<br />City planning staff determined that our plan would not result in rezoning existing land, which <br />had been an understanding during more than three years of work. Without the two new zoning <br />designations that would have created a “string of pearls” to elegantly improve commercial <br />areas while retaining the residential character of River Road, the CAC were offered the blunt <br />instrument of neighborhood specific tweaks to existing code to achieve specific, important <br />goals for the RR corridor. There are hundreds of resident comments in the record that support <br />limiting uses on the C-2 land along the corridor to businesses that increase pedestrian traffic, <br />retain our neighborhood character, and provide basic goods and services to residents. <br /> <br />60’ height limit: Most of the commercially zoned area along the corridor is only one lot deep, <br />and abuts R-1 zoned land built out with single family detached houses. The existing code <br />provides little to no transition between C-2 and R-1 and the possibility that 120’ buildings would <br />be built adjacent to already developed R-1 was untenable. Without the new zoning or an <br />overlay, we would have no ability to ameliorate these problematic adjacencies. That is how <br />we arrived at the 60’ height limit along the corridor; this compromise represents an acceptance <br />of a great increase in the existing density of development, but guides it t owards more <br />compatibility with the adjacent already-built environment. Siting a ten-story building in an area <br />primarily occupied by R-1 housing can dramatically impact wind flow, and create serious loss <br />of sunlight and privacy over a significant number of existing homes1. <br /> <br /> <br />Proposed prohibited uses: There is limited commercially zoned land in the neighborhoods; <br />many of the lots along River Road offer prime opportunities for local business that support <br />connection, engagement, and provide daily needs. Currently, River Road is host to many car <br />lots and Santa Clara many storage facilities both of which have low foot traffic. There was no <br />offer from staff to differentiate between C-2 along the corridor or away from the corridor. In this <br />case, the carve out for properties along River Avenue is a reasonable compromise that allows <br />those businesses to plan for their future while still promoting uses desired by residents closer <br />to the anticipated increase in residential density. <br /> <br />Repeal of the RR/SC urban facilities plan: We support keeping the River Road Santa Clara <br />Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram, subarea maps, and policies that guide implementation <br />of those diagrams until the city adopts lot-specific zoning maps. Although those maps do not <br />have the clarity of lot-specific diagrams, they are more refined than the Metro Plan which <br />controls zoning city wide. Teresa Bishow’s Bishow’s River Road – Santa Clara Urban <br />Facilities Plan Land Use Decision Impact Analysis submitted 10/17/23 shows that the maps in <br />our current Urban Facilities Plan guided decisions of compliance 714 times to date. <br />Additionally, not all the policies in the RRSCUFP are relevant today. We ask to have the <br />opportunity to review and comment on which of the policies will be retained or deleted as we <br />move forward. <br /> <br /> <br />1 See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309269820_High- <br />Rise_Buildings_Aspects_and_Significant_Impacts_in_Urban_Areas <br /> <br />33