Sunday, August 27, 2006
PLANS : PLAN ?
Recent Comments at the City Council Meeting by Mr. Chuck Hornsby made me rethink or recall that there are or were many deficiencies in the General Plan, (no up to date Housing Element, no traffic plan, and so forth), and that there were clear conflicts with the Jacobsen Proposal and the Barton Road Specific Plan, and the Barton Road Specific Plan and the General Plan, and of course the OAC Specific Plan and the General Plan. Does any one know if the "General Plan" is Current? That is requirement #1. Does any one know if the Barton Road Specific Plan is still "Enforceable". Of course we have seen not even Zoning is taken seriously so why should we be concerned with a Plan. Here we are, as a result of some sort of "Management".
From the Email In Box I was given a short review of the Plans:
Elimination of blight in other cities has been resolved through the actions of private enterprise alone. It has only required stable, written, & uniform building standards and zoning laws fairly applied & equally applicable zoned sites within the city boundaries, no matter the ownership.
The 1979 Redevelopment Plan told residents that we the benefits to the community would be that citizens would get:
Other Public improvements
Improvements to the quality of the environment
Promoting sound development
Correction of inadequate street layout
Housing for families of all income levels
Elimination of blight
Redevelopment in conformity with the General Plan (1979:2)
Promote public peace, public health, public safety & the public welfare of the community (1979:2)
Low & moderate income housing
In 1981 Redevelopment Project we were told that we would get: (from adding all of town)
To provide land for public improvements & facilities (1981:2.f)
Conserve the project area as specified in the Redevelopment Plan (1981:2.b)
Eliminate environmental deficiencies, including substandard streets (1981:2.d)
Eliminate deteriorated public improvements; (1981:2.d)
Community can maintain & improve quality of life (1981:2)
Promote productive use of land within the guidelines of the cityÂs general plan (1981:2.e)
Financial resources for necessary public improvements & facilities. (1981:2.g)
Expand employment opportunities (1981:2.k)
Provide additional housing for all segments of the community. (1981:2.l)
Public improvements, public facilities (1981:4.7)
5 year plan
Provide adequate streets, curbs, gutters & drainage
Improved pedestrian & vehicular circulation
Improve appearance of streets & parking
Provide land for parking & open space.
Enhance civic, community & cultural functions
High site design standards
Cause the under-grounding of unsightly overhead utility lines.
Provide land for public use and facilities. (1981:2.f)
Develop the project area as specified in the Redevelopment Plan (1981:2.b)
More on Jacobsen Family's Town Center - Last Known Plan(s)
Barton Road Plot Plan A-33: Talking points
Plan does not conform to the general plan.
Plan does not conform to the Barton Road specific plan.
Plan does not conform to the City Municipal Codes.
Plan has inadequate parking throughout, does not meet zoning code.
Intensity of the plot plan is too intense for this site.
Site it too small for buildings with uses as shown.
Land building ratio is too high.
Plan shows multiple variances and special exception to rules.
Outdoor sales area need to be calculated as retail sales area, also needs parking.
The center does not have total sufficient parking to meet building codes.
No attempt has been made to fashion the plot plan to the existing surrounding uses.
Loading docks are too close to retirement senior home.
Truck deliveries are to close and adjacent to multifamily & R-1 areas.
No attempt has been made to incorporate existing good quality retail uses on site.
No buffer zone is established between existing residential use & high semi-truck deliveries.
The pad parcels do not have parking sufficient for restaurant use and to meet code.
As the pad parcels will be separately divided & sold, so they must meet their code parking requirement ON site.
The drive through fast food restaurants will cause traffic to back-up on public streets.
No traffic studies have been done showing feasibility for drive thru use.
No changes to zoning have been done to allow drive thru for fast food
What ordinances were passed allowing drive-through restaurants, & when?
High intensity of use will damage surrounding areas with noise, air pollution,
traffic congestion and toxic water runoff from so large a sea of asphalt.
The delivery lanes for trucks should not be obscured by parking spaces.
The semi delivery trucks do not have sufficient turn around area.
Drive through delivery for semi-trucks should be provided, not dead ends.
There is inadequate access for fire or emergency vehicles especially in the rear.
There is no buffer zone between high use truck delivery areas and residential uses,
especially the existing senior housing at The Terraces.
Second story library would have reduced use, visibility & limited handicap access.
Library building should be completely separated from buildings storing flammable chemicals,
like Lowe's; and away from potential day labor gathering places.
No pedestrian friendly areas have been provided to incorporate the center to the town.
Community quality of life is not improved or maintained.
No environmental sensitivity has been used to incorporate the center into the community,
driving patterns, traffic patterns or quality of life.
Maximum number of participants are not involved.
Maximum number original owners are not re-entering the project area.
Maximum number of existing tenants are not represented or re-entering the project area.
Preferences have not been given to long time land owners as required by the 1981 plan.
Long term owners were not offered participation, purchase or redevelop. of agency land.
Participation of 1981 owners was to have be absent competition first, to abide by the plan.
Alternative site plans have not been considered from 1981 priority owners.
Alternate redevelopment plans have not been sought from priority owners or current tenants.
Agency land is proposed to be sold in secret without notice or opportunity to purchase given to existing 1981 owners as required by the plan.
2005 Development Agreement does not prevent speculation as required by the 1981 plan.
(i.e. only Jacobsen can make money selling to Stater's & Lowe's)
Agency is not exercising their rights & responsibilities to ensure the plan meets the rules.
Highest public good is not being served by site plan A-33.
The 1981 Redevelopment rules are being thrown out to accommodate the plan.
Community does not maintain & improve quality of life as required by the plan.
Replacement housing has not been provided to displaced residents in the project area.
Housing needs in Grand Terrace have not been met.
City owes state housing fund compliance in housing units and/or money or both.
Get copies of:
Resolution PC-81-02 January 12, 1981
Any ordinances or resolutions permitting drive-through fast food restaurants.
Copies of any traffic studies within last 5 years.
Any staff reports concerning traffic, traffic planning concerned with drive through use.
Tidbits from my reading of city documents: Senior Housing DATA
1981 redevelopment plan page 46
(e) "The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Project Area is governed by the land use plan."
(f) The amount of open space is . . . as shown on the attached Land Use Map."
(g) Limitation on type, size & height of buildings . . . shall be as limited by the City Municipal Code."
(h) light air privacy, etc.
Page 49 (j) Variances (for city projects only--haha)
"(3) Permitting a variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to property or improvements in the area."
(4) Permitting a variation will not be contrary to the objective of this Plan, or grant a special privilege."
"No variation shall be granted which changes a basic land use or which permits other than a minor departure from the provisions of this Plan."
Page 50 incompatible use, etc.
Posted by GrandPaTerrace at Sunday, August 27, 2006