My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN OPPOSITION)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2019 12:11:19 PM
Creation date
2/19/2019 10:30:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75E
Date
2/5/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
375
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commission and the project management staff to work on a new proposal that will realistically <br />address the major concerns of the community. <br />It has become quite obvious that the project management staff has demonstrated by its actions <br />over the course of the project planning a distinct favoritism for the Developer and a disregard of <br />the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago. <br />1. As admitted by the project management's staff, from the onset this property was <br />advertised to the Developer that, even though the property was currently zoned as <br />Professional, the zoning will be changed to multi -family residential with unlimited height <br />and density. The property currently is zoned with a height restriction of 3 stories and the <br />neighborhood, of which it is part, is zoned with a maximum height of 2 stories and density <br />of 7 units per acre (1-11-7). How can any reasonable Planning Department representative <br />provide a Developer basically a blank check with respect to height and density? Would any <br />reasonable parent give their teenage son or daughter a credit card and tell them they can <br />spend as much as they want, unlimited spending? <br />2. At the request of the Developer, the project management staff made an attempt to rush <br />this project's approval through the Planning Commission by scheduling a vote on it the <br />Monday (November 26) after the long Thanksgiving weekend even though the Final EIR <br />had not been released. This was done for two reasons, one to limit the amount of time <br />that the Planning Commissioners would have to review the EIR and the associated public <br />comments and more specifically to get this project to the City Council for a vote prior to <br />the seating of three newly elected City Council members in mid-December. Thankfully the <br />Planning Commission saw through this rushed attempt to appease the Developer's wishes <br />and rejected the project management team's attempt with the instructions to bring the <br />project back on January 14tH <br />3. The current project plan includes Option 3 which utilizes an entrance to the complex from <br />Edgewood Road. Park Santiago residents have voiced their concerns with including this <br />option since it would facilitate cut through traffic through the neighborhood and also <br />encourage parking of vehicles along Bush and Spurgeon. While eliminating an entrance on <br />Edgewood Road will have a tendency to reduce cut through traffic and parking of excess <br />vehicles in the neighborhood, it will not eliminate this from occurring. In the Request for <br />Planning Commission Action the project management team notes that in the latest version <br />of the project the Developer has eliminated the entrance on Edgewood Road, howeverthe <br />project management team failed to stipulate in their recommended modifications the <br />prohibition of an entrance on Edgewood Road should the Developer fail to obtain the <br />approval for their Walkie Way entrance which leaves the possibility of a revision in the <br />future to include an Edgewood Road entrance. The project managementteam also refused <br />requests bythe residents of Park Santiago to remove Option Cfrom the EIR and the project <br />plan altogether. One would have to believe that the Developer has future plans to add an <br />entrance on Edgewood Road citing rationale of failure to obtain the Walkie Way entrance <br />as well as public safety and traffic concerns. Without a hard fast restriction on any <br />entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road it leaves open the possibility of a late <br />change to the project's design. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.