Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2022-11-15 4:30 PM 11-15-22 16:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Closed Session - 4:30 PM | Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM 1 0 1 0
1.C 22-1392 Conference with Real Property Negotiators (CC) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95050; APN:
224-49-006
City/Authority Negotiator: Rajeev Batra, City Manager (or designee) Negotiating Parties: Charities Housing, Kathy Robinson
Under Negotiation: Purchase/Sale/Exchange/Lease of Real Property (provisions, price and terms)
1 0 1 0
8. 22-1257 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 (Continued from September 27, 2022)
83 2 81 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 Closed Session - 4:30 PM | Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM Overall Sentiment
Bob Izet
Location:
Submitted At: 8:53pm 11-14-22
Strongly oppose.
Agenda Item: eComments for 1.C 22-1392 Conference with Real Property Negotiators (CC) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 1601 Civic Center Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95050; APN: 224-49-006 City/Authority Negotiator: Rajeev Batra, City Manager (or designee) Negotiating Parties: Charities Housing, Kathy Robinson
Under Negotiation: Purchase/Sale/Exchange/Lease of Real Property (provisions, price and terms) Overall Sentiment
MaryAnn Sullivan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:49pm 11-15-22
too high density
Agenda Item: eComments for 8. 22-1257 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 (Continued from September 27, 2022)
Overall Sentiment
Hector Espinola
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20pm 11-15-22
I strongly opposed the project at 1601 Civic Center Drive Ray Sport
Location:
Submitted At: 7:20pm 11-15-22
I strongly oppose the charity housing project. It's density is too high to support the infrastructure, project is not well thought out and the CH track record is the worst. I highly encourage the city to take the concernsof members of the community in consideration
Sima He
Location:
Submitted At: 6:47pm 11-15-22
I am strongly opposed to this project. The building is too tall and overshadows neighboring two story homes. The parking in our neighborhood is already terrible. The streets are filthy and there is petty crime. Why does the developer not make the new street on the project open into Lincoln instead of CCD? We need a park not more high density housing. Besides, why should we trust Charities Housing when they let a homeless encampment operate in our backyards for 13 months?
Phil Kliza
Location:
Submitted At: 6:43pm 11-15-22
The existing Park deficit for this neighborhood reminds me of the old saying "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
Vote NO on rezoning 1601 from Office to hi-density Residential.
Ganyu Lian
Location:
Submitted At: 5:52pm 11-15-22
I Strongly oppose this proposal. The idea to build another high density residential building in this area is disastrous for current residents in the neighborhood. We have suffered enough from insufficient parking space now; this proposal is adding gas to the fire. When planning, we should locate such high density residential building in less crowded areas and provide public amenities like park or extra parking spaces for this neighborhood.
David Weigand
Location:
Submitted At: 5:48pm 11-15-22
We HIGHL Y OPPOSE this high density and parking nightmare in our neighborhood. We already have a horrible parking problem on the streets of our neighborhood.
MaryAnn Sullivan
Location:
Submitted At: 5:47pm 11-15-22
Too high density, yields too many issues
Maria Joaquim
Location:
Submitted At: 5:42pm 11-15-22
We need SENIOR HOUSING !!!
Reshma Kotwal
Location:
Submitted At: 3:51pm 11-15-22
Strongly oppose. We support affordable housing but this project has loop holes/flaws which will also impact the quality of life for future residents of this project. Due to the ultra high density requirement of this project, it does not fit well into this neighborhood that's already stretched thin on civic resources such as parking, schooling, security of residents, pedestrian/children safety, unmonitored tractor trailer parking, drug usage and disposal and much more.
Lydia Mi
Location:
Submitted At: 3:39pm 11-15-22
This development will make the neighbor more crowded and the parking situation worse, not even to mention the safety of the community.
Tina Dai
Location:
Submitted At: 3:23pm 11-15-22
I'm strongly opposed to this project. It brings high housing density and the lacks parking for the number of units as proposed. We need to spend more effort on improving quality of life for the current neighborhood residents and the quality of life those future residents in the proposed development.
Morteza Shafiei
Location:
Submitted At: 3:03pm 11-15-22
I have lived in this community for the past 18 years and have worked in Santa Clara for the past 28 years. The proposed 5-story, ultra-high-density building, without adequate parking, will overwhelm our neighborhood's already strained resources. As existing residents of this neighborhood, we are asking a) density/height of the building to be reduced by 50% and adequate parking to be added to the plan.
DAVID BAYTO
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 11-15-22
I'm opposed to this project due to the high housing density of the project and the project lacking parking for the number of units as proposed. I feel that this project as proposed would result in a reduction in the quality of life for the current neighborhood residents and also the quality of life those future residents in the proposed development.
Edna Pampy
Location:
Submitted At: 2:42pm 11-15-22
Strongly oppose the high density development. There is no rational reason to rezone from the researched and publicly vetted General Plan. The proposed amendment does not address or mitigate parking, air pollution, traffic patterns, congestion, vehicular, pedestrian & bicycle safety, & totally ignores how tall buildings block out sunlight to neighboring homes & their ability to grow food in kitchen gardens and fruit tress. Our neighborhood is NOT allowed to use the SC Community Garden!!!
Jasmine Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 11-15-22
strongly opposed!
B Jam
Location:
Submitted At: 2:12pm 11-15-22
This action severely and negatively impacts the quality of life for the residents living in this neighborhood and paying taxes over the years, some for more than a few decades.
Sunil B
Location:
Submitted At: 1:22pm 11-15-22
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 and new residents. It is just trying to maximize the profits for its investors using lucrative tax credits on the backs of taxpayers. City should be smart and only allow balanced development.
James Kim
Location:
Submitted At: 1:17pm 11-15-22
Please hear the voices of this already overcrowded neighborhood in our opposition to the high density housing proposal by Charities Housing.
Flora Kho
Location:
Submitted At: 1:07pm 11-15-22
I strongly oppose this project. A new development plan should consider the existing problem of a community.
Building a high-density apartment in a crowded community will raise a lot of potential conflict and problems.
Please listen to the voice of community members! Thanks! M V
Location:
Submitted At: 1:05pm 11-15-22
Strongly opposed to the proposed development as it stands. Plopping a 5-story, high density housing development in the middle of this already overcrowded neighborhood is the last thing anyone who actually lives here wants. Please listen to the voices of the neighborhood residents who actually live in close proximity to this proposed development.
Jay Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 1:03pm 11-15-22
Rushing to pass is not a sustainable solution. Why are we trying to ruin our beloved community? Sridhar Lakshminarayana
Location:
Submitted At: 12:57pm 11-15-22
reduce density of housing; add more parks and open spaces Anna Gao
Location:
Submitted At: 12:57pm 11-15-22
this high-density building will highly affect our mental and physical health. Strongly oppose the proposal.
Rcihard Zheng
Location:
Submitted At: 12:57pm 11-15-22
This development will make the neighbor more crowded and the parking situation worse, not even to mention the safety of the community.
Brenda Collins
Location:
Submitted At: 12:52pm 11-15-22
I oppose the planned development due to the current congested conditions in the area of Civi Center Dr. The development is not suited for an area such a small area already low on city services and amenities.
Cheryl De
Location:
Submitted At: 12:50pm 11-15-22
The neighborhood seems so crowded as-is and the parking situation has gotten worse over the past year or so.
Some proponents of the plan have mentioned that the location is car-free or car-lite but if this is truly the case, why has it been so difficult even now to find a parking space? A project of this density will decrease the quality of life of current residents and our families.
Danny Wong
Location:
Submitted At: 12:48pm 11-15-22
Our neighborhood is not the ideal site for this project as it is already way too dense and does not have enough street parking for current residents.
XI YI
Location:
Submitted At: 12:39pm 11-15-22
We really can't have another property with such a high density in our neighborhood. Parking here is already really hard. My family and friends sometimes can't find parking when visiting us and have to park serval blocks away.
Please please vote NO or at lease reduce the density.
Cynthia Strysko
Location:
Submitted At: 12:38pm 11-15-22
Our neighborhood is at capacity and cannot accommodate another high density residential project. The height of the building, severe lack of parking, lack of clarity around resident vetting process, and demonstrated track record of negligence from CH are all warning signs that implementing this project would add congestion, exacerbate safety issues, and increase conflict in the community. A smaller residential project or public activity centers would be a much better use of the space.
Margarita Bliznikova
Location:
Submitted At: 11:53am 11-15-22
The neighborhood already has not enough parking space, and here is significant lack of parks where people can recreate. Adding the high density residential building (with just 0.7 parking space per unit) to former commercial area would only negatively impact the infrastructure and quality of life for current residents and for the future ones.
While affordable housing is important, it should be planned thoroughly and not negatively affect the environment and existing communities
Strongly oppose
Vishal SL
Location:
Submitted At: 11:32am 11-15-22
I strongly oppose this project, not opposed to low-income housing - all in support for helping out the community.
However, the location for this project is not ideal. The neighborhood is already crowded, post 5pm no parking available on the streets. Please consider building a park that brings the community together and something which this neighborhood absolutely needs! Please consider our homes and privacy since we are directly adjacent to the proposed development.
Congyao Tang
Location:
Submitted At: 11:16am 11-15-22
I fully understand we need more affordable housing in our country, but I oppose this project because:
1. This neighborhood is over crowded already, not a suitable place for another high density apartments.
2. Charities housing failed to create a decent living space for its potential tenants, only providing 0.7 parking space per unit
3. Charities housing has not thoroughly considered potential harm to the neighbors, and is not willing to cooperate with us or compromise anything
B Yan
Location:
Submitted At: 11:01am 11-15-22
I strongly oppose this project. This area is already overcrowded. Available parking is not available. The current people living in this area will suffer because of this project. This will not make this area or the city a better place to live. Strongly oppose!
Olga Valerevna
Location:
Submitted At: 10:48am 11-15-22
Oppose this development. It’s very poorly thought out I support low income housing this development doesn’t fit this already dense neighborhood. No parking at all for a few blocks, very minimal access to public transit access, no parks or neighborhood amenities. Schools don’t have the resources to serve the incoming families.
Who is this exactly helping other than Charities Housing getting access to state funds for development? It’s not the community nor families!
Disha Shetty
Location:
Submitted At: 10:42am 11-15-22
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.
Svetlana Bolotova
Location:
Submitted At: 10:38am 11-15-22
I voted for the green park with playground for kids in the last meeting. But this area was declined. But our neighborhood is already overcrowded, we suffer from the lack of parking lots. We don’t have place for a rest.
Even for walking, we have to drive to another city. Why council doesn’t hear us? Simon Yegh
Location:
Submitted At: 10:37am 11-15-22
Strongly oppose this development. Low income housing is a priority but needs to fit into the location. There are severe parking problems already on this street. This won’t help the new residents of a development. 1 nearby school is not taking new registrations, there are no amenities(park space is less than 1/2 of guideline for neighborhood) also city will pay for the extra resources & infrastructure expenses like sewage etc. where will this money?
C F
Location:
Submitted At: 10:30am 11-15-22
I strongly oppose this proposal. Affordable housing is needed. But this neighbor is already with high density and limited parking space.1601 project will make traffic dangerous for pedestrians and kids ( We need more traffic lights and crossroads to be built in the neighborhood) . Also we don't have enough firefighters, policemen, teachers to handle the added population. Santa Clara city should be able to find other better places to build such tall & high density building.
Duanya Tu
Location:
Submitted At: 10:29am 11-15-22
The last thing we need is another five story building which added to the density of this already congested community. I highly oppose this project!
Matvei Iliunov
Location:
Submitted At: 10:26am 11-15-22
Our neighborhood is suffering from lack of parking slots. We are surrounded wide roads and we don’t have even playground for kids.
John Gueron
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 11-15-22
Please designate 1601 Civic Center Drive as parkland (severely deficient neighborhood) rather than a high- density project. A five-story building will create significant and irreversible effects on adjacent residents (e.g., noise, shadows, loss of privacy) and, more broadly, exacerbate existing parking issues (e.g., multiple cars park in red zones night after night).
Al Iriberri
Location:
Submitted At: 9:49am 11-15-22
Affordable housing is needed - but in a way that the neighborhood can logistically support - this project simply does not meet that standard.
Min Yang
Location:
Submitted At: 8:49am 11-15-22
This high density house will cause the current residents too much bad affects.
Fung Yi
Location:
Submitted At: 1:03am 11-15-22
I disagree with SCU Professor CJ Gabbe’s comment about the site is great for car-free living. We don’t have the leisure time to wait for a bus to go to work, hospital appointment or picking up kids from school. Santa Clara is a suburb for the most part and public transit is not as good as big cities like SF . A car is the most reliable transit mode for us working families. We need our cars and parking spaces, so as the future residents of 1601 CCD. I oppose this project for insufficient parking.
Xinyu Zou
Location:
Submitted At: 12:01am 11-15-22
I strongly oppose the project. The apartment and townhomes on Civic Center Dr already make it a high-density community, and the new project will make it even worse, not to mention how the new driveway will worsen the traffic on the road.
Daniel Cheng
Location:
Submitted At: 11:48pm 11-14-22
Oppose, I'd love to support affordable housing but CH has not provided a good solution to any of the parking or congestion problems that will inevitably come up
Orit Skorka
Location:
Submitted At: 10:43pm 11-14-22
Population density in our neighborhood is already high and parking is already a major problem. During evenings and night times, there are always cars that are parked in areas that are marked in red, where they shouldn't park for good reasons. A significant increase in population density without sufficient parking will only make things worse and can create very unsafe conditions.
Joe Jing
Location:
Submitted At: 10:04pm 11-14-22
The neighborhood is already too crowded and the city has found the area to be below average in terms of park acreage per person. This project in its current form (108 units will insufficient assigned parking spaces per unit) will only exacerbate both of these issues.
Donata Makuta
Location:
Submitted At: 9:51pm 11-14-22
Not sure whether my last vote went through. I oppose this effort. We already have enough low income housing projects planned or underway.
Ihab Badr
Location:
Submitted At: 9:21pm 11-14-22
The following items should be adequately addressed
1. Reduce density to 50%, and reduce the height to a maximum of 3 levels, and 30 degree viewing angles.
2. There should be no driveway access to Civic Center Drive.
3. The parking ratio for the project is inadequate. It should be addressed.
Bob Izet
Location:
Submitted At: 8:51pm 11-14-22
We strongly oppose the new project , our 4 young children need a park .The new project will create a nightmare parking and traffic situation.
Ye Cao
Location:
Submitted At: 6:39pm 11-14-22
I strongly oppose this proposal, the neighbor is already with high density and such 5-story 108 unit building will make the living environment even worse. Also the 18 month construction will bring noise, air pollution and cancel risk to the nearby residents. I do think we should find other more proper places to build such tall & high density building.
Avi S
Location:
Submitted At: 6:29pm 11-14-22
I oppose this high density development. There are so many kids in this neighborhood who need a park to play.
CH doesn't care for the quality of life for existing/ new residents. A lot of people are new to this neighborhood who have recently bought their houses in past 2 years. This neighborhood is already crowded and cannot afford such a high density project. We should seriously consider the impact and change either the location of the building or change the structure to low density 2-3 stories.
In Seok Hwang
Location:
Submitted At: 6:28pm 11-14-22
Need to have moderate density and parking space comparing adjacent neighborhoods for quality of life.
VENEE CRUZ
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 11-14-22
Opposing high density development in 1601 CCD, 100% not suitable for CHD plan project proposal.
CHD needs to lower density option, reduce height to a MAX of 3 levels,and 30 degree viewing angles.
NO driveway plan onto CCD, due to grossly inadequate parking. Parking overflow will worsen congestion in our neighborhood .
We believe in sustainable balanced development,and not Planned Development.
Please protect our community quality of life,that makes us to move forward … Never give UP !
Jean Song
Location:
Submitted At: 5:39pm 11-14-22
The land is way too small for 108 units. There is no sufficient parking. Why does everyone have to fight for parking and live in such an indecent way?
Shiqiu Zhang
Location:
Submitted At: 5:22pm 11-14-22
I strongly oppose this high-density development. There are many kids being raised in our neighborhood. Too many traffic, very little playground for kids. The construction plan will cause air pollution and noisy streets, making the environment even worse.
Eric Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 5:17pm 11-14-22
To date, Council has seen and heard the nearly universal local opposition to this CH project at 1601 CC Dr. If somehow the third-party, non-resident housing advocate opinions carry more weight than actual local residents who will have to live with this project as direct neighbors for decades to come, then I'm not sure what else can be said about this issue. I am strongly opposed to this proposal as it simply does not fit into the existing neighborhood and will decrease QoL for current residents.
Kevin Wang
Location:
Submitted At: 5:09pm 11-14-22
I am living in 1700 Civic Center Unit #212. It is also extremely difficult to find a parking near my home and this problem is getting worse year over year. I can't afford to have another project bringing even more difficulty in parking. I oppose it loudly! This is affecting the quality of EVERYONE's life in the neighborhood! Siqi Bai
Location:
Submitted At: 5:02pm 11-14-22
Affordable housing is important. But the location is also important. This location does not have the essential facilities for this plan.
Yifan Jiang
Location:
Submitted At: 4:17pm 11-14-22
Our neighborhood will not be able to support 108 more units without degrading current residents' living condition:
parking space, noise and pollution level, safety, etc. Living sustainability matters to us! Bryce Yao
Location:
Submitted At: 3:58pm 11-14-22
Proposed by bad reputation parties, I have no confidence that this plan is going to deliver what it claims and makes this neighborhood a better place to live. In fact it would only increase the crime rate and make this community continue to degrade. This item is STRONGL Y OPPOSED by all community members J C
Location:
Submitted At: 2:28pm 11-14-22
Strongly Oppose. Would not have moved here had I known about this development. Parking is already an issue in this neighborhood, especially with the townhouses being built on Warburton currently. This development would decrease quality of life for all surrounding residents.
A park is a much more appropriate and preferred option, especially with all the families living in this neighborhood and would increase QoL for everyone.
Vasily Igishev
Location:
Submitted At: 2:27pm 11-14-22
I strongly oppose this high-density development in our tiny overcrowded area. This place doesn't fit affordable housing needs due to a lack of parking, schooling, park amenities, and transportation. Working-class housing is extremely needed across the Bay Area, but this place was wrongly chosen without appropriate research. All residents are OPPOSE this project, and only CH and their paid allies will be voting for it. Listen to you your residents and not to the company with a dubious reputation.
C.J. Gabbe
Location:
Submitted At: 2:22pm 11-14-22
Charities Housing has created an attractive and thoughtfully-designed project to meet our housing needs. I am a professor of environmental studies at SCU and I recently supervised an SCU senior capstone team whose analysis demonstrated that the site is well-located for car-free (or car-lite) living given its proximity to public transportation, schools, grocery stores, and other services. This is exactly what Santa Clara needs and I urge you to approve it without further conditions.
Daming Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 2:21pm 11-14-22
I live in 1700 Civic Center Dr. This plan is unacceptable to me and my family. Too dense! May Hua
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 11-14-22
I oppose this high density development because this area is already highly dense with only 1.2 acre parkland, way below the city’s average. I moved to this area from 95051, and I see this difference and drastic change in density with my own eyes. Those that support the project support it on the grounds of providing affordable housing to low income households, I support that too but not at the cost of many other lives including my own. We should not be making this area denser than it already is.
Anshul Jindal
Location:
Submitted At: 2:08pm 11-14-22
I oppose it.
Kevin Sl
Location:
Submitted At: 1:21pm 11-14-22
While the goal of bringing affordable housing to Santa Clara is much needed, this project fails to provide housing without causing significant problems to the existing neighborhood. The existing community should not be subjected to a giant building to cram in low income residents at the cost of increasing local traffic, reducing the already limited parking, and inviting crime and vandalism to a neighborhood. I am an owner on Civic Center Drive and I strongly oppose this plan
B V
Location:
Submitted At: 12:04pm 11-14-22
I strongly oppose this current proposal by CH. I can’t imagine the amount of traffic that a 108 high density units might generate in addition to all the parking issues. This will obstruct quality of life for existing residents in this community. Taking the kids for evening stroll will be a nightmare with such increase in traffic. I would instead suggest a park or other recreational center to improve the quality of life for existing community residents.
Sunil Ra
Location:
Submitted At: 11:11am 11-14-22
I am a long time resident of the neighbor hood. I have seen a sharp rise in traffic accidents on Warburton Ave, Lincoln Ave next to the city center due to streets filled up with vehicles. Many incidents of vehicles getting swiped, auto burglaries including shooting over parking. Homelessness has gone up sharply as well making the streets unsafe to walk even during daytime. This project which will increase the density of people as well as cars causing further parking problem.
DH Hotch
Location:
Submitted At: 10:10am 11-14-22
Strongly Oppose,High density development is not a fit for this neighborhood. This is crowded neighborhood suffering from significant problems like traffic/parking/noise and lack of amenities. Developer does NOT care in the slightest about neighbors + QoL for existing/new residents.The developer continues to be untrustworthy and resorts to spin and misinform.They are trying to maximize the profits for its investors using lucrative tax credits on the backs of taxpayers. Please vote NO for project.
dwarkanath sakpal
Location:
Submitted At: 9:57am 11-14-22
Earnestly request the City council NOT to give a green signal to the high density project of 108 units . Presently it is difficult to find parking space on a daily bases . With this proposed new project it will add to chaos . Instead a park with recreation facility would be preferred.
L Li
Location:
Submitted At: 11:09pm 11-13-22
A 5-story building with 108 units is too high, dense and not a good fit for our neighborhood. CH shrewdly opted out of the ECR Specific Plan to avoid objective standards contemplated in the ‘Plan’. As a Planned Development (PD), the City has the authority to ask the developer to conform to more stringent standards than the ECR Specific Plan. We ask that the project plan reflect any changes made on an on-going basis.
Stephanie Chow
Location:
Submitted At: 11:03pm 11-13-22
Not enough parking in this neighborhood. The car traffic that will come through our street will cause a lot more issues. More people traffic as well as our street is tight as it is.
Li Lu
Location:
Submitted At: 8:04pm 11-13-22
The proposed west CH parking lot adjacent to Triton Ct fence, without a secured gate, is a dead end alley hidden away from main street, which can easily become a ground for dumping, car break-ins and theft, such as catalytic converter theft. We believe crimes will increase because this design will attract criminals from elsewhere! Casper Wu
Location:
Submitted At: 7:59pm 11-13-22
Proposed CH will bring in at least 82 on-site and many street parked cars, which will attract more car thieves to the area. There will be no security gate on CH’s west CCD lot which will have about 30 cars out in the open. Street parking will increase because CH did not design with sufficient on-site parking. We believe crimes will increase, NOT because future CH tenants are criminals, but because more cars are sitting in the open attracting criminals from elsewhere.
ying yang
Location:
Submitted At: 6:42pm 11-13-22
Opposing having more housing development near my community, which will cause a more crowded living space and worse life quality.
Isaac Chai
Location:
Submitted At: 5:54pm 11-13-22
While I agree that we need more working class housing, I wish the building can be revised to include parking structure. The parking near by is already quite bad, with no means of public transit to replace driving. It's not very ideal for residents.
MARIA ESPINOSA
Location:
Submitted At: 4:52pm 11-13-22
Triton Ct privacy vs. parking lot security: Triton Ct residents can talk about this point. 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.
Kevin Lim
Location:
Submitted At: 3:12pm 11-13-22
our neighborhood is a severely park deficient neighborhood with 1.2 acres of parkland per 1000 residents vs. the standard of 2.6 acres per 1000 residents. This will increase neighborhood population density further and this will negatively impact local residents with lesser space for recreational. We need a park not another high density community to be build here
Yu Huang
Location:
Submitted At: 2:48pm 11-13-22
I oppose it. I live in this neighborhood
Kathryn Hedges
Location:
Submitted At: 10:30am 11-11-22
I support the project because Santa Clara needs workforce housing. Even the City's "affordable housing" requirement only mandates 100% AMI units--far above the incomes of retail workers, teachers, nurses, and entry- level City staff. Expecting them to commute from Fresno harms them, their families, and the climate. Tenants will get transit passes and a dedicated rideshare zone to reduce parking needs. Most opposition is based on fearmongering about "sex offenders near a school" that won't happen.