From the Email InBox and Comment: BMSV CC and PC

Along the thoughts of having misleading information placed in front of the G.T.C.C.: At the Planning Commission of June when so many things were discussed, and faults were pointed out regarding the preliminary plans for the G.T. Senior Center, am surprised that there wasn't a request for new plans be made up and presented. This was suggested to the Planning Commission, but Comstock overrode it, and wanted an up or down vote.

Maybe the G.T. City Council isn't dumb after all. For there were a lot of words expressed at the P.C. meeting, but I sort of wonder if the words got translated in to action. For if I were on the C.C. and what I read did not coincide to what was shown, then I too would like an explanation, either that or send it back to the P.C. and have them revise it all.

Make it visually co-incidental to the notes. "I agree to...." will be forgotten in a few months.

A thirty day delay is more than enough time to make one resemble the other.

I see the test holes for soils testing now going on at empty lot on La Crosse near to auto body place.

Wonder who is going in there?

Some More Information Came IN:

Well, one of the biggie items discussed at the P.C. meeting was that of carports. For zero are shown on latest set of Prelim. plans as presented to the Comission. Now, much was discussed about such. Lasted maybe 1/2 hour of the time.

I would thing by agreeing to install, plus other parameters noted that evening, this make enough to create a "significant change" to the plans. Just one item. And thus by Comstock moving to approve the plans, he also shot off a round from the rifle in to the middle of the night which no one knows were it will land. What the P.C. may envision, and what the C.C. sees then may be two different items. The public nor the neighborhood has no room to complain, for it is all "Envisioned" as to what it may be like. Sort of allowing your neighbor to install an invisible roof.

Lets see the plans ... will ALL of the discussed revisions, ... before approving a project. Nuff of this "Well, I only want to become a good neighbor" stuff.

The Senior Center may be a good use for the site, but the approach is being veiled, and misleading. Especially to those who live along Brentwood. I support the lawsuit, not in the aims, but in that somehow, instead of building something suitable and fashionable, they are trying to ram down the throats of locals a project seen only in the back of someone's mind.

Other things discussed, but shown incorrectly on plans were, tree layout, tree sizes, concrete block walls, count of auto parking spaces, general layout of park area, visual access for adjoiners, and on and on. Not shown but certainly discussed, "We'll handle this later..."


From Gramps:

I can only read into the email that the Plans for the Blue Mt. Senior Villas that Passed the Planning Commission in June have been changed and are not the Plans being reviewed by the City Council. I don’t know this to be true, I hope some one has the time to double check that the documents are in agreement with one another and that there isn’t a “Readjustment” post Planning Commission “Approval” that undoes something in the EIR or worse.

It isn’t like we should actually trust the City Management or City Manager to do the paperwork right, as we have evidence that there is intent to do the opposite when it comes to Favored Projects and Developers. Thank goodness for the citizens group that hired and retained Ray Johnson. It is evident the City Council will not hear or listen to simple Citizens with the same or equal deliberation or consideration if not faced with legal action.