<
No concrete vaults in Cordoba cemetery
<
South Valley Islamic Community has conducted several public information sessions about the Cordoba project and facilitated Q&A opportunities for the benefit of the community at large. We will endeavor to arrange more sessions, time and resources permitting.
<
SVIC is proposing a green cemetery at the Cordoba Center that allows no above-ground tombstones and no non-biodegradable materials in the graves. We do not embalm the bodies, a process that introduces potentially harmful carcinogens in the ground. We do not use caskets that may present lead, paint and other potentially harmful materials in its construction.
<
At one of the public information meetings, Mr. Akhter was asked by a member of the “Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots,” longtime staunch opponents of this project, about the concrete liners or vault in the graves. They claimed this information was on Cordoba Center website. We found no such information on the stated website.
<
In a subsequent meeting, the same Patriot member presented an old project description from 2016, which we traced back to being on the Santa Clara County website. They were informed that this was erroneous information that needs to be corrected. We have since established that the county was in fact previously contacted by SVIC and corrected about the cemetery, specifically on the lack of concrete vaults. We suggested that the opposition and other concerned people contact the county planning staff for up-to-date information about the project. SVIC is not responsible for outdated or incorrect information on Santa Clara County’s website.
<
The Draft EIR correctly describes the project and the cemetery. This study serves as and remains the key evidentiary document throughout this process, and the basis for all environmental assessments about the project.
<
Furthermore, SVIC has never sought any certifications by any “non-government” entities regarding the Cordoba cemetery. The use of the term “green” only signifies the natural burial process, without the introduction of any environmentally harmful or non-biodegradable materials.
<
There are many green cemeteries in California and across the country, representing the growing trend in ecologically friendly burials. One such example is Fernwood Cemetery in Marin County along the banks of Coyote Creek, which was referred to as an example of a Bay Area green cemetery during the July 6 meeting.
<
Noshaba Afzal, South Valley Islamic Community
<
Gilroy
<
‘Less than significant’ with mitigation
<
I refer to the Times article “Opposition To Islamic Center Continues,” on July 20.
<
Your reporter did not cite the pertinent paragraph in full when she quoted the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Cordoba Project in San Martin as, “The potential effect on groundwater is not because of any specific toxicity [human remains] possess, but rather because of the potential for increasing the concentration of naturally occurring organic or inorganic substances to levels that would render the ground water unfit for potable supplies or other uses.”
<
Had she read further in the report, or even its much shorter summary, she would have noted the mitigations to remedy that potential issue. The pertinent paragraph in the full report states (Page 4.4-28): “Significance After Mitigation: . . . With implementation of mitigation measures 4.4-4, . . . that operation [meaning, the proposed burial] does not affect groundwater quality, this impact would be less than significant.”
<
The highlighting (bold fonts) of the phrase “less than significant” is in the Draft EIR.
<
The Cordoba Project would be less controversial if facts are clearly and fully stated. The media should not contribute to misinformation. Omitting key phrases has the same effect and perhaps the same intent as to mislead.
<
Karen Musa
<
President, South Valley Islamic Center
<
Questions about mosque project
<
Santa Clara County hosted a special meeting on July 12 for public comment on the Cordoba Center Draft Environmental Impact Report. Many in the crowded room ignored the purpose of the meeting and voiced “feelings” about the applicant or project.
<
South Valley Islamic Center project manager Sal Akhter earlier had assured residents of the project’s regulations and safety compliance. He said the Cordoba cemetery would be “green,” or natural. One opponent of the project questioned him about the cemetery and the use of cement vaults over each grave, saying she got the information from the project’s website. Akhter assured the group that there were no cement vaults being used and that he was unaware of that information on any website.
<
On July 18, Advent Lutheran Church pastor Anita Warner welcomed the community to another discussion of the project. In the applicant’s own project description on the county’s website, it states “Each grave will have a 7.5-foot by 3-foot submerged vault.” A copy of the project description was passed around in an attempt to clear up the discrepancy. Akhter stated at the meeting, “We need to correct that.”
<
Transparency? Full disclosure? Discrepancies? Can an applicant in this county apply for a building permit, provide county planning with a project description, then change it whenever they feel like it? Why wasn’t the public notified? Why wasn’t the applicant forthcoming about the change? Is this a county error or an applicant error? Are we supposed to believe the applicant wasn’t aware of the cement vaults in the project description? It’s discrepancies like these that foster distrust in the community regarding new projects. What else aren’t they telling the public?
<
I also expect Santa Clara County to do due diligence with respect to transparency and compliance by submitting a complete environmental document to the state clearinghouse that would notify all agencies having a stake in this project.
<
As a last point, this correction needs to be made to the article in the July 20 local papers.
<
1) The article says Islamic community member Hambdy Abass believed the majority of comments were in support. Not true!! I counted each speaker and there was equal representation: 28 spoke in favor, 29 opposed.
<
2) Stating many of the comments reflected the continuing culture clash rather than the EIR is not true, except by those supporting the project. This comment is supported in the article where it states “concerns regarding the cemetery’s effect on San Martin residents’ water supplies were echoed by many attendees.”
<
This is not about race, religion or bigotry. This is about the location not being right for this large project. Previously, other applicants, including religious institutions, have had projects denied based on an Environmental Impact Report. If this paper had printed the full statement from Trina Hineser, San Martin Neighborhood Alliance, this would be apparent.
<
Susan Mister
<
Gilroy
Project larger than others
<
San Martin Neighborhood Alliance welcomes all religious institutions to our community.
<
The Cordoba Center project, as proposed is:
<
• 4 times the size of the largest religious/communal/social facility currently in San Martin.
<
• 3 times the limit that requires “enhanced scrutiny” under the recently revised Santa Clara County Planning and Land Use regulations.
<
• Twice the size that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concludes would reasonably accommodate the needs identified by the proposers.
<
There are numerous inaccuracies in the DEIR, as well as important issues which are not addressed. The SMNA Board will formally address those issues in written DEIR comments to the county, which at that time will become public record.
<
The proposed cemetery is of particular concern, as it would be sited immediately adjacent to homes dependent on well water for household consumption. We believe, based on the references we have found, that this aspect of the proposal requires further study by cognizant technical experts before it can safely be approved. Further, we believe that suitable alternatives to meet this need exist and have not been explored.
<
San Martin faces tremendous development pressure from its neighbors to the north and south. If we are to host large developments that our urban neighbors can’t or won’t accommodate, we hope and expect that the county will honor its General Plan commitment to protect our rural/agricultural community.
<
We would be pleased to engage with the proposers, regarding a more modest project that would meet their needs with substantially less impact, but regretfully cannot support this project as proposed.
<
Sincerely,
<
SMNA Board of Directors
<
Trina Hineser, President
