We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We 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_cl\_)V __ l_U\__ Signature:_ lft~_---, __ Address: ___,\~i~-~~\,._\tLl1~Rhlv1 fl i )Cttif°' C (,W\ 1 (/,I Date: __ oj / 1_7~/_J_·, 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: _R_lA_N_Y_cwv ___ X_iM_· ~- Signature: __ {_,......,·_, 1 f~r~v l_~J+--'~1 ~~ ---- p L I Sw,-t-DI. drivt,.., t.,A Date: 2 o 12 / oj I 1 7
t')Sl>5°
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.
Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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 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 com plain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We 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,\ l'n \I\ '1 Xd)~\J\ Vl \ \t
Printed Name: __ J_...,J~---~ Signature:--✓~~-/ __ -: ________ _ I
. 0 71 1-\:l \e hr Mrr1-P L Address: --~1_-_1 ______ v_1!~ \~l~------- Date:
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct. 's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPn, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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: B,~u:t Lnn Signature:_ Ji;.~_~ __7 __ _
Address:~ ij- H-,'llebrovit fl Date: 0 7 I I J / Z
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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: lnou. Sb~ Signature: ___ ~~-----·---
Date:
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.
CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90dB noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.
Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents. We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: __ 1_\\_~_ LJ_'_v1 __ _ Signature: __________ ~ _ Address: ( l C) \ (, ~vtt CV'\-\]1 olx, ~lv<\-U. °'°"~ 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,
Address
Printed Name:
:/ZtJ3
~
UJ!/t:, ~
J O'ttA.J
,/4t?.c )4{:f&<lAM:
<'.;j? Signature: ~..,_.,/ ,,..., ~ 7 Cle Date: i~22--
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed . CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each working adult to own a non-EV car. • Shadow Impact: The 5-story building will block sunlight and views from several homes on Triton Ct. and cast a significant shadow. A 30 degree angle considered in the ECR Specific Plan is better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.
CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan . We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take note of publicized problems at Renascent Place in SJ, a CH property. We have a pattern of CH not being a good neighbor. The 90d8 noise during construction will make it difficult to earn an income from home. The mitigation against dangerously high toxic fumes during construction is inadequate, if not impossible.
Longer term this project will worsen the City's structural deficit, and will require more public resources as private rents increases. The sewer, power and water infrastructure is old and there is no cost assessment. Infrastructure has to be updated before dense housing. CH needs to disclose the financial interest of its limited partners.
• Project burdens local private amenities: Residents of Catalina and Boulevard HOAs complain that their private children's park and guest parking are used by outsiders. This project does not provide its own amenities and will exasperate such problems. Existing public parks do not satisfy demand from existing residents . We need CH to have contiguous parks, not patches of green.
We believe in sustainable and balanced development. The proposed project is neither. It does not have the internal controls that enable it to be so. We urge you to Vote NO on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 1601 Civic Center Drive to Planned Development by Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: ,J}H~~/ ~ ,<./,_;;, Signature: ~ ~i(?~
Address: //IJ.J U//1c W/TMl)e, cYAIJ1it C~c.4 Date: f/// / UJ2-2-- ~ 7 Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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: -/+ Ly ____ d : C\ _,._ M ___ , '_ Signature:.~2 Date: <j- 1- 2-,Dl 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.
Printed Name: _Zhihui Landau _____ _ Signature: _Zhihui Landau_ Address: _ 1707 Civic Center Dr, Santa Clara, CA 95050 ___ Date: _09/11 /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: _,,.]b---'-1_,,C,..l{..._ __ ¥t;:µ~r--'-('.""-:)_ Signature: ...... _/4....._~-=---l---'1,._;J......__~---- .c{t, i Address: /Jo tj Cut<. Cewf-:-ev (Y1
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct.'s fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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: 0k~a~ ~ Sig nature:.,;~
Address: l )11 u,'u~v ~~ ~ . Date: &f / t~ I µ)-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 Develo ment by Charities Housing.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: $1\j:B::i A ~H At1
Address: --'--4IJ,_..l ___ ;,_____ ct_V~t ..... L__..t,..,._~N..____._T(Dl ............ _D ..... 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,
PrintedName: RAJA:N SHETH Signature:_~--~..a:;._;_----- Address: l]l3 tlV(l Lf;:NTE&, QI?-,, Date: Ol}-1 Z- 2.Q2 Z, Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
• Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601'. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown. • Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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:Y"'J ~ ~
Signature: 6.,,~ L.,.,0 ::-:::X
Petition to Oppose Charity Housing's High-Density Development on 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA
We concerned residents are strongly opposed to the high-density rental development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) at 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, because:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety: The developer ignored the safety of our neighborhood for 13 months. It refused to fence it and took no action to remove the homeless encampment on '1601 '. CH now denies the problems on their property occurred (c.f. MND response E-6 on City website) even though SCPD made them aware of the petty crime, blight, nuisance, and dumping (including a septic tank). CH refuses to remove the proposed driveway on the west side of '1601' and to block access along Triton Ct's fence. There are already 3 streets feeding traffic onto Civic Center Drive in a narrow stretch. There is a high risk of pedestrian/ traffic incidents. The proposed street is only 12 feet from Triton Ct. homes' living areas. There will be noise from cars and fire trucks. The new access lane will increase the risk of dumping & petty criminal activity because it is hard to monitor. CH prefers to place the cost and burden of monitoring on neighbors and the enforcement on SCPD, as it did during the lockdown.
Grossly Inadequate Parking: The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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: {jJ/ 1lf::r'/M'J /P,,Jf..[
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 wm worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. The curbs are filthy, there is no parking after 6pm, delivery and service vehicles block traffic, car break-ins and vandalism have skyrocketed. CH refuses to build underground parking. There is not enough EV stations on the street or the project.
Not all residents are likely buyers of EV cars. Public transportation is not widespread or reliable enough to serve the residents, requiring each 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 js better. The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission was inaccurate. • Density: A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.
CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the 'Plan'. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
• Financial Impact: The '1601' project has been a huge cost burden to the City and neighborhood. CH goes to great length to deny this, but it imposed enforcement and monitoring costs on the City and lost business and sleep time on its neighbors during the lock down. Please take 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\\ \GE- M anC:C)?O