CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)

Home Browse Search

Commission and the project management staff to work on a new proposal that will realistically address the major concerns of the community. It has become quite obvious that the project management staff has demonstrated by its actions over the course of the project planning a distinct favoritism for the Developer and a disregard of the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago. 1. As admitted by the project management's staff, from the onset this property was advertised to the Developer that, even though the property was currently zoned as Professional, the zoning will be changed to multi -family residential with unlimited height and density. The property currently is zoned with a height restriction of 3 stories and the neighborhood, of which it is part, is zoned with a maximum height of 2 stories and density of 7 units per acre (1-11-7). How can any reasonable Planning Department representative provide a Developer basically a blank check with respect to height and density? Would any reasonable parent give their teenage son or daughter a credit card and tell them they can spend as much as they want, unlimited spending? 2. At the request of the Developer, the project management staff made an attempt to rush this project's approval through the Planning Commission by scheduling a vote on it the Monday (November 26) after the long Thanksgiving weekend even though the Final EIR had not been released. This was done for two reasons, one to limit the amount of time that the Planning Commissioners would have to review the EIR and the associated public comments and more specifically to get this project to the City Council for a vote prior to the seating of three newly elected City Council members in mid-December. Thankfully the Planning Commission saw through this rushed attempt to appease the Developer's wishes and rejected the project management team's attempt with the instructions to bring the project back on January 14tH 3. The current project plan includes Option 3 which utilizes an entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road. Park Santiago residents have voiced their concerns with including this option since it would facilitate cut through traffic through the neighborhood and also encourage parking of vehicles along Bush and Spurgeon. While eliminating an entrance on Edgewood Road will have a tendency to reduce cut through traffic and parking of excess vehicles in the neighborhood, it will not eliminate this from occurring. In the Request for Planning Commission Action the project management team notes that in the latest version of the project the Developer has eliminated the entrance on Edgewood Road, howeverthe project management team failed to stipulate in their recommended modifications the prohibition of an entrance on Edgewood Road should the Developer fail to obtain the approval for their Walkie Way entrance which leaves the possibility of a revision in the future to include an Edgewood Road entrance. The project managementteam also refused requests bythe residents of Park Santiago to remove Option Cfrom the EIR and the project plan altogether. One would have to believe that the Developer has future plans to add an entrance on Edgewood Road citing rationale of failure to obtain the Walkie Way entrance as well as public safety and traffic concerns. Without a hard fast restriction on any entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road it leaves open the possibility of a late change to the project's design.