Dear Mayor and Council,
We residents of the Civic Center Drive neighborhood are opposed to the proposed development by Charities Housing (abbreviated CH) on 1601 Civic Center Drive, up for your vote on September 27, 2022.
We respectfully urge you to vote NO on this proposal. We have attached 400+ signed letters and annotated pictures in support of our position . The reasons are:
1. The develope r is not trust-worthy.
We have attached pictures of the incidents that occurred in the 13 months between April 2020 and May 2021 on the site of 1601 Civic Center Drive and the recent denial of facts published on the City web site.
The shadow study presented on August 3rd , 2022, to the Planning Commission is inaccurate, even after Charity Housing admitted on July 20, 2022, i.e. earlier, in our Community Meeting that it is inaccurate.
The application for this project is potentially incomplete without an accurate shadow study . The shadow study presented to the Planning Commission claims that the shadow cast by the existing building over homes on Triton Ct. is about the same as the proposed building, which is not true.
Why are misleading and inaccurate statements allowed to be published on the City web site, and our demands for rebuttal and removal of misleading statements ignored? During the Planning Commission meeting paid advocates from 2-3 organizations locked out our community for a full hour from making live comments. We see the rules of engagement as stacked up against ordinary Citizens. Why should a single organization be allowed to voice multiple times when we are prohibited from both ecommenting (500 characters in about 30 seconds) and live commenting (2 minutes)? The problems we experienced during the 13 months resulted from a lack of charity towards neighbors, lack of internal business self-controls and oversight, and lack of transparency. We are not alone. A report in the San Jose Spotlight details the problems at Renascent Place, a Charity Housing property . We see the now familiar denial and deflection pattern in the following quote by Charity Housing:
https://sanjosespotl ight.com/east -san-jose-housing-group-looks -to-hold-developers -accountabl e/ Quote from Kathy Robinson:
"We decided to have John Stewart manage Renascent Place for us ... because it was so large with 160 units, and because it's 100% permanent supportive housing," Robinson said.
Where is the "Gold Standard" in this? How about accountability? Charities Housing uses "Charity" as a marketing tool, even though it is not a legal charity. What happened to the notion of "truth in advertising"? Does the end justify the means?
2. Our key 3 demands have not been met:
2A. Reduce density to at least 1/2, reduce height to a maximum of 3 levels, and provide a 30- degree viewing angle to two-story homes. There will be 4 70 new residents in a 1 .4-acre lot with 108 units.in an already congested neighborhood . This is not sustainable development.
28. Remove the driveway and parking space proposed along our fence 12 feet from Triton Ct's living spaces. The driveway is a source of noise, fumes from cars (often older cars which fit the budget of low-income tenants), dumping, and illicit activities. We ask any access from Civic Center Drive to the new building be blocked . We do not trust CH will monitor and mitigate problems arising from the driveway so close to our homes. There are already three streets feeding traffic into CCD in a tight spot. A fourth by CH will increase the risk of traffic accidents .
2C. Increase parking ratios per unit from the current 0.75 to at least 1.50 or 1 per bedroom given the fact that household sizes and cars have increased post financial crisis, and as a result of the housing crisis. Parking in our neighborhood is already severely limited. It is not possible to clean the curbs and garbage has collected along the curbs. There is no parking space after 6pm. We do not want paid parking.
We wonder what happened to our petition to place on a future Council Agenda our desire to have a neighborhood park on the site of 1601?
There are far better sites throughout Santa Clara for dense housing. The new Housing Element does not rely on the 1601 site to fulfill RH NA There should be a mandate for 25% affordable housing on all new projects in Santa Clara that results in integrated communities instead of pockets of low income. Since CH is a PD, the City has the authority to ask it to fulfill more stringent requirements than those contemplated under the El Camino Real Specific Plan. We thank you again for your consideration and support.
The Response to neighbor objections to MND, published on City web site claims:
"Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 and July 12, 2022."
Please examine pictures rebutting the misleading statement above.
The residents on Triton Ct suffered for 13 months from April 2020 (a month after Covid lock down) thru April 2021) because the owner refused to mitigate the problems documented in these pictures of which they were notified and aware as early as April 2020.
The denial published on the City web site adds insult to injury. Where is the accountability for all that happened and how low are we setting the bar?
Removal of Encampment on 1601 Civic Center Drive
Tent inside the enclosure operated 24/7 - Brawls between occupants were common with multiple police dispatches. Bicycle thieves assembling/disassembling stolen bike parts operated next to the tent.
Trash from the encampment. The fence around the enclosure could have removed in April 2020 not March of 2021.
Only one of several dumping incidents which could have been prevented if the owner of 1601 had placed a fence around the perimeter.
Homeless man arrested by SCPD.
Response to our objections to MND, published on City web site denies this . "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap .com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 , and July 12, 2022."
- .
Code enforcement Incident Report #9910975 . It took Charities Housing four days to clean up exposing Triton Ct. residents to germs and viruses. This picture is taken after the clean-up, which left an unsightly Residue and a staggering amount of debris scattered on the parking lot of 1601 Civic Center Drive. This could have been mitigated by putting a fence in April 2020 not 13 months later in May 2021. There is no accountability for this, and similar incidents and the denial published on the City web site is shocking .
Why is the City asking us to trust mitigation efforts on the proposed project? Response to our objections to MND, published on City web site denies this. "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap .com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021, and July 12, 2022 ."
The area along the fence with Triton Ct, right behind Triton Ct homes, where a driveway is proposed , was used as bathroom on a regular basis. A mitigation fence would have reduced incidences like this .
August 2020: Homeless trespassers were again reported to SCPD which in turn notified the then-stealth owner to fortify the remaining un-boarded windows with more boards. The first set of boards on the doorways, visible in the picture, were placed in May 2020. Circa June 2020 SCPD started using the building for training . The owner boarded up the building but failed to place a fence around the property for 13 months until the RV dumping incident forced its hand. This was in-spite of numerous calls and requests conveyed thru SCPD and the Planning Department (circa April 2020) .
Response to our objections to MND , published on City web site below denies all of this. "Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap .com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 2021 , and July 12, 2022 ."
Pl eci s:~ ,1 oh~. : th t:'_ ,-e , ':., ,., 1.; s h:,.-,rv-, d ,r eZ. in whe.~ th~ ~~phc -(~nk livt\!:> .,em'y-fr<ce.d.
h:111t2 no·r httppt2neJ ;P #ere vt1ere e~'-
o n --1'1 -e a. re t:,·,
n...·s (..Alou id
fence__
April 23, 2021
Keyhan Sinai
1691 Triton Ct
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Sinai:
The Santa Clara Police Department is in receipt of your request for information. This letter is being provided and the information provided is accordance with Section 6254(f) of the California Govermnenl Code.
Santa Clara PD Case #:
Dale/Time of Occurrence:
Date/lime of Report
Type of Call:
Location:
Involved Parties:
Circumstances:
Injuries:
Property:
Weapons:
21-0416162
04/16/2021 at 2310 hours
04/16/2021 at 2310 hours
City Ordinance
1601 Civic Center Dr, Santa Clara, CA
Suspect: Unknown
On 04/16/2021 at 2310 hours, Officers responded to the above address regarding a report for a municipal code violation. An RV entered the parking lot to the rear of the building and the occupant emptied the septic tank into the storm drain on the property. 111e RV fled the scene prior to police arrival.
None.
None.
None.
If you have any questions about the information in this letter, please contact the Santa Clara Police Department Records Unit.
PATRICK NIKOLAI
CHIEF OF POLICE
Sincerely,
Jennifer Cullen
Police Records Supervisor
601 El CarninD Real • Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone: 408-615-4700 • Vl'"l'lW.scpd.org www.SantaClaraOA.gov 9/21/22 , 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight East San Jose housing group looks
to hold developers accountable
Renascent Place, home to former ly u nhoused people, is owned by Charities Housing and managed by t he John Stewart Company. File photo.
As a prolific housing developer unveils plans in East San Jose, a new coalition is holding it accountable for maintaining acceptable living conditions .
Peter Ortiz, a community organizer and policy advisor for the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Association, founded the East San Jose Tenants Coalition in early April after a San Jose Spotlight article revealed deplorable conditions at Renascent Place, a homeless housing site. The site was
developed by Charities Housing and managed by the John
Stewart Company. One resident called Renascent Place
"nasty as hell" with broken windows, exposed wiring and an overwhelming smell of mildew.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 1/4 9/21/22 , 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight Another San Jose homeless housing site, Second Street
Studios , managed by the John Stewart Company, has been rocked by similar allegations . The John Stewart Company also faced criticism in San Francisco for tenant complaints about mildew, mold, rusty pipes and rodents.
Ortiz grew concerned when he learned Charities Housing
planned to construct one or two apartment complexes on
Alum Rock Avenue in East San Jose .
Ortiz, who works to increase affordable housing and
protections for renters against displace _ment, realized a coalition would provide strength in advocating for tenants' rights.
The coalition quickly formed to include Latinos United for a New America , SO MOS Mayfair , Law Foundation of Silicon Valley , Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, Human Agenda and Movimiento Democratic Coalition .
"I wanted to unite these organizations under a coalition to strengthen our voice and focus it on protections for our East San Jose residents," Ortiz said. "A lot of us are affordable housing advocates. However , people forget once those
developments are built about the conditions which residents live in. You hear stories, especially in East San Jose, of absentee landlords, illegal evictions and a lack of services." Kathy Robinson , director of development for Charities
Housing , said it typically develops, owns and manages all of its properties.
"We decided to have John Stewart manage Renascent Place for us ... because it was so large with 760 units, and because it's 700% permanent supportive housing," Robinson said . "In many people's opinion, John Stewart is the gold standard for managing this extremely difficult population . We thought it was a good idea to hire a professional so it could be done well."
Robinson said Charities Housing will manage its new project on Alum Rock Avenue, which will be a mix of people with special needs and low-income residents who need affordable housing.
https://sanjosespotl ight.com/east -san-jose-housing-g roup-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 2/4 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight The East San Jose Tenants Coalition toured Renascent
Place with developer Charities Housing and property
manager John Stewart Company on April 12. Photo
courtesy of Peter Ortiz .
Ortiz said he wanted to sit down with Charities Housing and the John Stewart Company to discuss their obligations to tenants, from being responsive to their concerns to not charging them for property updates.
"In our Latino undocumented community, we find a lot of predators," Ortiz said. "When they update their apartments, they'll try to charge our tenants."
Ortiz said he'll advocate for rents to be kept low to avoid displacement, prevent "bullying tactics" and illegal evictions .
Although the number of evictions in San Jose decreased
following the adoption of an eviction moratorium, tenants face harassment from landlords and worry they won't have the resources to pay back the rent they owe .
On Monday , coalition members met with Warren Reed, vice president of the John Stewart Company, and representatives of Charities Housing for a tour of Renascent Place . They also https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 3/4 9/21/22, 2:32 PM East San Jose housing group looks to hold developers accountable - San Jose Spotlight spoke with staff from housing and social services provider Abode Services, which runs an office in the complex.
Ortiz said if the developers and property managers refused to meet with them, the East San Jose Tenants Coalition would run a community campaign against them.
"We'd rather meet and focus on solutions than organize
against their future developments," he said.
Gabriel Manrique, community organizer for Latinos United for a New America, said when the coalition toured Renascent Place, they didn't have an opportunity to speak with
residents.
"We definitely need to talk with the tenants and see what concerns they have," Manrique said. "We have to find out what repairs and services tenants might need."
Ortiz said the coalition will hold developers and property management firms of affordable housing in East San Jose accountable.
"We're going to be watching them," Ortiz said, "and as
problems arise, we're going to put heat on them to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to do."
Contact Lorraine Gabbert at
[email protected].
https://sanjosespotlight.com/east-san-jose-housing-group-looks-to-hold-developers-accountable/ 4/4 1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Margarita Bliznikova submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I live nearby and I’m extremely opposing development project on 1601 Civic Center Drive It will create disproportional traffic, make the existing problem with limited parking spaces here only worse. The infrastructure is not supposed for such high-density residential project. Also it will lead to higher risk for pedestrians Neighborhood is not suitable for high-density development. It will add more noise, traffic, make neighborhood more crowded and unsafe, put too high load on infrastructure
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
C F submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: STRONGLY OPPOSE! Community is waiting for answers from CH but no follow ups.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
VENEE CRUZ submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: STRONG OPPOSE! This location is not suitable for high density 5 stories. Our neighborhood is already crowded and impacted by blight and petty crimes. Developer didn’t listen to any of the community concerns. We will not accept the driveway on CCD, it will be prone to high risks of accidents. This development will have huge negative impact on existing communities and will impact our safety and security. I will no longer feel safe walking in my community. Please do your due diligence and save us.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:13 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
John Galt submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: This is what happens when we have elected “leaders,” namely Mayor Lisa Gillmor, who has special interests and works with/has ties with development companies. Sooner, rather than later, this is going to be the same case when Great America is gone; especially now since Gillmor has her hand-picked “officials” sitting in Planning Commission doing work for her. They choose development over our communities to enrich themselves. We need new leaders without special interests.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 1:47 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Deepa Hotchandani submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: STRONGLY OPPOSE! We already feel unsafe. Our neighborhood is experiencing blight, noise, petty crime, shortage of parking and a decline in the quality of life. City should consider other suitable sites for ultra-dense housing, and give our needs as Citizens priority over developers. The idea of creating affordable housing in one spot will create pockets of poverty, increased crime, drug dealing, etc. The best way to create affordable housing is to spread it out throughout the entire communities.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
In Seok Hwang submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: PLEASE NO MORE HEARING !!! STRONG OPPOSE !!! I am also afraid of huge negative impact on existing communities. The planning area is already fully congested and no parking. There are new high density building construction across the El. Camino Real. Another monster 4-5 story building next to existing residential single family homes/townhouse community is not desirable. Our region is already crowded !!. Please consider other locations with old shopping mall with lesser population density.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Disha Shetty submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I strongly oppose the proposed construction plan at 1601Civic Centre Dr. by CH. It's going to have devastating effects on this quite dense neighborhood. Adding such a high-density housing is going to create resource scarcity for the residents living here mainly with parking issues, school intake, crime/theft, noise etc. Please consider moving this to a more favorable area. We need more breathing space in this already congested area and would be very thankful if a park can be considered instead.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Kiran Singh
From: STANFORD SHOOR
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Priya Cherukuru; Ricci Herro; Yashraj Bhatnagar; Nancy Biagini; Lance Saleme; Qian Huang; Andrew Crabtree; Jonathan Veach; Reena Brilliot; PlanningCommission; Planning Public Comment; Debby Fernandez; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Item 2: Approve Civic Center With Recommendations Santa Clara Planning Commissioners,
Our local families desperately need affordable homes. At 108 units, this Civic Center Drive project from Charities Housing will be an essential housing option for many.
Let's not be discouraged by a handful of loud voices. Instead, let's build homes to tackle our current and future needs.
I urge you to vote yes to approve the Civic Center
Drive Family Project, Item 2, for the following reasons:
‐108 affordable homes are desperately needed to meet the demand, to provide housing for people like our local teachers and service workers ‐The parking count is appropriate for the site given access to VTA s buses and shopping along El Camino Real
Meanwhile, here are two things you could ask about in the hearing that could make the project better:
‐To cut down on traffic, the developer could provide free bus passes for residents as other affordable developers do in our area ‐Create a more active, vibrant ground
floor to promote neighborhood interactions
I strongly urge you to support the Civic Center Drive project,
<Your Name>
Laurie Duckham‐shoor
Sent from my iPhone
Kiran Singh
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
KEYHAN SINAI
Wednesday, Auqust 3, 2022 4:50 PM
Priya Cherukuru; Ricci Herra; Yashraj Bhatnagar; Nancy Biagini; Lance Saleme; Qian Huang; Planning Public Comment
Regarding 1601 Civic Center Drive Project proposed by Charit ies Housing Removing encampment in 2-2021 after 11 months .JPG; Trash from encampment afte r enclosure housing the homeless was demolished 2-21.JPG; Trash dump ing truck.JPG; 1601-dum pJpg; Home less Tent on 1601.jpg; 1601-poopJpg; 1601-homeless man arrestedJpg; 1601_shit_path_2.jpg Dear Planning Commissioners,
First, I want to t hank you for voluntee ring your time in the serv ice of the pub lic.
In the case of Charit ies Housing 1601 Civic Center Drive, in addition to the numerous tech nical flaws and object ions raised by our neighbors we urge you to also consider tha t "The End does not just ify t he means".
In the interest of brev ity I urge you to read letters in the 100 page 'public corresponde nce' posted alongside the agenda, on pages 36, 38-48 (1-9-2022) and pages 90-100 (9 -1-2021), writte n on behalf of myse lf and Civic Center Village HOA on Triton Ct., and the surround ing neighborhood HOAs , who overwhelmingly oppose th is project.
As a wall-to-wa ll neighbor (1691 Trion Ct) of 1601 Civic Center Drive I strong ly urge you to reject Charity Housing's (abbrev iated CH henceforth) proposal to build "affordab le" housing on ' 1601 '. Longer te rm th is publicly funded project is not affordab le to the City, the tax paye rs, and our neighborhoo d. It will devastate our neighborhood. We suffe red 13 months of hell from April 2020 th roug h April 2021 as a result of the homeless encamp ment on th e 1601 property with in yards of our homes, wh ile CH refused to ident ify itself and engage with us, and put a security fence arou nd its property. SCPD and its Neighborhood Nuisance Suppression Unit acted as our liaison to inform the stea lth owne r (at the t ime) of the petty crime and blight wit hin yards of our homes. SCPD stated that they "cannot force the owne r" to put up a fence. There were home less brawls, bicycle th ieves, drug and alcohol consumpt ion, broken glass and nails th rown into our homes and sleep time disturbances. CH engaged with us only afte r a criminal dumped the contents of their RV toilet tank at midnight on April 14 2021 right behind our home. Incident number 9910975 to code enfo rcement and Police Report# 21-041662 are proof of th is crime. It took CH four days to clean up and we suffe red intolerable ste nch, and a harmful exposu re to germs and viruses. A~er th is incident and comp laints to code enfo rcement CH had no choice but to put up a fence to guard against furthe r liability . We want you to understand it was not out of the "Char ity" in the ir hearts t hat they put up a $2K fence. To ma ke matters worse, we found out only in May 2021 tha t CH had submitted the ir proposal to the Plannin g Departm ent in Dec. 2020 and had been conta ctin g Council Members to gain positive mind space in order to preempt any meaningful dialog and feedback from us. We want you to know t hat CH has treated us as disposable toilet paper. It has used our presence in the comm unity meet ings to claim engagemen t and feedback, where in fact none of our key demands have 1 2
been met. In-spite of all this, CH has the audacity to place the following in their Mitigated Negative Declaration MND response to our objections:
"Response E-6: Based on the Community Crime Map for the City of Santa Clara (https://communitycrimemap.com/) there have been no calls for service to the project site between January 1, 0221 (typo is not mine) and July 12, 2022." This is false. Why has CH left out the 9 mo nths of 2020 when most of our complaints were made? Why did CH filter out visits by SCPD to complaining homes on Triton Ct. and only cites visits to 1601? Why does CH not mention that the Crime Report does not include cases where arrests are not made or when there is no suspect and may not include every complaint made to the SCPD dispatch? Most importantly: Why did CH not ask for the evidence directly from the neighbors in the four long public meetings when they deliberately stayed silent in response to our complaints? Is CH claiming that effectively, we the neighbors are liars? We have attached a few pictures to show the ho meless encampment and are happy to provide further evidence for our claims. The brief history proves that CH is not transparent and evades accountability. CH has added insu lt to injury by claiming “nothing happened on our watch”.
CH distorts the evidence and ignores facts on the ground. We hope you take the time to question CH the hard questions we have repeatedly asked and conduct your own fact finding before approving this project. We are happy to invite you to our homes to prove the shadow “study” is incorrect and to share first hand witness reports, and how this project will impact us. Please understand CH will do anything, including resorting to ‘general’ parking studies to get its project approved. Please note that:
1. CH has refused to move all the entrances and lanes for their project to Lincoln Street. The situation on Civic Center Drive with 4 lanes in proximity to each other is hazardous.
2. CH has refused to reduce the height of the building to 2-3 as many other new developments in Santa Clara have.
3. The parking spaces are inadequate. Currently there are no parking spaces in ou r neighborhood past 6 or 7pm. The curbs cannot be cleaned because the parked cars have nowhere to go. The former Fuji florist’s project site (on Warburton) will add to the congestion.
There is blight, and car break-ins daily alon g the curbs. SCPD Community Relations has informed us that they do not have the bandwidth to address the volume of petty crime. The c o n g e s t i o n a d d e d b y C H w i l l m a k e i t w o r s e . C H h a s b e e n a n d w i l l b e a b u r d e n o n t h e enforcement budget of the City. Longer term such dense uneconomic projects can easily flop and the mess will become the tax payers and the City’s burden.
4. The vast majority of our neighborhood wants a park on the current site of 1601 .
Our petition to place this for consideration on a future Council Meeting Agenda was approved by the Council in September 2021. Why is our alternative proposal for this site not even being considered in a timely fashion on equal footing to CH’s proposal? As we understand this matter should have been placed on the City Council Agenda for a vote within a month of approval. Should the Citizens be paying the price for the process inefficiency and the fact that there was a City Manager change? We ask that our proposal be given fair consideration.
The MND section E lists our objections. The respo nses to our objections are flawed, evasive, and in some cases even not related to the objection.
3 CH’s shadow study is still flawed after 4 publ ic presentations. It claims there is no more shadow on my home 1691, 1701, and 1681 than the current two story building. Mr. Hood o f CH admitted that the shadow study is inaccurate in the last public meeting on July 20 2022.
I explained why the study is flawed to the planning department and again two times in public meetings. In spite of this the public record has not been corrected and decision makers will likely assume the shadow study is a “pass”. My home and at least two other homes have no obstruction from the current two-story building to cause a shadow. If CH’s project is approved, we will lose our view of the Civic Center Pa rk, the sky and the shadows from the 5-story tall building will reduce the efficiency of any solar installation as well as ruins the view from ou r homes. My home is RED on the toxic fume sect ion of the MND report. We objected that the mitigation of toxic fumes during construction is not adequate. There needs to be a 24/7 sensor that wirelessly transmits data (or checked 2-3 times a day) to code enforcement for prompt action. The MND response places the burden of reporting on the affected neighbors.
This is not fair. We may be working at the office and even if staying at home we have no effective way of monitoring toxic emissions. The response does not allay our fears. The noise level of 90db during construction is unacceptable. The City’s code is 55dB. The response E-4 to this objection refers back to D-2 which addresses a different problem! No one should be asked to be exposed to 90dB of noise within yards of their home, for an extended period of time and in such close proximity. Would you as Citizens tolerate such a noise level fo r
yourselves and your families?
This project is not suited to or safe for our neighborhood because of the density, proximity, negative impact on the environment, traffic, parking, shadow, toxic fumes, long term impact on City infrastructure and finances, property va lues, etc. The quality of life has degraded in our neighborhood in the two years since the 1601 site became a homeless encampment.
Ultimately this project is a badl y designed patch to an urgent social problem. The patch will make matters worse over time. In-spite of the hype , it is not in the public best interest and will devastate our neighb orhood over the next 50 years, ala the failed social and business model of NYC concentrated and dense Public Ho using projects. In addition, CH has serious credibility and ‘good faith’ issues which must be considered.
Again, we urge you to consider that “The end does not justify the means. “. Let us not lower the bar to the minimum technical aspects of CEQA or other rules. Please consider the big picture and the voices of us Citizens and to reject CH’s proposal for 1601 Civic Center Drive.
Sincerely
Keyhan Sinai
Cc:
Morteza Shafiei, President Civic Center Village HOA on Triton Ct. Santa Clara, CA
• • • ' ... - -- ~ -- - •
-
• •
-~ ~
- -
-
•
! !ATTENTION!!
A cleanup of illegal encampments
in this area will be conducted on the following datc(s):
You are TRESPASSING and
/ wm be subject to CRIMINAL PROSEC UTION if you remaint You MllST remove all of your property from this location by 7:00a.m.on "2•2 "'I -Z..f
During the cleanup all personal property, shclt . . . . . ers, and garbage 1 cma111111g 111 the area will be rem d ovc .
If you need help with housing or wan t to learn about rcso please contact the 1 'ncampmc nt and I lomc lcss O utreach 11 llrccs avn ilab /c to you, 211. <>llin1.: at(40R) 510-7600 or
/\tltlitiomil ly <luring the Cov id- 19 Pandem ic yi,{1 can rcu .1 by cull ing 40l -27R-642c~
1 thl! Covid- 19 I lousing hot/int:
1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Eric Lau submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: I oppose this project not because I'm against development but because I'm against having a bad neighbor. Charities Housing had the opportunity to reach out to us early on to see how we can work together to properly integrate this project into the neighborhood. If CH was cooperative, we wouldn't be sitting here today opposing their designs. It's still not too late for CH to make changes to accommodate our requests unless they feel it’s no longer charity when it hits their own pocket books.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help pr
privacy, Mprevented download fr o m th e In
1 Elizabeth Elliott
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Elizabeth Elliott; Kiran Singh; Lesley Xavier
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SpeakUp
New eComment for Planning Commission on
2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Eric Lee submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission on 2022-08-03 6:00 PM
Item: 2. 22-930 Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Property Located at 1601 Civic Center Drive
eComment: This neighborhood already has some significant impacts to parking due to the existing high-density housing complexes that already exist, plus the new addition at 1900 Warburton nearby. With the addition of another 100+ housing units and insufficient on-site parking, this problem is only going to get worse for existing residents. I strongly oppose this proposal.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
To help protect your
pri va cy, M icr os of t Of f i ce prevented au tomatic download of t his pict ure from the Internet.