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
    Yu Shi 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 and this plan will affect more than 5 communities with over hundreds of people. And also the building plan is very rough. There are only 96 parking unit for 112 units, and 25% of 2 bedrooms and 25% for 3 bedrooms. Then it requires more than 50 parking lots outside. Neither civic center Dr or Lincoln St or Warburton Ave have enough space to meet the needs.

  • Default_avatar
    dwarkanath sakpal about 3 years ago

    Strongly oppose Alternative 2 on agenda 7 specially designed to create zoning to benefit CHs with sole intention to get all concessions and waivers. No heads up given in past. 112 units adjacent to the single family homes , deprives open space . Presently a big challenge in parking space too.

  • Default_avatar
    Flora Kho about 3 years ago

    I oppose Agenda#7 alternatives #2 to create special zoning districts. The existing street parking space is not enough for residents around civic center park. Assuming that Charities Housing is to be built in this area, parking will be difficult. The Civic Center Community is a high-density community. I don't think the infrastructure in this area can support a new dense community.

  • Default_avatar
    Zhe Sun about 3 years ago

    I respectfully Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2.
    No prior notification and any details about this construction plan. Building more units must increase the burden of surrounding infrastructure. Recently the road and parking areas are already congested and cannot support more. Charities housing refused to protect or contact with the Civic Center neighbors for thirteen months after being notified by Santa Clara PD, which increases the safety concerns.

  • Default_avatar
    Yuan Li about 3 years ago

    Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. Building a tower of 5 stories next to zones with many single families is a bad idea. The community doesn't have adequate space for parking space and green areas for another 120 units.

  • Default_avatar
    Xuehui Zhu about 3 years ago

    Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2.
    First, City has never provided a Public Notice of the plan. It creates a quick, opaque, and ill-devised bypass to public input as stakeholder Citizens. Second, 120+ more units around the zone are definitely to the detriment of an overwhelming majority of owner residents in our neighborhood such as parking, green areas.

  • Default_avatar
    Charlotte Wang about 3 years ago

    I oppose Agenda#7 alternative #2 to create special zoning districts for the following reasons.

    1. The neighbors already tolerate limited parking lots. By creating these, there is no way for the neighbors to find a parking.
    2 It will increase the unsafeness and crimes to the neighbors. Especially we have asian hate, gun crime, packages stollen.
    3. The citizens need more park areas to hang out and relax instead of more people. Instead of putting into construction, a park should be better for sure

  • Default_avatar
    Jiacong He about 3 years ago

    I respectfully Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2 for the following reasons:
    1. It is not sound public policy to create opaque special zoning or exceptions that benefit a few at the expense of many.
    2. Current infrastructure in this neighborhood, such as parking, road, green areas cannot support the extra 120+ units.
    3. Charities Housing is neither a good nor a charitable neighbor. They are not transparent to the existing residents.

  • Default_avatar
    Lisa Huang about 3 years ago

    I oppose alternative #2. The proposed plan has too many concessions such as height limit, open space, parking spaces, etc. There are already so many high-density communities around Civic center Dr, and it can no longer afford such a dense community.

  • Default_avatar
    Sridhar Lakshminarayana about 3 years ago

    I respectfully Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. City never provided Public Notice of plan. Moreover the details of what is being proposed needs to be presented openly. Creating more homes in an already congested part of the city will make matters worse. there is increased crime and reports of theft in the area. Parking is a challenge and adding more homes of any kind is a bad idea. we need that area protected for parks and make room for some additional green space to beautify our city.

  • Default_avatar
    Vishal SL about 3 years ago

    Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. No prior notification regarding this development were shared with the community in general. Creating 5-6 story residences towering existing communities should not be permitted. Street parking is scarce, with almost no spots to park post 8pm. A park or extension of the civic center park would be a great use of this space.

  • Default_avatar
    Edna Pampy about 3 years ago

    Oppose agenda #7, alternative #2. City never provided Public Notice of plan. Plan creates Pockets of Poverty by taking a biased approach of consolidating and imprisoning low-income housing to specific city district. Low-income housing should be a certain percentage of every development through out the City. Current plan requires too many "concessions", which is alarm indicating the proposed development does not physically fit the space.

  • Default_avatar
    Tom Weinstein about 3 years ago

    I support option #1. I think the abbreviated process in #2 for rezoning areas from 3 stories to 5 without adequate time for community input is a bad idea. Some of these areas are directly adjacent to 1-2 story single family homes, and building large structures that would tower over them is highly objectionable.