Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2022-09-27 5:00 PM 09-27-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
The City of Santa Clara will be conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely). Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and City of Santa Clara Resolution No. 22-9142, Councilmembers may teleconference from remote locations and the City continues to provide methods for the public to participate remotely:
• Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or
o Phone: 1(669) 900-6833
• Via the City's eComment (now available during the meeting) • Via email to [email protected] (Comments received after 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting will be made part of the public record but will not be read out loud during the meeting). This email address will be disabled after the October 4, 2022 meeting. Comments will continue to be accepted through City's eComment.
As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel
99), or the livestream on the City's Y ouTube channel or Facebook page. 1 0 1 0
1.C 22-1203 Conference with Real Property Negotiators (CC) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties, APN: 147-040-02-11, 147-050-02-11, 147-050-03-11, 147-
05-19-11, 147-070-04-11, 147-070-05-11, 147-080-01-11,
147-080-03-11, 147-080-11-11, 147-080-14-11, 147-080-15-11, 021-010-003, 021-020-001, 016-100-004, 016, 090, 059, 021-010-006, 021-010-012, 016-100-005, 016-080-008, 016-070-012, 016-090-011, 021-010-013, 016-100-001, 016-100-006 and 016-080-007
City/Authority Negotiator: Rajeev Batra, City Manager (or designee) Negotiating Parties: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Under Negotiation: Purchase/Sale/Exchange/Lease of Real Property (provisions, price and terms)
1 0 0 1
6. 22-1099 Public Hearing: Actions on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential, Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD), and density bonus agreement to allow a multifamily affordable housing development with 108 rental units at 1601 Civic Center Drive 67 1 65 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for The City of Santa Clara will be conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely). Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and City of Santa Clara Resolution No. 22-9142, Councilmembers may teleconference from remote locations and the City continues to provide methods for the public to participate remotely:
• Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or
o Phone: 1(669) 900-6833
• Via the City's eComment (now available during the meeting) • Via email to [email protected] (Comments received after 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting will be made part of the public record but will not be read out loud during the meeting). This email address will be disabled after the October 4, 2022 meeting. Comments will continue to be accepted through City's eComment.
As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City's YouTube channel or Facebook page.
Overall Sentiment
MARIA ESPINOSA
Location:
Submitted At: 2:08pm 09-26-22
Noise and lights from the proposed west parking lot will greatly impact Triton Ct residents: . Lights from vehicle headlights, noise from vehicle exhaust/stereo/subwoofer or people talking, lights from security lighting in the lot, noise from people opening and closing vehicle doors and the building access door (from the lot) Agenda Item: eComments for 1.C 22-1203 Conference with Real Property Negotiators (CC) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: East of Loyalton and West of Cold Springs in Sierra and Lassen Counties, APN: 147-040-02-11, 147-050-02-11, 147-050-03-11, 147-05-19-11, 147-070-04-11, 147-070-05-11, 147-080-01-11, 147-080-03-11, 147-080-11-11, 147-080-14-11, 147-080-15-11, 021-010-003, 021-020-001, 016-100-004, 016, 090, 059, 021-010-006, 021-010-012, 016-100-005, 016-080-008, 016-070-012, 016-090-011, 021-010-013, 016-100-001, 016-100-006 and 016-080-007 City/Authority Negotiator: Rajeev Batra, City Manager (or designee) Negotiating Parties: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Under Negotiation: Purchase/Sale/Exchange/Lease of Real Property (provisions, price and terms) Overall Sentiment
Harold Lunte
Location:
Submitted At: 4:05pm 09-26-22
This property should only be sold when it will yield maximum return for the City. This obviously is not now or very soon, given the recent fire and the current economic client being one in which there is fear of recession and high inflation.
Any Council Members voting to sell at a depressed value will be remembered as having cheated the City of millions of dollars. Fencing costs are irrelevant when timing of sale can net millions of dollars more, after accounting for fencing costs.
Agenda Item: eComments for 6. 22-1099 Public Hearing: Actions on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to High Density Residential, Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD), and density bonus agreement to allow a multifamily affordable housing development with 108 rental units at 1601 Civic Center Drive Overall Sentiment
Jazzy Allease
Location:
Submitted At: 10:53pm 09-27-22
I support this project because I believe I have an obligation to give to others who need support. That could include grocery store workers, nursing assistants and teachers who could live there.
Jiaqing Ni
Location:
Submitted At: 7:54pm 09-27-22
I oppose this project. There are many kids being raised in this neighborhood. Construction and an increasing traffic do not create safe environment for them to grow up in.
Ryan Luciano
Location:
Submitted At: 7:51pm 09-27-22
The City Council is supposed to be working to make our neighborhood better. Not knowingly voting for it to be a low income ghetto. Our neighborhood is unanimous in opposing this development. Shame on you City Council.
Christine Fu
Location:
Submitted At: 7:24pm 09-27-22
I strong oppose this development, this too high density development. Our neighborhood is overcrowded and parking is not enough.
Ray Sport
Location:
Submitted At: 7:11pm 09-27-22
I strongly oppose this project for various reasons
1) Charity housing's track record is worse. From hiding facts, bad reviews, not protecting the site even after repeated complaints. Just today I saw 3 RV parked around the site with closed shades. How can the city trust someone with such bad track record and lies and out 100s of residents at risk. - parking situation is worse and you can't find parking even for residents. the site is not suitable for public transportation with families
James Kim
Location:
Submitted At: 6:59pm 09-27-22
I strongly oppose the Charities Housing proposal. Our neighborhood is already overcrowded with grossly inadequate parking. It has also become increasingly unsafe from congestion and crime. This development will only exacerbate current poor living conditions.
Anil Rao
Location:
Submitted At: 6:54pm 09-27-22
I oppose this development, this high density development is poorly thought out and will have adverse effect in our neighbourhood.
Isaac Chai
Location:
Submitted At: 6:47pm 09-27-22
Parking is already quite bad, please accommodate parking spaces.
Vasily Igishev
Location:
Submitted At: 6:43pm 09-27-22
This high-density development doesn't fit our neighborhood. Charity Houses didn't spend much time on the research of our neighborhood: parking situation is terrible and will be worse. Public transportation from this location doesn't suit families without cars. Schools are overwhelmed and already suffering from poor ratings. I don't think that low-income families deserve this kind of living. This project has to find another location more suitable for their needs.
Shiqiu Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 6:34pm 09-27-22
I am opposed to this proposal. The project has 108 units and will further increase congestion. There are already not enough parking spaces in this community. And the construction will cause up to two years of air and noise pollution that will affect our lives.
Phil Kliza
Location:
Submitted At: 6:13pm 09-27-22
Objection 1 is the secrecy surrounding RR candidates. For example, this secrecy can include a tenant’s conviction as a sex offender, or if a tenant is in the US illegally, which may or may not include a criminal past. CH is not required to know their past or status when qualifying an applicant for RR funds. In the spirit of transparency and full disclosure, Rapid-Rehousing must be dropped from CH's 1601 proposal. Objection 2, the size and impact of this project must be scaled back
William Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 6:10pm 09-27-22
There has been zero solution to the issue of the lack of onsite parking. The developer cited cost as the singular reason of not including more onsite parking slots or reducing density. Despite the cost claim, we saw very few data comparing the per-unit cost of this development to those of similar commercial developments that DO provide ample parking. Since tax payers will be footing part of the bill, we demand full accountability on how the money is spent.
Anna Gao
Location:
Submitted At: 5:57pm 09-27-22
I strongly oppose this proposal. Based on the impact study exposed, the construction will cause high cancer risk, air pollution and noise pollution for up to 2 years, which will significantly affect our life and also cause more damage to neighbor's kids. Also this high density building is making the area even more crowder, after the construction is completed our fence will just behind the main street, this will cause more noise and air pollution.
Ganyu Lian
Location:
Submitted At: 5:52pm 09-27-22
Oppose! The plan to build a high density residential building in civic center neighborhood is a mistake. Current residents are already suffering from the rising population in the community which causes parking and safety issues. Many other locations in Santa Clara are more suitable for such high density residential building. We should seriously consider the impact to the local community and change either the location of the building or change the structure to low density 2-3 stories building.
Betty Chow
Location:
Submitted At: 5:51pm 09-27-22
Public transport is a joke in Santa Clara. There’re not enough buses and ppl have to wait for a long time for buses. Therefore shortfall in parking spaces for the apartment complex to be built will post a big problem to the community as ppl will not rely on public transportation for daily commute. They will need to drive to work.
Ye Cao
Location:
Submitted At: 5:48pm 09-27-22
I oppose to this proposal as it's causing cancer risk and noise pollution to the neighborhood in short term during 2 years construction and also shadow impact/parking crowding/car noise&pollution for long term.
Mario Vitale
Location:
Submitted At: 5:23pm 09-27-22
I am opposed. The size of this development will be an eye sore where it sits in this neighborhood and without a proper remedy for parking the high-density nature of the development will impact the surrounding area in a community already running out of parking spaces. If nothing else, please consider reducing the number of floors proposed to lessen the impact it has on the surrounding neighborhood. Please consider the voices of the directly impacted neighbors over those of special interests.
Morteza Shafiei
Location:
Submitted At: 5:07pm 09-27-22
We are opposing the current proposal for a 5-story building with 108 units and 0.7 parking per unit. Building such a large structure a few feets from 2-story single-family houses does not fit our neighborhood. Introducing additional 300-400 residents to our neighborhood is not good for either the new residents or the existing ones.
Please reduce the height to 2-3 stories and provide at least one parking per unit for the project.
Sunder Ram
Location:
Submitted At: 4:48pm 09-27-22
The proposed development project with 108 units is certainly going add further congestion in the area. Parking is a major issue for the residents. HOA children's park and guest parking areas are currently abused by non-HOA residents. Cars are being driven at high speed through the townhome roads causing safety concerns for the residents. Please don't make the situation worse by constructing a 5-story building and it is not a fit for the neighborhood.
Alex Salzmann
Location:
Submitted At: 4:41pm 09-27-22
Our local elementary school already has a population of 80% students who are economically disadvantaged.
These sorts of numbers do depress housing values and this housing development does nothing to address this disparity between the low socioeconomic demographics of our district vs other districts within the city. The most affluent districts get asked to take on the smallest share of the burden in addressing inequalities. We are already burdened with traffic, noise, blight, and poverty.
Disha Shetty
Location:
Submitted At: 4:32pm 09-27-22
Strongly oppose the proposal.As has been stated by residents multiple times in previous meetings, we have major concerns on the impact to our neighborhood coming from the high-density housing. It is already a very congested area. It would not do justice to even the people living in the high-density housing as there is just not enough space to accommodate such a dense structure in this area. It will have negative impact on the traffic situation, school intake and pose environment safety concerns.
XI YI
Location:
Submitted At: 4:28pm 09-27-22
The project proposes a ratio of 0.72 per unit or 82 spots. Parking overflow will worsen the congestion in our neighborhood. In addition, a 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.
Vishal SL
Location:
Submitted At: 4:18pm 09-27-22
Please do not approve this development. This is not the right location. The council members need to be mindful about the existing residents and their needs. We are already fighting an uphill battle with parking and space.
Building a high density building right behind our homes is not being considerate of our privacy and needs.
Biyao Zhao
Location:
Submitted At: 4:06pm 09-27-22
We already suffered from safety issues and it is already difficult to park in the neighborhood. We saw broken car windows many times. Just a few weeks back, our neighbors got catalytic converters stolen from their cars. We had packages stolen. Please DO NOT make our life even harder.
Jay Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 3:47pm 09-27-22
Please do not worsen the life of residents in Santa Clara. This area has been known for over population, difficult to park, no control over late night screamer on foot and on bike or in vehicle, lots of trucks, lots of uninvited visitors coming into the neighborhood. Do we want another SF? Tianyi Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:25pm 09-27-22
As a current resident, I'm deeply concerned the negative impact by the development, including over-densed population and parking problems.
Deepa H
Location:
Submitted At: 12:42pm 09-27-22
We have heard about State Mandates and the fear of State punishment if this project does not get approved. We remind the Council there is no State Mandate to have this PD project approved right here and now. Our State Reps have made it clear that each City has broad discretion on how to meet RHNA and there is enough room and time in the Housing Element for the City to comfortably meet RHNA. We want our Council to represent us, fight for us and not the Mandates. I support 3 levels at half density Danny Wong
Location:
Submitted At: 11:35am 09-27-22
Our neighborhood is getting way too dense, and this development is going to make matters worse for everyone that lives in this area.
Stephanie Chow
Location:
Submitted At: 11:09am 09-27-22
This project putting a high density housing in a neighborhood that doesn't have the space where it will bring more people/traffic. The safety of the current residents should come first. I cannot even have friends over as parking is so limited. The medical center on Civic Center/Warburton RECENTL Y had their red curb painted gray. Red is for emergency vehicles, so it amazed me to see it was painted over so we can squeeze 2-3 more cars on the street.
We have an issue, don't make it a bigger one.
Yu Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 10:44am 09-27-22
I feel unsafe with large population moving in. I walk my dog in the morning, I feel unsafe that more and more cars driving without speed limit around. Also i live by myself, I also feel unsafe that people gather and talking on the street right by my home. With higher density, I can feel it getting worse. Maybe the county want me to move out.
Eric Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 10:38am 09-27-22
I have lived in this area since 2002 and over the past 20 years there has been increasingly dense housing development in this area year after year. As a result, existing residential QoL has steadily declined over the years without any remedy by the City to address the growing population. Why does Council continually see fit to sacrifice the status quo of existing residents to benefit the interests of real estate developers? This project is a bad fit for this neighborhood and I strongly oppose.
C F
Location:
Submitted At: 10:02am 09-27-22
This project putting a high density housing apartment in the neighborhood without doing enough research on the impact of local traffic, parking, safety, environment harmony. The low-income families deserve better living conditions with enough support of policemen, fire fighters and elementary school staff. dwarkanath sakpal
Location:
Submitted At: 8:43am 09-27-22
We strongly oppose the proposed project at 1601 civic center Dr. There is hardly any sufficient space for the structure .
No parking space even for existing residents . Law and order problem ,theft , house break may arise in future.
Request the council members to allow town houses 1+2 instead.
Eleen Chai
Location:
Submitted At: 8:02am 09-27-22
I oppose the project given that the parking space cannot support the residential need of the 108 rental units and will cause crowded neighborhood.
ying yang
Location:
Submitted At: 12:19am 09-27-22
The community is already very packed. The new built of the housing will definitely decrease our life quality.
Fung Yi
Location:
Submitted At: 11:24pm 09-26-22
The parking lot next to Triton Ct's fence needs to be eliminated. It has no security gate, away from a main street, and can become very discreet. If built, it will be a magnet for car theft, vandalism, illegal dumping, and shady businesses dealing. Unsecured dead end alley style parking lot design should be avoided with any projects. And why does it have to be this way? Because CH doesn't have anymore leeway to accommodate a better parking design due to very high-density. Lower density, please! Xueyang Hu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:49pm 09-26-22
Oppose
Kevin Lim
Location:
Submitted At: 9:50pm 09-26-22
Limited public parking available to support such high density projects Danxue Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 9:18pm 09-26-22
This is Danxue Huang living in 1440 Civic Center Dr, Santa Clara, CA. I strongly oppose the 1601 Civic Center Drive proposal due to the proposed parking lot, I have been suffered from sleeping problem and do worry about the noise and lights from vehicle headlights, people opening and closing the vehicle doors.
Tianjia Chen
Location:
Submitted At: 9:15pm 09-26-22
This will increase the population density of an already crowded neighborhood. Parking, school, infra and other neighborhood amenities will all get impacted negatively for the residents.
Edna Pampy
Location:
Submitted At: 8:27pm 09-26-22
Oppose any amendment/rezoning of 1601 from commercial to residential. City is losing too many small businesses & jobs. I need to travel to other cities for basic goods & services. Any redevelopment should include underground parking, traffic & pedestrian study for safety, including adding stop lights to intersections at Warburton & Civic Center Drive and Warburton & Lincoln due to lack of line of site for vehicular traffic, because of street parking, including homeless encampments.
Rajendra Kundapur
Location:
Submitted At: 8:03pm 09-26-22
Santa Clara will meet the state requirements of low-income housing by more than %130+. So, there is no reason to add additional burden on the current infra like water, sewer, electricity, etc. which was not designed to take the current infra load. We don’t understand why in the name of low-income housing, others seem to fulfil their own desires. We should make sure any proposal meets the needs for low-income as well as the taxpayer’s needs who are supporting such initiative.
Jaspreet Kaur
Location:
Submitted At: 7:14pm 09-26-22
I strongly oppose this “proposal” for our community as it will only increase the level of safety concerns for the current residence with the amount of attention it will bring to our residence. For years there has been no effort to improve parking safety and this will cause high levels of stress for the individuals already finding it difficult to find street parking for them and their guests. We need our neighborhood to feel more safer and not fear what level of threat awaits our loved ones.
Duanya Tu
Location:
Submitted At: 5:01pm 09-26-22
Can’t tolerate another building in such a high density community! Bryce Yao
Location:
Submitted At: 4:54pm 09-26-22
Community is already dealing with a ton of issues including not enough parking and elevated security concerns.
More effort should be focused on making this neighborhood safer and more stable!!! Inderpal Kaur
Location:
Submitted At: 4:28pm 09-26-22
I have lived in this neighborhood for 16 years and have seen it become more and more unsafe over time. The number of developments here over the years has raised a serious parking concern. We are forced to park far away after late nights at work and are faced with dangerous situations. I am a proponent of affordable housing, but as it is, the development is not well planned. It will greatly exacerbate parking issues. We deserve to feel safe/not worry needlessly about our families’ well being.
Sneha Shah
Location:
Submitted At: 4:26pm 09-26-22
Please lower the density of the neighborhood by only allowing a 2-3 storey building.
Please increase the parking per unit - 2. It will avoid the burden on the already crowded streets Zhou Yu
Location:
Submitted At: 3:47pm 09-26-22
It will lead to a high density for this neighborhood, also introduce lots of security concerns.
Lydia Mi
Location:
Submitted At: 2:45pm 09-26-22
Charities Housing plans to build only 82 parking space for 108 units. Lots of cars will have to park in the street, making the already overcrowded neighborhood even more unsustainable. Low-income people need cars to commute to work, chauffeur kids to school and go to hospitals. Rapid rehousing participants need cars to find jobs. Y ou can't force them to spend 3 hours commuting by bus every day. We need to build public transportation as convenient as New Y ork before cutting parking space.
VENEE CRUZ
Location:
Submitted At: 2:27pm 09-26-22
. CH relies on the many windows on the west side of the building to provide visual security of the proposed west parking lot, but this design will impact the privacy of Triton Ct residents. If they don’t have the windows, there will be less security, CH suggested installing cameras, but that won’t deter crimes and we can’t be sure how they are monitored, or will be monitored at all. Window view rendering was never provided by CH to show Triton Ct privacy impact
MARIA ESPINOSA
Location:
Submitted At: 2:02pm 09-26-22
Noise and lights from the proposed west parking lot will greatly impact Triton Ct residents: Triton Ct residents can talk about impact from light and noise from the proposed west parking lot. Lights from vehicle headlights, noise from vehicle exhaust/stereo/subwoofer or people talking, lights from security lighting in the lot, noise from people opening and closing vehicle doors and the building access door (from the lot) David Sternitzke
Location:
Submitted At: 1:50pm 09-26-22
Too high a density for this neighborhood, no parking, traffic congestion, noise.
Cheryl Deng
Location:
Submitted At: 12:29pm 09-26-22
Although I am a proponent of affordable housing, the current high-density plans will have negative impact on our already crowded community, the ability to find parking, and the quality of our schools. I agree with suggestions from other residents to reconsider the plan and reduce the planned number of units.
Liz Lemmer
Location:
Submitted At: 12:14pm 09-26-22
Charities Housing, please tell me how you'll assign 82 parking spots to 108 units. Are you going to assign parking to only non-rapid rehousing (non-RRH) tenants? How could RRH people find a job or go to hospitals without a car? They have only 2 years of chance to meet program criteria or they drop out. How much time will they waste on taking the bus or looking for parking spots? Y ou need 1 onsite parking space per bedroom at least. This neighborhood can't accommodate more cars.
Anshul Jindal
Location:
Submitted At: 11:55am 09-26-22
Crime will increase by building a high density affordable housing. It will also worsen noise/traffic/parking/safety concers specially this close to city hall.
Al Iriberri
Location:
Submitted At: 11:51am 09-26-22
As a long time resident of Santa Clara (16+ years) we’re happy to see the unused commercial building being redeveloped - but not in this manner. The lack of planning to accommodate parking needs, the impact on the community with traffic and the apparent lack of foresight appear to show a reckless and uncaring attitude towards those of us who love the area. They need to reconsider (add a garage? reduce the size?) and listen to potential neighbors’ concerns.
Nam Kim
Location:
Submitted At: 11:47am 09-26-22
I believe that affordable housing is important, but this plan is clearly not well thought out not only for the neighborhood, but also the low income tenants that it should benefit. The planned building is too high and overcrowded in an already overcrowded area. The lack of planned parking just shows even further that there has not been enough thought put into the effects that this building will have on the neighborhood.
Jason Choe
Location:
Submitted At: 11:46am 09-26-22
This development will make the already dense and crowded neighborhood a really big issue due to the limited parking and infrastructure, as well as the lack of amenities. Therefore I oppose the proposal.
Congyao Tang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:32am 09-26-22
I fully support more affordable housing, but I think it should be a benefit for the low income tenants and also neighborhood.
This plan failed to provide a decent living place as it only provide 0.7 parking per unit. How could the working people get to work on time without a car? Buses will take you easily two hours and if they are late to work they will be fired.
Also this plan has not considered any benefits for the neighborhood, which is already too crowded.
Neha Khattri
Location:
Submitted At: 11:32am 09-26-22
I have major concerns on what this project means for our future generations. Education is critical to success, and with this project, Scott Lane Elementary school will have about 85% low income students. The school already suffers from poor ratings both on academic scores and equity, and this project is going to only make it worse. The perils far outweigh the pros especially when we consider the long term impact on our future generations, and the future of the city, county, and state
L Li
Location:
Submitted At: 9:16pm 09-25-22
This area already has a lot of issues including suspicious people, petty crime, noise in the midnight, bad smells, car break in, and a lot more. Building a high density affordable housing will deteriorate the situation and force existing community to live a worse neighborhood.
Atul Madhusudan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:35pm 09-25-22
The high density housing development plan is not a good fit for our neighborhood. Cramming 108 units in such a small lot with limited parking spaces is going to contribute to a lot of noise/traffic issues/parking issues/ lack of safety for children. The neighborhood is already crowded enough and this development plan is going to only exacerbate the current problems.
Yifan Jiang
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 09-25-22
I oppose this High Density Residential project with 108 units at 1601 Civic Center Drive. A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood.
Sunil B
Location:
Submitted At: 4:58pm 09-25-22
This needs to be scaled down to 3-Levels and Half the Density to make any sense on such a tiny lot, in an already crowded neighborhood suffering from significant problems like traffic/parking/noise and lack of amenities.
Developer does NOT care in the slightest about neighbors + Quality Of Life for existing/new residents. It is just trying to maximize the profits for its investors using lucrative tax credits on the backs of taxpayers. This NonProfit is calling itself Charities, beyond shameful!
Jean Song
Location:
Submitted At: 8:47pm 09-24-22
Charities Housing plans to build only 82 parking space for 108 units. Lots of cars will have to park in the street, making the already overcrowded neighborhood even more unsustainable. Low-income people need cars to commute to work, chauffeur kids to school and go to hospitals. Rapid rehousing participants need cars to find jobs. Y ou can't force them to spend 3 hours commuting by bus every day. We need to build public transportation as convenient as New Y ork before cutting parking space.
In Seok Hwang
Location:
Submitted At: 6:56pm 09-24-22
High density development would cause many issues in this neighborhood, especially for street parking availability and traffic safety of Civic Center Dr. Well balanced plan with moderate density considering the adjacent neighborhood's living conditions such parking space and shadow impact is highly desirable.
Brenda Collins
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 09-24-22
High density development is not a fit for this neighborhood. The development will exasperate the lack if street parking; increase unmonitored traffic entry point onto Civic Center Drive, and add to the Title 1 school depriving more students of a good foundational education and I’ll prepared to be successful in high school or hopes for attending college.