Cities Index.
1601 Civic Center_Petition

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
September 27, 2022

Document
1601 Civic Center_Petition
Meeting
September 27, 2022
Body
City Council and Authorities Concurrent
Original file
65.0 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on santaclara.legistar1.com. That file is the official record.

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: CAetigJ£v{.. Zf/AIVG Signature: _ __.~.......__ ........_-__ ~ _.___,..,_ Address: /t/-bt7 () v,'c,, Cide:r: Dr. /)rvtf 2- Date: b7 /t5 / Zt>)-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 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 :::::~::~d ::~~:~16::ic Cenrer Drive •:i::::u:Dev;;:;zr H~using.

Address: Utko &jv,e, {f,ftftr Df', 1JY1H, Y Date: Q {/IJ~ }'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 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: _) l I\ C J /\! Ci
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: =-Z ...... / ~-'-/ _T:, _S:_-_V__,_/\_/_ Signature: -=Z_fvt __ S_u_~ ____ _ Address: / 4 b v C 1 • v1• c C ~ h 1J. v 17 v. [)VII·~ ~- Date: r I I l I z_,,,., ( f v1 ,.,, t c~ C { 01 v e,, , f J 'Jr "
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: ,J1 C Yl Df/VC1 Signature: __,...,J-m ...... ~ ..... I:: ..... ~ __ [&"-.• _ 4_~_ .. -- Address: 14::(?o C1'vi'c Cevcter- ()r . Uv"'t I : S:arrtci- Date: o? / 15 / 2:9;,,)- Clo.n,, ., cA q!;o s-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: _.J ...... ""'I_r\ ........ V, ...... A-....,0..._ ..... L ..... 1..___ Signature: '§~J>o/"' l) Address: /4/,o G'vi't Ceciec Dr i Uk½' :t I , $ovi.+c'- Date: D 1 / I y /2-0-ziC lc.rlA CA q1-vsv 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 ......... _,_?_~----"'i_......-____ , Address: _/.-Zw ....... --6___._c·~,'-(,,_/-=-{~C--e._d_·-e,y_,___f>_Y_.:Jf_X ____ --.-__ Date:
5~"- ~ " c) -~ tA yc!,oj\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,
Printed Name:
- LlJ \\;\1:, ZHANG, Signature: J4"(~ ~
Date: 9 I / 11 I /-zv2 ~
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: l~enjJ ~ Ww
Address:11 t:) & C (cttHvj(;) f ec\ ('
Signature: -~Uz_:_ _ ' __ 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: '1·i l;IAYY' 2 cl~v1 Signature: -~+-'-',,__,_m~li~il=g_,__~(~j __ ;\,,vf~~-- Address: 13 bf t ( (&..,Jl f Jti,b -/let/) St'.#loit~ Uc;r"- ,. Ct;\ 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,
j i'w,1111£1 :zhA (J Signature _ __,_b_~--='--------
Address: ~I,_,_ 3-t,.._, c-+--1-·-r;-I_C_a~.Vvl~; t ........ ft:~1 __,,_p~<Z-c-<1-\ _____ Date: ------+--+--+--ir-+-~-#3---IL/ 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 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.

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: ~/v½ __ ~_· ~L~~'---- Signature: --f~---~-1/J _____ _ Address: _/_4_P_,_f ~fu~•-U4~Vv~'l~vl/O~---+P~"Jd~t,,~J _. ______ Date: _ti~f/_t ~) ~} __ _ CV'ltu LA.evrZ<, vA 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: ~,; wi4 C Signature __ v_L,,/ __ "'_-_--_---_----"[)="-•_-__ _ t Address: " Q -/1 ( -~ '' Date·. cJ// 9['---)/ltS/l/ '"f Y J t/ 1 i ,tlfl,V1 vvO J J l'.:\;11Vtb{ , I 1~ LI- L _ 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.
11 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:~
Sincerely,
Printed Name: Hayoon Chung ---'--------=----
Address: 1421 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/19/2022 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,
~Ql\ht:J l.J;))'.\J Signature: -....,~,....,_...___ _____ _ -«'.:. \
Address: _L_-6 ..... 'to ___ c..... iJ .... K._, ..... CN\titv- -........__.C\ .... c""'" ;1'""' &'-l,- £M="--~'---'----- C"'"' /cr'<o ....:;...a. ____ Date: ?// /2 I z..2- 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: -------- ~'¾A ('.,Wv - ..... ::«_,o\ Signature· ·--~~~ ----------- Address: l b~o UV1 C, ()AJ{'l-t- f1v(V~ ~ Date: ½p t /l , vi-1...- DocuSign Envelope ID: 27CC8BC6-CFC0-441D-881B-424D7D44252D 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:

TIAN FENG
----------
1690 civic center Drive, Apt 102, 9/15/2022
Address: ---s~a ... n'""t=a_c"'"J .... a-r-a'"'"._.._9.._50...,5._.0,__ ___________ 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, 946 ~
Prlnled Name: ~xa.vL"" w I I\, 11.rl Signature:~J; (
Address: ) lo ft1 u G1 IL l{h-4r- [h. ' -µ 1 u3> Date: '1 ) l (p / 2., 2., I
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

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: ''}tir Jar1 o ~ Wc\Je6,1l-o-Signature: __ ~-M __ .... ?.'------ Address: \ ~ c\o GJ~G r:;e;,vl-e> c)-r ,A.--p t 104 Date: I I~/ 2ro 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: ....... E_e ..... r..... cl+-ce ........... J__ s .......... t,_r_e r-e-'.1.._.J Signature:--, ~ .... -i ..... :«£--~-------- Date: {t / 1z J 2o 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: (j Ar11+t½/ (LANr Signature:

Address: / tp9o (_IV j C (Tl( gt, # Job
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 P,roposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Develop t by Charities Housing.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: 1::,E ~ ELO \> e- ·12..AGL\IN\Csignature: ___ ___, _____ _ Address: I l.o 9 0 C-1 V \ C..

Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High~Density Development 0111 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 cr·ime, 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 prefer·s to place the cost and burden of monitoring on nei~1hborn 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 tt10 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 '160'1' 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 properly. 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 lhat enable it to be so. We urge you lo Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 160i Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.

Sincerely, (l r
Address:\~()
Printed Name~cQ"tM\\'t
Clv lC,, ($!\u;'l..-
~~
j) 1k ,!If lG
~r~ \ Date ~
¾1\9:>
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

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'fe '.:::i)ie ft\
Address: l69o C}V:c, Ceo~kr
Signature:. :Md ,-(~----/-------
\) (! ~)(J\/\,h i;;,brr= o~:: cg J 12/7/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,
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: ·-,\oS" A. ~jt\C) -l}itAlSignature: "Jc))£' '3oic/6 t),~7 Address: 1 (f(O Ch},C Cet1hr Dr ~-k_ cb!LA Date: m Ill- /'Z( 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: Yihe Huang Signature: _'(.t_•-~--------
Address: 1690 Civic Center Dr Apt 203, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/06/2022 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: ---------- Raymond Chan Signature: _..,.f< ..... =_,,..~.... J ...... C"--/,_1_,_____ _ Address: 1690 Civic Center Dr. #204 Date: 9m2022
----------------------
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 Fang
---------- .#7'.' ,,;,-; Signature: ----'~--ct-"-____ _ Address: 1690 Civic Center Drive #204, Santa Clara Date: 9/7/2022 -------- 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: Oji'; 0 h L ,t9,;:A Signature:

Date: q /JJ/d-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,
Printed Name: · Prr IF ------------- IAH/R
r'"
Signature: _,_Ci)_. _t_/Ai~--_J ____ _
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: khr>o 'l\'.l,usn\A Signature:

Address: \(oC\Q C\\l\t Cev\\~, '.D:< Aqt 1CJCo
~Of\"\O. (\Cl" 0-- C\ ~Q SO
1~ 76 cJ
Date: QC(/ t). / 202 L 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 Namd\.e" Mon~ c~.\ Signature: t~ ~ l .

Address: ~vPto G..\[\ L ~\);' · C,/\---~o\ Date: ir/'\ / t 1.,,{'101.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 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: Y1$X".\\De Do~l<~
Address: (kB<t.> C:....V\ (_ UL½~ De
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,
/l I /! ~ Printed Name: l~t,211{/tl l,an Signature: __ l_~_~_...., .._0 __ t_. L ~--- Address /(; 9a JC, U:c{p .. w, £, dzi<0;'. Dal v/9/1~/µZ() I .Q,,.t, c ~"' , cl,) Jik-u
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

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: R.._;.f i'; 1-\ f. Signature: rl.e. ~
Address/{jo C,11 ,r CUJcfVPc /)pf 503. $ar1-{4 clAbate: Of / 12--/ :w22- 1 '
7 Cl{ ?S1'Jo 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:

Address: ll? °ID t,;J. & Lei.,,-+u-V, :t -;u Y
Signature:-~--_-..,;c""'_ ~c==::=======.-:..,------
Date: o 9 / <> 0 / -Z L
' I
-::._ A""' -b,.__ C::.,\.A ,,-..._ ( A- C) <:;.O _--,-0 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, cb)
Printed Name: ,,JD\,,"-"" \t_il.Jlf Signature:----1cf,....- -+-------- Address: I &2 0 2> ~. v ~ c,, L-etn& 0,.,, * ,?, D •-f Date: o°j f o 0 / z L r 7
~U~Ti\ cl,,./A ,, CA- C)~
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

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\f)I\ ·, E:

Address:lb]c Gi v tr,< Ce,t}re( De t\e\ 3"1J5-
~ l[~ c:A 9t::il5D
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 vt H VI 111'1 D
Address: / b~O Cv;c C(lvifo'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: _]_ ___ 2S"'--+-[_[_y __ U,~_O_J,-) Signature ~ c,_,,c____J Address:/-6J O C/11,·c Cei,,Ji,..,,,- '!)r ){4o / Date: ~ ~/ -20 )___ 2-.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1EFDAAB0-5571-4338-8745-6542A7684549 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,
OocuSlgned by: Olga Golovko Printed Name: _________ Signature: ~ bl>/.mtkl> 1690 Civic center Dr #402 Santa cl ara CA 95~1126684402··9;14/2022 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 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: ,f ec{ fl )v
Address: /btfo (,'vit Ck 1>c
'
/.·;:> ,-_;;,
Signature: __ -;.._'.:✓ ..... ·:~_----_--_ .. -_---c;:;__ 9..,./:22"'-"--·-· /_-'--__ 1f lf.() 2,
q'7cp tjO
Date: r,uo /Zlc
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: Aoli,1i. .. tc._,\, ~e,N ... 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: BAlAj f VIH))'/RNA1f/R~ signature: __ v_. ~------ Address: lbqv OV IC [:fNi t:B D~ 1±A:c4: ,~ANi"fA- CL~i}/ Date:
cA 4 5'of-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: Su&\ \t,S \-\ ~ · k · ~/cl\ Signature: --~ ___ .......... lJ __ \f\.P\.... ______ _ 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,
11-A r /<;t,n t-E) Printed Name:_✓_,'_ '' .... L_!i_# _____ _ Address: / I°! a c- /V,{ tTl )>£ ·-;pf
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: (Y\ ( c,hd Lt- J<V'--olas Signature: _'-in ___ t ____ /A-0-=-_;;::l""-'AJ_w_,J_' - Address: ''-.oti O u V ll UM--tL!L W- "¢rD I Date: ___,_q ___ / ___ ;J__.-1~~~ ~ t/\J\, Cl rt1t qSDSD ,+f\ Af---A, vr-
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: ____......__....,....____...,___ __ L ___ \ ..... f_\ ({ \0 Signature: A YilJ!o;,>D C,AJ\5\J'I' Address: \½\o C :v, C (E'.\\' :R;r Dc1\ Cfll ~) Date: 1 I I s / 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,
Signature: ( ~ .:;}<_ -
Address: 11.Ql?tP (,vi<. Ce 0:\:{r "l)r1f5V3 Sqo-\~ C Jcirfi f :e lilS0'.50
Date: q / n .. l 7-7..

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,
Printed Name: /JIR,AfA I S /tv G/.P SooRA Signature: A£m-~li,1~~ $a5vi Address: I b0,o c(vic C,;11..rrE-R ,Dfs,, -=tf: 50 ~ Date: 9 / 12. / ·2: 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 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: {2-gj"n1e,\er \~vV' Signature:

Address: l ta,.p C ·1viC Ceo::W< D, ·tr 5P3 .StimC1 f l4<h (::A '1'5050
Date: q- }?j- ~CZ
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: 'Ja.cfrref kaar Signature: -~-~----"""L._ __ Address: ifof O Cw1c Gab< De# 'j.)3 S:tnk Clare, Date: Cf I)-,2---)-- ( A qc:;010
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.

I 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: Jie«J-i·YY:) g,,·
Address: l ;,~c, Livic.. U11tm olv,
Signature: J .,.-,,~ ~
U;,1i•t 'l1 CA .9WSl>oate: 9/1 <J/z'1>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,
Signature: _,Z_,..,__/_·~ ____ k_-_%_~ __ _
Date: _ _'}_ /!J / 2-o2 '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,
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: Guk Hyeon Chai Signature: f~ ~n--~·
Address: 1421 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95050 Date: Sept 19th 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: ----------
Zexuan Guo Signature: ___..l_~'-----------
Address: 1440 Civic Center Dr unit 4, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09/17/2022 ---------------------- ---------
Petition to Oppose Charity Houslng1
111 Hlgh-Den1111ty Development on 1601 Civic Cent&r
Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are s!rongll,' opposed to !he high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 18€11 Civic C1mter IJm,e, Santa Clara, because:

Safety: The developer ignored the safely of oor neighborhood lor 13 months. !I refused lo fence it and look no action lo remove the homeleH encampme>nl on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occum1d (cJ. MNO I011.ponse E-6 on Clly websile) ewn !hough SCPD made them aware of the petty crime. b~ghl, tMJf!l!illnce. and dumping (Including a sepllc tank}. CH refuses lo r11rnove the PfO!)OHd driveway on the W@S! side of '1601' and to block acceH along Triton Cl.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding l!aftic onlo Civic Center Drive in a narrow sl!e!th. There it a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed slrnt is only 12 leel from Triton Ct homes' living 11r11H. There will be noise from cani and fire lrucks. The new access lane will Increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal acilvi!y because it is hard lo monilot. CH prefers lo place !he cost and burden of monllotlng on m,lghbon,; and the ertforeemenl on SCPD, as ii did during the locildown.

GroHly Inadequate Parking: The proj,act proposn a ralio of 0.72 per unit or 112 11pols. P!lfking overftow wlll won;en the congestioo in our Mighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking af!ar 6pm. delivery and se,rvice vehicles block traffic, car brHk-ini. and vandalism haw skyrocketed. CH reiuses to build underground patklng. There Is not en-ou,gh EV stations on lhe slreel or the project.

Nol all re&idents are litely bul,'!lrl5 oi EV C!lf!i. Public transportalion is not widnpread or reliable enough to serve the residenls. requiring each working adult lo own II non-EV car.

Shadow Impact: The 5-slory building Will block sunlight and •,iew!I from seveial homes on Triton Ct. and cBl!II a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle cool!lide1ed in !he ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study pnnenlad lo the Planning Commission was inaccurate.

O.n111ty: A 5-s!ory building with 108 units is too high. dense and nol a good flt for our n&ighbomood.

CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Spec.ific Plan lo avoid objective elandards conternpla!ed in the 'Plan·. As a Planned Development (PO), the City has the aulhoril)' lo Hk the d,evefoper lo conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask !he! !he pr~ect plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.

Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a hu,g& cost burden lo the City and neighborhood. CH QOl!III lo great le~ to deny this, bul 11 Imposed enlorcernenl and monitoring costs on the City and lost busine&11 and sleep time on Its necighbors during the lock clown. PleaH lake note of publiclze.d problems at Renascent Placs in SJ. a CH p,o-perty. We have, a patlem of CH not being a good n&ighbor. The OOdB noise during conslruction wiil make ii difficult lo earn an income from home. The mitigation agalnsl dangerously high told~ fumes during construction is inadequate. ii not Impossible. longer lerm lhis projeci 'lii!I wor&en lhe City's slrucluraJ d&ficil, and will require more public resources as privale rents intfeases. Th& sewer, power and waler lnfraslrvcture is old and there is no cost aHEM;.sment. lnfraslruclure has lo be updated beforn denH houi/4ng. CH nHds lo disdose the ftm1nclal Interest of its lim~ed pertirnrs.

ProjKt burdens loC.1111 prlvals amenltle,a: Residenls of Catalina and Boulevard HOA!! complain that their priv11!& children's park and gtJHI parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide, its own amenitilil!I and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not utlsly d00'!11nd from existing resld&nls. We, need CH to have conliguoos parks, not patche<& of green.

We beli&ve in sustalnabl& and balanced development. The proposed projcect is nllither. II clol!!I not have the Internal conlro!I Iha! enable il !o ile so. We urge you to Vote NO on !he propoHd General Plali Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center DriVB lo Planned D&veloprnent by Charities Hou1ing.

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 of0.72 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: Atul Patel ---------- Signature: _&:e,-_;;,......__.___,,,,,,._-;::f1<+--~-\..._. __ I Address: 2331 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: ___ Se~p_._1_4~, 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 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: Bharat Patel Signature: --~"-"-J~(J~----- Address: 2372 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: ___ Se_.p_._1_4.,_, 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: ----------
Bhumi Patel Signature: __ (9-;-~-+--1=,eoL--'-A ...... 0~2~-· -- Address: 2372 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e_._p_. _14 ...... ,_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.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: Deep Patel --~-------
Address: 2331 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e~p_. 1_4~, _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: Hir Patel ---------- Signature:--~-----'-------- Address: 2929 Corvin Dr Unit 213, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Date: __ S_e~p_. 1_4 ...... , _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: ----------
Address: "J-1..4 vaLLetj Wliltj Slill/\,tlil cLlilrlil
/1 9- Signature: __ Y---;'-- __ ·_·. _ .. -_____ _
Date: :j/1..5/2022 --------
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: Jyotsna Patel Signature: ___ }j-=-............ /_. ___ _ Address: 2929 Corvin Dr Unit 213, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Date: __ S_e...._p_. 1_4~, _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 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: ---------- Mahesh Patel Signature: _.,_(YJ~·~:=r=~.~P,~a.k'ii~c:..~l ___ _ Address: 2331 William Dr Apt 4, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ Sc.,_e_._p_. _14...,_, _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 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: Manisha Patel Signature: __ ____.,..Lfm:J====;a>f------- Address: 2372 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e~p_. _14~,_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 outsider$-.-This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public park~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_a_n_d_P_a_te_l ____ _ Signature: _..::::M==~~_........-::::::::::::::::. ____ _ Address: 2372 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S~e=p_. 1_4_,_, _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 on)Y-12rem fro_1JJ,:-friton 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-tb__e developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project pfan 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 exasperat!:l 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: ---------- Parul Patel
'
o_o.~~\ Signature: -L--~'"--'-+-...------
Address: 2331 William Dr Apt 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e_.._p_. 1_4 ..... , _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: Taruna Patel Signature: 1aJ1 <Cw!Cv
Address: 2331 William Dr Apt 4, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e~p_. _14~, _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 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,
Address:

Printed Name:
2331 William
Vashnavi
Dr Apt
Patel
2, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Signature: ~
Date: __ S_e~p_. 1_4~, _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 vi.ews 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~ija~y_P_a_t_el _____ _ ~ -~-~. Signature:--=-=:.-------- Address: 2929 Corvin Dr Unit 213, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Date: __ S'---e-"-p-'-. 1_4..,_, _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. Ttle 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: Robin Deng Signature:_~ __ ·_£_. ra_o/-----,-__ Address: 1340 Civic Center Dr. Unit 8, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: 09 / 17 / 2022 ----------------------
I'""\. __ II'""\.. Al'\L.LL-t:'n.JA .41.._nrir.,._nl"\_,:-_r.,._n..,.A ,tr.,. __ .Jt'\Lnr:--,AI'\.

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. hom~s• living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the nsk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as 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: Cthec~ I Dell\§
Address: l~ftO C; V\C Ce"'kc 'i)i.Y'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 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:

Address: 1-i>40 &cve-e, lf,JF:-'1.. DJ.. 11 L-
.5f'rN i tl CJ_f'rul..A C /\ q'5?; S ;,)
Signature:---~--~-;?--.,_. ___ _
Date: __ t_; -1-}i...o'-'l._i--_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.

Signature: ---~~--.ll.~-=~------
Address: / 3 Lf O c;_lfi c:-- {eJ & ~ 2- ~~;cf P- Date: /C, I A- Je_~.1:, C'.A.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: -~ VUJ\ 1 I
I
c_t<ClA-u 1 ~ q~o-~u 9-0: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.

Address:

Sincerely,
1360 Civic Center Dr #9
~~ Date: 9/14/2022
Printed Name: Richard Zheng 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: '{~v1'\' ~il>I 'i:

Address: l3SV Civ,c. Ca,1ur Dr, Un~ -3, YJ{rtt?t C~{t:-, l-31:A 1rorv;cJ\
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_a_i J_ia_n~g _____ _ ~-'><
Signature:------,,-"---------
Address: 1380 Civic Center Drive Apt 6, 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 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: __ '~......,..d .... tA-t;C,-,Ac,,,otAA2=w.._L-=---i- Signature:

Address: __ {_~ ~ __ G...;....,-v"-'-( ........ c--=-~--'--t-<?_-----'-., _O_y _-fl_t_~_1._k_ Date: O<J JI ? / 2-02- c C bu o / C'<t-
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.

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: Minying Deng -~~-~----- Signature:

Address: 1380 Civic Center Drive Apt 6, 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: Brighton Vino Jegarajan Signature: -~-+-U.-~ __ · ___ _ Address: 1400 Civic Center Drive, Unit 1, Santa Clara 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: __ X__._;....;:~;;___fht_ e-__ _
Address: //f&o C t1i c cmf,tzL Cr-. tf 7
Signature: .---;;uav#~------
Date: f /I lf / 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 DE"velopment (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: Jo5eph J;j
Address: / t/tXJ Qv:c. Ur.fu
Signature fo«? «: . ✓
Date: C, I I 1/ /'2o 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: ---------- Harshad Patel Signature: __________ _ Address: 1400 Civic Center Dr Unit 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: _ _____cs::....:e=p __ . 1_4--'-, _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 CIVlc 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 demes the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on C!ty w~bsite_) even th~ugh SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH r~fuses t~ 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 ~tretch. There Js a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic Incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from_ T_riton Ct. hom~s living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the nsk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it Is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as 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 blocKiunliijht and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree a · · · ered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the.Plannin · ·, s inaccurate. story buildin wit~i:v se and not a good fit for our neig~Rorhood. · · oJ:>jective standards contemplatedin the 'Plan . s a , e authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect ahy 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: Restd~n~ of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their prlvat~ children•, park and. guest parking a~ us~(:! by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and wdl exasper~te suph pro~l~IT!§, l;xf~tlng public parks do not satisfy demand from exi~tlng re~ldents.We need CH to h.ave contiguous part<s, not patches of green. ,, ' ,, '?:·''" ',", ' ,, ' '" ,,,,, ' ,2; : ",,,,:,<<< We believe ln;ust .;< t;?< ' ;; . •·' '' · )
the lntemalcon · · Amen···'h
project is neither. It does not have
the proposed Genera.I Plan
ment 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: Harshika Patel ----------- Signature: __________ _ Address: 1400 Civic Center Dr Unit 2, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Date: __ S_e~p_. _14~, _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: Signature: --4-lt-2-H0.,..,,.J&~l-____ _ ---------- Janki Patel Address: --'1_4~00~C_iv_ic_C~en~t~e~r ~D_r ~U_n_it_2-'S~a~n-'ta~C~la_ra~,-'C~A~9~5~0~5~0 ___ Date: ----"-S-"-e=p.~1~4~, =20~2...,c2c,___ 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: Jin Yan ---------- Signature: __ <r
__ · _Jf __aH,,, _____ _
Address: 1400 Civic Center Dr Unit 5, Santa Clara, CA 9505t))ate: 09/16/2022 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 a\\ 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 use~ ~Y outsi~ers. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing pubhc 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, V'. £.

Printed Name: KAlTUNiJ ZEA(, Signature: 1-tio/Ubtqf'
Address: /400 Civil Cerittr Pr ll11it f J 5ant&{/JJJa, rA 1JV~~te: o? /Jr /)Oll 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: ---------- Dezhi He Signature:---~~------- Address: 1420 Civic Center Dr #2, Santa Clara 95050 Date: 9/10/2022 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: ----------
Xuehui Zhu ~'f~ Signature:---~-' _ _]--+-----
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_·°'-'_n..,...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_~..w-----'---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: --~----,4'--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 stron 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 the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence It ;n1 took no action to remove the homel"'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. 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 EC~ Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'P!2ri'. As a Planned Develo t (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards th 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 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. 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 !"ll'n,.,,,""' 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::mmr.,~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; ~ ;Jcµio Signature:

Address: ( Lt LJ O Q)h'C, Gut\0& 0 ~ (14') U: 0,
~~ ~,CA
Date:.Q/tqJ 2022. I I
' •
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.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware qf 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 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 on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.

Sincerely,
Printed Name: ~ ~ {Je. Signature: ~
Address: 1490 CJ.w., l/ulf;u. £l..l · J U,n i.t:: b , Date: 't/ l'o/ 2D 2--1-- S--- .J.. c.lo.M, M qso.s-o 7
\.ANJlf.v J 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,
Printed Name: ---------- Pan Ji Signature: __ ___,,~c..__ _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: --~"----,,--"""'4'-='-'-e""-e'e4.,1,---=--- 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.

Signature:~
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: -~tL-r---_.tf_.,,__ 81~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:_~----------
V ;_.,;;-;, 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: 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.

← All documents from this meeting