Dear Editor:
I am the attorney for the Silveira Family and believe it is
necessary to respond to comments about my client contained in some
recent articles in your paper and particularly a voluminous letter
to the editor dated June 17 from Paul McAllister.
Dear Editor:
I am the attorney for the Silveira Family and believe it is necessary to respond to comments about my client contained in some recent articles in your paper and particularly a voluminous letter to the editor dated June 17 from Paul McAllister.
In August 2000, we were contacted by Tim Filice regarding the possibility of locating on the 60-acre Silveira property a new parish that would include a church and eventually a parochial elementary school. The Silveira’s are a Catholic family and desired to assist the Diocese of San Jose. The family entered into a binding contract of sale with the diocese to 10 acres.
Because it was necessary to annex the property to the city in order to sell a portion of it, we filed an annexation application in October 2000. The Silveira property has been in the General Plan area for more than 30 years and in the Urban Service Area for more than 12 years.
As a part of the annexation application, we described the parish and, on a conceptual basis, a residential project consistent with the General Plan. Although we had previously and subsequently applied for “RDO” units, we were under no allusion that we would be granted any. We expect the residential portion of this property to develop sometime in the next 10 to 15 years.
Just prior to the Planning Commission hearing last January, we were informed that the Gilroy Unified School District was considering acquisition of 50 acres of the property for a new high school. We thought that the process would only take six months or less and therefore we began preliminary discussions. The Silveira Family has been described as “willing sellers;” I would rather describe them as “realistic sellers.” The district has the power of condemnation and I so informed my client.
We now realize that the site selection is just beginning and that legal procedures could extend the timeframe to a year or more. It is speculative at best whether this property will eventually be selected as the new high school site.
We filed an application designating residential uses and we would be pleased someday to see that plan come to fruition. Should we be re-contacted by the school district after a final decision has been made, we, of course, will open discussions with them.
Finally and most importantly, we hope that the City Council will approve the annexation and let the diocese proceed with construction of a new parish.
Jon J. Campisi, Santa Clara
Submitted Wednesday, July 9
