Here is a plan for 440 Arden way that you should've been aware of for a Type IV LEED Gold development on this same plot of land:

https://www.dcrp2020.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Armory-Gardens_narrative_final.pdf

Looks like a design to maximize benefit to the community and future residents. Your plans fall far short of these by all metrics except for maximizing the extraction of value from the existing community, the State, and local government.

Or perhaps Jane was referring to this design coincident with yours but for only a 3 story building:

https://www.dcrp2020.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Armory-Gardens_narrative_final.pdf
or Maybe Jane was talking about this design/study/plan from 2007:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Long-Range/Transit-Oriented-Development/Northeast-Line-Implementation-Plan/Northeast-Line-Light-Rail-Stations-Plan.pdf?la=en

I would encourage you to look at page 75 of that .pdf to see what was part of this now abandoned expensive study/development plan for this location.

Jane Macaulay
If this developer had ANY interest in the actual residents nearby they would have taken our feedback at the start of this project. Y’all had zero interest then and less now. Exempt from required park contribution to the area and blind and disinterested in design or size changes. This "vacant" property HAD A PLAN - it was townhouses and a developed area with shopping for nearby residents. This community spent millions of dollars on a plan - and the city and developers ignored it. At this point - good luck - we will start counting the pedestrian fatalities from your parking lot on the very busy Arden Way. Money was and will always be the end game for these folks. Helping people is last on your list just above community participation.

Elaine J
Woodlake does not have enough park space as it is. You need to provide green space for this project and not use the Park as your backyard. You are not providing any funds for Park Space, instead your taking away from the already small park space for the Community.

Also it is not required to have parking but every area of Sacramento has vehicles even downtown. Your tenants mostly will to and you will be taking everyone in the area’s parking space at the park. Yes your tenants and visitors will take up all parking in the area.

This area has very few sidewalks. Do you realize how dangerous it is for all the tenants too?
Canterbury has no sidewalks. What neighborhood builds so many multi-family projects that endanger the lives of the people that live there. How dangerous will it be with all the increased tenants sharing the roadway-pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. This does’nt include the lack of lighting. It is wreckless for these projects to be approved with no plan to address the dangerous conditions.
The City is spending millions around Sacramento for Pedestrian Safety and in this neighborhood it is going in the opposite direction. Making it more dangerous to all is shocking and quite frankly a case can be made for all who participate in these projects to be liable for any injuries or death do to the dangerous street conditions here.

This project should be reduced in size and all the for-mentioned should be addressed.

Diane W
Reduce the number of units and provide parking for all plus their guests. Otherwise you will be creating additional problems for the neighborhood . Also, provide green space and barbecues etc for outdoor living and dining. It’s not appropriate to stuff these people in tiny little apartments without providing outdoor space for them. Woodlake park is not your solution.

Please share the steps you will be taking to ensure a minimal impact on traffic safety as advised by your traffic consultant. Please identify your traffic consultant. Please publish the results of your "work" with this consultant.

John f
Construction hasn’t even started and the only sidewalk is already blocked by the “temporary “ fence which looks crappy.

The Creative Crosswalk program is literally just "street art" between the crosswalk lines which everyone knows will greatly increase the safety of poorly located cross walks in dense traffic situations What a joke that you are relying on this to answer community concerns. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Transportation/Active-Transportation/CityofSacramentoCriteriaandGuidanceforCreativeCrosswalksCouncil-Approved-20210504.pdf?la=en

Lana M
More open space and fewer massive apartment complexes. Nothing is planned to improve the local infrastructure which barely supports current needs.

Lana M
I have questions: 1. Your initial proposal had 2 options. One with 102 units if Bridge did not acquire adjacent property and another with 124 units if they did. Am I to assume Bridge now is acquiring the adjacent property as the larger project is the only one described here? 2. This site mentions CEQUA review. Is that happening. I thought the ministerial infill process was being used which does not require CEQUA or any environmental review for that matter? 3. The before & after visuals of this development from the Police Officer Memorial perspective show a large boulevard separating the project from the memorial. Currently there is only a narrow driveway. How is it a boulevard would be constructed?

I just love how BRIDGE Housing Corporation hides behind these nameless faceless canned corporate responses to the communities concerns. Your endless appetite to absorb public resources will only make homelessness and housing affordability worse in the long run. Corporations like yours, especially developers, have gamed the system for so long you don't even know you are doing it. The public is getting sick of your economic gerrymandering to benefit the few over the needs of the many.

Your building at 1950 Mission St. in San Francisco is operated like a SRO hotel in the SF Tenderloin and it appears to be a model for this project. Entrance and exits monitored by staff, a staff member dedicated to placement of a constant churn of residents falling in and out of residency compliance. In the Case of 1950 Mission St, placement and qualifications are assisted and vetted by a very large city government administration called the Mayors Office of Housing. There is no such organization like that in Sacramento. Are you going to vet and place all residents with your own staff?

"Urbanist" want a conveniently located workforce warehoused in crappy housing so they can pay them less. This project fits that bill perfectly not to mention the publicly subsidized Bridge Housing ownership stake that will exist in perpetuity or until Bridge bails on the project after 10 years throwing the neighborhood and the housing residents to the klepto capitalist wolves.

Kristen Perry
It’s too big and ugly- a total mistake

Bridge Housing should be required to pay for sidewalks and traffic mitigation at least between this housing project and the local school. Should also be required to fund two new teachers and two new classrooms at the local elementary school

Pat SH
Limit the building size to 2 stories or move someplace else. Not in our park.

Stuart Gow
This project will physically dominate our community, monopolize our green space and congest our roads. But there are nearby spaces where this project could instead improve the environment. The inflexibility and the lack of imagination and foresight from the State and Bridge is awful. The community knows this project is a huge mistake so why can’t you listen Bridge?

Kristen Perry
When Bridge applied for the federal and state grants maybe you should have considered the neighborhood first. A two maybe three story building with the complimentary architecture and a really nice place to live for our new neighbors should have been required. At almost 100 million dollars to build this should be beautiful and innovating with solar, water wise roof garden and water efficient appliances, etc. what happened?

My understanding is that traffic studies of this sort depend entirely on "point in time" traffic counts. I bet no consideration will be given to likely increases in traffic volume in the future.

Karen S
When doing this traffic study, don’t forget to add in the effects of the new school directly across the street from this project—eventually to serve 400 students!

Arthur D
We live on Woodlake Drive directly across from this looming monstrosity. We will see this beast from our beautiful 1960’s bungalow front window every day. It is horrifying that this is being dumped in our neighborhood. Woodlake, which was featured by Preservation Sacramento, is the crown jewel of Old North Sacramento. It is an historic neighborhood and should be protected from reckless development like this. It is crazy this is even being allowed. Woodlake is a quant English village full of historic homes, most of which date between 1910 and the 1960’s. Woodlake home prices range from 600 thousand up to a million or more, this is not a cookie-cutter residential neighborhood. A five-story building in Sacramento’s most beautiful suburban residential park is insane. There is not another five-story residential building anywhere in North Sacramento. There is barely anything over two-stories and yet you are putting one here in the historic Woodlake neighborhood park, that is nuts. Del Paso Boulevard is where low-income development is needed and justified. It has the Art Deco style you are claiming to emulate. But there is nothing Art Deco or appealing about this atrocious structure of concrete, metal siding, and glass. Enormous address numbers in a font that looks vaguely Art Deco-ish "lipstick on a pig" will not transform this blocky institutional looking building into something appealing for Woodlake or North Sacramento!

Pat SH
Five stories is inappropriate for this location. It is in a park. It is adjacent to the Police and Sheriff Memorial. Woodlake has more than its fair share of low income housing with CHW on east, Volunteers of America on Del Paso Blvd, vouchers at Surestay on the South, and low income housing on Lochbrae.

Stacy Lunetta
What do we need to do to stop this project like East Sac - get an attorney

Elaine J
I think you should find a better location. We need more Park Space as this area already has the worst Air Quality. Could Bridge find a Better Location for this size of Project.

Elaine J
Telling People that Transit will stop Vehicle use is wrong. I have know many people who live in Mid-town and Downtown Sacramento. They all had vehicles. Some even regularly paid Parking fines. I can think of many. I also have been in many Affordable housing projects and one thing they all had in common was they all had a lot of Vehicles. Please tell the Truth Bridge Housing. I know from experience.

"onboarding"? Seriously? So it won't really be an independent traffic study. My understanding is that a "formal traffic study" will only measure Level of Service at major arteries and intersections. Your project will literally be "urbanizing" a quiet suburban neighborhood causing gross impact on parking and traffic on narrow, quiet neighborhood roads. Roads that were never intended to support an apartment complex of this magnitude. Please make sure your onboarded traffic consultant takes into account in a realistic manner the effect your project will have on this community, not just major arteries and intersections. And please publish those results well in advance of furtherance of this project.

Pat SH
Woodlake is unique place with old English flavor. Keep the 2 story limit.

At the city council meeting on May 31, 2022 Daniel Foster with Sacramento city claimed there were 10,000 children in need of childcare in our district but she also claimed there were 2500 licensed child care providers in the district as well. That is four children per provider. There is a child care facility currently operating mere steps away from you proposed location. They have the capacity to care for up to 30 children yet they have only been serving a handful of children on a regular basis. How do you justify expanding the size of your proposed development to accommodate child care when it is clear there is not a demonstrated need?

Since you won the bid for this project it seems like your projected cost have more than doubled. Far exceeding inflation. You appear to be closing in on costs in excess of a million dollars per unit when factoring in all the public resources that will be extracted from this community for your private venture. Can you publish cost projections that will either refute or confirm this? Are any public or government regulators monitoring your escalating cost projections? If so, who?

Robert B
You need to rethink the scale of this project to realistically fit in the one acre physical space. It should be no more than three stories in height to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.

Stuart Gow
Mike Claiborne do you realize there could be 400 plus residents living on this one acre?

Stuart Gow
Dave C’s comment is accurate. At this community meeting Bridge needs to be honest about the number of occupants and vehicles. This is not SF and our light rail and bus system is limited here so more occupants will own vehicles than in other Bridges projects. Bridges care-less responses regarding the out of control and dangerous traffic conditions this building will create need to be addressed.
Our community needs housing but this is a for profit scheme to collect 99 years of rent while exploiting public land and draining public funds and resources.
These issues all need to be and will be confronted in the open at this meeting.

At five stories tall on a little more than an acre of land this project is to big. With a planned 220 bedrooms that could mean 660 occupants by current maximum occupancy standards. To think that at least half of these occupants won't want to own a car is crazy. Thats 330 new cars to the neighborhood that simply can't handle that influx. You need to rethink the scale of this project to realistically fit in this physical space. It should be no more than two stories in height to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood aesthetics and should cater to elderly and disabled housing recipients with associated services for that demographic. The parking, traffic and safety concerns related to the size of your project are too great to sweep under the rug.