Meeting Time: September 28, 2021 at 4:30pm PDT

Agenda Item

7. 21-1048 Direction to Staff on Alternatives for Revisions to the El Camino Real Specific Plan; Possible Action on the Consultant Contract with Rami & Associates and budget amendment for Revisions to the El Camino Real Specific Plan

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
500 of 500 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Ray Sport about 3 years ago

    I oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. Rezoning is circumventing the effort of getting the community and neighborhood to jointly agree to create a dwelling.
    Tall building, dense dwellings will decrease parking, increase pressure on the schools, park and roads. There is significant lack of infrastructure and this is a grave concern.

  • Default_avatar
    Jiaqi Xie about 3 years ago

    I oppose of the development plan of 1601 Civic Center Dr., this neighborhood is already packed with houses, roads and cars, with limited green spaces. This 6-stories apartment doesn't fit with the neighborhood at all, let along the <1 parking per unit assigned.

  • Default_avatar
    Leon Li about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose Agenda #7 Alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. The proposed 6-story construction is the highest in this area, and it directly faces two public historical parks. This project is going to ruin the landscape of these public spaces that are very crucial to the crowded community. It also deprives community members' scare public resources e.g. tight street parking spaces, and mailing service that is seriously understaffed due to covid19.

  • Default_avatar
    Claire Liu about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2.
    This community has very limited parking space already, and there's already increased car break-ins. Building a special zoning districts will hugely increase the population in this area, making the community more crowded with greater safety concerns. We want our community to be quiet and safe. Instead of a charity building, a park is definitely much better.

  • Default_avatar
    Sunil B about 3 years ago

    I respectfully urge mayor and council members to unanimously oppose Alternative #2. City should be conducting its business in transparent manner and should NOT be creating express paths for builders without any public comments and scrutiny.
    I also insist on accountability from my city, it should look into why we are even having decision meeting on Alternative #2 when direct stakeholders and members of public were not even notified properly. Opaque policies would lead city into legal troubles.

  • Default_avatar
    DH Hotch about 3 years ago

    I respectfully and strongly Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2.This ultra-dense dwelling of 112 units should not come at a cost of increasing the burden on residents.We should not forget we are in middle of pandemic and bringing so many units together will worsen the situation.Ultra Dense proposal of 112 units will just destroy the peace, health and sanity. So,We request you please reject any such project and give us and our children park or free space to breathe and live our lives peacefully.

  • Default_avatar
    Anil Rao about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. There is increasing trend of new HOAs built in the neighbourhood without adequate additional public facilities like parks, schools, parking and safety . This builder has not involved any of the HOAs in this plan to build a high density housing structure. We need more involvement with the impacted communities before moving further.

  • Default_avatar
    Sunil Ra about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. There is already parking issues and traffic speeding up and down Warburton Ave and Lincoln Ave from triton museum are. The builder or the city has not notified many of the HOA's in the neighborhood regarding the proposal and the plan. There is already increased vehicle break-ins and homeless harassing residents. Increasing the density by building a 179 unit with less then one unassigned parking will impact the area.

  • Default_avatar
    Henry He about 3 years ago

    I respectfully Agenda#7 alternative #2
    1. Decision making process is problematic , such decision does require longer period of public hearing and voting, we don’t feel this agenda has enough visibility to the nearby residents.
    2. A 6-floor building will significantly increase population density, which will introduce a lot of problems, e.g. limited public resource, safety issues, higher crime rate.

    We do want to keep our living environment peaceful and harmonious, please say no to this agenda.

  • Default_avatar
    Rajendra Kundapur about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose agenda #7, alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. We are not in the favor of creating a New York style downtown with metered parking in the future. There is already a parking crises in the neighborhood. We have invested our lifetime savings into this community to make it safe and secure. We cannot effort to have a 5/6 floor building to be erected in this already crowded neighborhood. We should alternatively consider creating a community activity park/garden.

  • Default_avatar
    Shuo Cao about 3 years ago

    I oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. This plan has never been publicly noticed to all the residents of this area. It's not transparent or fair decision for over hundreds of people at the neiborhood. This plan will bring about unsafe, crowded and noisy living environment at this area and crime rate will increase as well. A lot of concerns to have a 6-level charity building here.

  • Default_avatar
    Sneha Shah about 3 years ago

    Strongly oppose the building and rezoning. The community is a warm and family friendly neighborhood. In the past year the property has caused several nuisance (septic tank disposal, garbage, homeless encampments, loud noises, crime) and endangered the families and kids.
    Replacing it with a building will put pressure on the sparse infrastructure (roads, parking, school, parks). We urge the city to dismiss the zoning proposal as well as a dwelling. Please build a park to improve the neighborhood

  • Default_avatar
    James Cook about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. The neighbors put their whole life money, investments to this neighbors. 1601 Civic Center Dr is not a suitable place for charity housing at all. It will put another fire on the current limited parking, not to mention it will increase the unsafety to the whole neighborhood, especially harmful for our kids.

  • Default_avatar
    Jasmine Cheng about 3 years ago

    Strongly oppose agenda #7, alternative #2:
    All single homes in this area is 1-2 stories. Building a 3-6 times higher building right next to our homes means no privacy and more dangers for us. For instance, people in the new buildings can easily observe us (leaving homes or back) and plan some crimes. I see there are already a lot of concerns of parking, green areas, crimes and etc from other people's comments. These are also my concerns. I strongly agree with them!

  • Default_avatar
    Reshma Kotwal about 3 years ago

    We do not have any information on the 2 zones being proposed. The neighborhood needs to assess the impact of the new zones you are proposing in our district. The people of this community have put their lifetime investments into this neighborhood to make it a safe and secure neighborhood. There is already a huge parking shortage problem this entire neighborhood. This will choke the neighborhood leading not only to unhappy residents and neighbors but also a rise in confrontations and crimes.

  • Default_avatar
    L Li about 3 years ago

    I oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2 to create special zoning districts. 1601 Civic Center Drive is not a good site for building charity housing. This is not good for the city hall or the nearby communities, because it will bring up additional public resources and safety concerns. e.g. people coming to the city hall may not be able to find enough parking space, which could cause traffic jams. Turning it into a park, on the other hand, may improve the city's image and local residents' well being

  • Default_avatar
    shawn light about 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose agenda #7, alternative #2
    First of all, the city did not announce the public notice plan ahead of time. Decision like this requires long period of time discussing to avoid insulting the basic right of local residents;
    Secondly, the utilization of local space is already tight. The parking lot in the area is limited for current residents. So many houses residents around need more greenery and quiet parks to have a harmonious and relaxing home environment.

  • Default_avatar
    Ye Cao about 3 years ago

    Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. It's a bad idea to have a 6-floor building within the neighbors of single family house. Not to mention the proposal has 84.4 Dwelling Units per Acre, which is super crowed and will cause more issues like parking/noisy/safety etc.

  • Default_avatar
    Wanzi Shi about 3 years ago

    I respectfully and strongly Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2
    First of all, The parking lot in the area is already very tight for crruent residents.
    Secondly, we need a harmonious and relaxing home environment. So many houses residents around need more greenery and quiet parks. It is nessary to keep the beautiful and peaceful environment instand of the noisy, unsafe living neighbor around City Hall.
    I don't think the 5-6 story residences towering communities should be permitted.

  • Default_avatar
    Shirley Deng about 3 years ago

    I respectfully oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. The city has never provided a Public Notice of the plan proposed by Charities Housing at 1601 Civic Center Dr Santa Clara. This ultra-dense, 6-level dwelling of 112 units would definitely have a huge negative impact on the nearby communities and residents, such as construction noise, dust, no privacy, not enough public parking, and etc. Building more units should not come at a cost of increasing the burden of surrounding communities.