10.3 23-1703 GPT23-001 & ER23-031 - A General Plan Text Amendment to Amend the Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan Located at 425 South Winchester Boulevard.
Urban village plan was to be long term. The passing of this affects the entire urban village (190 acres) but only those within 1000 ft were notified. Foul play? The entire plan shouldn’t be changed for one greedy developer that made a bad business decision. Developer is asking us to change our urban village regulations to protect his profits. No thought given to how this affects the adjacent neighborhood . The market will change again and he can build then. Market isn’t our problem.
The current plan for this project was carefully considered with wisdom and discernment. Approval of amendments would significant discount the time, energy and considerations that have been made. This approval would set a negative precedent moving forward. The City Council must consider all parties that are impacted. Financial reasons alone for the developer should not override what has already been carefully planned.
Please oppose this amendment to the already existing plan .
GPT23-001
Essentially, Mr Mark Tersini told the planning staff/commission to jump and the commission asked “How high?.” Mark Tersini said “20 ft for now!” Now the commission is waiting on Mark Tersini for the next command. I actually feel badly for Mark Tersini. With the amount of “funding” and “financial support” he is providing to the city, he could have asked for a ‘Casino Amendment’ and he would have gotten it.
Approving amendments submitted by ONE developer without considering the impact to residents is egregious, blatantly snubs the collaborative effort put into the APPROVED SRUV plan, and demonstrates a lack of regard for your consituents. As a Spar Ave resident, I hope you take these comments of opposition to heart when you vote. Creating a formal change process for Urban Villages that involves affected communities is a better avenue than leaving it up to staffers and corporate stakeholders.
There are problems with the setbacks being cut in half, the Acoustics analysis, and improper and very limited noticing of all potentially affected neighbors. The traffic impact study was performed on two mid-low weekday traffic days in Feb and March. A breach of the trust built during the Envision 2040 plan and the Santana Row urban village process. Potential nullifying of some aspects of all urban village plans. I would urge the council to deny this project.
Please listen to the property owners and residents who are most impacted by these variances and new boundaries. Where does it stop? It needs to stop now! This neighborhood was here well before Santana Row. Stop expanding Santana Row into the neighborhood, and start protecting the neighborhood from Santana Row! You’ve taken the peace and quiet out of the neighborhood, and now your even considering taking the light out of the neighborhood. Your are taking the LIFE out of this neighborhood!
I am a resident of Winchester Orchard Neighborhood and my husband and I strongly OPPOSE this item and strongly urge the entire City Council to vote NO. We have actively participated in the city Urban Village meetings in the past and feel this agenda item is not in keeping with the original goals and would negatively impact our neighborhood.
I strongly oppose GPT23-001. Approving these last minute amendments would set the dangerous precedent that city council clearly prioritizes developers over community and residents. Our community collaborated and approved the inital plans for the Urban Village and now you are asking us to make additional sacrifaces for someone's bottom line. These amendments would have long lasting policy changes that impact our neighborhood and furthermore allow developers to encroach on our homes.
Both agenda items have issues
* Amendment is a knee jerk attempt to solve a .6 acre issue by changing a 185 acre plan
* 198 single family homes with a fence line inside or adjacent to the plan area but only 15 notified
* Neighborhood conceded 2 hours of sun year-round for existing plan. Now asked for more??
* Acoustical analysis of the patio and pool is short on detail
* Open air restaurant is not even mentioned
* Traffic studies performed during off hours
* Hunt for adequate parking is ongoing
I am from W.O.N.A. I OPPOSE ITEM 10.3 GPT23-001 that calls for changes to the set back limits for property development set in the Urban Village Plan. Those guidelines were set specifically so individual developers couldn't come in and have the limits changed for their specific development. This is exactly what is now happening. Due to high interest & construction costs properties along the Winchester corridor have slowed down in development. Residents homes need to come before developers $$$$.
Planning commission could not find a way to approve the planning staff's proposal, last week, after trying many different ways. And, that too, after providing the applicant many opportunities to further speak to make his case outside of his 'two' five-minute slots. Faulty VMT studies and nonsensical shadow study would not be acceptable in any other forum. Please reject this amendment.
GPT23-00 - OPPOSE
I vehemently object to last-minute alterations to the approved plan, prioritizing developers over residents. Numerous unresolved concerns persist with developers in our community. Safeguard those who cast their votes in support of you.
I am from the Primrose Neighborhood Association. I urge the city council to vote no and give the residents more time to work with the developers to work out a more fair plan.
I, Guilherme Cybis Pereira, renter of 326 Spar Ave, formally state my position in opposing to GPT23-001 and having developers build 65-foot buildings 20 feet closer to residential buildings' fence lines, which will cause the loss of 10° of daylight.
Planning Commission says the planning process is flawed-here are Commission remarks at recorded timings. 2:11Lardinous“I don’t think it’s great that a General Plan Text Amendment that affects an Urban Village policy that the notification is only specific to the property and not to the entire Urban Village (plan). I feel like that’s a policy that should be,..That’s a flaw in the policy that should be addressed". Many other flaws mentioned by Commission warrant a NO vote by Council. VOTE NO!!!
This amendment will only set precedent to future project along Winchester and potentially throughout the urban village plan area. The community came together with great community leaders who worked with the city to come up with the urban village plan several years back. This will reverse all the hard work they have done. It will discourage solar adoption. It will affect the neighborhood's privacy and quality of life.
GPT23-00 - OPPOSE
I strongly oppose changing the previously approved plan at the last minute and favoring developers over residents.
There are still many outstanding issues with developers in our neighborhood.
Protect the people who vote for you.
Along Spar Ave, our community faces an imminent threat posed by the proposed GPT23-001 development. This proposed development, allowing this developer to build his 65-foot building, encroaching 20 feet closer to our fence lines, stands to drastically impact our homes. The prospect of losing 10 degrees of precious daylight not only affects our enjoyment but also sets a dangerous precedent for future development along Winchester Blvd, opening the floodgates for encroachments by other developers.
Urban village plan was to be long term. The passing of this affects the entire urban village (190 acres) but only those within 1000 ft were notified. Foul play? The entire plan shouldn’t be changed for one greedy developer that made a bad business decision. Developer is asking us to change our urban village regulations to protect his profits. No thought given to how this affects the adjacent neighborhood . The market will change again and he can build then. Market isn’t our problem.
The current plan for this project was carefully considered with wisdom and discernment. Approval of amendments would significant discount the time, energy and considerations that have been made. This approval would set a negative precedent moving forward. The City Council must consider all parties that are impacted. Financial reasons alone for the developer should not override what has already been carefully planned.
Please oppose this amendment to the already existing plan .
GPT23-001
Essentially, Mr Mark Tersini told the planning staff/commission to jump and the commission asked “How high?.” Mark Tersini said “20 ft for now!” Now the commission is waiting on Mark Tersini for the next command. I actually feel badly for Mark Tersini. With the amount of “funding” and “financial support” he is providing to the city, he could have asked for a ‘Casino Amendment’ and he would have gotten it.
Approving amendments submitted by ONE developer without considering the impact to residents is egregious, blatantly snubs the collaborative effort put into the APPROVED SRUV plan, and demonstrates a lack of regard for your consituents. As a Spar Ave resident, I hope you take these comments of opposition to heart when you vote. Creating a formal change process for Urban Villages that involves affected communities is a better avenue than leaving it up to staffers and corporate stakeholders.
There are problems with the setbacks being cut in half, the Acoustics analysis, and improper and very limited noticing of all potentially affected neighbors. The traffic impact study was performed on two mid-low weekday traffic days in Feb and March. A breach of the trust built during the Envision 2040 plan and the Santana Row urban village process. Potential nullifying of some aspects of all urban village plans. I would urge the council to deny this project.
I live at Villa’s at Santana row and I oppose to agenda item 10.3
Please listen to the property owners and residents who are most impacted by these variances and new boundaries. Where does it stop? It needs to stop now! This neighborhood was here well before Santana Row. Stop expanding Santana Row into the neighborhood, and start protecting the neighborhood from Santana Row! You’ve taken the peace and quiet out of the neighborhood, and now your even considering taking the light out of the neighborhood. Your are taking the LIFE out of this neighborhood!
I am a resident of Winchester Orchard Neighborhood and my husband and I strongly OPPOSE this item and strongly urge the entire City Council to vote NO. We have actively participated in the city Urban Village meetings in the past and feel this agenda item is not in keeping with the original goals and would negatively impact our neighborhood.
I strongly oppose GPT23-001. Approving these last minute amendments would set the dangerous precedent that city council clearly prioritizes developers over community and residents. Our community collaborated and approved the inital plans for the Urban Village and now you are asking us to make additional sacrifaces for someone's bottom line. These amendments would have long lasting policy changes that impact our neighborhood and furthermore allow developers to encroach on our homes.
Both agenda items have issues
* Amendment is a knee jerk attempt to solve a .6 acre issue by changing a 185 acre plan
* 198 single family homes with a fence line inside or adjacent to the plan area but only 15 notified
* Neighborhood conceded 2 hours of sun year-round for existing plan. Now asked for more??
* Acoustical analysis of the patio and pool is short on detail
* Open air restaurant is not even mentioned
* Traffic studies performed during off hours
* Hunt for adequate parking is ongoing
I am from W.O.N.A. I OPPOSE ITEM 10.3 GPT23-001 that calls for changes to the set back limits for property development set in the Urban Village Plan. Those guidelines were set specifically so individual developers couldn't come in and have the limits changed for their specific development. This is exactly what is now happening. Due to high interest & construction costs properties along the Winchester corridor have slowed down in development. Residents homes need to come before developers $$$$.
Planning commission could not find a way to approve the planning staff's proposal, last week, after trying many different ways. And, that too, after providing the applicant many opportunities to further speak to make his case outside of his 'two' five-minute slots. Faulty VMT studies and nonsensical shadow study would not be acceptable in any other forum. Please reject this amendment.
GPT23-00 - OPPOSE
I vehemently object to last-minute alterations to the approved plan, prioritizing developers over residents. Numerous unresolved concerns persist with developers in our community. Safeguard those who cast their votes in support of you.
I am from the Primrose Neighborhood Association. I urge the city council to vote no and give the residents more time to work with the developers to work out a more fair plan.
I am from Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association and I oppose and urge the entire City Council to VOTE NO
I, Guilherme Cybis Pereira, renter of 326 Spar Ave, formally state my position in opposing to GPT23-001 and having developers build 65-foot buildings 20 feet closer to residential buildings' fence lines, which will cause the loss of 10° of daylight.
Planning Commission says the planning process is flawed-here are Commission remarks at recorded timings. 2:11Lardinous“I don’t think it’s great that a General Plan Text Amendment that affects an Urban Village policy that the notification is only specific to the property and not to the entire Urban Village (plan). I feel like that’s a policy that should be,..That’s a flaw in the policy that should be addressed". Many other flaws mentioned by Commission warrant a NO vote by Council. VOTE NO!!!
This amendment will only set precedent to future project along Winchester and potentially throughout the urban village plan area. The community came together with great community leaders who worked with the city to come up with the urban village plan several years back. This will reverse all the hard work they have done. It will discourage solar adoption. It will affect the neighborhood's privacy and quality of life.
GPT23-00 - OPPOSE
I strongly oppose changing the previously approved plan at the last minute and favoring developers over residents.
There are still many outstanding issues with developers in our neighborhood.
Protect the people who vote for you.
Along Spar Ave, our community faces an imminent threat posed by the proposed GPT23-001 development. This proposed development, allowing this developer to build his 65-foot building, encroaching 20 feet closer to our fence lines, stands to drastically impact our homes. The prospect of losing 10 degrees of precious daylight not only affects our enjoyment but also sets a dangerous precedent for future development along Winchester Blvd, opening the floodgates for encroachments by other developers.