The question isn’t about affordable housing, rather the very poor implementation of this project that was not zoned for this.
A large number of units will simply have no parking space at all, and goes against general guidelines. This is a huge pedestrian safety risk as well as needlessly creating extra traffic. Why is there no requests by the city to ask the developer for adequate parking on their property? Its the minimum the city can do for the residents yet has not.
Please consider less dense buildings, and provide more public facilities which can improve residents' well-being. Currently the El Camino Real has a lot homeless especially around the City Hall neighborhood, please take residents' safety and happiness into account while working on the plan.
I support increasing densities along the El Camino Corridor. If additional study is needed to determine that, then I support that next step. Additional homes for community members only add to the character of the community. The environment, economic development and affordability of Santa Clara would improve greatly. The City should look to make it easier to create new homes. Thank you for your time.
The City has a state-mandated responsibility to AFFH. The specific plans currently identified in the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element are all located in low/moderate resource areas and will not pass HCD muster. The ECR Specific Plan however is located in a moderate/high resource area along a high quality transit corridor near services and other community amenities which would meet HCD's requirements to AFFH. The city should be looking at ways to maximize NOT minimize housing allowed in this area.
Please explain how it is determined what is included and/or excluded in the ECR Specific Plan. Is it up to the discretion of the City Council? Is it a distance from ECR? What has been the public input regarding what's included and not included? What and/or why if any exceptions (project names) to the rules or guidelines of the ECR specific plan have been made? Please provide names and details regarding any exceptions.
Thanks
Please refrain from granting exemptions from the Specific Plan to dense projects such as Charities Housing on 1601 Civic Center Drive that shrewdly opt out of the El Camino Specific Plan so they can pursue their own PD, and avoid conforming to the objective less dense standards contemplated in the Specific Plan. Buildings should conform to the current height and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Parking should be adequate for one person per bedroom.
Limit new buildings to 2-3 levels especially when backing onto 2-3 story residential homes such as Civic Center Drive. Each new development should have a ratio of 1 car parking per bedroom to avoid adding to the existing parking congestion.
We ask for a 30 degree elevation angle from new developments to existing homes and no more than 3 levels.
Limit affordable housing to 20-30% for new housing. It is a better solution to the housing crisis and integrates and enriches our City.
The rule for 15 percent low income housing was imposed recently. We know the City Housing element contemplates enough affordable housing in the next few years without the 1601 project .
Limit new building to 2-3 story residential homes such as CCD .
CH was smart to opt out of the ECR specific plan, and pay for their own EIR report which
they did not have to do if they chose to be under the ECR specific plan to expedite n their project.
Most of the ECR specific plan area is not close to a VTA, BART or CalTrain station, so why are we talking about building higher densities and buildings in the corridor? The City is not ready for it. I welcome mixed commercial with residential on top floors while business at ground floor on ECR. Building height should be no higher than three stories. Parking should be planned for at least 2 spaces for each family unit at ECR. Street parking should be reserved for commercial uses or visitors.
Strongly oppose any aggressive plan asking for 4-5 stories 100% affordable rental. Housing market downturn is on going. We should reconsider the real need of affordable housing. Please!
As a long term resident, it is fair to say city has not done much about infrastructure but continues to allow developers to build dense projects with relaxed criteria exacerbating problems for existing and new residents (traffic/noise/parking/few parks, especially children's parks). It is time to decide and be smart about what type of City you want. Do NOT allow dense properties and please spread out affordable housing making it 30% of all developments to have well integrated+strong communities.
There is blight, homelessness, congested parking, dumping, dense, tall buildings, that detract from the experience of living, visiting, and doing business in our City. Dense projects along the El Camino Real corridor make such problems worse.
City Council: please choose whatever option for lower density, less height, and a maximum of 30 degree projection instead of 45 from property line - so new developments to existing residential along ECR can be respectful to neighbors. We support higher density or height if a development is very close to a train station, like within 0.5 mile or 10 minutes of walking. Otherwise, no residential developments in ECR should be higher than 3 stories and without sufficient built-in parking spots.
More and fast public transportation should be built before adopting any project without sufficient parking. People are still relying on cars to commute to work, pick up kids and go to hospitals. Adequate transportation will lead to less cars, not vice versa. Don't put the cart before the horse.
We believe if plans for the 5-story building for '1601' are approved on September 27, 2022, then this will establish a terrible precedent for other developers to also pursue tall buildings along the ECR corridor and ask for more relaxed standards in the ECR Specific Plan just because "if the 1601 project did it, why can't we?"
Limit new buildings to 3 levels with maximum 30-degree elevation angle. Close loop holes to the Specific Plan until it is adopted. Projects such as Charities Housing 1601 Civic Center Drive, opt out of the Specific Plan, and are asking for 4-5 story 100% rentals with inadequate parking. Such projects should have more, not less stringent standards. Otherwise there is no incentive for developers to abide by the Specific Plan when they see loop holes. There should be enough parking for everyone
Pls choose sustainable option limiting density/height to 2-3 levels, 30 degree to neighbors, 1 car per bedroom cuz future restricted traffic/parking from ECR spills into Civic Center. 20-30% affordable housing is better integration, avoid 100% affordable. Don't allow loophole for those opting out of Specific Plan, e.g. 1601 Civic Center Drive: has 5 levels, 0.75 parking ratio. Loopholes allow others to push density. Civic Center needs contiguous parks, trees. Happy residents equal more revenue.
We need more and better infrastructure, especially public transportation, before adopting dense housing without enough parking. Infrastructure for density has to come first, not as an afterthought, otherwise development is not sustainable and will result in stable long term households fleeing the City and thriving businesses moving elsewhere.
Each new development should absolutely have at least 1 car parking space for each bedroom and multiple guest parkings to avoid more street parking congestion. Each development should consider 20-30% affordable housing in order to address the housing crisis and to spread out the affordable housing instead of burdening only one neighborhood.
Infrastructure for density has to come first, not as an afterthought, otherwise, development is not sustainable and will result in stable long-term households fleeing the City and thriving businesses moving elsewhere.
Limit new buildings to 2-3 levels, especially when backing onto existing 2-3 story residential homes such as Civic Center Drive.
Please approve a maximum 30-degree elevation angle from new developments to existing homes and no more than 3 levels.
The question isn’t about affordable housing, rather the very poor implementation of this project that was not zoned for this.
A large number of units will simply have no parking space at all, and goes against general guidelines. This is a huge pedestrian safety risk as well as needlessly creating extra traffic. Why is there no requests by the city to ask the developer for adequate parking on their property? Its the minimum the city can do for the residents yet has not.
Please consider less dense buildings, and provide more public facilities which can improve residents' well-being. Currently the El Camino Real has a lot homeless especially around the City Hall neighborhood, please take residents' safety and happiness into account while working on the plan.
I support increasing densities along the El Camino Corridor. If additional study is needed to determine that, then I support that next step. Additional homes for community members only add to the character of the community. The environment, economic development and affordability of Santa Clara would improve greatly. The City should look to make it easier to create new homes. Thank you for your time.
The City has a state-mandated responsibility to AFFH. The specific plans currently identified in the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element are all located in low/moderate resource areas and will not pass HCD muster. The ECR Specific Plan however is located in a moderate/high resource area along a high quality transit corridor near services and other community amenities which would meet HCD's requirements to AFFH. The city should be looking at ways to maximize NOT minimize housing allowed in this area.
Please explain how it is determined what is included and/or excluded in the ECR Specific Plan. Is it up to the discretion of the City Council? Is it a distance from ECR? What has been the public input regarding what's included and not included? What and/or why if any exceptions (project names) to the rules or guidelines of the ECR specific plan have been made? Please provide names and details regarding any exceptions.
Thanks
Please refrain from granting exemptions from the Specific Plan to dense projects such as Charities Housing on 1601 Civic Center Drive that shrewdly opt out of the El Camino Specific Plan so they can pursue their own PD, and avoid conforming to the objective less dense standards contemplated in the Specific Plan. Buildings should conform to the current height and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Parking should be adequate for one person per bedroom.
Limit new buildings to 2-3 levels especially when backing onto 2-3 story residential homes such as Civic Center Drive. Each new development should have a ratio of 1 car parking per bedroom to avoid adding to the existing parking congestion.
We ask for a 30 degree elevation angle from new developments to existing homes and no more than 3 levels.
Limit affordable housing to 20-30% for new housing. It is a better solution to the housing crisis and integrates and enriches our City.
The rule for 15 percent low income housing was imposed recently. We know the City Housing element contemplates enough affordable housing in the next few years without the 1601 project .
Limit new building to 2-3 story residential homes such as CCD .
CH was smart to opt out of the ECR specific plan, and pay for their own EIR report which
they did not have to do if they chose to be under the ECR specific plan to expedite n their project.
Most of the ECR specific plan area is not close to a VTA, BART or CalTrain station, so why are we talking about building higher densities and buildings in the corridor? The City is not ready for it. I welcome mixed commercial with residential on top floors while business at ground floor on ECR. Building height should be no higher than three stories. Parking should be planned for at least 2 spaces for each family unit at ECR. Street parking should be reserved for commercial uses or visitors.
Strongly oppose any aggressive plan asking for 4-5 stories 100% affordable rental. Housing market downturn is on going. We should reconsider the real need of affordable housing. Please!
As a long term resident, it is fair to say city has not done much about infrastructure but continues to allow developers to build dense projects with relaxed criteria exacerbating problems for existing and new residents (traffic/noise/parking/few parks, especially children's parks). It is time to decide and be smart about what type of City you want. Do NOT allow dense properties and please spread out affordable housing making it 30% of all developments to have well integrated+strong communities.
There is blight, homelessness, congested parking, dumping, dense, tall buildings, that detract from the experience of living, visiting, and doing business in our City. Dense projects along the El Camino Real corridor make such problems worse.
City Council: please choose whatever option for lower density, less height, and a maximum of 30 degree projection instead of 45 from property line - so new developments to existing residential along ECR can be respectful to neighbors. We support higher density or height if a development is very close to a train station, like within 0.5 mile or 10 minutes of walking. Otherwise, no residential developments in ECR should be higher than 3 stories and without sufficient built-in parking spots.
More and fast public transportation should be built before adopting any project without sufficient parking. People are still relying on cars to commute to work, pick up kids and go to hospitals. Adequate transportation will lead to less cars, not vice versa. Don't put the cart before the horse.
We believe if plans for the 5-story building for '1601' are approved on September 27, 2022, then this will establish a terrible precedent for other developers to also pursue tall buildings along the ECR corridor and ask for more relaxed standards in the ECR Specific Plan just because "if the 1601 project did it, why can't we?"
Limit new buildings to 3 levels with maximum 30-degree elevation angle. Close loop holes to the Specific Plan until it is adopted. Projects such as Charities Housing 1601 Civic Center Drive, opt out of the Specific Plan, and are asking for 4-5 story 100% rentals with inadequate parking. Such projects should have more, not less stringent standards. Otherwise there is no incentive for developers to abide by the Specific Plan when they see loop holes. There should be enough parking for everyone
Pls choose sustainable option limiting density/height to 2-3 levels, 30 degree to neighbors, 1 car per bedroom cuz future restricted traffic/parking from ECR spills into Civic Center. 20-30% affordable housing is better integration, avoid 100% affordable. Don't allow loophole for those opting out of Specific Plan, e.g. 1601 Civic Center Drive: has 5 levels, 0.75 parking ratio. Loopholes allow others to push density. Civic Center needs contiguous parks, trees. Happy residents equal more revenue.
We need more and better infrastructure, especially public transportation, before adopting dense housing without enough parking. Infrastructure for density has to come first, not as an afterthought, otherwise development is not sustainable and will result in stable long term households fleeing the City and thriving businesses moving elsewhere.
Each new development should absolutely have at least 1 car parking space for each bedroom and multiple guest parkings to avoid more street parking congestion. Each development should consider 20-30% affordable housing in order to address the housing crisis and to spread out the affordable housing instead of burdening only one neighborhood.
Infrastructure for density has to come first, not as an afterthought, otherwise, development is not sustainable and will result in stable long-term households fleeing the City and thriving businesses moving elsewhere.
Limit new buildings to 2-3 levels, especially when backing onto existing 2-3 story residential homes such as Civic Center Drive.
Please approve a maximum 30-degree elevation angle from new developments to existing homes and no more than 3 levels.