not conform to the Ordinance and City Code Chapter 17.35, and/or if the fee schedule for new residential development fees due in lieu of parkland dedication changes before this Project is deemed complete by Planning.

PR4. Dwelling Unit Tax. A dwelling unit tax (DUT) is also due based on the number of units and additional bedrooms per City Code Chapter 3.15. The Project mix includes 25 studio units, 28 one-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom units, and 29 three-bedroom units for a total DUT of $2,040.

POLICE
PD1. The property should be fenced off during demolition and construction as a safety barrier to the public and deterrent to theft and other crime. Consider not having any screening material on the fence so passing Police Patrol checks will be able to see into the site.

PD2. Address numbers should be a minimum of twelve (12) inches in height for commercial or industrial buildings. Consider illuminated numbers during the hours of darkness, and in a color that is contrasting to the background material. They shall be clearly visible from the street. Where multiple units or buildings occupy the same property, each unit/building address shall be clearly visible. A monument sign, preferably at all entrances to the property, should be prominently displayed showing all unit/building numbers, addresses, etc. A map is recommended for large complexes with multiple streets or walkways.

PD3. In a development where there is an alley, driveway, etc. providing a rear entrance or access, the address shall be displayed to both the front and rear of the individual buildings. Where an alley, driveway, etc. provided vehicular access, address numbers shall be clearly visible from that access.

PD4. Residences with rear alley entrance doors shall be numbered with the same address numbers or suite numbers as the front doors. Numbers that are a minimum height of 4” are recommended.

PD5. There shall be positioned near the entrance an illustrative diagram of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and unit designations within the complex, including separate building designations. This diagram shall be illuminated and should be protected by vandal and weather resistant covers.

PD6. Each distinct unit within the building shall have its address displayed on or directly above both front and rear doors.

PD7. When there is an alley or driveway to the rear of the residential, business or commercial establishment that provides pedestrian or vehicle access, that area should be fenced and locked after hours. A ‘Knox Box’ or key coded system shall be used for police and fire emergency access.

PD8. Landscaping should follow the National Institute of Crime Prevention standards. That standard describes bushes/shrubs not exceeding 2’ in height at maturity, or maintained at that height, and the canopies of trees should not be lower than 6’ in height. Crime deterrent vegetation is encouraged along the fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows.

PD9. Lighting for the project to be at the IES (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America) standards and include the features listed below:
white light source, pedestrian scale, full cut-off or shoebox design, unbreakable exterior tamperproof housings, wall mounted lights/10’ high. These features increase natural 8 of 19
surveillance, support and/or enhance security camera capabilities, and increase Police Patrol effectiveness.

PD10. Any required enclosure fencing (trash area, utility equipment, etc.) would preferably be see-thru. If for aesthetic reasons prohibit that, the fencing should have a six (6) inch opening along the bottom for clear visibility. Any gates or access doors to these enclosures should be locked.

PD11. If the project includes any benches, these benches should not be longer than 5 feet in length and should have arm rests at both ends. If the benches are longer than 5 feet in length, there should be a divider (arm rest or similar) in the middle of the bench in addition to the arm rests on both ends. This helps prevent unlawful lodging and/or skateboarding. Another option to benches could be cubes, knee walls, or other creative types of seating possibilities.

PD12. The developer should install skate stoppers on any low clearance wall of 36 inches in height or lower to prevent vandalism/damage to the wall from skateboarding or similar activities. If there is outdoor seating associated with a restaurant or similar business which is near vehicle parking stalls, the outdoor space will be designed to ensure the safety of the public from possible vehicular related incidents.

PD13. All exterior doors should be adequately illuminated at all hours with their own light source.

PD14. All construction of dwelling units shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Security Code as adopted by the City of Santa Clara City Council.

PD15. All elevators should be well lit and equipped with a security mirror to provide interior and exterior visibility prior to entry or exit.

PD16. Consider convex mirrors for elevator cabs and at stairwell landings in order to enhance natural surveillance for the user of the elevator or stairs. It is highly desirable to design an elevator shaft and cab to be transparent, making occupants of the cab visible from the outside. All elevators should be well lit and equipped with a security mirror to provide interior & exterior visibility prior to entry or exit.

PD17. Other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doorways, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls and interior hallways.

PD18. The installation and use of interior and exterior security cameras and recording devices is highly encouraged.

PD19. The parking structure/site should be equipped with a centrally located emergency panic alarm system that reports to a central office. If more than one button/call station is installed, the emergency system should always be in visual distance from another emergency call station. There should not be more than 300 feet separating each call station, which is the current industry standard.

PD 20. Exterior stairs shall be open style whenever structurally possible. The stairs should be well lit.

PD21. “White” light meeting the IES standard should be considered. There should be no “dark” areas inside the structure.

PD22. The interior of the parking structure should be painted a light, highly reflective color. This increases the natural lighting available and can help prevent dark areas that attract criminal activity.

PD23. All entrances to the parking areas (structure, surface, subterranean, etc.) shall be posted with appropriate signage to discourage trespassing, unauthorized parking, etc. (See California Vehicle Code section 22658(a) for guidance) PD24. Alcoves and other visual obstructions that might constitute a hiding place should be eliminated whenever structurally possible. Pillars, columns, and other open construction should be considered over a solid wall design.
9 of 19
PD25. Consider storage, maintenance, and trash rooms within the parking garage having doors which cannot be locked from the inside and that close and lock quickly and automatically upon exit.

PD26. A Coded Entry System is required for police access to enclosed parking lots and gated communities. This can be accomplished with a coded keypad system or the Police Department Knox Box key system. We understand security is a prime concern for the tenants of the project, which necessitates some sort of secure building and admittance process. By having either of these secure access systems for law enforcement, it will allow us to better respond to emergency situations should they arise in the development.

Examples of these systems can be reviewed at the following projects: 2585 El Camino Real (Coded keypad access) and 3555 Monroe Street (Knox box key access).

PD 27. Public Safety Radio Systems Penetration Guidelines have been established by the City of Santa Clara Communications Department for radio signal penetration during emergencies. The developer is advised that the project may be required to install equipment for adequate radio coverage for the City of Santa Clara Radio communications System, including but not limited to Police & Fire emergency services.

The developer should contact the director of communications at (408) 615-5591 (for high rises).

PD 28. When in the opinion of the fire code official, a new structure obstructs the line of sight of emergency radio communications to existing buildings or to any other locations, the developer of the structure shall provide and install the radio retransmission equipment necessary to restore communications capabilities. The equipment shall be located in an approved space or area within the new structure.

PD29. Applicant shall contact the Santa Clara Police Department ‘Permits” unit (408-615-4868) for regulated activity special licensing requirements.

PD30. Applicant shall contact the Santa Clara Police Department ‘Intelligence” unit (408-615- 4849) for entertainment permit requirements.

PD 31. All business or commercial establishments, of whatever nature, should have a comprehensive internal security plan, tailored to the specific use. This should include, but not limited to, employee security during working hours, after hours security, disaster preparation, etc. For retail uses, especially where there is cash on hand, robbery and cash security protocols should be established. Applicants are encouraged to contact the Santa Clara Police Department’s Community Services Unit (408-615-4859) for assistance.

PD 32. A Coded Entry System is required for police access to enclosed parking lots and gated communities. This can be accomplished with a coded keypad system or the Police Department Knox Box key system. We understand security is a prime concern for the tenants of the project, which necessitates some sort of secure building and admittance process. By having either of these secure access systems for law enforcement, it will allow us to better respond to emergency situations should they arise in the development.

Examples of these systems can be reviewed at the following projects: 2585 El Camino Real (Coded keypad access) and 3555 Monroe Street (Knox box key access) ****KNOX Box/Coded keypad per building, gated parking garages, pool area etc… PD33. The developer shall meet the City of Santa Clara’s guidelines established for radio signal penetration, detailed in the Communications Department’s Public Safety Radio System Building Penetration Guidelines. The intended use of telecommunications sites shall be clearly and accurately stated in the use permit. The signal, of whatever nature, of any communications facility or system, shall in no way whatsoever interfere with or affect any police communication or police communication system.

PD34. Public Safety Radio Systems Penetration Guidelines have been established by the city of Santa Clara Communications Department for radio signal penetration during 10 of 19
emergencies. The developer is advised that the project may be required to install equipment for adequate radio coverage for the City of Santa Clara Radio communications System, including but not limited to Police & Fire emergency services.

The developer should contact the director of communications at (408) 615-5571. (for high rises)
PD35 Applicant shall install signage to prevent theft from vehicles in the parking lots. In addition, the use of quality lighting, installation of high-quality video cameras/recorders, and license plate readers are highly encouraged to prevent thefts from vehicles.

PUBLIC WORKS

ENGINEERING
E1. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees. Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process.

Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.

E2. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.

E3. Submit public improvement/encroachment permit plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements directly to the Public Works Department. Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.

E4. Existing non-standard or non-ADA compliant frontage improvements shall be replaced with current City standard frontage improvements as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.

E5. Damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the public right-of-way along property’s frontage shall be repaired or replaced (to the nearest score mark) in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer or his designee. The extents of said repair or replacement within the property frontage shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer or his designee.

E6. The sanitary sewer (SS) discharge information (i.e., building use, square footage, point of connection to the public system, and 24-hour average and peak SS flow graphs for the peak day, showing average daily and peak daily SS flows) submitted by the developer was analyzed and determined that there should be enough SS conveyance capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adding it to the City’s Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model (SSHM).

E7. The sanitary sewer mains serving the site not included in the Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model were monitored in the field by the developer at developer’s expense to evaluate proposed development impact to said sanitary sewer mains. The Sanitary Sewer Monitoring Report determined there should be sufficient SS conveyance capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

E8. Developer shall provide a complete storm drain study for the 10-year and 100-year storm events. The grading plans shall include the overland release for the 100-year storm event and any localized flooding areas. System improvements, if needed, will be at developer’s expense.

E9. All storm drain mains and laterals, sanitary sewer mains and laterals shall be outside the drip line of mature trees or 10’ clear of the tree trunk whichever is greater. 11 of 19
E10. Provide root barriers when the drip line of the mature trees covers the sidewalk. Root barriers for sidewalk protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 1.5' deep, and centered on trees. Root barriers for curb and gutter protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 2’ deep, and centered on trees.

E11. Dedicate required on-site easements for any new sidewalk, public utilities and/or emergency vehicle access by means of subdivision map or approved instrument at time of development.

E12. Dedicate a sidewalk easement for the sidewalk and driveway portions within private property and pay the easement preparation fee. Sidewalk easement shall be 1’ behind proposed back-of-walk if there is landscaping behind sidewalk and/or at the proposed back-of-walk with a cold joint if there is hardscape concrete behind sidewalk.

E13. Entire width of Civic Center Drive and Lincoln Street shall be treated with minimum 2” overlay with dig-outs along the entire project frontage.

E14. Developer shall locate the proposed CATV line shown on Civic Center adjacent and just to the north of the existing water line near the western driveway to the joint trench outside of the blacktop.

E15. A transportation impact analysis is not required as the project is not expected to generate over 100 net new AM or PM peak hour trips.

E16. A VMT analysis is not required as the project is 100% affordable housing.

E17. Traffic improvements must comply with the City of Santa Clara Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

E18. Residential bicycle parking shall be 36 Class I spaces and 7 Class II spaces per 2007 VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines. Class I and Class II bicycle parking, as defined in SCMC 18.74.075, shall be conveniently accessible from the street, within 200 feet of a building entrance and/or highly visible area.

E19. Design and construct a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Civic Center project frontages.

E20. Improvements within 10 feet of a driveway must be less than 3 feet or greater than 10 feet per City Standard Detail TR-9. Please show intersection and driveway triangle of safety on site plan as shown in City Standard Detail TR-9.

E21. All proposed driveways shall be ADA compliant per City Standard ST- 8.

E22. Design and construct two curb ramps at Lincoln Street/Civic Center Drive in accordance with Caltrans Std Plan A88A, Case A. Only one Case A is currently being shown on the site plan, please revise.

E23. Unused driveways in the public right-of-way shall be replaced with City standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Standard Detail ST-12.

E24. Provide ADA walkway connecting the proposed buildings to public sidewalk.

E25. On-street parking shall not be counted toward on-site parking requirements.

E26. A bulb-out shall be installed at the NW corner of Lincoln Avenue and Civic Center Drive.

STREETS DIVISION
Landscape
L1. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications on all improvement plans.

L2. No cutting of any part of private trees, including roots, shall be done without securing prior approval of the City Arborist. Tree trimming/removal shall be done in accordance to the City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications and with direct supervision of a certified arborist (Certification of International Society of Arboriculture). 12 of 19
L3. Identified existing mature trees to be maintained. Prepare a tree protection plans for review and approval by the City of Santa Clara prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.

Solid Waste
SW1. The applicant shall complete and provide the Solid Waste Management Report, which includes the estimation of trash and recycling materials generated from the project. Use the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines for New and Redevelopment Projects as specified by the development type. Contact the Public Works Department at [email protected] or (408) 615-3080 for more information.

SW2. The applicant shall provide a site plan showing all proposed locations of solid waste containers, chutes, trash enclosures and trash staging areas. The site plan shall show the route or access for trash and recycling collectors (trucks) including vertical clearance, turning radius and street/alley widths. All plans shall comply with the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines.

SW3. For projects that involve construction, demolition or renovation of 5,000 square feet or more, the applicant shall comply with City Code Section 8.25.285 and recycle or divert at least sixty five percent (65%) of materials generated for discard by the project during demolition and construction activities. No building, demolition, or site development permit shall be issued unless and until applicant has submitted a construction and demolition debris materials check-off list. Applicant shall create a Waste Management Plan and submit, for approval, a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Report through the City’s online tracking tool at http://santaclara.wastetracking.com/.

SW4. This project is subject to the City’s Accumulation, Transportation and Disposal of Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 8.25 of the Municipal Codes), which requires the handling and disposal of waste by authorized service haulers. Insert the General Notes for the Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste Management into construction plans in accordance with the City’s municipal codes prior to the issuance of a Building or Grading permit. Provide the Green Halo waste online tracking number to Building staff prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit.

SW5. This property falls within the City’s exclusive franchise hauling area. The applicant is required to use the City’s exclusive franchise hauler and rate structure for solid waste services. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance, the project applicant shall complete and sign the Acknowledgement portion of the Solid Waste Management Plan for New Development and Redevelopment form noting the service haulers used for this project.

SW6. Prior to obtaining a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy, weight tickets for all materials generated for discard or reuse by the project during demolition and construction activities shall be uploaded to Green Halo and submitted for review and approval by Environmental Services. At a minimum two (2) weeks review time is required.

SW7. All refuse from all residential properties within the city shall be collected at least once a week, unless otherwise approved in writing (SCCC 8.25.120). Garbage service level required for residential developments (single-family and multi-family) shall be no less than twenty (20) gallons per unit. All project shall submit to the Public Works Department the preliminary refuse service level assessment for approval.

Stormwater
ST1. Stormwater treatment facilities shall be designed and installed to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the 13 of 19
applicant shall develop a Final Stormwater Management Plan, update the C.3 Data Form, and the Special Project narratives/worksheet (as appropriate).

ST2. The Final Stormwater Management Plan and all associated calculations shall be reviewed and certified by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party review letter shall be submitted with the Plan.

ST3. For projects that disturb a land area of one acre or more, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under the State Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) prior to issuance of any building permit for grading or construction. A copy of the NOI shall be submitted to the City Building Inspection Division, along with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Active projects covered under the Construction General Permit will be inspected by the DPW Code Enforcement staff once per month during the wet season (October – April). The applicant shall prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

ST4. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans and incorporate post-construction water runoff measures into project plans in accordance with the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program standards prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs Plan Sheet with the plans.

ST5. During the construction phase, all stormwater control measures shall be inspected for conformance to approved plans by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party concurrence letter on the C.3 facilities construction shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. As-Built drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Building occupancy will not be issued until all stormwater treatment measures have been adequately inspected and O&M Agreement is executed. For more information contact Rinta Perkins at (408) 615-3081 or [email protected]
ST6. Porous Pavement, Vaults, Interceptor Trees and Trash Full Capture Devices shall be inspected by a third-party reviewer and/or manufacturer representative for conformance with the details and specifications. If necessary, percolation test shall be performed to ensure proper installation. The number, location and species of the interceptor trees shall be confirmed during the construction.

ST7. Stormwater treatment facilities must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (Chapter 6 and Appendix C). They shall be installed using biotreatment soil media that meet the minimum specifications as set forth in this Handbook. If percolation rate test of the biotreatment soil mix is not performed on-site, a certification letter from the supplier verifying that the soil meets the specified mix.

ST8. The property owner shall enter into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for all installed stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. Applicants should contact Karin Hickey at (408) 615-3097 or [email protected] for assistance completing the Agreement. For more information and to download the most recent version of the O&M Agreement, visit the City’s stormwater resources website at http://santaclaraca.gov/stormwater. For porous pavement and underground vault, inspection of these facilities is to be done annually.

ST9. Any site design measures used to reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures shall not be installed for the project without the written approval from the City, installing the corresponding resizing of other stormwater treatment measures and an amendment of the property’s O&M Agreement.

ST10. Developer shall purchase and install full trash capture devices for all storm drain inlets downstream of a trash staging area, which must be maintained by the property owner 14 of 19
in perpetuity. Maintenance and inspection of full trash capture devices shall be addressed in the O&M Agreement.

ST11. Developer shall install an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message such as “No Dumping – Flows to Bay” on any storm drains located on private property.

ST12. Floor drains within trash enclosures shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.

ST13. Decorative and recreational water features such as fountains, pools, and ponds shall be designed and constructed to drain to the sanitary sewer system only.

SILICON VALLEY POWER
SVP1. Clearances: (Make sure job notes do not conflict with SVP clearance requirements) a. EQUIPMENT
i. Ten (10) foot minimum clearance is required in front of equipment access doors. (UG1000 sheet 11)
ii. Five (5) foot minimum clearance from pad is required on sides without equipment access doors. (UG1000 sheet 11)
iii. Eighteen (18) foot minimum width, shall be provided and maintained on one side of the equipment pad to allow an electric dept. line truck to drive up next to the pad for installation and maintenance of equipment. (UG1000 Sheet 11).
iv. Barrier pipes are required only on sides accessible to vehicles. (UG1000 Sheet 12).

1. Thirty (30) inches from side of equipment sides.

2. Forty Eight (48) inches in front of access doors.
a. Barrier Pipes in front of access doors shall be removable. b. CONDUITS
i. Five (5) foot minimum longitudinal clearance between new conduits or piping systems (open trench installation) and any existing or proposed SVP conduit system. This is for longitudinal. (UG1250 sheet 5) ii. Twelve (12) inch minimum vertical clearance between new conduit/pipes installed perpendicular to existing SVP conduits for open trench installations. (UG1000 sheet 36, UG1250 Sheet 6)
iii. Three (3) foot six (6) inches clearance is required from poles for open trench installation. Exceptions are for riser conduit. (UG1250 Sheet 7) iv. Three (3) foot minimum clearance is required between sign posts, barrier pipes or bollards, fence posts, and other similar structures. ( UG1250 sheet 10).
v. Five (5) foot minimum from new splice boxes, pull boxes, manholes, vaults, or similar subsurface facilities. (UG1000 sheet 8) vi. Five (5) foot minimum clearance from walls, footings, retaining wall, landscape planter, tree root barrier or other subsurface wall or structure. (UG1250 sheet 9).
vii. Five (5) foot minimum clearance is required between fire hydrant thrust block. The thrust block extends 5’ foot on either side of the fire hydrant in line with the radial water pipe connected to the hydrant. c. VAULTS/MANHOLES
i. Ten (10) foot minimum clearance is required between adjacent vaults or manholes.
ii. Five (5) foot minimum clearance is required between adjacent conduits. iii. Minimum 36” from face of curb, or bollards required. 15 of 19
d. Poles (Electrolier, Guy Stub poles, service clearance poles, self-supporting steel poles and lighting poles.)
i. Three (3) foot six (6) inches clearance is required from poles for open trench installation. Exceptions are for riser conduit. (UG1250 Sheet 7) e. Guy Anchors
i. Five (5) foot minimum clearance is required between center of anchor line and any excavation area. (UG1250 sheet 15).
f. Trees
i. OH 1230 for Overhead Lines
ii. SD 1235 for Tree Planting Requirements near UG Electric Facilities SVP2. Reference listed SVP standards for clearances.
a. Installation of Underground Substructures by Developers b. UG1250 – Encroachment Permit Clearances from Electric Facilities c. UG0339 – Remote Switch Pad
d. OH1230 – Tree Clearances From Overhead Electric Lines e. SD1235 – Tree Planting Requirements Near Underground Electric Facilities SVP3. Prior to submitting any project for Electric Department review, applicant shall provide a site plan showing all existing utilities, structures, easements and trees. Applicant shall also include a “Load Survey” form showing all current and proposed electric loads. A new customer with a load of 500KVA or greater or 100 residential units will have to fill out a “Service Investigation Form” and submit this form to the Electric Planning Department for review by the Electric Planning Engineer. Silicon Valley Power will do exact design of required substructures after plans are submitted for building permits.

SVP4. The Developer shall provide and install electric facilities per Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.210.

SVP5. Electric service shall be underground. See Electric Department Rules and Regulations for available services.

SVP6. Installation of underground facilities shall be in accordance with City of Santa Clara Electric Department standard UG-1000, latest version, and Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.050.

SVP7. Underground service entrance conduits and conductors shall be “privately” owned, maintained, and installed per City Building Inspection Division Codes. Electric meters and main disconnects shall be installed per Silicon Valley Power Standard MS-G7, Rev.

2. SVP8. The developer shall grant to the City, without cost, all easements and/or right of way necessary for serving the property of the developer and for the installation of utilities (Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.110).

SVP9. If the “legal description” (not “marketing description”) of the units is condominium or apartment, then all electric meters and services disconnects shall be grouped at one location, outside of the building or in a utility room accessible directly from the outside. If they are townhomes or single-family residences, then each unit shall have it’s own meter, located on the structure. A double hasp locking arrangement shall be provided on the main switchboard door(s). Utility room door(s) shall have a double hasp locking arrangement or a lock box shall be provided. Utility room door(s) shall not be alarmed.

SVP10. If transformer pads are required, City Electric Department requires an area of 17’ x 16’-2”, which is clear of all utilities, trees, walls, etc. This area includes a 5’-0” area away from the actual transformer pad. This area in front of the transformer may be reduced from a 8’-0” apron to a 3’-0”, providing the apron is back of a 5’-0” min. wide sidewalk. Transformer pad must be a minimum of 10’-0 from all doors and windows, and shall be located next to a level, drivable area that will support a large crane or truck. 16 of 19
SVP11. All trees, existing and proposed, shall be a minimum of five (5) feet from any existing or proposed Electric Department facilities. Existing trees in conflict will have to be removed. Trees shall not be planted in PUE’s or electric easements SVP12. Any relocation of existing electric facilities shall be at Developer’s expense.

SVP13. Electric Load Increase fees may be applicable.

SVP14. The developer shall provide the City, in accordance with current City standards and specifications, all trenching, backfill, resurfacing, landscaping, conduit, junction boxes, vaults, street light foundations, equipment pads and subsurface housings required for power distribution, street lighting, and signal communication systems, as required by the City in the development of frontage and on-site property. Upon completion of improvements satisfactory to the City, the City shall accept the work.

Developer shall further install at his cost the service facilities, consisting of service wires, cables, conductors, and associated equipment necessary to connect a customer to the electrical supply system of and by the City. After completion of the facilities installed by developer, the City shall furnish and install all cable, switches, street lighting poles, luminaries, transformers, meters, and other equipment that it deems necessary for the betterment of the system (Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.210 (2)).

SVP15. Electrical improvements (including underground electrical conduits along frontage of properties) may be required if any single non-residential private improvement valued at $200,000 or more or any series of non-residential private improvements made within a three-year period valued at $200,000 or more (Santa Clara City Code Title 17 Appendix A (Table III)).

SVP16. Non-Utility Generator equipment shall not operate in parallel with the electric utility, unless approved and reviewed by the Electric Engineering Division. All switching operations shall be “Open-Transition-Mode”, unless specifically authorized by SVP Electric Engineering Division. A Generating Facility Interconnection Application must be submitted with building permit plans. Review process may take several months depending on size and type of generator. No interconnection of a generation facility with SVP is allowed without written authorization from SVP Electric Engineering Division.

SVP17. Encroachment permits will not be signed off by Silicon Valley Power until Developers Work substructure construction drawing has been completed.

SVP18. All SVP-owned equipment is to be covered by an Underground Electric Easement (U.G.E.E.) This is different than a PUE. Only publically-owned dry utilities can be in a UGEE. Other facilities can be in a joint trench configuration with SVP, separated by a 1’ clearance, providing that they are constructed simultaneously with SVP facilities.

See UG 1000 for details.

SVP19. Proper clearance must be maintained from all SVP facilities, including a 5’ clearance from the outer wall of all conduits. This is in addition to any UGEE specified for the facilities. Contact SVP before making assumptions on any clearances for electric facilities.

SVP20. Transformers and Switch devices can only be located outdoors. These devices MAY be placed 5’ from an outside building wall, provided that the building wall in that area meets specific requirements. (See UG 1000 document for specifics) EXAMPLE: If there are any doors, windows, vents, overhangs or other wall openings within 5’ of the transformer, on either side, then the transformer MUST be 10’ or more away from the building. These clearances are to be assumed to be clear horizontally 5’ in either direction and vertically to the sky.

SVP21. All existing SVP facilities, onsite or offsite, are to remain unless specifically addressed by SVP personnel by separate document. It is the Developers responsibility to maintain all clearances from equipment and easements. Developer to contact SVP outside of the PCC process for clear definitions of these clearance requirements. 17 of 19
Developer should not assume that SVP will be removing any existing facilities without detailed design drawings from SVP indicating potential removals. Simply indicating that SVP facilities are to be removed or relocated on conceptual plans does not imply that this action has been approved by SVP.

SVP22. SVP does not utilize any sub-surface (below grade) devices in its system. This includes transformers, switches, etc.

SVP23. All interior meter rooms at ground level are to have direct, outside access through only ONE door. Interior electric rooms must be enclosed in a dedicated electric room and cannot be in an open warehouse or office space.

SVP24. In the case of podium-style construction, all SVP facilities and conduit systems must be located on solid ground (aka “real dirt”) and cannot be supported on parking garage ceilings or placed on top of structures.

SVP25. Applicant is advised to contact SVP (CSC Electric Department) to obtain specific design and utility requirements that are required for building permit review/approval submittal. Please provide a site plan to Leonard Buttitta at 408-615-6620 to facilitate plan review.

WATER & SEWER
W1. Development Impact Analysis: A Development Impact Analysis request has been submitted for the project and the impacts are currently being analyzed. If there is a deficiency in the existing potable water distribution or storage infrastructure, the developer will be required to upgrade the potable water system as determined and approved by the City. The required potable water system upgrades will be at developer's expense. The evaluation may change based on pending development applications and future projects. The potable water hydraulic analysis does not guarantee or in any way reserves or holds distribution capacity until developer has Final Approval for the project.

W2. Recycled Water Ready: All onsite plumbing for non-domestic water uses (e.g. irrigation, industrial processes, cooling, etc.) shall be designed for recycled water use and shall comply with all Recycled Water regulations.

W3. Recycled Water Connection and Use: The project shall connect to the City’s Recycled Water System at the time that a recycled water point of connection is available along any portion of the project site’s frontage.

W4. Potable Water Main: The applicant shall replace all the existing water mains along the project frontages with new 12" DIP pipe water main. The water main upgrade shall extend the entire length of the property's frontages or as required by the Development Impact Analysis.

W5. Encroachment Permit: Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit an encroachment permit application and design plans for construction of water utilities that comply with the latest edition of the Water & Sewer Utilities Water Service and Use Rules and Regulations, Water System Notes, and Water Standard Details and Specifications. In addition, prior to the City's issuance of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct all public water utilities per the approved plans. The Water & Sewer Utilities will inspect all public water utility installations and all other improvements encroaching public water utilities.

W6. Utility Design Plans: Utility Design Plans shall indicate the pipe material and the size of existing water, recycled water and sewer main(s). The plans shall show the nearest existing fire hydrant and the two nearest existing water main line gate valves near the project area. The plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale and per City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Note that all new water meters and backflow prevention devices shall be located behind the sidewalk in a landscape area. Fire hydrants should be located two feet behind monolithic sidewalk if 18 of 19
sidewalk is present; two feet behind face of curb if no sidewalk is present, per City Std Detail 18. The plans shall provide the profile section details for utilities crossing water, sewer, or recycled water mains to ensure a 12” minimum vertical clearance is maintained.

W7. Utility Separations: Applicant shall adhere to and provide a note indicating that all horizontal and vertical clearances comply with State and local regulations. The applicant shall maintain a minimum 12” of vertical clearance at water service crossing with other utilities, and all required minimum horizontal clearances from water services: 10' from sanitary sewer utilities, 10’ from recycled water utilities, 8' from storm drain utilities, 5' from fire and other water utilities, 3' from abandoned water services, 5' from gas and electric utilities, and 5’ from the edge of the propose or existing driveway. For sanitary sewer, water, and recycled water utilities, the applicant shall maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10' from existing and proposed trees. If applicant installs tree root barriers, clearance from tree reduces to 5' (clearance must be from the edge of tree root barrier to edge of water facilities). No structures (fencing, foundation, biofiltration swales, etc.) allowed over sanitary sewer, potable water and/or recycled water utilities and easements.

W8. Separate Services: Applicant shall submit plans showing proposed water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and fire services connected to a public main in the public right-ofway to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities. Different types of water and recycled water use (domestic, irrigation, fire) shall be served by separate water services, each separately tapped at the water main. Tapping on existing fire service line(s) is prohibited. Approved backflow prevention device(s) are required on all potable water services.

W9. City Standard Meters and Backflows: All proposed meters and backflows for all water services shall meet the current City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale.

W10. Existing Services: The applicant must indicate the disposition of all existing water and sewer services and mains on the plans. If the existing services will not be used, then the applicant shall properly abandon these services to the main per Water & Sewer Utilities standards and install a new service to accommodate the water needs of the project. The applicant shall bear the cost of any relocation or abandonment of existing Water Department facilities required for project construction to the satisfaction of the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.

W11. On-Site Storm Drain Treatment: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing any onsite storm water treatment system. The plan shall include a section detail of the treatment system. No water, sewer, or recycled water facilities shall be located within 5-feet of any storm water treatment system.

W12. Water Usage: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of water usage so the Water Division can verify the appropriate size of all proposed water meters. Please note that if the existing water services are incapable of supplying the water needs to the site, the existing services shall be abandoned, and new separate dedicated water services shall be provided for each use (domestic and irrigation).

W13. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plan details for all water features (including but not limited to fountains and ponds) designed to include provisions for operating the system without City potable water supply and capable of being physically disconnected from source of potable water supply during City declared water conservation periods, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Water & Sewer Utilities. Decorative water features may be permanently connected to the City’s recycled water supply.
19 of 19
W14. Easements: Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall provide a dedicated water utility easement around the backflow prevention device onsite.

The water utility easement for the water services and all other public water appurtenances shall be a minimum 15 feet wide and be adjacent to the public right-ofway without overlapping any public utility easement. Additionally, the applicant shall submit plans defining existing easements so Water Division can verify if there are any conflicts with proposed easements and water utilities.

W15. Underground Fire Permit: Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit an underground fire permit unless otherwise waived by the Fire Department. If fire flow information is needed, applicant shall coordinate with Water and Sewer Utilities Department, for fire flow information at (408)615-2000. A dedicated fire service line, with an approved backflow prevention device, shall be used for on-site fire hydrants. Fire service lines required for commercial and industrial use shall be sized appropriately per fire flow demand and code requirements.

W16. Record Drawings: Upon completion of construction and prior to the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide "as-built" drawings of the public water utility infrastructure prepared by a registered civil engineer to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities Department.

W17. Water Shortage Response Actions: Pursuant to the City of Santa Clara’s Urban Water Management Plan, during times of drought or water shortage, the City implements water shortage response actions in accordance with the level of water shortage declared. All construction activities and all new irrigation connections are subject to the Water Shortage Response Actions in effect at the time of construction and connection of the irrigation service.

Water Shortage Response Actions for Stage 2 and higher include water use restrictions that limit the use of potable water such as:
a. prohibiting the installation of new potable water irrigation services. new irrigation connections, construction, and dust control.
b. restrict the use of potable water used for construction and dust control if recycled water is available.

This project is subject to all the requirements and restrictions of the Water Shortage Response Actions in place or adopted during the duration of the project. For more information, visit the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities website at www.santaclaraca.gov/waterconservation
Dear Mayor and Council,
We residents of the Civic Center Drive neighborhood are opposed to the proposed development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) on 1601 Civic Center Drive, up for your vote on September 27, 2022.

We respectfully urge you to vote NO on this proposal. We have attached 400+ signed letters and annotated pictures in support of our position. The reasons are:

1. The developer is not trust-worthy.

We have attached pictures of the incidents that occurred in the 13 months between April 2020 and May 2021 on the site of 1601 Civic Center Drive and the recent denial of facts published on the City web site.

The shadow study presented on August 3rd , 2022, to the Planning Commission is inaccurate, even after Charity Housing admitted on July 20, 2022, i.e. earlier, in our Community Meeting that it is inaccurate.

The application for this project is potentially incomplete without an accurate shadow study. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission claims that the shadow cast by the existing building over homes on Triton Ct. is about the same as the proposed building, which is not true.

Why are misleading and inaccurate statements allowed to be published on the City web site, and our demands for rebuttal and removal of misleading statements ignored? During the Planning Commission meeting paid advocates from 2-3 organizations locked out our community for a full hour from making live comments. We see the rules of engagement as stacked up against ordinary Citizens. Why should a single organization be allowed to voice multiple times when we are prohibited from both ecommenting (500 characters in about 30 seconds) and live commenting (2 minutes)? The problems we experienced during the 13 months resulted from a lack of charity towards neighbors, lack of internal business self-controls and oversight, and lack of transparency. We are not alone. A report in the San Jose Spotlight details the problems at Renascent Place, a Charity Housing property. We see the now familiar denial and deflection pattern in the following quote by Charity Housing:
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ Quote from Kathy Robinson:
"We decided to have John Stewart manage Renascent Place for us ... because it was so large with 160 units, and because it's 100% permanent supportive housing," Robinson said.

Where is the "Gold Standard" in this? How about accountability? Charities Housing uses "Charity" as a marketing tool, even though it is not a legal charity. What happened to the notion of "truth in advertising"? Does the end justify the means?

2. Our key 3 demands have not been met:
2A. Reduce density to at least 1/2, reduce height to a maximum of 3 levels, and provide a 30- degree viewing angle to two-story homes. There will be 4 70 new residents in a 1 .4-acre lot with 108 units.in an already congested neighborhood. This is not sustainable development.

28. Remove the driveway and parking space proposed along our fence 12 feet from Triton Ct's living spaces. The driveway is a source of noise, fumes from cars (often older cars which fit the budget of low-income tenants), dumping, and illicit activities. We ask any access from Civic Center Drive to the new building be blocked. We do not trust CH will monitor and mitigate problems arising from the driveway so close to our homes. There are already three streets feeding traffic into CCD in a tight spot. A fourth by CH will increase the risk of traffic accidents.
2C. Increase parking ratios per unit from the current 0.75 to at least 1.50 or 1 per bedroom given the fact that household sizes and cars have increased post financial crisis, and as a result of the housing crisis. Parking in our neighborhood is already severely limited. It is not possible to clean the curbs and garbage has collected along the curbs. There is no parking space after 6pm. We do not want paid parking.

We wonder what happened to our petition to place on a future Council Agenda our desire to have a neighborhood park on the site of 1601?
There are far better sites throughout Santa Clara for dense housing. The new Housing Element does not rely on the 1601 site to fulfill RH NA There should be a mandate for 25% affordable housing on all new projects in Santa Clara that results in integrated communities instead of pockets of low income. Since CH is a PD, the City has the authority to ask it to fulfill more stringent requirements than those contemplated under the El Camino Real Specific Plan. We thank you again for your consideration and support.

The Response to neighbor objections to MND, published on City web site claims:
"Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 and July 12, 2022."
Please examine pictures rebutting the misleading statement above.

The residents on Triton Ct suffered for 13 months from April 2020 (a month after Covid lock down) thru April 2021) because the owner refused to mitigate the problems documented in these pictures of which they were notified and aware as early as April 2020.

The denial published on the City web site adds insult to injury. Where is the accountability for all that happened and how low are we setting the bar?
Removal of Encampment on 1601 Civic Center Drive
Tent inside the enclosure operated 24/7 - Brawls between occupants were common with multiple police dispatches. Bicycle thieves assembling/disassembling stolen bike parts operated next to the tent.

Trash from the encampment. The fence around the enclosure could have removed in April 2020 not March of 2021.

Only one of several dumping incidents which could have been prevented if the owner of 1601 had placed a fence around the perimeter.

Homeless man arrested by SCPD.

Response to our objections to MND, published on City web site denies this. "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 , and July 12, 2022."
- .

Code enforcement Incident Report #9910975 . It took Charities Housing four days to clean up exposing Triton Ct. residents to germs and viruses. This picture is taken after the clean-up, which left an unsightly Residue and a staggering amount of debris scattered on the parking lot of 1601 Civic Center Drive. This could have been mitigated by putting a fence in April 2020 not 13 months later in May 2021. There is no accountability for this, and similar incidents and the denial published on the City web site is shocking.

Why is the City asking us to trust mitigation efforts on the proposed project? Response to our objections to MND, published on City web site denies this. "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021, and July 12, 2022."
The area along the fence with Triton Ct, right behind Triton Ct homes, where a driveway is proposed, was used as bathroom on a regular basis. A mitigation fence would have reduced incidences like this .

August 2020: Homeless trespassers were again reported to SCPD which in turn notified the then-stealth owner to fortify the remaining un-boarded windows with more boards. The first set of boards on the doorways, visible in the picture, were placed in May 2020. Circa June 2020 SCPD started using the building for training. The owner boarded up the building but failed to place a fence around the property for 13 months until the RV dumping incident forced its hand. This was in-spite of numerous calls and requests conveyed thru SCPD and the Planning Department (circa April 2020).

Response to our objections to MND , published on City web site below denies all of this. "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 , and July 12, 2022 ."
Pl eci s:~ ,1 oh~. : th t:'_ ,-e , ':., ,., 1.; s h:,.-,rv-, d ,r eZ. in whe.~ th~ ~~phc -(~nk livt\!:> .,em'y-fr<ce.d.
h:111t2 no·r httppt2neJ ;P #ere vt1ere e~'-
o n --1'1 -e a. re t:,·,
n...·s (..Alou id
fence__
April 23, 2021
Keyhan Sinai
1691 Triton Ct
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Sinai:

The Santa Clara Police Department is in receipt of your request for information. This letter is being provided and the information provided is accordance with Section 6254(f) of the California Govermnenl Code.

Santa Clara PD Case #:

Dale/Time of Occurrence:

Date/lime of Report
Type of Call:

Location:

Involved Parties:

Circumstances:

Injuries:

Property:

Weapons:
21-0416162
04/16/2021 at 2310 hours
04/16/2021 at 2310 hours
City Ordinance
1601 Civic Center Dr, Santa Clara, CA
Suspect: Unknown
On 04/16/2021 at 2310 hours, Officers responded to the above address regarding a report for a municipal code violation. An RV entered the parking lot to the rear of the building and the occupant emptied the septic tank into the storm drain on the property. 111e RV fled the scene prior to police arrival.

None.

If you have any questions about the information in this letter, please contact the Santa Clara Police Department Records Unit.

PATRICK NIKOLAI

CHIEF OF POLICE
Sincerely,
Jennifer Cullen
Police Records Supervisor
601 El CarninD Real • Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone: 408-615-4700 • Vl'"l'lW.scpd.org www.SantaClaraOA.gov 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight East San Jose housing group looks
to hold developers accountable
Renascent Place, home to formerly u nhoused people, is owned by Charities Housing and managed by t he John Stewart Company. Fi le photo.

As a prolific housing developer unveils plans in East San Jose, a new coalition is holding it accountable for maintaining acceptable living conditions.

Peter Ortiz, a community organizer and policy advisor for the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Association, founded the East San Jose Tenants Coalition in early April after a San Jose Spotlight article revealed deplorable conditions at Renascent Place, a homeless housing site. The site was
developed by Charities Housing and managed by the John
Stewart Company. One resident called Renascent Place
"nasty as hell" with broken windows, exposed wiring and an overwhelming smell of mildew.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 1/4 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight Another San Jose homeless housing site, Second Street
Studios, managed by the John Stewart Company, has been
rocked by similar allegations. The John Stewart Company also faced criticism in San Francisco for tenant complaints about mildew, mold, rusty pipes and rodents.

Ortiz grew concerned when he learned Charities Housing
planned to construct one or two apartment complexes on
Alum Rock Avenue in East San Jose.

Ortiz, who works to increase affordable housing and
protections for renters against displace_ment, realized a coalition would provide strength in advocating for tenants' rights.

The coalition quickly formed to include Latinos United for a New America, SO MOS Mayfair, Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley, Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, Human Agenda and Movimiento Democratic Coalition.
"I wanted to unite these organizations under a coalition to strengthen our voice and focus it on protections for our East San Jose residents," Ortiz said. "A lot of us are affordable housing advocates. However, people forget once those
developments are built about the conditions which residents live in. You hear stories, especially in East San Jose, of absentee landlords, illegal evictions and a lack of services." Kathy Robinson, director of development for Charities
Housing, said it typically develops, owns and manages all of its properties.
"We decided to have John Stewart manage Renascent Place for us ... because it was so large with 760 units, and because it's 700% permanent supportive housing," Robinson said. "In
many people's opinion, John Stewart is the gold standard for managing this extremely difficult population. We thought it was a good idea to hire a professional so it could be done well."
Robinson said Charities Housing will manage its new project on Alum Rock Avenue, which will be a mix of people with special needs and low-income residents who need affordable housing.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 2/4 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight The East San Jose Tenants Coalition toured Renascent
Place with developer Charities Housing and property
manager John Stewart Company on April 12. Photo
courtesy of Peter Ortiz.

Ortiz said he wanted to sit down with Charities Housing and the John Stewart Company to discuss their obligations to tenants, from being responsive to their concerns to not charging them for property updates.
"In our Latino undocumented community, we find a lot of predators," Ortiz said. "When they update their apartments, they'll try to charge our tenants."
Ortiz said he'll advocate for rents to be kept low to avoid displacement, prevent "bullying tactics" and illegal evictions.

Although the number of evictions in San Jose decreased
following the adoption of an eviction moratorium, tenants face harassment from landlords and worry they won't have the resources to pay back the rent they owe.

On Monday, coalition members met with Warren Reed, vice president of the John Stewart Company, and representatives of Charities Housing for a tour of Renascent Place. They also https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 3/4 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight spoke with staff from housing and social services provider Abode Services, which runs an office in the complex.

Ortiz said if the developers and property managers refused to meet with them, the East San Jose Tenants Coalition would run a community campaign against them.
"We'd rather meet and focus on solutions than organize
against their future developments," he said.

Gabriel Manrique, community organizer for Latinos United for a New America, said when the coalition toured Renascent Place, they didn't have an opportunity to speak with
residents.
"We definitely need to talk with the tenants and see what concerns they have," Manrique said. "We have to find out what repairs and services tenants might need."
Ortiz said the coalition will hold developers and property management firms of affordable housing in East San Jose accountable.
"We're going to be watching them," Ortiz said, "and as
problems arise, we're going to put heat on them to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do."
Contact Lorraine Gabbert at
[email protected].
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 4/4 1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Margarita Bliznikova submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I live nearby and I’m extremely opposing development project on 1601 Civic Center Drive It will create disproportional traffic, make the existing problem with limited parking spaces here only worse. The infrastructure is not supposed for such high-density residential project. Also it will lead to higher risk for pedestrians Neighborhood is not suitable for high-density development. It will add more noise, traffic, make neighborhood more crowded and unsafe, put too high load on infrastructure
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
C F submitted a new eComment.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
VENEE CRUZ submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: STRONG OPPOSE! This location is not suitable for high density 5 stories. Our neighborhood is already crowded and impacted by blight and petty crimes. Developer didn’t listen to any of the community concerns. We will not accept the driveway on CCD, it will be prone to high risks of accidents. This development will have huge negative impact on existing communities and will impact our safety and security. I will no longer feel safe walking in my community. Please do your due diligence and save us.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:13 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
John Galt submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: This is what happens when we have elected “leaders,” namely Mayor Lisa Gillmor, who has special interests and works with/has ties with development companies. Sooner, rather than later, this is going to be the same case when Great America is gone; especially now since Gillmor has her hand-picked “officials” sitting in Planning Commission doing work for her. They choose development over our communities to enrich themselves. We need new leaders without special interests.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Deepa Hotchandani submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: STRONGLY OPPOSE! We already feel unsafe. Our neighborhood is experiencing blight, noise, petty crime, shortage of parking and a decline in the quality of life. City should consider other suitable sites for ultra-dense housing, and give our needs as Citizens priority over developers. The idea of creating affordable housing in one spot will create pockets of poverty, increased crime, drug dealing, etc. The best way to create affordable housing is to spread it out throughout the entire communities.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
In Seok Hwang submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: PLEASE NO MORE HEARING !!! STRONG OPPOSE !!! I am also afraid of huge negative impact on existing communities. The planning area is already fully congested and no parking. There are new high density building construction across the El. Camino Real. Another monster 4-5 story building next to existing residential single family homes/townhouse community is not desirable. Our region is already crowded !!. Please consider other locations with old shopping mall with lesser population density.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Disha Shetty submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I strongly oppose the proposed construction plan at 1601Civic Centre Dr. by CH. It's going to have devastating effects on this quite dense neighborhood. Adding such a high-density housing is going to create resource scarcity for the residents living here mainly with parking issues, school intake, crime/theft, noise etc. Please consider moving this to a more favorable area. We need more breathing space in this already congested area and would be very thankful if a park can be considered instead.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Kiran Singh
From: STANFORD SHOOR
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Priya Cherukuru; Ricci Herro; Yashraj Bhatnagar; Nancy Biagini; Lance Saleme; Qian Huang; Andrew Crabtree; Jonathan Veach; Reena Brilliot; PlanningCommission; Planning Public Comment; Debby Fernandez; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 2: Approve Civic Center With Recommendations Santa Clara Planning Commissioners,
Our local families desperately need affordable homes. At 108 units, this Civic Center Drive project from Charities Housing will be an essential housing option for many.

Let's not be discouraged by a handful of loud voices. Instead, let's build homes to tackle our current and future needs.

I urge you to vote yes to approve the Civic Center Drive Family Project, Item 2, for the following reasons:
‐108 affordable homes are desperately needed to meet the demand, to provide housing for people like our local teachers and service workers ‐The parking count is appropriate for the site given access to VTAs buses and shopping along El Camino Real
Meanwhile, here are two things you could ask about in the hearing that could make the project better:
‐To cut down on traffic, the developer could provide free bus passes for residents as other affordable developers do in our area ‐Create a more active, vibrant ground floor to promote neighborhood interactions I strongly urge you to support the Civic Center Drive project, <Your Name>
Laurie Duckham‐shoor
Sent from my iPhone
Kiran Singh
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

KEYHAN SINAI
Wednesday, Auqust 3, 2022 4:50 PM
Priya Cherukuru; Ricci Herra; Yashraj Bhatnagar; Nancy Biagini; Lance Saleme; Qian Huang; Planning Public Comment
Regarding 1601 Civic Center Drive Project proposed by Charities Housing Removing encampment in 2-2021 after 11 months.JPG; Trash from encampment after enclosure housing the homeless was demolished 2-21.JPG; Trash dumping truck.JPG; 1601-dumpJpg; Homeless Tent on 1601.jpg; 1601-poopJpg; 1601-homeless man arrestedJpg; 1601_shit_path_2.jpg Dear Planning Commissioners,
First, I wa nt to t hank you for volunteering your time in the service of the public.

In the case of Charit ies Housing 1601 Civic Center Drive, in addition to the numerous tech nical flaws and objections raised by our neighbors we urge you to also consider that "The End does not justify t he means".

In the interest of brevity I urge you to read letters in the 100 page 'public correspondence' posted alongside the agenda, on pages 36, 38-48 (1-9-2022) and pages 90-100 (9-1-2021), written on behalf of myself and Civic Center Village HOA on Triton Ct., and the surrounding neighborhood HOAs , who overwhelmingly oppose this project.

As a wa ll-to-wall neighbor (1691 Trion Ct) of 1601 Civic Center Drive I strongly urge you to reject Charity Housing's (abbreviated CH henceforth) proposal to build "affordable" housing on ' 1601'. Longer term th is publicly funded project is not affordable to the City, the tax payers, and our neighborhood. It will devastate our neighborhood. We suffered 13 months of hell from April 2020 through April 2021 as a result of the homeless encampment on the 1601 property within yards of our homes, wh ile CH refused to identify it self and engage with us, and put a securit y fence around its property. SCPD and its Neighborhood Nuisance Suppression Unit acted as our liaison to inform the stealth owner (at the t ime) of the petty crime and blight wit hin ya rds of our homes. SCPD stated that they "cannot force the owner" to put up a fence. There were homeless brawls, bicycle thieves, drug and alcohol consumption, broken glass and nails th rown into our homes and sleep time disturbances. CH engaged with us only after a criminal dumped the contents of their RV toilet tank at midnight on April 14 2021 right behind our home. Incident number 9910975 to code enforcement and Police Report# 21-041662 are proof of this crime. It took CH four days to clean up and we suffered intolerable stench, and a harmful exposure to germs and viruses. A~er this incident and complaints to code enforcement CH had no choice but to put up a fence to guard against further liability. We want you to understand it was not out of the "Charity" in their hearts t hat they put up a $2K fence. To make matters worse, we found out only in May 2021 that CH had submitted their proposal to the Planning Department in Dec. 2020 and had been contacting Council Members to gain positive mind space in order to preempt any meaningful dialog and feedback from us. We want you to know t hat CH has treated us as disposable toilet paper. It has used our presence in the communit y meetings to claim engagement and feedback, where in fact none of our key demands have 1 2
been met. In-spite of all this, CH has the audacity to place the following in their Mitigated Negative Declaration MND response to our objections:
"Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 0221 (typo is not mine) and July 12, 2022." This is false. Why has CH left out the 9 months of 2020 when most of our complaints were made? Why did CH filter out visits by SCPD to complaining homes on Triton Ct. and only cites visits to 1601? Why does CH not mention that the Crime Report does not include cases where arrests are not made or when there is no suspect and may not include every complaint made to the SCPD dispatch? Most importantly: Why did CH not ask for the evidence directly from the neighbors in the four long public meetings when they deliberately stayed silent in response to our complaints? Is CH claiming that effectively, we the neighbors are liars? We have attached a few pictures to show the homeless encampment and are happy to provide further evidence for our claims. The brief history proves that CH is not transparent and evades accountability. CH has added insult to injury by claiming “nothing happened on our watch”.

CH distorts the evidence and ignores facts on the ground. We hope you take the time to question CH the hard questions we have repeatedly asked and conduct your own fact finding before approving this project. We are happy to invite you to our homes to prove the shadow “study” is incorrect and to share first hand witness reports, and how this project will impact us. Please understand CH will do anything, including resorting to ‘general’ parking studies to get its project approved. Please note that:

1. CH has refused to move all the entrances and lanes for their project to Lincoln Street. The situation on Civic Center Drive with 4 lanes in proximity to each other is hazardous.

2. CH has refused to reduce the height of the building to 2-3 as many other new developments in Santa Clara have.

3. The parking spaces are inadequate. Currently there are no parking spaces in our neighborhood past 6 or 7pm. The curbs cannot be cleaned because the parked cars have nowhere to go. The former Fuji florist’s project site (on Warburton) will add to the congestion.

There is blight, and car break-ins daily along the curbs. SCPD Community Relations has informed us that they do not have the bandwidth to address the volume of petty crime. The congestion added by CH will make it worse. CH has been and will be a burden on the enforcement budget of the City. Longer term such dense uneconomic projects can easily flop and the mess will become the tax payers and the City’s burden.

4. The vast majority of our neighborhood wants a park on the current site of 1601.

Our petition to place this for consideration on a future Council Meeting Agenda was approved by the Council in September 2021. Why is our alternative proposal for this site not even being considered in a timely fashion on equal footing to CH’s proposal? As we understand this matter should have been placed on the City Council Agenda for a vote within a month of approval. Should the Citizens be paying the price for the process inefficiency and the fact that there was a City Manager change? We ask that our proposal be given fair consideration.

The MND section E lists our objections. The responses to our objections are flawed, evasive, and in some cases even not related to the objection.
3 CH’s shadow study is still flawed after 4 public presentations. It claims there is no more shadow on my home 1691, 1701, and 1681 than the current two story building. Mr. Hood of CH admitted that the shadow study is inaccurate in the last public meeting on July 20 2022.

I explained why the study is flawed to the planning department and again two times in public meetings. In spite of this the public record has not been corrected and decision makers will likely assume the shadow study is a “pass”. My home and at least two other homes have no obstruction from the current two-story building to cause a shadow. If CH’s project is approved, we will lose our view of the Civic Center Park, the sky and the shadows from the 5-story tall building will reduce the efficiency of any solar installation as well as ruins the view from our homes. My home is RED on the toxic fume section of the MND report. We objected that the mitigation of toxic fumes during construction is not adequate. There needs to be a 24/7 sensor that wirelessly transmits data (or checked 2-3 times a day) to code enforcement for prompt action. The MND response places the burden of reporting on the affected neighbors.

This is not fair. We may be working at the office and even if staying at home we have no effective way of monitoring toxic emissions. The response does not allay our fears. The noise level of 90db during construction is unacceptable. The City’s code is 55dB. The response E-4 to this objection refers back to D-2 which addresses a different problem! No one should be asked to be exposed to 90dB of noise within yards of their home, for an extended period of time and in such close proximity. Would you as Citizens tolerate such a noise level for yourselves and your families?
This project is not suited to or safe for our neighborhood because of the density, proximity, negative impact on the environment, traffic, parking, shadow, toxic fumes, long term impact on City infrastructure and finances, property values, etc. The quality of life has degraded in our neighborhood in the two years since the 1601 site became a homeless encampment.

Ultimately this project is a badly designed patch to an urgent social problem. The patch will make matters worse over time. In-spite of the hype, it is not in the public best interest and will devastate our neighborhood over the next 50 years, ala the failed social and business model of NYC concentrated and dense Public Housing projects. In addition, CH has serious credibility and ‘good faith’ issues which must be considered.

Again, we urge you to consider that “The end does not justify the means. “. Let us not lower the bar to the minimum technical aspects of CEQA or other rules. Please consider the big picture and the voices of us Citizens and to reject CH’s proposal for 1601 Civic Center Drive.

Sincerely
Keyhan Sinai
Cc:

Morteza Shafiei, President Civic Center Village HOA on Triton Ct. Santa Clara, CA • • • ' ... - ---- - ~ •
- • •
-~ ~
- -
-

•

! !ATTENTION!!
A cleanup of illegal encampments
in this area will be conducted on the following datc(s):

You are TRESPASSING and
/ wm be subject to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION if you remaint
You MllST remove all of your property from this location by 7:00a.m.on "2•2 "'I -Z..f
During the cleanup all personal property, shclt
1 . . . . . ers, and garbage cma111111g 111 the area will be rem d ovc .

If you need help with housing or want to learn about rcso please contact the 1 'ncampmcnt and I lomclcss O utreach 11 llrccs avnilab/c to you, 211. <>ll in1.: at(40R) 510-7600 or
/\tltlitiomilly <luring the Covid- 19 Pandemic yi,{1 can rcu . 1 by culling 40l -27R-642c~ 1 thl! Covid- 19 I lousing hot/int:
1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Eric Lau submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I oppose this project not because I'm against development but because I'm against having a bad neighbor. Charities Housing had the opportunity to reach out to us early on to see how we can work together to properly integrate this project into the neighborhood. If CH was cooperative, we wouldn't be sitting here today opposing their designs. It's still not too late for CH to make changes to accommodate our requests unless they feel it’s no longer charity when it hits their own pocket books.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
I r;:;JJ
1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Eric Lee submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: This neighborhood already has some significant impacts to parking due to the existing high-density housing complexes that already exist, plus the new addition at 1900 Warburton nearby. With the addition of another 100+ housing units and insufficient on-site parking, this problem is only going to get worse for existing residents. I strongly oppose this proposal.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

I r;:;JJ
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD}, the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Deel'"\ ~V\ ( 5\;)r
Address: I }rid Ll:i/&bfc;vi·\
Signature: -~==~~2::="""=~~
P( flv~l)
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Sincerely, e-iiJ_
Printed Name:l11J1u ~Y'.)JC~k Signa~
Address: \
1 1~12 ~tllebcc\/\t -PL ~QffA_ (JCtrtL J~,A 060::t)oate: _qf--'-'./llP"-l-}Z2- __ _ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Signature: [-"_ -
Address: i 7 2 J H , I/ e b, 1r c1 h ,r P I Date:

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is loo high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make ii difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: [b; en A·:: y-,,,,,,C\.: Signature: ..l.."--"''------'"""'--'I<""'-=1-=~;t:..

Address: / / ~'J.:7 Ht/ ( ,2 h Ti4'h t ~ · S 4,yvftil ceo.1 "4.

I
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely, . • /J 7
Printed Na~ec/4w ~ Signature: V'~~ " ,
Address: 17:i-7 /f'!fe/;m,lff_ JJl ' SaJ,, cb:ti, 'l4 Jio\ C Date: cl ~/; 0 I CY O ., :P rr I ) I I I ..... ~ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy dem;and from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green. ' We believe in sustain,able and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed Generaf Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.

Sincerely,
Printed Na~e: 1)/AAJv'.YA Ttf Signature: _])hP-~
Address: / 72[ /-1,)Jel,rf!±<!f l , 'Sa.I;;;, c/imi /AJ!i#oate f;!✓ o / .:> E> 2 C Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: 1 I ·. l(o ~ Iv e<t: \< o Signature: __ \J_~__._. ______ _ Address: ft)\ \-\: eeebv°'"'-,t F'i S'a_"'t°'- e~~ Date: 09/41::,/2,07,,,L eA 9fo c;-o
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: je_f:J5(C,o,.,_ fi•~kif'
Address: _l;_~....;...._I ....:....~....:....r \ ......... \ e,___;;},_ft_C(_v14,____~_\_. -----Date: -~~--1---4.::;;.._; 5~"'-.\-o-- c.\ o.J'O'\ 0,, qs 66 o
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: '/(}..\/ 1£/( OTU/.D Signatury!_fft __
2 _5 _____ _
Address: 171-\S l-/ 1l,,LE6tU1vr '('L ,SAVlA cifttt/t CA- Date: "\- J6- 2~ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
•
•
Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Signature: ---,lf,_'-11------------
Address: I 7u\ S 1-h/..J..,ffprtl\ tvf PL .SA!v,.-A ~tl.il Date: 9 - 16 - Z"'f Printed Name: A t.-it\K.SANPf'lJJ 01,;tlt!>
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Siqi Bai
---------- Address: 1754 Hillebrant PL
----------------------
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ,j<7 //J( J J'n )1 f-,Z
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The' 1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ,) IA h \Nvv®
Address: /] b L /~/j, L {(J btfl h-f, (£ ,
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601 ' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy , there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents , requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601 ' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ , a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children 's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely, J h F (rv' J--/\;
Printed Name: /}J vr 1 Signature: _ _________ _
Address: 11u ~ i
11 lL'.! O ('~~ Date: fl'J / ( & / 7,,,1-/' -----~- --------------- _ _,_,,___,,~,----- Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents , requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood .

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ , a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: / ~
Address :

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of ' 1601 ' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown .

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601 ' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ , a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It doe~_,r1ot have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed Gene;:aI Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charitie Housing.

Sincerely, CJ-;
Printed Name: V Md ~ Sig
Address: /?7cJ O?H! G-~~~L- Date: ---------
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for ~ 3 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601 ' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots . Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601 ' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: !11JJ't:Y 76'..JJ1/-,:cz/ Signature:

Y/ . -7,,£1 / ·zo/ L .

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: MAKlIJI SOLOVftJA Signature:-~---=-~----,,,,,.-=----- ~~ Address: /77£ /illl£!3RA/vT Pl . SA !V1f-J CLl-)/</i Date: g /; 2/2JD22- 7 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
•
Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion In our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-Ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of public' ed problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from horn . The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impo Ible.

Project burdens local prlrate amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs compl in that their private children's par~1and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not pr ide its own amenities and will ex~sperate such woblems. Existing public parks do not satisfy deman from existing residents. Wene CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: _ ___,;_L_1___,;L:;..._:;lA..;._ __ _ Signature: ---~ ___ Q _____ _ Date: _ rfJ~ /_1_4--"-J _J,-O_;:;_;,._
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of O. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neig bors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a GH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Project burdens local private amenit : Res~1 ents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest rking ar used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate sue proble s. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to hav contigu ~s parks, not patches of green.

We believe in su~tainable and balanced developme~t. The proposed project is neither. It does nJt have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge r,ou to Vote NO on the proposed General Pl~n Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housihg.

Sincerely, '- J ) j _ A
Printed Name: L ZNWi,4 fJ Signature: __ /r; _~'-'-------- Address: 11"i5 H-~(lebrtw1.t f A,, )~'I {J#V"'~ Date: _ .,_,_r_,_'f_l_1-4l _ ?.._Z. __ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampmetit on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely, ~ j (); /}
Printed Name Svt/iVJB Z/ncWlj , Signature "lY~?rj
Address: I 189 (:lcllebvovit Pl. )-~_a~------- Date: .=-3_/tb I )o22 1~ o to
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name:~ i)(w'----- Signature: -1.~_dflA,__,_ ___ _ Address: I J '8j Hdlebravit Pi fun!o, OoirOJ ~_ Date: 11 t6/)0 '2-l.

CA, 1Lo to
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The' 1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ J_l_C\__.,.~-51t-}-"' __ W_"'-__ Signature:---~--------- Address: __ l~l ~~l~H~; I_\ l_~'9!_1\_t_P_l_, -~~ot~m;~C\~O\'°'"-+--' ~u-~-- Date: --~---=t-=o__,_~'9 __ _ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overfiow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely, , "-+ j_
Printed Name: 1n Seo k:. HWQ.tn} Signatur~b~)
Address: ttr:91 H;gfebrctnk pb SQ"t"' ~m Date: ~e.yt, 12 /20ll, Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601 ' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: /a...s~ rn~\,,etv'l Uo..nje Signature: --~.....-d'= - ++- --=- ·· ____ _ Address: l 1-Cf.':f- rlt\\ \-\',\\e\Jrw-1t f\QCe ~ '1 -\:AC{'\..rC\ Date: oq_(tl/2 2.2....

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is , a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limit~d partners. 1
• Project burdens local private amenitie~: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Xi Yi Signature: --/'\-0---+-------- Address: 1799 Hillebrant Pl, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 9/16/2022 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners. .
• Project burdens local private amenitie~/ Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest pa~~ing are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Wenbin He ---------- Signature: _(;v_~_k/ _____ _ Address: 1799 Hillebrant Pl, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 9/16/2022 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: (h l1njfc,n L1
Address: l~o l H 1 /ltbrc,n+ Pl
\_~--- /_~ , /I'., Signature: ____ /...,,.~--~/_ L. __
Date: 1 / I b I ~ ;:).

Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: o ou9l°:s I lu (/\~ Signature~ ll,4r
Address: 1001 Hi\lcb\c,o~ e1.s<t1n'l(j\(Jo,c(1' (/~ Date: ~/2_) oso
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development ~V Charities Housing. f /. 11.1.'i /1){,/l t / i"" If i;; { ,,,--
Signature: ___ -,-1_n_.l_1j_"
11_...,1
"....,•·~... ·•• .... //_· --
Sincerely,
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
•
..
•
•
•
•
Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood .

Sincerely, /
Printed Name: .J I VL j I, Vl ~ Signature: --4-+-'-.&?z #~A-7. ___ v_r+:------ Address: / Sj O k:4-tUd?rt.4 ~~ Pl,Lce.- Date: ''f- I b :~ //b ·zl!,, Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: N ~~V~4 StftVEL! ~A Signature:---~-----~----- Address:)gJ._£ HiiuGUHtf Pfc,ce ~+et {!1()}/_c..,, Date: 09 /IG lj{)JL Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking . There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan '. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely, . ,. \) u d1-
Printed Name: j(\tii-L--1,J 11l;, l ~\l)ik ~ gnatur~
Address \ '3) ( J..1--; 11,,.lJ { ,__I- f /" 4 ~ ~ e: ~ (L 'L--- Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing. /J/1 j /) ~~!lL
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Develop ~nt by Charities Housing. I \
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely, s ~· ~, ~ Printed Name: --~;;..._' ..... vV=l: ..... o J'.\'-'--..j,.l...;;.Y\....;:a...._ Signature: _)__,.:;.....;.1_l_~ __ ___.(_<--_<.._--=· ____ _ Address:_( ....... &_y _3,_f~ ......... ~---//_e ____ h J_>e,ivc__.::t ___ P....,..( {\_....C_~_ . . __ Date: ol /,I£ /r )t/ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan '. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601 ' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down . Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children 's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: shCh1ql1, I~ Zhe-nBI Signature: %cnM :i~
Address: _I g_S_)_L,,/·~i/ ~k,~b~YG!~V\ i~-i>~L ______ Date: o~/ { b /2,02:i Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ c_-~h_w~},~_k~\_cv(} __
1 /1[! A A i;L~ Signature: __ L/4=-_'v_v_ 1 _____ _
Date: (Jc, I I b /:KJ i?
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing. fW\J,'l1(_ 1.-n,l,n (' ~s:fPrinted Name: r..,v, V\ Signature:----------- Sincerely,
Address: _( 8i_(P_\rh_· _l \e_b_~ _ ___,_F \-'------- Date: 9· /IV) / '1 '1, Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name·~ O? !J 5A 0j ~~~ j ,/~
Signature: 7 '9/ .?
Address:lg 6/} f/,'/ lehrwrt PL Date: _{;_J_-{;._2~2~-
itA ( lcvYtt <A ;s-dv
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: A J j { Ab 12'.) (!., oi\ Signature: bb " Address: / ~ l 1' }1 \ ) I ¼c Pt t2kid Pf a ( £ , ,~;MYei ClJ& P 1:~1 YfDate: ~ I \ ~ ~ vl, Iv Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: A::bJJk1 MfuA Signature: _ ...... 0f ...... "_~ __ a_~_/>r_, __ Date: l1 t I (,7 f 2-J,
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: hCtl ~ f\:hmrJI Signature:---"-']#.....__· ,_,J)_ ...... @hd-""-'--"-'---- Date: ~ \ ) b ) A :L
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of' 1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Signature: r0M}:11J >u\l(M).C::

Date: 11 \ 6) Adv
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove tile homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies tile problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: /2.m hm i
Address: (iJG-3, H ,//.e>~q_,,J
~.!//;~ Signature: ___ l.__.l.<,' ________ _
Date: (}1 / lb / 20 i l --7-;-----1, ...... ,,....,,..~-- ,..,_,
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from l1ome. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~NIL~ i2 An Signature: __ cA-1 ___ ~_
0 _ _,.-"I_' -
Address: ( 8_b_3_ft1-.!-/e_b_¥_~-,,. f / Date: ot}J.3} 2 D :l 2-- -------------------------- • l ~ vJ,.p__ c I a.. v C\
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: "5l---l frVYrl f?M M f11-- Signa~-=-,~;:-z:, ~"?'.,.'"ti-7 •.__-:;t:.===- Address: \ %-t;J HI LA • .,lr'f7t20:':v\0:: PL Date: .-'1 / 1 I 2-L I Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown . • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed . CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this , but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children 's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We oncerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refu sed to fence 11 and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There Is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PiD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place ira SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Longer term this project will wo en the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewe , power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has lo be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partne .
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

I
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have 1 ·I the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plah1 Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housihl l I I
Sincerely, ~
Printed Name: \ S 'r1 P,..., 14 i::., 1' 'f Signature:.~ ~ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned re sidents are strongly opposed to the h1gh-dens1ty rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because Safety The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refu sed to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (cf. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime. blight, nuisance. and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Dnve in a narrow stretch. There 1s a high nsk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct homes' living areas There will be noise from cars and fire trucks The new access lane will increase the nsk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it Is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as 11 did during the lockdown Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed CH refuses to build underground parking There Is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan Is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan' As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood . CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ , a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The m1t1gation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, 1f not impossible.

Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from ex1stIng residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks. not patches of green.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project Is neither It does not have th e internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Dnve to Planned Development by Charities Housing Sincerely,
Printed Name: S:'u m 1 1 ~ r-1 o Signature· ~ - ·,. 1 'i:21-'- - Address: 127o HI LL r ~ flf\ rv'1 f L ":> p,.NjA Ctl"'~ Date c, j / tl / r·~ L L A - ·) '.'.: c <o
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: AS I F +j Ob .A Signature: __ qp? __
0 ____ ·~..__--· --.... , ......,... -__
Address: 1 ~ y 3 ±t\ LL f- @::, t.A:N T f? L~ · Date:
~ A N "TA ~ LA-~A ,C_ A \ 0rvs '1)
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: 1 AS:,"-' f fM l(ALl :sA ~
Address: I~ is .1 HI lu:::rs,r,:J~/rJ7 Pl SA1'\J T/l C c!.lKA 5f,7J5b
Date: O,S /16/2 2
! I
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~;D..o l1'A €) L,J\ Signature: ~{J ____ k, __ _ Address: $1l_xL.11eb<C1~t . .tl-1-.S~~1£A_ __ _C\tdCl I e,/.\ 1~~ Date: _____ g__t1 i) { 7,,),,, Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown . • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents , requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood .

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ C,_1A_o_Ll_1 __ Y,_,·_., __ _ Signature: ---~_L-______ _ Address: I$ 7 5 IJ n<e.br~t Pl ,, ~c,,.tl)"WI l f 0vrov a~, Date: 0 ~/I b ( }o-i,'\,- q S-,0')\7
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, .nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601 ' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: GiCi"q[Civl 6,vo
Address: r $8> r'711e hVQtrl: t> l
Signature:-~----------
Date: _v-'-1--'-/_·, b-+/_2P_2-- __.2_ j
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: /~~J /(V-: 2kvv'-
Address: \ 9~) f~,·,1e br&~d vl
/' /1-~-
Signature: / ----.J
,,cJ, I
Date: _JJ_L,L}};__/_ZL_
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: PAvrv PAL.

Address: ! ] IT I~ ;(lek,~vrr 171 I Date: 01/16/ Z. 2-
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely, /_,,,-
Printed Name: ·trAN'(I V:\/l\Nq Signature:_ 2·-;~~---~~~;;:

Address: t4 IV (--lIL-lEGtzl\fq PL, <;'(,\NTt~ cw:\..~\ Date: q / \ ~ ( 2--D ·2,r U Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: k~V1-~\ \ __ 1-M
Address: V'.114 Hdld,r-c;tl\i f/qce,,.

GA vt~o c;-o '
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: lv\ov ► i l/\.£1\~l'\Ct---- Signature~
Address: \ q l i \~ ~\ t \J ruJ\ \r f \ Date: 9 /
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: AT.u L- HAQl-lv~up~N Signature: o/'·~~ ·
l
Address: I q 3,( IAtL.Ltf2,,r.AN1 {)L- <;At-.J1A lUit-t>r Cf. q$o5o Date: (b s~ r ?,o1--'2- Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its llmited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.

Sincerely, . · " ... ,, 1V--
Printed Name: V t:t:N I\ ~f\..S~ Signature: __ \J--'---~---___ _ Address:/ 931 H / L,LGf3/lA-N1 PL Date: O)C\/13 }~o~:2_ SA--N,r\- CLAf!-J\ GI\ 4~~ ' 1
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center · Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: fe r;J~i' 1 6, · ea -~ V'O v Signature: 'n7vUh-------- l Address: /935' f/;.t/,e..6r0111..-I &,f q<U_ I ..ky//k'? et'Q/;;g Date: Jep . /,,/__ I w 2. 2- 7 ;
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.

Not all residents are likel/'buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: V i,,NtOJ71-/INI /j-12::SvN.f¼'-i Signature: __ -_,,__\~'--~----'-·"---·-~-·-·_· __ _ Address: -~) q_lf~O __ H~)L-l.£'_' ~-OO~~P~t----~1_t._PrN__,,JP~C=l/l:_f~----¥-' 1 ~tA-~-- Date: -"~'-+(~1 l~f;_.2... __ _ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:

Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car.

Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.

Financial Impact: The' 1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely, 1 (}
Printed Name: S I\IA&A:,LAN NlfRAY-ANft,v Signature: __ J'l'_._g____,__..,,,.J~..,__,,,__J\--\----- '----7 \_ Address: f <f4-0 H:tt-J$5/tANT P.L, -SA-NT/+ C/....Ptf:.:A-, CA- Date: 0 9,_ { 16) 2.-02-2 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name:ARAI',1 ·; isA\ 1 '1/ ~\~Ni)ER ~,:1Signature: --""~-="'=='!:===dii!..J,.~=-- -, _,,
Address: } Cf 4-4 HI LU:;Bf2Ah/T Pt; .~NJA GA M Date: _" '-9----t-'/J_?h_,:, 2... .... '" __ c.A45o5o I r
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: AN\ f'HA &M2€R/3Atvl Signature:--~-'-'---....;;.~----- Address: l 1y> ~ ti, lf e.-b ra.i,J- f /. J Gt vef-"'-C lctrti\ ~ S-ll ~a Date: _1__,/,__L_lf-+-/ &_bl __ Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any I changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing. :~:~:
1 Address:
~ame•
,qr{.; H:itlebra;ct
S0,~n ) 6,
/{ I~ (/tu~
Signature
MqJli-V
~ Date: q I l ~ / >,;>-2-
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---,.L-...1...i.::...::....1.1..-_..:...:=:....1-- Signature: _ .... tfv...-j,....;;.,_~------- Address: \ ArfJ \:f ,d-e, bret-1ctf?f S'~0kL,l {pd'f\ Date: 1 / 1 b/i,oJ,,L .

Cl\ Of toJv ..

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Alexander Salzmann Signature: {fJ4< ¥=:=
Address: 1969 Hillebrant Pl., Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 0910912022 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Mike Greco Signature: /J't::..,
Address: 1971 Hillebrant Pl Date: 9/13/2022
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Address: / 7 t "<:? ff r L c_ ct-?> ~/V/f l;:;L_ IJ. c_ ~- Date:
6~{/4 .SL L-/4-/2.._/,J- C/,4- Q ~t? .Jl) / t
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name~~f/20~_--_·-::,,_~_-Ql/L
Address: W D C1v~(~-=Ll?fa
C cJ G\CA.~ , C /
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: l ~ v_::) Signature:

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: S. 19 nature: __________ ~'-- _
Date: _q-'--/--'/__,~--
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: f) Uqg A/ l1 ci~/c,1vv1-Ji
Address# 20 cf ,..( i ~11·c
1 t~(u (crr/wc)r
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing. :i::~:1:ame: '5ett114~\YA;\Ai._ Signatu~~
Address: le:,9o C~J ~c..,C-e0-+e.r ])r. 4s-os- Date: ~rt~ ( I 1 &)2,2- s~ c~, CA qrc,~o
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely, ;1 _,,,--, ) /? ' \ . l) . ~~~ . . \c;·, -------···~ Printed Name: ~ Or1u Signature: / ) fi+'V / ' J'
Address: / 670 l(vi'0(1tv1f1/· D1 itL-;()'J- Date: S,171/2 2JZZ- {'· () (' (' r Cf· ,- -·a I uA\ /11'£1.. C 0 r (A 1 ✓ ~ SO S Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is ne~,t.h. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the propos, General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development /;, /~~ies Housing. 'J!:.I /"//,,
Sincerely, /,,>-,,....-:::,~
-'-'-..::;._.i..q..._c:..s,.--1---1-.,;;_.;,,.:::.4::; ..... )i· · ., Signature: --"""-------- 'II' ,,,,,..- h
Address: ~~1--"'if----..a..Jl.--"-""-~+f-l---"-'-........,,--a.._;...:o,;._,,,_' __ Date: ~~-1-J.~q_~::::::= , / Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
I • I j) , Printed Name: l I flAUY'\ t>i 1 Signature: __ )_---., ___ j_)_"-...J_1 ___ _
J
ACFrOgBPXDdoslSUzUUiBIGr3f9B7_-gTNmUvOCuXglM68p ... https://doc-0g-6k-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/secure/p ... 1 of 1
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: 6/R.. i G---· l-<3&
Address: 1{/lV C1v1,:., Cr;;vr~
9/15/2022, 11:14 AM
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: S ( o'll \M..-0 '-'\ "- \,,.., ~ Signature:·=-----------'----_....'-----,.;...__ Address: ..... l_l_"'_l o_.....,.r_, _-1_• '--~-· _______ -\+.__· _G_-_v '-\-- ___ _ s,~ ;:.., 1'
) ' fl
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1C16660C-D096-4CBB-9573-849EFB619DB5 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Golnaz Bakhshi
Printed Name: ----------
(;""'"'""'"'"
Signature: . =.:::;c ~ 480 _
Address: 1690 civic center Dr., unit 605, Santa clara, CA Date: 9/8/2022 --------
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71A45A3F-FD6B-4853-B371-ACE29465BC40 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Babak Jamshidi G
DocuSlgned by:

Signature: ---"-~..Jc;;.:,,SQ1.11;1i:.i.;.:c;;114,;411,J;!Jee~22~42~5'---- Address: 1690 civic center Drive, unit 605, Santa clara, CA Date: 9/6/2022 -------- Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0. 72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: 7/J / {;)f/t#/)5e;(i;e:~nature: _1~~-r&?:....,,..._- ....... ---- Address: [t,1o C?/Vje~e/(/ef/2{>t{\/E!f1fb::b Date: 2-6--R~ SAfl11', ~ ~ 9soSo
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: X\J~?.,\\) L1 Signature: ___.~_v_ ~,. .. -_______ L~l· _ Address: (6~o C-iViL ftrvd:trcf( /4 pl 6v]
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentSeptember 27, 2022

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
September 27, 2022