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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I strong oppose this development, this too high density development. Our neighborhood is overcrowded and parking is not enough.
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
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.
I oppose this development, this high density development is poorly thought out and will have adverse effect in our neighbourhood.
Parking is already quite bad, please accommodate parking spaces.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.