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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Xuehui Zhu Signature:---~-' ~f~ _ _]--+-----
Address: 1420 Civic Center Dr ·#2, Santa Clara, 95050 Date: 9/1012022 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, derise 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Jiaqing Ni ---------- Signature: J \ Ll. 0\, l vi ~ Ni Address: 1420 Civic Center Dr, Unit 7, Santa Clara 95050 Date: q,12.22 --~----- 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Danxue Huang Signature:---~--------
Address: 1440 Civic Center Dr, Unit 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 9/11/22 ---------------------- ---------
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Liang Li Signature: __ D_·°'-'_fl-+-11J_· ____ _ J Address: 1440 Civic Center Dr, Unit 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/12/2022 -------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Xueyang Hu ---------- Signature: __ Kt_~ ______ f¼_u __ _ Address: 1440 Civic Center Dr Unit 1 Santa Clara CA 95050 Date: 09/12/2022 -------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Dehua Cao ---------- Signature: __ ZA_~ ___ Cu ___ _ Address: 1440 Civic Center Unit 3, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 9/12/2022 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Chuang Qian Signature: --~---~Cy~~-· __ _ Address: 1440 Civic Center Unit 3, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/12/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Jingjing Xu ---------- Signature: __ fr7 __ ___;:::___ ____ _ Address: 1440 Civic Center Dr unit 4, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: ------------'----------- --------- 09/17/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Liping Huang ----'----"'----=----- Signature: _L~; f~'-·n __ 'J_Hi_tACC_~-- Address: 1460 Civic Center Unit 7, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/10/2022 ---------------------- --------- Petition to Oppose Chari4'• H 1 , ,; ous ng ~ High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA · ..
We concerned ras1den•"' are stro I d h Housing (abbreviated c"'H). t 1,.,.~gCyioippose tot ~ high-density rental development by Charities a uv, v c Center Drive, Sanm Clara, because:
• Safety: The de~eloper Ignored th~ safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence It ;"1 took no action to remove the nomel"'a" e;-:cgmpmMt on '1601'. CH now denies the probtems on er property occurr~d (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCl-'D made them aware of.the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refusfils to remove 1:he proposed clr!ve1.11.1ay on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fen?8. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive iri a narrow stretch. There ls a ~•gh risk of pedestrian/ trafficiincldents. The proposed street Is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes• l.lv1ng areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & ~tty criminal actMty bac.,ius6 It !:s hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of momtonng on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as It did during the lockdCJ111m. • 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 slcyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not ell residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working ad1Jlt 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 ls better. Toe 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 EC~ Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'P!2ri'. As a Planned DeveloA t (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards tha 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 nc.ighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to eam an Income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construciion is inadequate, if not impossible.
Longer term this project will worsen the City's st:n.lctural 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. infrastnJcture 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 nmr::in:; children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does. not provide its own amenities and will exaspe~• such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need <&lf4:o nav, contiguous parks, not patches of green. we believe in sustainable and """'"~n,.,,,,,.,, development. The proposed project Is neither. lt do.es 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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name; ~ ;Jryio Signature:
Address: ( Lt LJ O C{,~h·C, Gut\0& 0 ~ (1'1) U: 0,
~~ ~,CA
' •
f
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 CMc Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We c?ncemed r~sidents 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 ~onths. 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.t .. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware qf the petty crime, bhght, 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 stree\s feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ trafftcilncldents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cats 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 fl?t widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to bwn 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 QQO.~ fit for our neighborhood.
CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objectlvtJ,$tandams contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned DeveloA~ht (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards tha~i'fne EeR 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 eli46.navfl .cQnjiguous parks, not patches of green.
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project ls neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable It to be so. We urge you to Vote NO qn the proposed G.eneicil. Phan .. , Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development byCharities Houe.ing •.. ,\ 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Pan Ji Signature: --~~ ___0 __ r ___ _ Address: 1460 Civic Center Dr, Unit 7, Santa Clara , CA 95050 Date: --------~---'------~'------- --------- 09/13/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Anton Frolov Signature: ___ <fJ ________ _ Address: 1415 El Camino Real, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Mirna Maldonado ----------
Address: 1367 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 15 SEP 22 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Luis Giron-Yuja Signature: l,s A- lih,,, 1j~ Address: 1367 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 15 SEP 22 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.
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.
Sincerely, '•
Printed Name: 'J..r.A [) /_ '1. 11 ll/ CH E:-JV
Address: I 3 7 3 l=- ( {;,cuh1 ;,?D /2-e-l"J,,
Signature: _ __,_~....__· _____ -· __
Date: t:r' I I r I 2-o ·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 petfy 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. ill 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.
ill Financial Im.pact: 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.
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.
Sinc,erely,
Printed Name: ;:~·VE/\IJ{L) I Ti.A Signature:--~-"'·--~---' ___ _ y 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 neighborhoo~ for ~ 3 months. It r?fused to fence it . and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on 1601 . CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (cJ. MND response E-6 on C!ty w~bsile_) even lh~ugh SCPD made them aware of the petty crime. blight, nuisance, and dumping (mcludmg 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 SCPO, 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' ~roject_h~s been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but rt 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 n~ighb?r. The_90dB noise during_ cons~uction will ":ake it difficult to earn an income from home. The m1t1gation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate if not imp 'bl Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit and will require mo' re publ'i ossi e. . . . • c resources as pnvate 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 d' 1 th financial interest of its limited partners. rsc ose e
" Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOA . their pri1Jate children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders This roj s complat~ that o~n '.3meni~es and will exasperate such problems. Existing public p~rks d! nof ~~~~fyes not provide its existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green. demand from We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed ro· t · , the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO! the 18 neither. It does not have Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Dev In e proposed General Plan Sincerely,
e opment by Charities Housing.
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 safely 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: AN.SH \J rvi 1/:f:J \J ;if>r ":, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Signature: -~~'----->,>--"7'r'-"'=4-""-""e'-6P4_t-----__ _ ---------- Margarita Bliznikova Address: 1415 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95050 Date: 9/15/2022 ----------------------
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:
fl 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. fl 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. fl 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: _2._H_A,_o 'f_,_) __ cv_,_i __ Signature: __________ _ 111 l n 1· . \l,.., \ G/ / • " Address: __ '-\-_1--'-__ o_,_L_C_lVA_,1 A_;) ___ c._11' _________ Date: 0 r J1.,,i:>o2. I.--'
Printed by zhaoyu.cul at Sep 12, 2022 3:11 :37 PM
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. 111 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. 111 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. 111 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.
111 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.
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.
111 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Xiilt?J 1/k) { ,\4. I :) r-/v (' _ • V I
Address: l "fl~ t;L 1..,-yt,4&,v, h ,., ,b. a,d
Signature:
Printed by zhaoyu.cul at Sep 12, 2022 3:11 :37 PM
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Sara Bermudez
Address: 1425 El Camino Real, Santa Clara CA. 95050 Date: 0911 s12022 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Enrique Lopez Signature: _}U _________ _
Address: 1425 El Camino Real, Santa Clara CA. 95050 Date: 09/18/2022 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: C~rlize K«A5Yma
Address: 14 31 c I C0trnino Real
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 th\ 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 tesponse E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, m.ljsance, 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 ff 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 builping 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 $pecific 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 hi~h toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.
Longer term this project will worser 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 am!!nities: 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: fJ ri '-- ks~
Address: 14 S ( 6{ 4t~; tVD ~l
Signature:_~----------
Date: O'j/ 14. /7.-'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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, /) • 1
Printed Name: £ndah l,usum~ Signature: ~~
Address: { 4 3 t El CaMi no Rea( , San +a Oam Date: 0 ~ I f'!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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, I J
Printed Name~ff'cj ~ Vffl9- Signature:~
Address: \4 3) G \ C,o~', r\o v2 f' ~ / ,
I
S2-{nh C \? r L C ,(\ ~su; ZS
Date: oq It 2-) 2-rz.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Bf'\".~ 5./'}SVlO 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Cynthia Strysko Signature:
Address: 1435 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Bryce Yao ---------- Signature: __ 81(L_,,___....,L~------ ~dM Address: 1439 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 9/14/2022 -------- 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 crfminal 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 Spec1f1c 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ T __ y_le_r_L~y,_m __ _ Signature:-~-----~----- Address: 1449 El Camino Real, Santa Clara 95050 Date: 9/18/22 -------- 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.
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 Planne~ Development by Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Tianjia Chen Signature: ~rl}v~-
Address: 1451 El Camino Real, Santa Clara
CA, 95050
Date: 9/12/2022
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Ying Yang Signature: __ ..,,..~_,•_;14_._c~-----
Address: 1451 Fl Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 7:te: 09/12/2022 95050
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 Cl!,:jCl;I ,_,t dall!,:jCI uu;:,ly h;!,:jh tuA;l, fu111c;;:, du, ;11!,:j vu11;:,t1 udiu11 ;_, ;11adc1..jUC1tc, ;f 11ut ;II lfJU;:,;:,;blc.
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.
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. ft:y=:s/ Sincerely,
Printed Name: Wen Ch an g Wu Signature:
Address: 1455 El Camino Real Date: 09/ 13/22
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ C_h_r_is_W_o_ng __ _ Signature:___,__{ ...... )_~ __ !) ____ _ Address: 1455 El Camino Real Date: 09/14/2022 ---------------------- 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 ignoredJhe 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.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the resident~. ~equiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-storib'ttilding 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. TH¥ewer, 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: R.il' :r:n~hA Signature~ <::-e~--
Address: 1ib1 6-{ c~nii,no .~ Date: f-Jb-1,,-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 Canter Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignorett.p,e 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 residen~ r~uiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story1'YIUding 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 eam 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. Tt{¥~wer, 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.
• Projeet 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Jt>t\~ OM>
(..,
Address: j 4l, 1 E. I C ;1,..,~0--·tt:•f\·
i
Signature: ~~H-----"""~,t----
V ~/ 21..
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Chun-Liang Li Signature: elk . Lt) l ;
Address: 1471 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Olive Ho ---------- Signature:--~---------- Address: 1471 El Camino Real 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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, £__--
Printed Name: /.-/rJ(u,p. cfitr/P--; Signature: . .- --~"'"7"'ij<,oj;~-------- CMrA Date: tftUJ /z '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 Qncluding 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 pubffcized 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.
We believe In sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not nave 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.
Sincerely, -1tJ /
Printed Name: ~cbet Getu Signature: -+ac~------
Address: (~1; ti law,..,~o Rl-o \ , S"~~~ Cbva t q t;-oi,o Date: q I lfo 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:
.. 'lafetv: 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 Oncluding 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 (PO), 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~f;,, L;·M.D.Jltt. Signature:--~.__ ___ _ Address: 14-1[ f( C&,,,NJ f.eJ!, l'4MR, c/4rA o,/Jt/Jo; I C.A qfOSO
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on Drive, Santa Clara, CA
Civic Center
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:
11 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 161,Gb. Tlldid did a;itroJy J 6!,~(<> i&.:;1'.fol"~ ~-cirn{, vd~V Ci,;i\J Con~.:-.,, D,l;;., ;,, ti oioll-uwv .;lfoivi,. Thulo i;;; 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 cr:Z:rf!n·:; \\:~!! \.\:Ct~~n th:2; ,n::.i;;,~~;c;_;;; i{1 our ~1-~]ghbDrf~;c;,;-r:;.~ Th,g•curl.1':; ZltE; f!!thJ, th~ra 1:; no pZ-t:~:~n·g zJt~r 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. 11 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 jn the ECR Specific P!an·i.s 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,
11 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: lb\'\~ (Y\O\'\CO?O Signature:
Address: ISl-0 P111t.\l-Vl')~(;\I( S~V\tztlM,va lA
qn:>$1)
~
~
Date: ? 7t
~
/( £/2 CJ 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: _Sunil _Ravipati Signature: ___ ~ ______ _ Address: 1830 Park Vista Cir, Santa Clara,CA 95050 Date: 09/15/2022 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~ 11. 2, z, \ S \ l\ 0\
Address: /J /~ J%J k l,1 sic,{(~·,/ 4-1 f ~ ~ ( /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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
~ ~ll \:-\: ; Signature: -~0~/•l-,7--=,b'-----,1f--,,'.£'r~~-/_.-··-,-'-7_ Address: --+---<?~0~,_2>_-+Q_,_(,.._,_l I-'<-( ~¥_\J_r_l_ s~· \-_i·v_·,_. ~(~/~( ✓ __ J --Dale ?'1 / 12- { 1. 1-- ,( C<~L\ ~ O - C~t r;, CL\
/ l
Printed Name: (/ _\ IY\(,l 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.
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 rsing.
Sincerely, // ~? j 1 I ( l (: .. Printed Name n:ll~l (.Gi<~~Y Signature: 'Y'_~Iu/ 7 Address: 1 <61 b l~qrbt1claYl A1/£q1eoate: t] /11!2tJ z,?-- 1 C .. = j , ·· I '{ '7 f {tr f )'l//e~/l1 :ff / /
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: _.:___i.u~ i'\ lli.->C=-----
Add ress: t't3::3 MonKoe.
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.
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.
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. • 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. • Densly: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense an not a good fit for our neighborhood.
CH sh ewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid obj tive standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the au ority to ask the developer to conform to more tringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We sk that the project plan reflect any chang s made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge co t 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. Th~ sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. In. frastructure ha$ to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burd~ns local privat, amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private c~ildren's park and guest parking are ~sed by outsiders. This project dabs not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems .. Existing public parks do not satisfy dernand from exi ting residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green. {:
We ~Ii ve in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It oes not have the i te nal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed Ge eral Plan Ame d ent and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charitie Housing. :~~::~:I~.+ I") A f\[ P /t rv:ignature ...a...-;, _______ _ Address: / D G } ;j 1' b<w:t+i 1/Y c&oate ___ h) 2J-
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.
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.
Sincerely, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: 'XI rv ~ Ct-j1e.AI Signature: _ ...... ri:Jd -~----'~~-~--"--- Address fav ~ 7 /3 v...,/Ltl__ l € J AV/:,:- I {f Ii ~ t ie 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 lo the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) al 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety The developer ignored the safely of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused 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 lank). CH refuses '? 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 ,1s a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feel 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 ii did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Park1~g 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 lo 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.
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it t~ ~e so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 C1v1c Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
PrintedName: fA.J1 tJANG,. Signature: __ ~------
Address: 1 h,g f .1 ( ff/'h. Jk ~ C {1>11... Date: 'iefl . I~- :2,o, '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.
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 rhonitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock downl 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 t~ earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during constructiOQ is inadequate, if not impossible.
Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, andJwill require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastruct~re 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 ahd 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.
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.
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.
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.
Signature: ~~---~
~ -,...........__ ______ _
Address: _f_J~_f>_ M_ar.rt,.,.. __ Ut _ . ~--~------Date: _ q,_,;_/_/, -f-/ _2--l-- __ crr,my
Sincerely,
Printed Name: -'-t-~ _ ____.ft} -----'--ll-- ___ C/,,,v- _ 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 ~ttern 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ____ shuang xiao ...aa.., ____ _
Address: __ 1_3_7_2_M_c_p_h_e_rs_o_n_S_t_, _s_a_n_ta_C_la_ra_,_9_5_0_5_1 ___ Date: ___ 0_9_11_41_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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, ~i11:l\1-- Printed Name: 'JiV,10. \!\ fvAf\~ Signature: ___ (~_-_-______ _ Address: i {S'S" e~\h'\ VitVv f\ 'lS0'50 Date: 01 l 11 I 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Signature: -~--'.._
1 _) _-_·_..., ______ _
Address: _f _"v_s ___ ·s _t_ot \_IV'l_v_\_{vJ_f_l _1;}_\_\0\~--- Date: _C/_-\_1'--· _"l.._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.
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.
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.
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. • 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.
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.
Sincerely, { , ~
Printed Name: -~A~l~r-w~·-A _ __,_[J~rvr_ ,, Signature: -+·/1_,EJ_ .. _N_n_-----------,----,------ Address:
~II
l;,'17.~e~o_(/\,___,_p_\i_! vv___,___J_' _______ , _ Date: o Ci / r 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ____ P_au_la_C_a_rls_ta_d ____ _ Signature: ___________ _ Add 1322 Warburton Ave. Santa Clara CA 95050 ress: __________________ _ Date: ____ 9_12_11_20~2_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.
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 (PO), 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Signature: :J~ Y\lvi Dvv'-('. J d
Address: _1 _34_7_L_o_yo_l_a_d_r._S_a_n_ta_C_la_r_a_, _C_A_9_5_0_5_1 _ Date: ~g/~2~11~2= 2~--
Printed Name: I es Mancebo
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Gabriella MANCEBO Signature: .51d -~
Address: 1347 Loyola dr. Santa Clara, ca 95051 Date: 9/21/22 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Sandor Signature: ___________ _ Sandor Fazekas
Printed Name: ----------
1700 Civic Ctr Dr, Apt 213 09/10/22 Address: _____________________ 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 t.o 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 t.o 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Petition to Oppose Charity H . • . ousmg s High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are stron 1 . Housing (abbreviated CH) t 1601gcy· 0?POsed to th~ high-density rental development by Charities •
•
•
•
•
•
a 1v1c Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
Safety· The de I · and to · ~e oper ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it . ok no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on ~eir property occur~~d (c.f._ MND r~sponse E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them ware of the petty c11me_. blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed dnveway on the west side of' 1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fen~e. 1:"here are alre~dy 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is ~ ~igh nsk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' hvmg 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 steep 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.
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 wi ll exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing 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 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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: 5Aca:ttJ Gr uerA Signature:___,.,...~;._...,=::;;.· _____ _ 7 Address: 1100 C-zv~c., UIJ,ffl. J')R-, lkr-JD7,Ssm4C1.M/L Date: q /s/~o°"<.. , CA-,so.so ,, 1 I
•
•
•
•
Petition to Oppose Charity Housin~fs High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Cente Dnve, Santa Clara, CA r
We concerned residents are strongly_ o?posed to th~ high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 C1v1c Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
■ Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence i1 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 Cl 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 proj ect 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 fin ancial 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Nam e: "Rn, 7 "E A<T VA NS" l+Z. Signature: _...x:Rc~~.lotl,·....w:/[<..,~----- 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 arP.8S. 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 c1s pi'ivatc i·ents increases. The sewer, power and water ir,frastructure is o!d and thGro ls :.o 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: &-hoU--:t le,~ Signature:
\
Address: /700 C\l; L-~f:x, ~ 10'1
LlCM'~ , Ck q 5o
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: James Chee Signature: Ja111es Chee
Address: 1700 Civic Center Dr #107, Santa Clara, CA 95050 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Olga Yeghyayan Signature: DL \; ~ Address: 1700 Civic Center Dr. #309 Date: 9-9-2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, ~ \ A Q
Printed Name: Simon Yeghyayan Signature: _{L-'--_V- _____ _ Address: 1700 Civic Center dr. #309 Date: 9-9-2022
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 1s 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 wi ll 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 bui ld underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transporta tion 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 '1 601 ' 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 wi ll exasperate such problems . Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing 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 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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: , L. ~JV1 :t;;, ,')fl.,//j IL--- C.J Jt, /IJ€K..
Address: / JC!ti (l I 'VIC. {' Gt,)TeK
m, 11t: 1 4PT. 4-()'8
Signature:
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Orit Skorka ----------
Address: 1700 Civic Center Drive #608
Signature: _O_u:c_·_s_~-~---
Date: 7 Sept 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ----------
Nicolas Fujita Signature: ___ / ...... Bt:2~---------
Address: 1700 Civic Center Dr. 603, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: Sep.8,2022 -------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Rushinkumar Baro! S
. t (;-~7 1gna ure: ____ l\P_ 7 __ · ____ _
Address: 1700 Civic Center, Unit 303, Santa Clara 95050 Date: 09/07/2022 ---------------------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ---------- Nehal Rao Signature:-----~------- Address: 1700 Civic Center Dr, Unit 303, Santa Clara 95050 Date: 09/07/2022 ---------------------- --------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: '-( v,\ ·. V\ l lt\ tA
Address: ~ 40 V c_;, 1./)(_
Signature: / .... ~~ -----------
Date: 11 / 1 ~ / 1,, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
~ Signature: --~- -6'-"--------
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: re LI P.E (! AI<./<. IL lO Signature:_¼_ ~---- """"'~=-"'-""-')/ ___ _ Address: '100 c1v1e,, C.Jz.N71€~ lM. AP, /(J/ S~Nn,o,..c~ Date: 9/25"' /~o~a-_ ----------------- c"-;,qn--cq...-S""i =ll.r'"': --=-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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: $ O IA cJ -~-~~------ Signature:--~- ~------- Address: / -1-f)D {,, ui c. (eu/6 On'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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, I . I
Printed Name: ~iO'VJ- I I e C 6 5,°'
Address: \ 7 (}]) C; ·vi ·c (,c:\1 /£(
Signature: / )6 (>-;~ w~~
Date: 9/ r5/2c122
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.
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 H using.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: 3 u \ \ °' &~vtl.;..
Date: 9-- I 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Courtney Fone
Address: 1700 civic center drive #305
Signature: (~~
Date: 9.16.22
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ZHE CUI ---------- Signature:---~___;:~------- Address: 1700 Civic Center Dr Apt #411, Santa Clara, CA Date: 09/08/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Xinyu Zou ---------- Address: 1700 Civic Center Drive if 5\h Signature: X~vf&"U
Date: 09/08/2022
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Ross daSilva
Address: 1700 Civic Center Drive 701, Santa Clara, CA 950®ate: 09/07/22 --------
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 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely, ~ ~
Printed Name: 1), «1\ ?c,.7',1!.,:_ _ Signature: ~ ~~
Address: \ 1 VO L< J I c ~e.v:: J)r:. :Ji;: 6 0 / Date: fl 5' f :Jo J.:2,.., r 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: - ~- -t_v_l f\ __ S_ /_(J _'\~\,___ Signature:
Address : 11°0 (,",c [-ll\hs:: Dr tj 110
scAJ\~ L\M" c ~ ~ osa
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name:W R "::) \ Llf\t\,~\--4 -Signature: Q~~
Address\:b . • \ ~ Date'7't\'e:t~_,,
~-Sb ~~ .... ,,.,...,..,,,c -= \ \
c_ ~ \-S---00 D·
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: k:·"'--~ l¾dt",J,.,. ",
Address: \Cc)::) c\v. C ( ~IA~~ t1I ,:,Ir(', 'Ffc~r:;,_ 5 t•"-+~- C \ic,:-101 .J CA qS"" SI
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: 1)e.C)~6. 't;,_iS \_.<Q Signature:~~
Date: Q -lO- -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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: N ~:,\2.. v-\A.M ;K v .s-\<:_Q
Address: \ loo C. ~\.( 1·e__ C11Ait0 ])~
Signature:
-±t J03
~(~~~ \
Date: C\ - lO - 1. '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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~wJ Nc-1 Ian O Signature -R½--"------"~'---=----'-"YJ"-"'-'-"'.()J--'--·--- Address: tlUD (AvlC, ~ ¾SO~ Date:_q~)~/S_)_2L __
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: V 1 /V J)t(Jn_ .
;:/ ~ ..
Signature: ~.,L.~-----------
Address: _/~'}o~· _0 __ 0~1-~-c -~C__.C~~· _,.;_1 C-_>n.._(?_{l~_,p_ef_· - _c_tf~J_ Date y )/ ;µ:x,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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name:~'N~,~\jM ~'N?CTJ)\fl j~ . j
Address: rIDD C\\l\C CfJ\lW ~ 'l,\\
Signature:¼~~
Date: q / \D / 2DWc
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~'\,~h L\.J\.C..\CA"'~ Signature:-~~--~-----~ --- Address 1700 C,1,,L c~"'-1-t,. o~. #'1111 Date ~/1s/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 ii 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 ii 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.
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.
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:
• 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.
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 Sincerely,
Printed Name: ,~AL\\\1 ~()11,0
Address: \100 (~\L [e W\(,i/ ~\l
fl
Signature: ---,1#'--,<-··~-~----- APT tiOC1 Date: q /\L1 \ 1 '1, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Al (A~ f\/)\ 13 vvc, ILS Signature: --=-···-'-p_'_,'_-_____ _ Address: __ \l_O_D_(_J"v_1'_t ~(~f~V\_\-_fv_'D~'~y ________ Date:_(_,_/ _IL,_\_) 2_0_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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Arull:--N DA
Address: l MD Ci \J ( c.__
Ct8rv\signature: ?~ ~ C ~~ Dv-, Date: 9 { ) 5'(22-
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~D~
Address: th Q{\v C:k-::rndo
Signature:~---
---· Date: _1/l0-/-?JD'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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: M1
Address: f#)n_O_vt__
Signature: ___._---,,,,....c1--------~-
l~--__ Date: __ tJ/-12._~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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name:S un 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name:12Ef Pb Ho-r C/il{DAJ/1-signature: __ h\-=-----...,cc_~-----,--- Address: 16 So •'To)' h b ct/. Date: a q IO 1/20 2 z_, 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: M11111',i fl /le<uetz ski 3-f
,._/
Address : / ?70 z;..:ratz t:'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.
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.
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.
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:
• 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: RESH('{) A korwlrL Signature: __ 1<_ei __ ~----~--_, ___ _ Address: 1700 Tf\lTON C-f SANlA CLAfJI cA-~S:lS(bate: --------- 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.
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.
Sincerely, y ~
Printed Name~ __ o0-.- _,_je_\,~_J_,_
0 ___ l_'_\A_olc:ltA ~nature: ~ ~
Address: l7 DO Tl<.ITt>N CJ SA-rffl-r LLAKfi CA-9soso Date: 0 9 / { 3 / 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.
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 rn 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Address:
Printed Name:
f 10 0
A
TR
r'ic.'(I.
\'10 N C,f
KuV\dopvlv"
;f)Nr~ C_Urd?-A-/
Signature
Lf1 -9So5°
: ~
oate: 09
~
/ 13 ] '1-02-2...
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: k.e f b ao s ina I Signature: -'-')(._zr-1/ "-'u."""l"-'n'----~-=-)-·a<._· - Address: 169 I TF<ITON CT. sA NfA CLARA l'A Date: 9112/ 2021 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.
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.
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. • 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: S tm ct Heshvv1a':tfDr..A.r Signature: ~Q ~iA..
Address: __,_/.....;c.G_a"'--'1 /_(;;_;_r_._r+-'-0""", .;....:.n_C::_J_._. --'s=-·_J __ C{'---cJJ_o_r q___,___ Date: oq 1 12-:(2-c :z_.,2- c A-
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: FctrC<.n • I< S1·v1ai
Address: U,l)ir 2-21--1, 390 N, W1l'lche.Sf-et BlvcJ,
Santa Ctarc:c CA
Date: 9/12/2 622..
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.
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 ~p on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned De'i;(~lopment by Charities Housing. "\
K ?.:1 . -r kv t, ; ' ,,,,}~ --:7<:-J'VL
fl-t .J ' WJ Signature: ------~~----
Date: i } / ) / 2 ° 2./.
r J
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ,j,./ A·t\J ---'---------'----'-
Address: 11 ;zo -TR, To N
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name:0hQ V41H J kAv1/,rff1ignature: --+--+-41+~~---+---- Address: /7'2° ·TR, I TY .N L 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: C..hrc.sH0{. fu Signature:~,;/,-
Address: } 6bO tri ton Ct) S::u1h:f Clara, c.~c:Js 051bate: :f /t'-1 h.()22. :,:,rn '·', ·. 1; 1 •·):;,,, Charity Housing's Hiqh-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
\J\le re.::;dent, :•c<) :, u:>po::;(:d lo the hic.;h-c!e:isity rentul deveiopment by Charities I iu1i:~1nq Lliih,ovi:!ic•d :.:J ii ,i! 1 c;()·f Civic Contor Drive, Santa Clara, because " '::i;'ltcty I !11• ,1<.:vc·l:.,:H:· 1,1;:rH1•r! ;111•, :1!, nf n1,r nP1c;l·1:1ori1nc11i for 13 months It refusr!cl to fence it diiCi took nu dCti()11 ',l 1c,n1uv,; 111 r: :\u1rn1 i,0 ss rnwnmprnent 011 'H301. CH now cJenies tt1e problems on ll1cir properly tH>u11.:,i! I<- 1 fvlt~D 1t",1ic11se f G on City wr:b:,itt:) eve11 thou~Jl1 SCF)D rnade tlien1 1Jwnre of Uh: pelly c1 ;rnc-, L!i'.Jt:l, 1,u1:s2,::ec, anu dun1pins; (inciudin~J 21 seph: tank), CH refuses to 1\11110v1, l11c, f)r'OfH) :c,d dnv,,\v,1y u11 liH: wc,,-,t i,idu of", C01 ,if'id to block ;1ccc:;:; ;-iion9 Triton Ct'::, ie:nce Thi:,rn ,m' ;1lrn:1rly J '.;trocts foc,dirHJ tr:iffic onto Civic Center Drive 1n;, n:'lrrovv stretch. There is :-1 l11qh risk uf pi',d1•,:,tr1iH1' tr:1/h: 111r:11fo11i!; I 1H~ fYnpnsr!rl str(,r~t is only ·1; fN,t from Triton CL i1ornes' liv111q drt:,is 11,i'.r,:· v,:H tJ(, IHJISt~ korn c;-1:·'.: dllCl fire trucks Tlr(; rwvv ;-icccss lar1e will 111cre,:1st: th:! risk or durnpi11q 8, pi;\l'f 1,:ri:lH\di ,1,,i1·1ily \;,,:c;1u:,c: ii r:=, !1:Hd to rr,orntnr. Cl! profc;r:, to place tt1e cost and h1adon of 111:,111\orirv; 11<111JhtHJ1 : .. ,inc th,:: cnfo1-cen1cnt on '.JCflf), cl'., it ckJ duri11q the lockdo,vn. " Grossly lnadequ:1te P:irkinr,i: fl,,: /Hopo~.J;~. :., r:1t10 of On pc:r unit or B2 f;pots. Parkinci nvrnflovv wiil 'NOr::011 tfH, cn1v:1ostinn in our no19hhorhood. Tho curbs ::ire fiili1y, ihore is no p:irkinq after opm, cJelivUfy ;rnd :'J!iV:U' vnh1dc':', t)icJck tr:dtrc. c:H hr,:;;1k-;ns :-ind v;.md:·11,srn t1;we skyrocketed. CH rduses lo tiuiicl u11d<'t(_l(U\H1cl ;)c1r\q1HJ. n1ere is not enouqi'1 r.\/ st;.1tions on tile slrct:t ur U1u projt~cl.
No! dli ro:,idcnts tlic bt1yrns ,j £'.''\/ V:1'.,. F-'ui;k \l,lfic,portd:HHI i:c; 11ot ·1 idcsorcc1d or reliable (:nouqh to '.':;c;r·vc th,: rc;-~;lch:nl~3, 1uquiri1iq u;Jch \'/Ork;nq ~1dult to oi.-.1n d non ·E\/ c;.1r, @ Shadow lmpnct: Tho huiicii1,n \Vr!l ulnc:< :.:u11li1j11t ,:-;rHJ '•/i,;v.;f: fron1 ,i<:vQr;::ll homos on Triton Ct :ind c:·1°1! :1 '.;iqnifw:1:1t c,i1:yjnw /\ :,,u 1.1nqr,,1_1 :u1qli:i con\::dt,rr_,i,I ,11 tiH.' f-'.Ci-z Spoc1f1r: Pl:in is tint!nr Thr:
'-',li;-iclow study prljsu1nec tu tlh? Ft11wwn Ccn1r11issior1 v,r;i~; :r1;-iccwc1te • Density: 1\:, story huiidinq \v1ti' IOd lHlitS :'.; too i•1,(JI:. dense ;;md not a ClCHlcl tit for· our 11e1ul1tJOrhood Cl I shrewdly opted out (Ji the L Cl·< '.3pec,fic Piiln tu .:vole: objc(,t1vc: slil:,ci,irds ccmte:rnplatcd in the 'f'!nn'. A:; cl f'k1111h,d DcNdop1r:c:ril (JJD), th: C:ty lrn:.; the :,ulnurity lo :i:,k the developer to conforrn lo morn stringent 2,tr1nd,CJr(is th:-:in tho [: C !~ Spoc1fic p:;:rn V\i c ::,sk th:::,t tho proJoc:t p!.::in rd!or.t .CJ.ny ch;,r1qos rn::1cfr: 011 :m rn1,qrn1H1 :1<1:';i:;
• Financial Impact: Tl1P. HiU I project !1;-is :lePr1 d iu1p8 ,.:ust t1c.rdH, to !lit' City drnJ 11P.:qlltlorl10od CH qocs !o qru,!I le:r1qli1 lo clt:11v lli:'.'i, ln;t it i:nptl:,(:d t:1lfu,u:1Heril ,111d :110111lnrir,q C<)'.;ls 011 \lie City ,Hid lost business c1nd sloop ti111e 011 1ls 11(:iqhbur'.5 durin~J the lock uown. rloasc tdko r10te of publiciLed problerns at Hori;_i:,;cc:it Pi;wc in S,J, ,1 CH property We i,;wc;; p:.i!tcr:\ of CH not bc:iritJ ,1 qood noighbor. Tho DOdB no:;;,:; durinrJ cnnstru,;ion wdl rn:,lw it d:ffic1Jit to onrn an 1ncon10 from homo. l ho 1nitio::1t1on ,lfFllll';l 1l;;1nq(:1rm1i<l\f t1iqh toY,1C ftlfi\H~, cluc111q cnns'J111'.t1nr1 11; 111:\\:,~q1 i;11n, if nnl in1po~.s1hln Lonrier term U,is project vvill wor·scn t,w Cil'{s 1;:ructurni deficit. drnl will require rnorE: public resources d~, privat(; rcntc, incrcc1sci,. The sc\vc:r. fKhVV ,.HHi ',v,:itcr idrc1~.tructure: is oic: ancJ there i~, no cost tissessrnent. lnfrc1sln;ctl:rc !rn:; lo h(: t:DdcJtcd before d,:r\'.;c: hm1:.,w1f.;. CH needs to disclose the fin:1ncial intcwst of rts l1rnited p;:,rtnors
• Project burdens local private amenities: F~,,;s1clr:mts of C::,Ulina cirHJ Boulevc1rd HOJ\s complciin that tlinir pnvale cl11ld1·nn·s p;irk ur1d q1H}St park11HJ ;m' used try rn:ti;,dnrs l!i:s proJect dons not provide its own ame111tios ancJ wiil ex21spcrnte suc:1 pro:)1(:rns Ex1stirHJ p,;blrc r;,irks (10 not sallsfy dernaricJ from existin~; 1usick:11b Vv'e 1:c:t:~c: CH to ::dve Go:1t1quous u,1rks nut patches of (J!(c:er,.
We believe in sust~1inoblo ond balcincod developrnent. The proposed proJect is neither. It does not havo the internal controls H1at 011ablo it to bo so. Wo ur90 you to Vote NO on the proposecJ General Plan Amenc!ment ancJ Rezone of H'J01 Civic Center Drive to Pl:~nned DEivoioprncrnt t>y Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
Address: l1 () ~-
~: v\ vL,f ·c,A
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA.
We concornecl residents mo stronqly op:)O:,od to tho !n.1'' c:en:;:ly rui1Wi ricvcioprnent tiy Chdril1es Housing (abbreviated CHi ot ·160·1 Civic Center Drive, Sant;, Cl;:ir,'L llcu1ur;c; • Safety: The developer iq110rcd the :o;:fety of uur 11<: tiorr ,:;11,i lur 1 '1lClnii::', it rcf1;:,c:d to fr~nc,: it mid took no act,011 to remove the hurnelcs, criu11rpn1t,11t cn1 · I 1/)1 '. Ci\ 110\V dc!111es tilP proliic:nis on tl1eir property occurred (cf. MND response[-(-; ,;11 City ·,.v,in'.;iti,} ,·vc11 ;,irnHJh '.:;cPD nic1dr! lhf~rn awmc of tho petty crirne:. blir/1t, rn;:s;v1cr:, ,rnd ch;;np:nu 1,iu 1u ,; -;q,tir. t;w,k) CH n,f::scs to remove tho proposc;d drivc\v::ry 011 tile wc::::il :,1dc ut ·1no1 ,mil tu h!uck dCLt1:-,~, ,Jcn1q Triton CL's fence There: nre ;dready J i,ln:cl'., k1ed:11(; l:-,'iffic u11H) C1v1c, C:1:1!11:1 fhv,; 11i 11 :1,Hrov1 strc,tci1. There 1:; Cl hi(Ji, risk of pcdc:c;tri,:111.1 tri.lff1c nudcnh t,c 111,;;i,i:;,~u 1c,!rc,:, 1"1 '.? ii:c! fro 11: T ntu;1 Cl. home:,;' l1v1ng arcc1:,. l here \'J:11 be 11oisc from c,1r:·1 c1nc fire l!u<k:, l11<': 11c ... ·,, :ie,,(;••;s L11H: will 1ncn~,be tlw risl" oi durnpi119 & petty C,lifl',1im\ ,Ktiv1ty hc-c:-:tJSC i\ 1:', h;11d H; r,:rwi\or Cl, prcf,!rs in ;1idcc t!1c cost and burden of rnonitorinq on neiril1hor·s ;ind tl1t., n111orc(:n1,:1·il c,r1 '.-1CF'D. <h d did cll1r111r,j tlw bckclown • Grossly lnndequc1te P,Hki11g: Tile prnj,~,1 jHlllHl\,1-"~ ,~ r:;;tiu uf O 7? ;+:1 unil 1i1 Fl? spots. P,irkino overflow will wursnn I.hr~ c,.n 1qe-slin:1 i:1 u111 11t•iuhh,}rho1:d Tlk' z:c;1 lh are fillliy, tl1P.I•? i:s nn p,.'lrki11u ;1ftfi1 Gpm, delivery m\d Sf)rvic:r, Vf:liic.lP:; hlrlc:k ti.,iff:i c>11 !l1i'.-'ik-:11s ,;;,11d v:.:i:1d;.::dic;,1n 11.:wP skyrnc.kelPd Cl I refuses !o b,nld 1md1:r9ro1i11d pi,rkin\J fh,n-, i:, 11td •"1i1n,i.:l1 FV :-,l.-;1 1111;:-, (,1· J!,,., st,r~t"t nr ihf, prnjnct Nol rill resid(~11h ;ire: lih.c:iy h11ye:r:s of !-VI dh. P:,l!i'L ''>i11'-jll)il,-,i11,11 1:, :"ii •.v1dro:~;Ht':;1d 01 rPli.:1hic:
cnrn10l1 lo S(JVC: tlH: rt::,:1h:nt:,, rr:r;,ui:10 f:,C'1(.i'I \'/()If\ r\11.:11. )!! 1,v:11 ,Cj i!l'J:1-F\/ 1:;1r • Shadow lrnpnct: Tl1e ':i-:-;lury i}1.1ild11:u vvi!I Uuc:k ':-Ur 1l d11d vit'V/~:. f1lllli ':-t'Vt'idl ilu1!le;,, cn1 Tritu11 Cl And c:;1sl ,'l 1,iunifi1>11,( ,,;iL'.'lduw 1\ ::)o dH(j!l::'P di 1\.J!I::' ,;u:;~;idr·:,~d 'II lrli~ ECR Spedfi1, PL:\11 !'S Llellt::'f Tilt' sl1,1dnw sl11dy 111c!',,,,1/!1,,d to 11,P r'l;,i•lfd,:u (~u11rn1is:0.io111,v::1s iri:~c,·11!:,le • Density:/\ 5-slury buildiWJ vv1tl1 10f3 ur::[,; is tou liiqli. dt!l!SU ,;,:d 110:. d qo()d fit for ow rH::iullL1url1uud.
CH shruvvdly oplvd out of llH1 ECR Spvc:ific Pl,u, lo ;1v(11C o:1ji:t:l1\·(' si.nH1nrds co11ternpl:itod ir1 l!Hi 'Pl:,rn' As ,-i Pl;ir1r1,!d [h.,veiop1111 . .>r1l (PD), tl,t' Cily kis ;ii,, :nlll,urity \() ask lh! c1uvelupPr lo cor1forrn lo 1110:i:1 slri11<.JE:Jlll sLH1cL11ds Uur1 lltt! ECR SiJHt:ifir· PL111 Wt) ;,,sk 111;\l llH-• p1ojuct 11Lrn rt:h.~ct ,rny Cll~~ll!JeS llldciH Ufl ;~n (.lji•!)Ui,1\J i)d':,I~,
• Financial Impact: H1c, · 1 UC! I' prnJuc·t 11:y; huu!l <t l1u9c· cost L,urdu1 1 to the, Cily :md nni9hborlK1ocJ. CH qoPs to qwat lcngil, to c!c,ny this, b,n it 1111;Jm;ud u1iforcunH:11t ,m(i 1norntor111s; cos;is on tho City and lost bt1silless ;.111d ~,!ciup t11nt·, or1 its r1P:zj!1lHJh dw:r1q t;:u lock dcnv11 Pk!,J::ci t:1kc note of puhl1ci?ricl problonis ::it Ren;1su?r1t PL:1u; Iii SJ, ;i C:H ;iroptc<rty. '\//(~ il;;v,: ;1 p;.,tu. 1 ,11 of CH 110! bcmq ;c1 qoocJ rwigl1l)or. Tllo 90clB noise, dtHill'.) c1H;~;trucl1011 ,.,viii 111;,kt-: it diffin1lt lo u;,rn :111 incomo from 11omo. Tl10 miti(J<1!ion ,l[Flinst d;i11;J(!rou,;ly l1iqf1 toxic ftnies duri, 1;; cor1struc:!i(l'1 is ::1;idnquate. 1f 110t 1mpossiblo.
Lonqor turm this pro1oci \Viii wor,;1!11 the• City's ,;truclu:,li deficit, :rnd wdl rorFHU nH.Jrn public ru!wurcos ;:is priv;:1t0 rrn1ts i11crl:!asus The St·:wer, pu1,,v1!r ;:ind •,:;;;ter irdr:,s!ruclurc; is uid ,md them is 110 cost assessnwnt. lnfr;islrucltHl} !1:.1s to :>,1 upr.Liletl i;efurt> d~,11st, iH .. h!'-'i!\\J CH rweds to disclose tilt! fin::incial interns! 0 1 its lifl\il(!d p;irlr:(c•s.
• Projoct burdens local privato amenities: Rc;s:d,~r1ts uf C.:it:1l1n:i ;1,id E'lotduv;..ird HO/,s cornplc1i11 that their priv;:1tu ci11lcirQn's p;:irk ;mcl (Juesl pc1rk1nsJ ,1,0 usec by outs1dc,rs Tt11s project cioes 1ml provido its ov.m ~Hnonit1os :ind will nx;ispcir:,\p suct1 prot>lu111s Exist'lnu pulliic p,vks do not sntisfy ch,m;ir1cl frorn oxistin:J rositlonts. Wo nl:iecl CH to !1avc1 conti9uous ;rnrks. not ;ntcl:e•s of (,Jr0wn Wo believe in sustsinc1blo and b;,1lar1cod dovolopmont. Tr1e proposod prowct is neitiler It cloes not l1ave t110 intornal controls tlwt Qn~iblo 1t to t)o so We ur90 you to Vote NO on the proposecl General Plan Amonclrnent and REJzone of H:iO'I Civ,c Center Drive to Plannecl Dev1:ilopmont by Chmiti(3S Housinq.
Sincorely,
Printe(l Name: -----
i
~/ '?,,,..,, ,,-' / ,,,··•,/, /.,;- ,,,,,-·
Signature: ./>!,. t:"'.{.•t:• { t. c:> .. --.,
1 ·q--D S"' r, f - c· I· . ---,-,,,,. . "'! / ID ,I 2rl ____ -____ v_-·_·( -c;,,._,_· _-_··•·_•1 _______ _,,.._ Dote: ---~'---· _-_✓_ (,.-, /
Address:
cA f t1v r-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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~1'1 ,· ., Ya. V\ § Signature: ___________ _ Address: -Ut-1--1-rit-0-t\-C--!r~-::S-(X~ E1 °' 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Namec&c" 1-,(bls,fu{j) A ~ L__ Signature: Lkru.,u&,,~~ Address:f,.S-( T(2. \TO r:.1 ~u..6f~#le'.L.4~ Ct( Date: 7'. - 7-- ..2..c;;;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.
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 tQ'.i:lVQid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. A~ a Planned Development (PD,).'./~~~-,,S!tx_ h5'1f~fo,~,~~Jt,ority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Spec1f1c PlanJWe ask tnat 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: '1: ~""'"'=' Che,~ Signature: .~
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. • 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: DA tJ 1 D f< BflYTd Signature:
Address: (b 9 0 ;Rno;v CDu 1<- T
S 1nu14 <1 UHZ fl {J 11 Cj' t; D <:; {)
1QJ:;; R ts7-k
Date: q - l2.. - z. 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.
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.
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 ::::~nt and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned DevQt by Ch?!~ Housing.
Printed Name: £Ji? --r, fla»fj Signature: ~i'-0,.~~
Address: I L601f.L;~>J ~-; f;;,(\J.J1f> C-lffi@% (",A- '2SC.S'O Date: 9 / rJ / J,l)"J ~ . J 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: 'j)ll>S 19 ~till.~\ 12..\Z€ Signature: ]);->---"~:)t\)~ -----~------ Date: <f'..-- 'b - '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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ Yi_e_c_a_o _____ _ ,1 C
Signature: __ l_e. __ lJ,_o ______ _
Address: 1681 Triton Ct, Santa Clara, CA, 95050 Date: __ 09_1_10_1_20_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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Keyu Pi -----------
Address: 1661 Triton Ct. Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/08/2022 ---------------------- --------- 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: DWARKANATH SAKPAL
Address: 1701 TRITON CT, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 Date: 09/08/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: SU NANDA SAKPAL Signature: !u.~ t
Address: 1701 TRITON CT, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 Date: 09/08/2022 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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Xingqi Gao ---------- Signature: Xingqi Cicio Address: __ 16_8_1_T_r_it_o_n_C_t~, S_a_n_t_a_C_la_r_a~, _C_A~, 9_5_0_5_0 ___ Date: __ 0_9_/0_8_/_20_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.
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.