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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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
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. You can't force them to spend 3 hours commuting by bus every day. We need to build public transportation as convenient as New York before cutting parking space.
. 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
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)
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.
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? You need 1 onsite parking space per bedroom at least. This neighborhood can't accommodate more cars.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Can’t tolerate another building in such a high density community!
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!!!
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.
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
It will lead to a high density for this neighborhood, also introduce lots of security concerns.
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. You can't force them to spend 3 hours commuting by bus every day. We need to build public transportation as convenient as New York before cutting parking space.
. 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
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)
Too high a density for this neighborhood, no parking, traffic congestion, noise.
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.
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? You need 1 onsite parking space per bedroom at least. This neighborhood can't accommodate more cars.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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