Poursanae, Miroslava
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
roxa n nemerli nomi Iler < >
Friday, July 11, 2025 11 :11 AM
DevServicesComments
CSi Inc.
FW: ZA Public Comment 7-29-25
Follow up
Completed
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of your organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern,
We are unable to attend the public hearing on 7/29/25, that covers impacts of a multi family residential development being built in proximity to nearby homes.
As long time residents of Lincoln Park, in particular Jefferson Avenue, we are concerned about potential additional parking in front of our house. We currently have issues with backyard rentals that cause more cars on our street than we want. This could be infinitely worse with the new proposed development.
We have no problem with the housing itself, but the developers need to ensure all parking is maintained on their property. That may include limiting the# of cars per unit, and providing parking for those cars, per unit. Also, this includes providing ample guest parking on that property, so no overflow finds its way to our neighborhood.
Nice new, clean condos/apartments can help to clean up that piece of land, but not at the price of a sea of cars parked down our street. Please make this development self-contained, ensuring all parking is maintained on that property.
Sincerely,
Roxanne Merlino Miller & Ben Miller
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
Jul 29, 2025 City of Pomona 505 S. Garey Ave. Pomona, CA 91766 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 1377 N. Garey Ave. To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Ponoma Zoning Administrator, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
35-unit,
100%
affordable
housing
development
project
at
N.
Garey
Avenue.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
AB
130,
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subds.
(d),
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
render
the
project
infeasible
(
id
.
at
subd.
(d))
or
reduce
the
project’s
density
(
id
.
at
subd.
(j))
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action.”
(
Id.
at
subd.
(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. The City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to minimum unit size, public open space and open space type, side yard setback with windows, required parking, building height, building massing, and frontage coverage. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v.
City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther- flung regions in the
state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the
2 of 3
proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
Sep 24, 2025 City of Pomona 505 S. Garey Ave Pomona, CA 91766 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 1377 North Garey Ave To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Pomona Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
35-unit,
100%
affordable
housing
development
project
at
1377
North
Garey
Avenue.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
AB
130,
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.,
SB
330,
and
California’s
fair
housing
laws.
The Project is Protected by the Housing Accountability Act The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subds.
(d),
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
render
the
project
infeasible
(
id
.
at
subd.
(d))
or
reduce
the
project’s
density
(
id
.
at
subd.
(j))
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” ( Id. at subd.
(b).)
The Project is Protected by the Density Bonus Law CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.
The
City
must
respect
these
protections.
The
City
must
not
deny
the
project
the
proposed
waivers
and
concessions
with
respect
to
minimum
unit
size,
public
open
space
and
open
space
type,
side
yard
setback
with
windows,
required
parking,
building
height,
building
massing,
and
frontage
coverage.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
waivers,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
concessions,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety,
or
that
the
concessions
are
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
The
City,
if
it
makes
any
such
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Additionally,
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
has
ruled
that
when
an
applicant
has
requested
one
or
more
waivers
and/or
concessions
pursuant
to
the
DBL,
the
City
“may
not
apply
any
development
standard
that
would
physically
preclude
construction
of
that
project
as
designed,
even
if
the
building
includes
‘amenities’
beyond
the
bare
minimum
of
building
components.”
(
Bankers
Hill
150
v.
City
of
San
Diego
(2022)
74 Cal.App.5th
755,
775.)
The Project is Protected by the CEQA Guidelines and AB 130 Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA
categorical
exemption
(In-Fill
Development
Projects)
pursuant
to
section
15332
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines,
as
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
general
plan
designation
and
all
applicable
general
plan
policies
as
well
as
the
applicable
zoning
designation
and
regulations;
the
proposed
development
occurs
within
city
limits
on
a
project
site
of
no
more
than
five
acres
substantially
surrounded
by
urban
uses;
the
project
site
has
no
value
as
habitat
for
endangered,
rare,
or
threatened
species;
approval
of
the
project
would
not
result
in
any
significant
effects
relating
to
traffic,
noise,
air
quality,
or
water
quality;
and
the
site
can
be
adequately
served
by
all
required
utilities
and
public
services.
Furthermore,
the
project
is
eligible
for
a
statutory
exemption
from
CEQA
pursuant
to
AB
130
(Pub.
Res.
Code,
§
21080.66),
which
was
signed
into
law
on
June
30,
2025
and
effective
immediately
(Assembly
Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse
to
grant
a
project
a
CEQA
exemption
or
streamlined
CEQA
review
to
which
it
is
entitled.
(
Hilltop
Group,
Inc.
v.
County
of
San
Dieg
o
(2024)
99 Cal.App.5th
890,
911.)
2 of 4
The Conditions of Approval are Unlawful and Shameful The City is proposing two new conditions of approval that should not be imposed on an affordable
housing
development.
First,
the
City
proposes
an
exaction
equal
to
1 percent
of
the
project
value
to
be
spent
on
a
public
art
installation.
Second,
the
CIty
is
proposing
to
prohibit
car
ownership
for
tenants
without
onsite
parking.
Both
of
these
conditions
impose
significant
costs
on
the
project.
The
City
is
prohibited
from
imposing
any
conditions
that
would
negatively
affect
the
feasibility
of
the
project.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(d).)
The
burden
of
establishing
that
a
condition
does
not
affect
the
feasibility
of
the
project
is
placed
on
the
City.
(
id.
at
subd.
(i).)
It
does
not
appear
that
the
City
has
carefully
weighed
whether
either
of
these
conditions
would
violate
this
prohibition.
Given California’s homelessness crisis and the finite amount of funding available for affordable
housing,
the
imposition
of
costly
conditions
of
approval
on
a
100%
affordable
building
is
shocking.
Public
art
fees
on
private
development
are
legally
suspect
under
state
law
given
SB
330’s
objectivity
requirements
as
well
as
under
constitutional
law
given
that
there
is
no
nexus
between
public
art
and
a
proposed
development.
(See
Sheetz
v.
Cnty.
of
El
Dorado
(2024)
144
S.Ct.
893.)
Beyond
this,
however,
it
is
simply
shameful
that
the
City
persists
in
imposing
this
fee
on
a
100%
affordable
development.
Further, the condition placed on car ownership is a shocking attack on the residents of affordable
housing.
How
does
the
City
expect
lower-income
residents
to
commute
to
jobs
given
that
the
Los
Angeles
region
is
highly
car-dependent?
Under Government Code section 8899.50, all public agencies must affirmatively further fair housing
through
their
housing
and
community
development
programs.
The
duty
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing
extends
to
all
of
a
public
agency’s
activities
and
programs
relating
to
housing
and
community
development.
Public
agencies
are
required
to
take
meaningful
actions
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing
and
take
no
action
that
is
materially
inconsistent
with
its
obligation
to
affirmatively
further
fair
housing.
(Gov.
Code,
§
8899.50,
subd.
(b).)
For
purposes
of
state
fair
housing
law
(See
Gov.
Code,
§
8899.50,
inter
alia),
low-income
residents
are
a
protected
class.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65008,
subs.
(a)(3),
(b)(1)(C),
and
(b)(2)(B).)
The
City
is
obligated
by
state
law
(Gov.
Code,
§
8899.50)
not
to
discriminate
against
such
residents
based
on
protected
characteristics.
Prohibiting
lower-income
residents
from
owning
cars
is
disparate
treatment
based
on
a
protected
characteristic.
State
law
forbids
the
City
from
such
discrimination.
⧫
⧫
⧫ As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit:
by
providing
affordable
housing,
it
will
mitigate
the
state’s
homelessness
crisis;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
by
reducing
competition
for
existing
3 of 4
housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing
housing
in
denser,
more
urban
areas,
as
opposed
to
farther-flung
regions
in
the
state
(and
out
of
state).
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 4 of 4
Subject: ZA Public Comment 7-29-25 1377 N Garey Ave
Hello, my name is Hank Fung and I live about a half mile from the project on the other side of Lincoln Park. Please include my comments for the record. I also reserve the right to testify in person, based on my schedule. Thank you.
---
Dear Development Services Director Donavanik,
As a multi-decade resident of the Lincoln Park neighborhood, I wish to give my full support for this project, which will add 100% affordable housing to Pomona along a high quality transit corridor, thus helping Pomona meet its state mandated RHNA goals and live up to its commitment of being Pro-Housing.
In response to concerns from other neighbors, there is no evidence that transit service is being reduced. Indeed, if this project was 400 feet south, it would be in an AB 2097 zone where no parking would be required at all (major transit stop as defined by state law is at Holt and Garey, which is a future SBX BRT stop as well as the intersection of more than two frequent bus routes). Garey Avenue currently has 15 minute peak transit service. The site location is approximately a 15 minute walk to the Pomona Transit Center and 20 minutes to the future A Line Pomona-North station. The project is a short walk from Stater Brothers and the Pomona Valley Hospital, allowing for basic needs to be met without using cars.
Specifically,
"The following issues must be addressed before this project moves forward:
• Inadequate Parking: Only 19 spaces for 35 units is far below what is typically required.
This does not align with Pomona's municipal code or actual vehicle ownership trends in the area. "
This complies with current state laws regarding parking availability, especially for affordable housing projects.
:• Lack of Transit Access: The site is not within walking distance of a major transit hub.
Current bus service is infrequent and expected to decline, making it unreasonable to assume residents will rely solely on public transportation. "
This appears to be AI generated as there is zero evidence bus service is infrequent or expected to decline. Foothill Transit's budget has increased every year, there is stable funding through LA County's sales taxes, and Line 291 has operated 15 minute service along Garey Avenue since 1996. It is within a 10 minute walk of Holt and Garey where Omnitrans is expected to open its SBX Bus Rapid Transit to Ontario Airport and Rancho Cucamonga by 2026, in addition to the frequent transit service to Los Angeles at the Pomona Transit Center on the Silver Streak.
"• Spillover Parking Impacts: Overflow parking from the development will impact adjacent residential streets and likely obstruct the protected bike lane on Garey Avenue, compromising
cyclist safety and mobility. "
Again, this appears to be AI generated as there is no evidence that is the case. The bike lane is not a protected bike path, and Pomona police do a good job of enforcing no parking requirements.
"• Incompatible Architecture: The proposed design is out of character with the surrounding Lincoln Park and Wilton Heights Historic Districts. This continues a pattern of development that neglects Pomona's unique architectural heritage. "
The project has compatible architecture to the Tri-City Mental Health building adjacent and former Valley Medical Center at Garfield and Garey. The historic architecture referred to is further east in the neighborhood.
"• Lack of Planning Accountability: The approval of projects like this-along with recent examples
like the poorly integrated Starbucks on Garey-shows a disconnect between the Planning Division and the community's vision for thoughtful, contextual development. "
Again this appears to be AI generated, there is no evidence provided this is the case. The Starbucks on Garey replaced a decrepit gas station and it has only been an improvement to the neighborhood.
Eliminating parking helps reduce vehicle miles traveled and helps Pomona meet its requirements under AB 32 to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The balconies are not directly overlooking anyone's yard and the project is not in the historic district. The project will provide badly needed affordable housing for families and residents transitioning away from homelessness. It also provide wheelchair accessible units, something sorely missing in this market.
As part of this project, the developer should be conditioned to inform all residents of the parking situation for all rental units. The developer should charge a separate rate for the parking, as is consistent with best planning practices (see Donald Shoup - The High Cost of Free Parking), and not bundle parking with the cost of the rent. This will allow the units to remain affordable for the long term with less taxpayer subsidy. The developer shall also present residents information about existing non-auto transportation, such as the SGVCOG's e-bike program ($75 a year for all affordable housing residents), Metro LIFE program (20 free transit rides a month), and other options.
Separately, the city should allow for the surrounding streets the opportunity to request residential permit parking, such as restrictions to only residents in the area for either daytime or overnight parking. This would be reasonable to address the parking concerns of the neighbors.
In closing, it should be noted that as stated in the staff report, SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, has strict standards for denial of housing development projects. Those standards cannot be met. Should the Development Services Director, or the Planning Commission, reject this project, pro-housing groups will sue the city and cause the project to be approved anyway, but with additional legal expenses that will reduce funding to police, parks, the library, and other community services.
I therefore urge the Development Services Director, and the Planning Commission if this is appealed, to approve the project with the mitigations above to charge for parking per unit and inform residents of non-automotive mobility options.
Sincerely,
Hank Fung
Poursanae, Miroslava
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Raul Perfecto < >
Monday, July 7, 2025 12:26 PM
DevServicesComments; Barron, Alina
ZA Public Comment 7-16-25
Follow up
Completed
I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of your organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a 25 year resident of Pomona, I'm deeply concerned and disappointed by the Planning Division's consideration of the proposed 35-unit development at 1377 N Garey Avenue, which includes only 19 parking spaces. This is a significant under-provision that does not meet current parking requirements under the Pomona Municipal Code, and the site does not qualify for reduced parking under state guidelines, as it is not located near a major transit stop. In fact, the closest bus service is limited and anticipated to be reduced further due to rising operational costs.
The following issues must be addressed before this project moves forward:
• Inadequate Parking: Only 19 spaces for 35 units is far below what is typically required. This does not align with Pomona's municipal code or actual vehicle ownership trends in the area. • Lack of Transit Access: The site is not within walking distance of a major transit hub. Current bus service is infrequent and expected to decline, making it unreasonable to assume residents will rely solely on public transportation.
• Spillover Parking Impacts: Overflow parking from the development will impact adjacent residential streets and likely obstruct the protected bike lane on Garey Avenue, compromising cyclist safety and mobility.
• Incompatible Architecture: The proposed design is out of character with the surrounding Lincoln Park and Wilton Heights Historic Districts. This continues a pattern of development that neglects Pomona's unique architectural heritage. • Lack of Planning Accountability: The approval of projects like this-along with recent examples like the poorly integrated Starbucks on Garey-shows a disconnect between the Planning Division and the community's vision for thoughtful, contextual development.
It's frustrating to see historic preservation, livability, and mobility efforts undermined by short-sighted approvals. We need development-but it must be done responsibly.
I strongly urge the Commission to deny this project as currently proposed and require substantial revisions to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Poursanae, Miroslava
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
roxannemerlinomiller < >
Monday, July 7, 2025 10:13 AM
DevServicesComments
CSi Inc.
ZA Public Comment 7 16 25
Follow up
Completed
[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of your organization. Do not
click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the conten_t is safe.
To Whom It May Concern,
We are unable to attend the public hearing on 7/16/25, that covers impacts of a multi family residential development being built in proximity to nearby homes.
As long time residents of Lincoln Park, in particular Jefferson Avenue, we are concerned about potential additional parking in front of our house. We currently have issues with backyard rentals that cause more cars on our street than we want. This could be infinitely worse with the new proposed development.
We have no problem with the housing itself, but the developers need to ensure all parking is maintained on their property. That may include limiting the# of cars per unit, and providing parking for those cars, per unit. Also, this includes providing ample guest parking on that property, so no overflow finds its way to our neighborhood.
Nice new, clean condos/apartments can help to clean up that piece of land, but not at the price of a sea of cars parked down our street. Please make this development self-contained, ensuring all parking is maintained on that property.
Sincerely,
Roxanne Merlino Miller & Ben Miller
From: Scott Thomas
To: planningcounter; Scott Thomas
Subject: 1377 N Garey Project snd Garey Av Median
Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 9:36:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of your organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attention: Ata Khan, Planning Manager
Hello,
It has come to our attention that a center median barrier is being considered near the 1377 N Garey project to prevent residents of the new development from crossing Garey on foot and parking in the historical neighborhood. I can see that not having sufficient parking in the development could cause this issue. Our concern is that the barrier should look appropriate for the historic district as well as for the long awaited median on Garey. A suggestion that I have would be to install wrought iron fencing with river rock columns at 42”- 48” height that matches the new vintage style fencing at Nell Soto park on Park Avenue. A vine could also be added for beauty. Thank you for your consideration.
Scott Thomas
Lincoln Park Historic District