[00:00:01]
GOT PULLED UP ON STAGE AND JASON LADIES, GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE EVENING SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.I AM APOLOGIZED FOR BEING LATE.
I HAD SOME SPECIAL GUESTS AND, UH, WE HAD TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME.
[ CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bill Wells]
MEETINGS NOW CALLED TO ORDER, AND I LIKE TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT WELL TODAY WE
[ PRESENTATION: FLAG CEREMONY AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG BY ARROW OF LIGHT DEN - EL CAJON CUB SCOUT PACK 395]
HAVE A FLAG CEREMONY BY THE ALCOHOL CUB SCOUT PACK, 3 95.THEY'RE THE ARROW OF LIGHT DEN, AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEY DO A FLAG CEREMONY.
WILL THE AUDIENCE PLEASE RISE, COLOR GUARD ADVANCE.
PLEASE PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TWO THE REPUBLIC FOR WISH.
IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE, FOR ALL COLOR GUARD POSTS, THE COLORS, COLOR GUARD DISMISSED.
UM, WHERE WHERE'S OUR, OUR SCOUT LEADER.
WILL YOU WANNA COME AND INTRODUCE THE BOYS REAL QUICK? I BELIEVE IT WAS SAID THAT WE'RE FROM EL CAJON CUB SCOUT PACK 3 95, AND THIS IS, UH, MY DEN.
THIS IS CARSON DARIO, ALEX AND LUCAS, AND THEY WHO ARE THE TWO ARE MISSING.
AND THE TWO, UM, OLDER SCOUTS.
THESE ARE BOY SCOUTS, JOSHUA AND ASHER THEY'RE.
AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS MONTH IS CALLED BUILDING A BETTER WORLD.
AND SO THEY'RE LEARNING ABOUT COMMUNITY AND COUNTRY AND THEIR DUTY AS CITIZENS.
WELL, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING.
WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF YOU BOYS.
I, YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK, UH, COUNCILMAN KENDRICK WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING MICROPHONE.
WELL, I WAS A CUB SCOUT AND A BOY SCOUT A LONG TIME AGO, SO I STILL REMEMBER SOMETHING FROM THE BOY SCOUTS.
A SCOUT IS TRUSTWORTHY, LOYAL, HELPFUL, FRIENDLY, COURTEOUS KIND, OBEDIENT, CHEERFUL, THRIFTY, BRAVE, CLEAN, AND REVERENT.
DID I GET IT RIGHT? ALL RIGHT, THANKS.
SO BEING IN THE CUB SCOUTS IN THE BOY SCOUTS, WHAT I LEARNED, FOLLOWED ME MY ENTIRE LIFE AND HELPED ME TREMENDOUSLY.
SO ALL OF YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH.
SO THANK YOU FOR COMING AND I'M VERY PROUD OF ALL OF YOU.
ARE YOU GONNA STAY FOR THE WHOLE MEETING? WE'RE GONNA TAKE FOR A LITTLE BIT.
SO THEY'RE BEING PUNISHED THEN
NO, YOU, YOU, YOU, UH, YOU GO WHENEVER YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY AGENDA CHANGES? NO, SIR.
WE ARE AT PUBLIC COMMENT THIS TIME.
ANY PERSON MAY ADDRESS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AUTHORITY SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CAJON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA COMMENTS RELATING TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA ARE TO BE TAKEN AT THE TIME THAT THE ITEM IS HEARD, STATE LAW PROHIBITS DISCUSSION OR ACTION ON ITEMS, NOT ON THE AGENDA.
HOWEVER, COUNCIL AUTHORITY AND AGENCY MEMBERS MAY BRIEFLY RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OR QUESTIONS, AND AN ITEM MAY BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
ANGELA, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT, NO CARDS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
[100. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Opens the public hearing and receives testimony; Closes the public hearing; Moves to adopt the next Resolution, in order, affirming the decision of the EI Cajon Planning Commission in denying the appeal for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004.]
HEARINGS.ITEM 100 IS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
[00:05:01]
AND I'LL ASK OUR STAFF TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM.GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, NOAH ALVIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT, HOPEFULLY.
SO OUR PROJECT DESCRIPTION, UH, THE PROJECT'S NIGHT IS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, UH, AND IT'S FORMER CALTRANS, UH, RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND IT'S JUST A STANDARD MAP TO APPROVE TWO HOUSES.
SO THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS THAT THERE'S NO OBLIGATION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD THESE HOUSES.
SO IT'S JUST TO APPROVE THOSE TWO LOTS.
AND THEN IN THE FUTURE OF A DEVELOPER CAN COME FORWARD TO, UH, BUILD THE HOUSES.
SO THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WHICH REQUIRE THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS, UH, THAT WOULD BE CONNECTING OAKDALE AND MINT AVENUES.
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN HAS ENVISIONED.
SO THE PROJECT SITE IS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN IS LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL OR LR FOR SHORT, UH, WHICH DOES ALLOW UP TO 10 DWELLING UNITS.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS RS SIX OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT LR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION.
AND THE OVERALL SITE IS ABOUT NINE TENTHS OF AN ACRE OR 38,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE SITE IS, UH, GENERALLY FLAT EXCEPT FOR THE NORTHLY PORTION OF THE SITE, UH, WHERE THE FORESTER CREEK, UH, DOES RUN THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL PLAN MAP.
AND SO WE ADDED THIS IN JUST TO ILLUSTRATE, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, AS WELL AS THE, UH, PROPERTY OR THE, UH, PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE CONNECTION OF OAKDALE AND MINT AVENUES.
SO THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 30,000, UH, SQUARE FEET.
UH, AND THEN THE REMAINDER, THE PLAN STREET, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
UM, ALSO WANTED TO NOTE, UM, THAT THE GENERAL PLAN GOAL SIX AND OBJECTIVE 6.3, DO INDICATE THAT PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS STREETS, CURBS, SCATTERERS SIDEWALKS AND DRAINAGE CHANNELS SHOULD BE COMPLETED TO FACILITATE TRAFFIC NEEDS.
SO HERE WE ADDED JUST AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
UH, THE INTENT HERE WAS JUST TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE THE OVERALL PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, TO THE EAST AND THEN TO THE WEST.
UH, THERE ARE SOME MULTI-FAMILY USES AS YOU GO ALONG OAKDALE OVER TOWARDS, UH, EAST MAIN STREET.
SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE TENTATIVE TO MAP.
AND SO WE ARE SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINES HERE IN YELLOW, AND THEN THE GREEN BOXES, UH, DEPICT THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR HOUSES AS WELL AS ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
SO, AS I SAID EARLIER, UH, THE LOCATIONS FOR THE HOUSES ARE JUST CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE, AND THEY'RE ONLY PRESENTED AS AN EXAMPLE JUST TO SHOW THAT, UH, THE FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING ON THIS SITE IN THE FUTURE, WE'VE ALSO SHOWN FORESTER CREEK IN BLUE ON THE NORTHLY PORTION OF THE SITE, AND THEN THE PROPOSED ROAD CONNECTION IN GRAY ON THE BOTTOM.
SO I WANNA HIGHLIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED, UH, STREET THERE'S TWO ORANGE BOXES, UM, AND THOSE BOXES ACTUALLY REPRESENT, UH, ONE FOOT STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE RESERVED FOR A FUTURE STREET, UH, WHEN THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS WERE APPROVED.
SO ON THE EAST SIDE, UH, NEXT TO MINT AVENUE, UH, MAP NUMBER 36 94, UH, WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED IN 1957.
AND THAT AUTHORIZED 217 LOTS THAT WERE FRONTING ON MINT AVENUE, MACON STREET, TRENTON STREET, VERN STREET, ONIX AVENUE, JADE AVENUE, AND GAL STREET.
AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, A SECOND MAP, UH, NUMBER 41 68, UH, WAS APPROVED IN 1959.
AND THAT APPROVED 11 LOTS THAT WERE FRONTING ON OAKDALE AVENUE BETWEEN NORTH THIRD AND DURHAM STREETS.
SO EACH OF THESE STRIPS OF LAND DO FRAME THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC STREET COMPLETION, UH, ONCE THE PROPERTY WERE TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.
SO LASTLY, I WANNA NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE RED LINE, AND THAT'S THERE TO DEPICT, UH, THE LOCATION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES THAT ARE CROSSING THE SITE, UM, THAT YOU LOOKED UTILITY LINES AND EASEMENTS WERE A CONSTRAINT, UH, TO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDERED, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
SO HERE WE HAVE TWO IMAGES OF THE IMAGES OF THE SITE THAT ARE TAKEN FROM OAKDALE AVENUE LOOKING EAST.
SO AGAIN, UM, ORIENTATING, YOU, YOU CAN SEE THE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES BY DISSECTING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE, UM, SIDEWALK, UM, ENDING RIGHT AT THE, UM, RIGHT
[00:10:01]
AT THE SUBJECT SITE.SO THESE IMAGES ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF, OF THE SITE, SO ON MINT AVENUE AND THEN FACING TOWARDS THE WEST.
SO AGAIN, HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE UTILITY ALLIANCE ON THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF THE STREET, UM, ON THE LEFT, YOU CAN SEE THE SIDEWALK, UH, AGAIN, CONNECTING AND ENDING, UH, DIRECTLY AT THE SUBJECT SITE, AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK ON, UH, THE NORTHERLY, UH, SITE OF MINTA AVENUE.
AND THEN I ADDED THESE IMAGES, UM, FROM MINT AVENUE, UH, THESE JUST SHOW THE FLAT TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE.
SO I JUST LEANED OVER THE FENCE TO TAKE A COUPLE OF PICTURES, UH, BUT IT SHOWS THE OVERALL FLAT TOPOGRAPHY AND SUITABILITY FOR, UM, TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, AT THAT PROPERTY.
SO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, UH, FOR THIS REQUEST, UH, STARTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 3RD.
UM, AND AT THAT TIME, UM, EIGHT INDIVIDUALS DID SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, UM, AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UM, THE APPLICANT DID REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO EVALUATE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT.
AND THAT WAS RELATED TO THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT CONNECTING THE STREETS.
SO FOLLOWING THAT FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THE APPLICANT DID MEET WITH STAFF, AND WE SAT DOWN WITH HIS ENGINEER AND TRIED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR HOW AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN COULD BE DEVELOPED.
UM, ONE OF THE MAJOR CONSTRAINTS TO AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN WAS, UH, HAVING SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR A FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND.
SO THE FIRE APPARATUS ENTERING THE SITE COULD TURN AROUND IF THERE WERE, IF THE ROAD WERE NOT TO BE CONNECTED.
SO WITH THE ROAD BEING CONNECTED THAT FIRE APPARATUS WOULD NEED TO TURN AROUND.
IT COULD TRAVEL TO THE EAST OR TO THE WEST IN, IN EITHER DIRECTION.
ULTIMATELY, THE APPLICANT GAVE US, UM, A COUPLE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, NONE OF THOSE WERE DEEMED FEASIBLE AND HE DECIDED THAT HE JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UM, DESIGN THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED AND THEN WENT TO HEARING ON MAY 3RD.
SO HE DIDN'T ULTIMATELY GET TO A POINT WHERE HE HAD A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, COULD SUPPORT.
SO ON JULY 19TH, UM, WE DID MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.
UM, AND THAT'S, AGAIN WITH THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN SHOWING THE ROAD BEING CONNECTED, UM, AT THAT HEARING SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS DID EXPRESS A DESIRE TO LOOK FOR A COMPROMISE, UM, AND TO SEE IF THERE WAS, UM, SOMETHING COULD BE DONE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, BUT ULTIMATELY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE GENERAL PLAN ANTICIPATES THAT ROAD BEING CONNECTED AND THEY VOTED THREE ONE, UM, TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP.
AND WE HAD, UH, ONE ABSENT COMMISSIONER AT THE HEARING.
SO, UM, NOW JUST TO GO OVER THE APPEAL, SO THE APPEAL, UM, INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT IS REQUESTING TO REVISIT AND MODIFY THE GENERAL PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE PARCEL REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING THE ROAD THOROUGH FAIR BETWEEN MINT AVENUE AND OAKDALE AVENUE.
SO THE REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, UM, ARE INCLUDED ON THIS SLIDE AND THEY INCLUDE INCREASED CRIME RATES AND ACTIVITY, NO TRAFFIC DEMAND FOR THE ROAD, INCREASED TRAFFIC, AC ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS DECREASES IN HOME VALUES.
AND THEN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS AS PART OF THE APPEAL.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAD A PETITION OF 97 SIGNATURES THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MAP.
SO AS IT RELATES TO CRIME, THE APPEAL INDICATES, UH, POTENTIAL INCREASED CRIME RATES AND ACTIVITY.
SO IN GENERAL, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD NOTE THAT VACANT LOTS CAN ATTRACT, UH, CRIME AND SQUATTERS.
UM, ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, ANY ISSUES THAT THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, BUT THE CITY HAS EXPERIENCED ISSUES, UH, WITH CRIME AND SQUATTERS ON VACANT PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, TYPICALLY THOUGH WHEN YOU SEE VACANT PROPERTY DEVELOP, UH, AND IS ACTIVATED WITH USES, UM, A LOT OF THOSE UNWANTED AND DERELICT ACTIVITIES, UH, TEND TO GO AWAY.
SO FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD SEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE ELIMINATING A VACANT LOT AND RESULTING IN NEW HOMES, UH, WITH RESIDENTS THAT ARE ABLE TO MONITOR THE STREET, HAVE EYES ON THE STREET AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS ALSO LISTED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE LACK OF TRAFFIC DEMAND FOR THE ROAD CONNECTION AND POTENTIAL INCREASES IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS.
THE APPEAL ALSO INCLUDES DOCUMENTATION FROM THE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE SERVICES, UH, REGARDING CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC ON DEAD END STREETS.
SO THE PLANNED ROAD CONNECTION WOULD SERVE TO REDUCE TRAFFIC INGESTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST MADISON AVENUE WITH TRENTON STREET AND VERN STREET BY ALLOWING ACCESS TO EAST MAIN STREET, UH, VIA THE ROAD CONNECTION AT MITTEN OAKDALE AVENUES.
UM, SO THAT WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THOSE AREAS DOWN ON EAST MADISON AVENUE.
UM, STAFF WOULD NOTE THAT THE EXISTING ROADS IN THE VICINITY ARE OPERATING AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS.
SO THE BLAND ROAD CONNECTION WOULDN'T ALLEVIATE ANY FAILING, UH, ROAD INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE NEARBY.
SO JUST OVERALL FROM A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, UH, THE ROAD CONNECTION WOULD INCREASE VEHICLE TRIPS ON MINTON, OAKDALE AVENUES, UH, BUT IT WOULD MORE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTE VEHICLE TRIPS
[00:15:01]
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY TAKING THAT PRESSURE OFF OF EAST MADISON AVENUE.UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE ASSOCIATED TRIP REDUCTIONS ON EAST MADISON WOULD ALSO REDUCE CONGESTION DURING SCHOOL HOURS, AS WELL AS THE LIKELIHOOD OF ACCIDENTS, UM, OR INCIDENTS RELATED TO HEAVY TRAFFIC.
SO WE WANTED TO PUT TOGETHER A DIAGRAM TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE HOW TRAFFIC DEMAND WOULD BE REDUCED ON EAST MADISON AVENUE.
UM, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE, UM, TRAFFIC TRIPS THAT WOULD BE ORIGINATING FROM THE NORTH EASTERLY PORTION OR NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND SO YOU SEE, UM, A TRIP STARTING FROM WHERE THE STARS LOCATED AND WANTING TO GO ON, UH, EAST MAIN STREET OR GO TO THE NORTH OR TOWARDS INTERSTATE EIGHT.
UH, AS OF RIGHT NOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL ALONG THE ORANGE LINE.
SO THEY WOULD GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO EAST MADISON AVENUE, TRAVEL TO THE WEST, AND THEN EITHER GO, UM, NORTH ON THIRD OR CONTINUE ON OVER TO EAST MAIN STREET.
YOU CAN SEE THE RED LINE WITH THE NEW CONNECTION.
IF THE OAKDALE AND MID AVENUES ARE CONNECTED, THAT WOULD ALLOW, UH, THOSE VEHICLE TRIPS TO, UH, JUST TRAVEL, UH, WEST, UH, TOWARDS OAKDALE AND THEN DIRECTLY OVER TO EAST MAIN WITHOUT HAVING TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO EAST MADISON AVENUE.
SO THIS, THIS DIAGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND IT SHOWS, UM, THE AREAS IDENTIFYING TRAFFIC INGESTION AND SHOWING HOW RESPONSE FROM FIRE STATION EIGHT WOULD NOT CHANGE IF THE ROAD CONNECTION IS COMPLETED.
SO STAFF WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE IF EMERGENCY RESPONSES FROM FIRE STATION EIGHT, UH, IF EMERGENCY RESPONSES ONLY CAME FROM FIRE STATION EIGHT, HOWEVER, SOME RESPONSE UNITS, UH, POTENTIALLY COULD BE DISPATCHED, UH, FROM OTHER STATIONS, OTHER AGENCIES, OR WHILE IN THE FIELD.
SO IN THIS DIAGRAM, WE WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE, UH, CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE, UM, A EMERGENCY RESPONSE WAS COMING FROM EAST MAIN STREET OR FROM THE WEST OR NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
SO YOU CAN SEE ALONG THE ORANGE LINE HERE IN CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT FIRE APPARATUS TRUCK WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL.
IF IT WERE TO GO ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT SITE OVER TO MINT AVENUE, UM, A MORE CIRCUIT SECUROUS ROUTE DOWN TO EAST MADISON AVENUE AND THEN B PACK UP TOWARDS MINT AVENUE.
SO WITH THE ROAD CONNECTION, UM, FIRE RESPONSES OFF OF, UH, EAST MAIN STREET WOULD BE QUICKER.
SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE FINDINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
SO THE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO FIND THAT THE MAP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THAT THE SITE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSED DENSITY THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR HEALTH PROBLEMS OR THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION WOULD CONFLICT WITH EASEMENTS ACQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC FOR ACCESS.
SO THE FINDINGS FROM STAFF ARE THAT THE PROPOSED MAP IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE PLAN ROAD CONNECTION THAT THE OVERALL SITE IS FLAT AND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THAT SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATES SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THAT THE SUBDIVISION WOULD NOT CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR HEALTH PROBLEMS. AND THEN LASTLY THAT THE, UH, DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE ROAD CONS, UH, CONNECTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ONE FOOT STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE DEDICATED FOR FUTURE ROAD, UH, CONNECTIONS IN THE 1950S.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO AFFIRM, UH, THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONED, UH, PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, WHAT ABOUT AMBULANCE ACCESS? HOW HOW'S THAT PLAY INTO THIS? WHETHER THE ROAD GOES THROUGH THE VACANT LOT OR NOT, IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ANALYSIS THAT WE PROVIDED, WHICH IS IF THE ROAD GOES THROUGH AN AMBULANCE TRAVELING, UH, FROM NORTH OF INTERSTATE EIGHT OR FROM, UH, THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE WOULD HAVE A MORE DIRECT ROUTE, UH, TO MINT AVENUE OR TO THE PORTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
SO IDEA WHAT, UH, TIME OF THE DELAY WOULD BE IN THIS SUCH A CASE.
SO WE DIDN'T STUDY THE TIME OF DELAY, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH, UM, THE, UH, REVIEW OF THE, OF THE PROJECT, UH, BECAUSE SINCE THE PROJECT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, IT WAS EXEMPT FROM SEQ AND DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL STUDIES.
SO IF THE GENERAL PLAN WERE TO BE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED, AND WE WANTED TO ELIMINATE THAT ROW CONNECTION, THAT'S WHAT WOULD TRIGGER A SPECIAL STUDY TO LOOK AT, UM, HOW LONG, UH, EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES WOULD TAKE.
IF HAVE YOU DONE ANY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ON MADISON, SAY NORTH OF MAINE?
[00:20:01]
I MEAN, SIMILAR IN, INTO THE LAST RESPONSE, UH, WE DIDN'T DO ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES OR ANALYSIS ON ACCIDENTS.UH, WE JUST LOOKED AT OVERALL, UH, THE TRIP JET TRIP DISTRIBUTION THAT WOULD OCCUR.
UM, SO THE TRIP DISTRIBUTION WOULD, UH, REDUCE TRIPS DOWN ON EAST MADISON AND DIVERT THOSE, UH, BUT WE DID NOT STUDY ACCIDENTS.
AND YOU SAID THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE PIT PETITION OF 97 SIGNATURES? YES, THE APPELLANT.
OH, OH, THE APPELLANT MM-HMM
NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT.
DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHERE THOSE 97 SIGNATURES CAME FROM? DID THEY COME FROM THE PROJECT AREA? UM, THE SIGNATURES WERE INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT, UM, AND THEY LIST THE ADDRESSES FOR EACH OF THE, OF THE, UH, SIGNATORIES ON THAT.
UM, SO, UH, MANY OF THE ROADS THAT I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, UH, THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE SIGNATURES CAME FROM.
THE QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE, THE SLIDE ON THE FINDINGS IS, IS THAT THE COMPLETE EXHAUSTIVE LIST FOR US TO CONSIDER, OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS WE CAN CONSIDER BECAUSE THESE ARE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR THE MAP.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING REALLY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS A DECISION ON, OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD A DECISION ON THOSE ARE THE FINDINGS THAT ARE MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO DENY THE MAP THEY'RE BY STATE LAW.
SO AS LISTED THERE BY, UM, BY THE DEPARTMENT, UH, AND, AND, UH, REFERRED TO BY MR. ALVI, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FOUR FINDINGS IN ORDER TO DENY THE MAP.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FOUR FINDINGS.
WE DON'T HAVE, HAVE TO DENY THE MAP.
YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL PLAN.
YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT, UM, I, YOU DON'T WANNA PUT THAT ONE BACK IN.
I GOT SURE THOSE FINDINGS ARE TO GRANT THE APPEAL, MEANING TO, TO DENY THE MAP, ESSENTIALLY.
IT'S NOT, NOT I'M SORRY, WHAT DOES NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN MEAN? IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE GENERAL PLAN CALLED FOR A DIFFERENT DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR DIFFERENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT, UH, FOR THE GENERAL PLAN PROVIDED FOR A DIFFERENT, UH, LOCATION OF A ROAD OR ACCESS, UM, I'M SURE THERE'S MORE, IF IT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH OPEN SPACE UTILITIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT COULDN'T BE PLACED.
NO, NOAH NOSIES BY HEART, NOT ME, BUT YEAH, I WOULD ADD, I THINK THE GOOD THING TO ADD WOULD BE THE SUITABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE CONSTRAINTS, YOU HAD FORESTER CREEK ALONG THE NORTHLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT AN, AN APPROPRIATE DENSITY IS BEING PROPOSED.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE PROVIDED THE DIAGRAM, SHOWING THE HOUSE LOCATIONS, UM, CUZ BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OR THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, UH, THEY COULD PROPOSE ADDITIONAL LOTS, BUT THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO PROPOSE A MAP THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THEN SUITABLE FOR THE SITE.
AND SO THAT'S THE SUITABILITY ASPECT OF IT IS, IS A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION.
THAT'S THAT'S THE SECOND BULLET THERE TOO.
SO THOSE FOUR THINGS, YOU'VE GOTTA BE ABLE TO FIND THAT, UM, THO THOSE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE IN ORDER TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND DENY THE MAP.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE REVERSE TYPE OF THINGS.
IF YOU PROVE THE MAP, THEN YOU, YOU WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE, THE APPEAL.
IS IT TRUE? THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE YOUR GENERAL PLAN, BUT THE COUNCIL DOES.
SO WHEN YOU SAY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IT'S WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DECIDES IS THE GENERAL PLAN, RIGHT.
AT WHATEVER TIME IS THAT TRUE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE COULD HAVE FOUND CONSISTENT AND DID FIND CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO NOW IT BECOMES A COUNCIL TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION ON THE APPEAL JUST AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID BE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN.
THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE PLAN, NOT TONIGHT, BUT YES YOU DO.
AND ANOTHER POINT THAT MR. ALVIE MADE WAS BECAUSE IT IS A, UM, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN IT'S PROPERLY ZONED.
UH, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH SES.
IT MEETS ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER IT'S 21 OR 20.
IT JUST, I, AN INVIL EXEMPTION INVIL EXCEPTION, 21 OR 32 CLASS 32 32.
SO IT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY SE REVIEW AT ALL.
AND DO WE HAVE TO FIND ALL FOUR OR CAN WE FIND ANY ONE THAT I THINK YOU NEED ALL FOUR, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE NOAH.
SO IT WOULD BE, UM, IN ORDER TO ANY OF THESE EARN OPTIONS.
SO IF THE, IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO SAY, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OR IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, ANY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD BE CAUSED TO DENY THE MAP.
AND SO IF YOU UPHOLD, UM, THE MAP APPROVAL AND DENY THE APPEAL, YOU'D BE FINDING THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
[00:25:01]
AND THEN, UM, AND THEN THE LAST ONE, THE, UH, SUBDIVISION AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE EASEMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN THE FIFTIES.SO I COULD, WE, WE COULD FIND ANY ONE OF THOSE, UH, TRUE AS STATED ABOVE THERE AND THE OTHER THREE WE COULD DISAGREE WITH AND THAT ONE WOULD BE THE GROUNDS FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL, FOR INSTANCE, CORRECT.
JUST WANNA KNOW STAND CORRECTED.
BUT I KNEW NO KNEW NOAH KNEW THAT, THAT I JUST WANT GET THE GROUND RULES MM-HMM
SO WITH REGARD TO OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED, UH, TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPER, CAN YOU RUN THROUGH SOME OF THOSE? SO WE'RE NOT KIND OF TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS AS WELL FROM THE DIAS.
AND THEN MY OTHER SECOND QUESTION IS ONE OF THE HINDRANCES IS HA HAVING A FIRE APPARATUS BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND, UM, IT, ARE THEY ABLE TO TURN AROUND NOW WITH THE EXISTING STREET? AND, UM, SO YEAH, MAYBE YOU COULD ADD SOME CONTEXT TO THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT OPTIONS WERE DIRECTLY SHARED, UM, WITH THE NEIGHBORS, UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, HIS NAME IS DEL GESH, UH, DEL GESH, UH, WORKED, UH, DIRECTLY WITH THEM, UM, UH, AND TALKED, UH, TO THEM.
UM, HE'S HERE TONIGHT AND CAN SPEAK TO THE EFFORTS THAT HE MADE AT LOOKING AT THOSE OPTIONS.
UM, WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS, UM, THE MEETING THAT WE HAD AFTER THE CONTINUANCE, WHERE WE SAT DOWN WITH HIS ENGINEER AND LOOKED AT OPTIONS FOR, UM, CLOSING THE ROAD AND, AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
SO THE PRIMARY ISSUE FOR, UM, FIRE ACCESS IS THAT, UM, TYPICALLY YOU DON'T WANNA SEE, UM, A DEAD END OF MORE THAN 150 FEET, UH, WHERE FIRE APPARATUS WOULD THEN NEED TO, TO BACK OUT.
AND SO THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE YOU SEE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TURN AROUND, UH, BE REQUIRED.
AND SO THE ISSUE WAS, IS THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT'S ESSENTIALLY ABOUT 150 FEET, UM, FROM MINT, UH, WHERE IT ENDS, UM, TO, UM, TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT STREET THERE.
AND SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TURN AROUND WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED IF THE ROAD WERE NOT TO BE BUILT THROUGH.
SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THE APPLICANT HAD WAS THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT ALTERNATIVES, THERE WERE THOSE CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO YOU HAD THE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES THAT WERE TRAVERSING ALONG, UM, THE NORTH OF THE PLAN STREET.
UH, THERE WERE THOSE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES.
AND THEN TRYING TO FACTOR THAT IN WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND, UM, THEY SUBMITTED, UH, TWO SKETCHES.
UH, BOTH OF THOSE, BOTH OF THOSE SKETCHES WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN, UM, WHEN WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL, UM, INPUT OR ADDITIONAL OPTIONS, UH, THE APPLICANT SAID, UM, I DON'T WANNA SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL TIME, UH, WORKING ON OTHER OPTIONS.
I WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS.
AND SO AS STAFF, WE WERE REQUIRED TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
IF THE STREET GOES THROUGH, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LAND ON OTHER SIDE, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE NEW STREET.
SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE CORRECTLY, THE STREET'S GONNA GO THROUGH, BUT THERE'S STILL GONNA BE SOME VACANT LAND ON EITHER SIDE, CORRECT.
WHO OWNS THAT LAND? SO THE SUBJECT SITE INCLUDES THE ENTIRE PROPOSED STREET.
UM, AND SO THE VACANT LAND NORTH OF THE, OF THE, UH, PROPOSED STREET IS ALL OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE TWO LOTS WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED.
UM, SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS ALSO SOME FORMER, UM, CALTRANS LAND, UH, THAT HAS BEEN SOLD.
UM, AND, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH, UM, HAS SPOKEN TO STAFF ABOUT, UM, SUBDIVIDING OR ADDITIONAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED ANYTHING FORMALLY.
SO THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR MORE HOMES ESSENTIALLY IS THE SHORT ANSWER.
SO IF WE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE GRANT THIS APPEAL, WE'RE JUST GONNA START ALL OVER AGAIN WHEN THE NEXT DEVELOPER COMES IN, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, BECAUSE IF THEY DECIDE TO DEVELOP THAT LAND, NOW WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA TRIGGER MOST LIKELY THEY'LL TRIGGER THAT CLAUSE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN TO PUT THE STREET THROUGH.
SO THE STREET IS ACTUALLY ONLY TRIGGERED BY THE MAP THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BECAUSE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UM, LET ME JUST GET, MAKE SURE I HAVE THE STREET NAME RIGHT ON, UM, DURHAM, I BELIEVE, UH, DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH, UH, THAT PROPERTY, UM, YES, ON DURHAM, UH, THAT PROPERTY, UH, THAT'S THE FORMER CALTRAN SITE, UM, FRONTS ON DURHAM STREET.
SO IT HAS ITS OWN LEGAL FRONTAGE, UM, ON A CITY, UH, PUBLIC STREET.
AND SO, UM, IT WOULDN'T, UM, IF, IF THE ROAD WERE
[00:30:01]
NOT TO GO THROUGH, IT COULD STILL DEVELOP.I DON'T MEAN TO HAVE, TRY AGAIN, DEER IN THE HEADLIGHT LOOK, BUT CAN YOU, WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THEN, CUZ I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT.
SO THAT ODD SHAPED PIECE IS THE PROPERTY MM-HMM
MAYBE WE'LL GO, LET'S GO TO THE, UM, SITE PLAN.
SO THE, THE ORANGE STRIPS REPRESENT THOSE ONE FOOT, UH, STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE, UM, RESERVED FOR THE FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE STREET IN GRAY AND THEN THE AREA TO BELOW THE STREET, UM, FRONTS ON DURHAM STREET.
AND SO THAT PROPERTY COULD BE DEVELOPED AND, AND GET ITS ACCESS, UH, FROM A CITY MAINTAINED PUBLIC STREET.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
IF THAT'S WHERE THE, THE WHERE'S THE END, IS IT ON THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, WHERE'S THE END OF THE STREET, THE DEAD END THERE THERE'S DEAD ENDS, UH, WHERE BOTH ORANGE LINES ARE.
SO WHAT'S WHAT IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ORANGE LINE.
THOSE ARE, UH, BOTH HERE I COULD DO.
UM, SO THERE'S JUST THE, THE RAIL BARRIER PREVENTING ACCESS, RIGHT.
AND THEN THE END OF THE SIDEWALK.
AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE, SIMILARLY, IT'S JUST A OFFENSE AND UM, SOME SIGNS, APPARENTLY I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
UM, SO THE, IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN ON THE OTHER PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, MM-HMM
IF THE, IF THE OWNER OF THE, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MM-HMM,
MM-HMM,
THEY DON'T HAVE TO OPEN THAT ROAD.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, UM, COULD STILL DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
UM, THEY, UM, ONE NUANCE IN THIS APPLICATION IS THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR THIS SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED TO DO THE FULL STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
AND SO IT'S TYPICALLY, UH, ONLY REQUIREMENT TO HAVE HALF WIDTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
AND SO, UM, AS PART OF THIS, THE CITY WORKED WITH, UM, THE APPLICANT TO GET A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, UM, IN ORDER TO HAVE HIM BE REIMBURSED FOR THE PORTIONS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE SITE ON DURHAM.
UM, SO IT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT IF COUNCIL WERE TO SAY, WE DON'T WANT, OR THE, THE ROAD ISN'T GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH COULD DEVELOP INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT ROAD.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ACCESS TO IT.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND NOW I JUST, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING OUT THERE AND LOOKING, IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM PICTURES.
UM, SO CURRENTLY THE FIRE TRUCK IS ABLE TO TURN AROUND IN THIS DEAD END.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? UM, WOULD YOU HAVE THE FIRE CHIEF THAT'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, FIRE TRUCKS, BUT THE, UM, THE RIGHT NOW, UM, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR A FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND.
IT'S JUST A, A DEAD END AND THEY, UH, FIRE APPARATUS WOULD NEED TO BACK OUT.
AND HOW MANY CALL DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY CALLS FOR SERVICE THAT WE GET IN THIS AREA? I MEAN, DO WE GET A LOT OF CALLS AND ARE THEY BEING HINDERED, BEING ABLE TO GET TO THE CALLS? ARE THEY BEING HINDERED BY THE STREET BEING CLOSED? SO WE DIDN'T COLLECT DATA ON CALLS FOR SERVICE IN RELATION TO THIS APPLICATION.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING CONDITION, UH, FIRE APPARATUS ARE GOING TO GET THERE AS SOON AS THEY CAN.
UM, AND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, UM, USING THE AVAILABLE STREETS THAT ARE THERE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN ON THE GENERAL PANEL FOR 38 YEARS OR SO.
AND I'M JUST ASKING QUESTION, I'M NOT CASTING ASPERSIONS ON PLANNING OR ANYTHING, BUT SINCE YOU GUYS ARE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, MM-HMM,
AND AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH AND PULLING UP THE MAPS, MM-HMM
MM-HMM
I, AND I UNDERSTAND I WATCHED THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS TECHNICALLY THE DUE DILIGENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KNOW THIS.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE MOST OF US, WE, WE DON'T DO THIS.
AND SO BEING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.
[00:35:01]
LIKE THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD LET PEOPLE KNOW SO THAT WE'RE NOT COMING TO THIS SITUATION.MM-HMM
UM, I, MS. MITCHELL, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD, WE TYPICALLY WILL SIT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN, ANY, ANY ZONING REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THAT MEETING OCCURRED.
SO THAT'S WHY THE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ROAD BUILT BECAUSE HE KNEW UPON MEETING WITH US THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE THE, THE REQUIREMENT.
AND, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, CUZ YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA BE BUILDING, I'M NOT A DEVELOPER.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE, THE NUANCES TOO, COULD BE THE, THE QUESTION THAT'S ASKED TO STAFF.
UM, SO IF, IF SOMEONE, LIKE PART OF THIS APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED WERE TO COME IN AND SAY, HI NOAH, WHEN, WHEN IS THIS ROAD GONNA BE BUILT? I WOULD SAY THE CITY HAS NO PLANS TO BUILD THIS ROAD BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN OUR, UM, BUDGET OR AS PART OF OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
UM, BUT THE ANSWER'S DIFFERENT.
IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, DO I HAVE TO BUILD THE ROAD? AUTOMATIC ANSWER.
SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK THERE'S THAT, THAT CAN BE THE NUANCE BETWEEN THE TYPE OF QUESTION THAT'S ASKED.
AND, AND I'M JUST, I SEE IT, I SEE THIS ISSUE FROM BOTH SIDES.
MM-HMM
SO I'M TRYING TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, IF THE ROAD WERE TO NOT GO THROUGH, WHO WOULD WE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING DOWN THE BRUSH? WELL, IT WOULD ALWAYS BE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THE SUBJECT SITE.
UM, SO IF IT, UM, IS NOT SUBD SUBDIVIDED AND THE LAND'S NOT DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR STREET PURPOSES, IT WOULD REMAIN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO, TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN AND MITIGATE BRUSH.
AND WOULD THAT, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER BE THE DEVELOPER OR COULD HE DEED IT OVER TO THE TWO HOUSES THAT HE BUILT? UH, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE, THE DEVELOPER PROPERTY OWNER TO, YOU KNOW, IF HE DECIDES TO SELL THOSE LOTS.
UM, THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IS INDICATED TO STAFF THAT HE'S BUILDING A HOUSE FOR HIMSELF.
DID YOU DO ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES IF MID AVENUE WERE OPENED, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CARS GOING THROUGH THAT.
DID YOU ESTIMATE THE TRAFFIC VOLUME? BOTH THERE AND ON OAKDALE BETWEEN SECOND AND MAIN, BECAUSE I ASSUME, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMING HOME ON THE, UH, NORTHERLY PORTION OF THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD TODAY THEY GET OFF, UH, SECOND STREET AND THEN TAKE A LEFT ON MADISON AND GO HOME, BUT THEY WOULD TAKE A LEFT ON OAKDALE MM-HMM
SO WE WEREN'T ABLE JUST BECAUSE THE PROJECT WAS, UM, EXEMPT FROM SE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, WE COULDN'T COMPEL THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE US ANY ANALYSIS.
UH, TO THE CONTRARY, BUT WE DID, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WE DID, UH, LOOK AT AN ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT IT WOULD ADD AND ESTIMATED THOSE BASED ON THE HOUSES THAT ARE TO THE NORTH AND, UH, EAST OF THE SITE AT RIGHT AROUND 190 TRIPS PER DAY, 190 TRIPS WOULD GO ON MINT AVENUE.
IF, IF YOU LIVED IN THE CUL-DE-SAC OF MINT, YOU MIGHT SEE UP TO 190 CARS.
MM-HMM,
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS CONSISTENT I'M CUZ I DON'T WANT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, BUT COULD WE POTENTIALLY I'VE SEEN IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, A GATE, YOU KNOW, WITH A LOCK A METAL GATE, SO YOU COULD BUILD THE STREET ALL THE WAY TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR THOSE POTENTIAL HOMES.
AND THERE'S A GATE THERE WITH A LOCK AND POLICE AND FIRE HAVE ACCESS TO IT THAT COULD OPEN UP AND TURN AROUND.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT IT WOULD SERVE BOTH PURPOSES ACCESS TO BOTH PROPERTIES NORTH AND SOUTH AND THEN NOT ALLOW ACCESS THROUGH, WHICH IS, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE ISSUE WITHOUT HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE ISSUE IS MORE CARS GOING THROUGH PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN OPTION.
SO YEAH, PHIL, THE, UM, CALIFORNIA LAW IS SUCH THAT WE COULD NOT MAKE A PUBLIC ROAD AND PUT A, A LOCK GATE ACROSS IT.
AND BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT IS UNDER
[00:40:01]
THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, WE WOULD WANT THE ROAD BUILT.IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PLANNED TO HAVE A ROAD THERE ONCE THOSE ARE DEVELOPED.
UM, SO THE ANSWER TO QUESTION IS NO, YOU CANNOT, YOU CANNOT BAR PEOPLE FROM USING A PUBLIC ROAD.
OH, I WANTED A CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMAN GLOBAL ASKED.
YOU SAID 190, UH, TRIPS A DAY MM-HMM
SO TODAY, IF THE FIRE TRUCK GOES TO THE DEAD END, IT HAS TO BACK OUT, I ASSUME, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A TURNAROUND MM-HMM
SO WHY IS, DOES THE REQUIREMENT CHANGE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT'S BEING DONE OR, WELL, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THE, UM, LENGTH OF THE ROAD THEN IS EXTENDED BY THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO IF YOU, IF, UH, THE PROPERTY'S ON MINT DEVELOPED, UM, WHERE THE CONCEPTUAL HOUSES WERE SHOWN, SO WHERE THE ORANGE, UH, LINE IS FOR THAT ONE FOOT STRIP OF LAND, UM, ONCE YOU EXTEND BEYOND THERE, YOU'RE IN EXCESS OF 150 FEET.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE IN ORDER TO GET ACCESS UP TO THOSE HOUSES, THAT'S WHERE THE TURNAROUND WOULD BE REQUIRED.
SO, SO TODAY A FIRETRUCK STOPS AT THE ORANGE LINE MM-HMM
AND IF, IF THE, UH, IF THERE'S NOT A STREET PUT THERE, BUT THAT REMAINS EMPTY SPACE.
HOW DO I DESCRIBE THAT? WELL, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD CONTINUE TO SERVE THE SUBJECT SITE.
IT'S JUST THAT, UM, SINCE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT MEETS THAT THRESHOLD NOW FOR A ROAD THAT'S IN EXCESS OF 150 FEET, UM, IF THE ROAD DOESN'T GO THROUGH, THAT'S WHERE, UM, AN APPARATUS TURNAROUND WOULD BE REQUIRED.
SO IT'S SIMILAR TO LIKE OTHER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE, UM, LIKE IN LIKE ON MARLENE OR PEACH AVENUE WHERE YOU HAVE THE ROAD THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK WITH JUST THE TURNAROUND.
I, I GUESS I'M, I'M THINKING THERE ARE SOME PLACES IN TOWN THAT HAVE THESE THREE OR FOUR HOMES IN A LITTLE, UH, INFIELD PROJECT AND, AND MY GOODNESS, THEY DON'T HAVE 150 FEET TURNAROUND.
THEY GO TO THE END AND THEY GOTTA BACK OUT.
SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE, OBVIOUSLY IT'S HARD TO GENERALIZE, UH, ABOUT ALL OF THEM, BUT I WOULD SAY, UM, ANY NEW PROJECT THAT COMES THROUGH IS BEING HELD TO THAT STANDARD.
SO WE'RE, IT'S ANALYZED, UH, ROUTED THROUGH HARLEM FIRE FOR THEIR COMMENTS.
AND THEN THE FIRE MARSHAL PROVIDES US THAT FEEDBACK ON, ON WHAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT SITE.
CAN I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A FIRE TRUCK TO HAVE TO TURN AROUND INSTEAD OF VERSUS BACKING OUT THAT'S MR. CITY MANAGER.
THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR A DIFFERENT PERSON, PERHAPS.
I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE FIRE CHIEF.
I AGREE WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
I MEAN, TURNING AROUND, DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE DONE AND WHAT'S DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND JUST BACKING OUT WHAT, WHAT AM I MISSING? SO, FIRST OF ALL, THE, THAT IS ADOPTED FROM THE FIRE CODE OF 2019, THAT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S, UH, RE ADOPTED EVERY THREE YEARS.
SO THIS IS A POLICY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED.
AND THAT POLICY IS THAT ANYTHING OVER 150 FEET REQUIRES A HAMMERHEAD OR SOME KIND OF TURNAROUND FOR A FIRE ENGINE RATHER THAN TRYING TO BACK OUT 150, 200 FEET.
SO TIME YOU'RE UP A LARGE PIECE OF APPARATUS THERE'S HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CARS PARKED ALONG THE STREET, PEOPLE OUT BACKING IT UP AND THAT KIND OF THING JUST AS THERE IS TODAY, I, I GET THAT.
SO WHERE'S THE 150 FOOT MARKER IN THIS DRAWING.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, UM, CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE ADDRESS THAT IS OUT IN FRONT OF MINT THAT IF A FIRE ENGINE PARKED IN FRONT OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BACK UP MAYBE ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT.
SO RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY IT'S ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT THEY WOULD PARK OUT IN FRONT OF AND HAVE TO BACK OUT OF TO MAKE THAT TURN, WHICH IS ON THE, UH, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE.
IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET.
WHICH WOULD BE THE RIGHT SIDE IS ON THE DRAWING.
MM-HMM,
[00:45:01]
REMAINED VACANT? YEAH.I GUESS, OR WAS GOING TO REMAIN VACANT AFTER THE APPROVAL.
THERE WAS, THERE'S SOME CONCERN.
IT WOULD BE COME OUT A NUISANCE PROPERTY.
UM, THE APPELLANT PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT CRIME STATS AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS, THEY EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE ROAD CONNECTION WOULD THEN ALLOW MORE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO TRAVERSE THROUGH THE ROAD CONNECTION.
SO THEY THEY'RE PLANNING TO, TO BUILD ON THE SITE RIGHT AWAY.
UM, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT, UM, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE, UH, BUT HE'S INDICATED A DESIRE TO START SUBMITTING HIS BUILDING PERMITS AND START BUILDING OUT THE SITE.
UM, YOU, YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME.
UM, SO WHAT IS THE, THE LENGTH BETWEEN THE TWO ORANGE, UH, POST? DO WE KNOW THE LENGTH OF THAT BELIEVE IT'S 131 FEET.
SO IF WE STOPPED THE, IF WE BUILT THE STREET ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST ORANGE POST, OKAY.
THEN THE FIRE APPARATUS WOULD ONLY NEED TO BACK UP 130 FEET IN ORDER TO GET TO MINT AND MAKE THAT THREE POINT TURN.
IS THAT RIGHT BACK? AM I, AM I, AM I MISSING SOMETHING CHIEF? IS, IS THAT BECAUSE THE 150 FEET THRESHOLD IS SOMETHING THAT IS THERE? YEAH.
I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WHEN WE WERE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS DESIGNER WAS THAT THERE WAS THOSE CONSTRAINTS OF THE UTILITY LINES AND THE EASEMENTS FOR THAT.
AND THEN LOOKING AT HOW, UM, THE, UM, EXISTING, UM, SEWER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, THAT WERE PLANNED, UH, TO CONNECT THROUGH THERE, UM, AND HOW THOSE WOULD ALL BE ADDRESSED.
UM, SO THEY TRIED TO PROPOSE A TURNAROUND, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ACCESSED OFF OF MINT AVENUE.
UM, BUT THEY WEREN'T IN THE FIRST TWO TRIES THAT THEY HAD, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, SUPPORTED, UH, BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE APPLICANT SAID, I DON'T WANT TO STUDY THIS FURTHER.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, THE ROAD GOING THROUGH.
BUT, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WOULD IT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HUNDRED 50 FOOT THRESHOLD WITH, UM, THEY WOULD, IF THEY PULLED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE EAST SIDE OF THAT POTENTIAL PROPOSED STREET EXTENSION BACKING OUT WOULD ONLY BE 130 FEET UNTIL THE TRUCK COULD POTENTIALLY BACK OUT ONTO MINT AND DO A THREE POINT TURN.
DOES, DOES THAT SATISFY THE 150 FOOT THRESHOLD WITH REGARD TO THE FIRE APPARATUS NEED? YEAH.
IF THE, IF THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH WAS LESS THAN 150 FEET, THAT WOULD MEET THE THRESHOLD, UH, THAT CHIEF SWEENEY HAD MENTIONED, UM, THE, I KNOW THAT THE, THEY STUDIED DIFFERENT OPTIONS, UM, BUT THEY DIDN'T PROPOSE ANYTHING THAT WAS ACCESSED OFF OF OAKDALE.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP IN LOOKING AT THOSE ALTERNATIVES IS ONCE YOU START TO PLACE THAT, UM, THE TURNAROUND WITHIN THAT 130 FEET, UM, IT REALLY CONSTRAINS THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE WHERE IT'S, IT'S ALMOST CONNECTING THE STREETS ANYWAYS.
UM, SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY HAD WITH LOOKING AT THOSE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GETTING MY QUESTION OR IF I'M, IT'S GOING OVER MY HEAD, CAN, CAN A, CAN A FIRE TRUCK BACK OUT ONTO, ONTO, IS THIS THE VER THE, THE PERPENDICULAR STREET OAKDALE.
AND, AND IS THAT MINT PERPEND? UH, SO MACON IS TO THE RIGHT AND THEN, UH, TO THE LEFT IS DURHAM DURHAM, I'M SORRY.
DURHAM MM-HMM
DURHAM, DURHAM IS DIRECT DIRECTLY BELOW THE ORANGE LINE DIRECTLY BELOW THE ORANGE LINE.
SO COULD A FIRE TRUCK BACK UP AND TURN ONTO DURHAM AND DO A THREE POINT TURNOUT? I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY AN, A FEASIBILITY FOR THEM TO DESIGN A TURNAROUND IN, IN THAT FASHION.
UH, BUT THAT WASN'T PRESENTED TO STAFF.
SO THE, THERE IS AN OPTION TO SAY, WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE THE ROAD NOT BE CONNECTED ON THE EAST SIDE THAT WOULD GRANT ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND A FIRE APPARATUS.
IF IT'S STILL BLOCKED ON THE EAST SIDE, COULD BACK UP THAT 130 FEET ONTO DURHAM, THREE POINT TURN AND THEN EXIT THAT'S WITH REGARD TO THE FIRE APPARATUS CAPABILITY AND
[00:50:01]
HAVING OUR FIREFIGHTERS NOT PUT ANY CARS OR PEOPLE IN DANGER, PEOPLE BACKING UP, UH, FOR THEM BACKING UP TOO FAR, THAT COULD, IS POT.YES, BUT THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT, UM, IF WE LOOK AT AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THOSE TECHNICAL STUDIES, UM, IN ORDER TO, TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE SAFETY OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE, UH, THOSE AREAS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND OTHER IMPACTS THAT THERE WOULD BE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE CONCERN CAME IN FROM THE, UM, APPLICANT WHERE THEY, UM, THEY'D HAVE TO GO LOT MORE.
THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SE STUDY, UH, AN INITIAL STUDY, UM, DO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, UM, CIRCULATE THAT FOR COMMENTS, DO THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL STUDIES.
AND SO, WHICH IS THE SIGNIFICANT COST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MORE QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE, UM, ANY COMMENT CARDS? YES, WE DO.
WE HAVE EIGHT, UH, SPEAKER CARDS.
THE FIRST ONE IS CARLY FLO BROUGHT YOUR OWN FAN CLUB, HUH? HI, I'M CARLY, UH, FLO F L O T.
SO I AM NEXT TO THE VACANT LOT ON THE EAST SIDE.
UM, SO I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY AND MY NEIGHBORS WHILE I KNOW NEARLY THE HUNDRED PEOPLE THAT SIGNED OUR PETITION WOULD LOVE TO BE HERE, BUT MANY OF THEM HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN OR OLDER MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO COMMIT TO THIS 7:00 PM TIME AS A COMMUNITY.
WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE GENERAL PLAN SPECIFICALLY THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD CREATE A THOROUGH FAIR BETWEEN MINT AND OAKDALE THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, BE REVISITED AND REVISED BASED ON HOW THE COMMUNITY HAS CHANGED IN NEARLY THE LAST 60 PLUS YEARS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WERE ORIGINALLY ADDED TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
HOWEVER, THE GENERAL PLAN WAS SUGGESTED AND CREATED SEVERAL DECADES AGO.
MANY ASPECTS OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE EVOLVED AND CHANGED SINCE THEN OPENING THE ROAD BETWEEN MINT AND OAKDALE WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY IN MULTIPLE WAYS.
OPENING THE ROAD WILL BRING INCREASED VEHICLE TRAFFIC FLOW, CRIME, TRANSIENT TRAFFIC IN OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
OPENING MINT TO OAKDALE WILL ENCOURAGE THOSE ALREADY SPEEDING DRIVERS THAT CUT THROUGH OTHER STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO NOW, EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, HAUL ASS ON OUR RESIDENTIAL STREETS HAS A TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN COMPLETED.
IF SO, WHY HASN'T THIS INFORMATION BEEN SHARED WITH US? IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE MORNING, I HIGHLY SUGGEST YOU CHECK IT OUT.
PEOPLE FLY DOWN, MADISON CUT ACROSS MAINE AND FLY DOWN OAKDALE TO SECOND TO GET TO THE FREE FREEWAY.
A ONE SAFE, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BECOME A RACEWAY FOR INPATIENT STUDENTS, PARENTS, AND PEOPLE IN A HURRY.
MANY OF US WERE ATTRACTED TO GRANITE HILLS EL CAJON SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOLS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE OVER EIGHT SCHOOLS WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS.
MANY OF OUR KIDS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME OUTSIDE SPECIFICALLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, PLAYING BASKETBALL, RIDING THEIR BIKES AND BEING KIDS OPENING THIS ROAD WILL CREATE AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR KIDS BASED ON THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FOOT TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WILL WANDER IN AND DOWN FROM MAINE AND SECOND STREET OPENING THIS ROAD ALLOWS FOR CRIMINALS TO EASILY ACCESS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FLEE.
WE ALREADY HAVE MORE THAN IDEAL THEFTS, VANDALISMS DRUG DEALS AND HOMELESS ISSUES WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
MAKING THIS ROAD A THOROUGH FAIR TAKES DOWN OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE HAVING ONE WAY IN, AND ONE WAY OUT HAS KEPT OUR COMMUNITY TIGHT AND TRULY ALLOWED US TO LOOK OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER.
ALL THESE ASPECTS ULTIMATELY DECREASED THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES AS A COMMUNITY.
WE HAD VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR OUR APPEAL.
SEVERAL OF US ATTEMPTED TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND OUR REQUEST TO MEET WITH THEM WAS NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON NOTHING WAS SCHEDULED AND NO FEEDBACK WAS, WAS PROVIDED AS TO WHY THIS REQUEST COULD NOT BE HEARD.
WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN OUR CITY'S LACK OF RESPONSE TO ITS CONCERNED CITIZENS THAT PERTAIN TO THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THIS COMMUNITY.
WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE OWNER OF THE LOT HAS FINANCIALLY PUT OUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN BUILDING PLANS, WE'RE PROPOSING THE GENERAL PLAN.
SPECIFICALLY THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT BE DECLINED AND ALTERED TO MEET THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS FOR A DEAD END OR KEEP THE ROAD AS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, OR A CUL-DE-SAC NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY.
SOME FOR OVER A DECADE AND MORE SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPTIONS GIVEN TO HIM DURING THIS PLANNING PLAN BUILDING PROCESS, WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN IS OUTDATED AND IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
ALL THAT HAS EVOLVED AND CHANGED SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY
[00:55:01]
PROPOSED.WE HAVE NEARLY A HUNDRED SIGNATURES FROM NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ROAD.
AND THAT SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING.
OH, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HAS A QUESTION.
UM, YOU DID CONTACT ME FULL DISCLOSURE AND I TOLD YOU I COULDN'T WEIGH IN OPINION BECAUSE IT WAS GONNA BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND I COULDN'T EXPRESS AN OPINION.
I COULDN'T, UM, PROVIDE IT WASN'T YOU SPECIFICALLY, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU, YOU FOLLOWING UP.
I, I, I COULDN'T PROVIDE A JUDGMENT BECAUSE TO BE FAIR TO THE APPLICANT, I COULDN'T, UH, DO THAT.
SO WE UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU DO REMEMBER ME ACKNOWLEDGING I DO.
UH, TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE 97 PEOPLE WHO SIGNED YOUR PETITION, WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? SO THAT IS EVERYBODY TO THE EAST OF ME.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OF SIGNATURES FROM THE WEST SIDE.
UM, BUT ON THE, THE LIST THAT WE PROVIDED IT HAS EVERYBODY'S ADDRESS.
IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN MADISON, IT'S OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.
AND IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THE CURRENT, UH, RESPONSE TIMES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE, KNOWING THAT THEY, NO ONE HAD ANY CONCERNS.
EVERY SINGLE WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR WITH OUR KIDS AND MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND JUST TALKED TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE STREET AND WHAT WAS POTENTIALLY COMING.
IF THEY CARED, IF THE STREET OPENED, IF THEY DIDN'T CARE, IF IT OPENED AND 97 PEOPLE DID NOT WANT THE ROAD TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
SO THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT, THE STREET, RIGHT TO THE RIGHT OF THE NEW LOTS.
SO MY FAMILY HAS LIVED THERE SINCE THE FIFTIES.
MY GRANDPARENTS BOUGHT THAT HOUSE WHEN IT WAS BRAND NEW, MY MOM AND HER SISTER GREW UP IN THAT HOUSE.
I GREW UP WITH MY GRANDPARENTS IN THAT HOUSE.
NOW MY DAUGHTERS ARE GROWING UP IN THAT HOUSE, MY WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS.
THEY WALK MIN AVENUE EVERY SINGLE DAY, WALKING OUR DOG, MY OLDEST DAUGHTER'S HOMESCHOOLED WALK THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ONLY ONES YOU SEE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA OR VISITING.
IF THAT STREET GETS OPENED UP, I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE SEEN HOW MADISON GETS IN THE MORNING AND IN THE AFTERNOONS, ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA START DIVERTING THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S GONNA OPEN UP WAY MORE THAN 190 ADDITIONAL CARS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TRANSIENT POPULATION THAT'S UP ON EAST MAIN STREET RIGHT NOW, ALL THE DRUGGIE.
THEY'RE GONNA COME RIGHT UP THERE.
SDG E IS A SUBSTATION RIGHT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S GONNA GET FULL OF TRANSIENTS.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOME PEOPLE IN THESE VACANT, LOTS.
NOBODY WILL DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
SO ONCE THEY GET UP IN THERE, SDG, AND E'S GONNA HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ROAD CLOSED.
I DON'T CARE IF HE BUILDS HIS HOUSE, I'M ALL FOR HIM, GETTING HIS LOTS, BUILDING HIS HOUSE.
I SUPPORT THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ROAD STAY CLOSED.
UM, RESPONSE TIMES MY DAUGHTER HAD A FEBRILE SEIZURE WHEN SHE WAS FOUR YEARS OLD, EL CAJON POLICE, PARAMEDICS, FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THEY ALL SHOWED UP JUST LIKE THAT.
AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ROAD.
MY NAME IS THOMAS WELLER AND I LIVE AT 5 0 4 MACON.
AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF EL CAJON FOR 50 YEARS.
AND I HAVE SEEN THE TRAFFIC INCREAS DRAMATICALLY FROM THE SCHOOL GOING TO AND COMING FROM.
AND I'VE SEEN THE TRAFFIC ON DHAM GOING CRAZY.
AND THE PEOPLE ON DHAM REALLY DISLIKING IT.
I DON'T WANT THAT TRAFFIC COMING DOWN.
WE'VE GOT CHILDREN THAT PLAY IN THE STREET.
WE'VE GOT MY WIFE AND EVERYBODY ELSE BACKING OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND WE DON'T NEED THE HIGH SPEED DRIVERS COMING DOWN OUR STREET TO TAKE A SHORTCUT, TO GET THE MAIN I'D VERY MUCH PREFER THAT REMAIN A CLOSED AREA, AS FAR AS THAT GOES FOR CRIME AS WELL, BECAUSE IN PREVIOUS YEARS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CATCH VANDALS AND SUCH BECAUSE THE BOAT WAS CLOSED DOWN THERE.
WE'VE HAD MANY INCIDENTS THAT I COULD RELATE, BUT I'M NOT GONNA TAKE THE TIME.
AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.
THANK YOU, MR. STROLLER, TIM SWING.
[01:00:06]
WELL, SIR.I LIVE ON TRENTON STREET IN CAJON.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL AND OUR ILLUSTRIOUS STAFF.
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE LIVED IN THE HOUSE YOU LIVE IN NOW FOR 45 YEARS AND IT'S WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS NOBODY.
TOM WALLER JUST GOT UP, HAS BEEN IN ALCOHOL LONGER THAN I HAVE, BUT I'VE BEEN IN THE COUNTY LONGER THAN HE HAS.
SO I GUESS THE OLD GUYS THAT RULE, WE DON'T LIKE YOUR IDEA OF OPENING UP THAT LAND.
THERE'S NO WATER LINE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S NO WATER LINE FOR THE HOUSES.
THERE'S NO GAS LINE AND THERE'S NO SEWER LINE LYING.
WHEN I WAS HERE IN MAY, I COMPLAINED ABOUT YOUR CITY SERVICES, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN THE SEWER LINES.
WE STILL GOT COCKROACHES COMING OUT OF OUR BATHTUBS AND SHOWERS BECAUSE YOU DON'T CLEAN THE SEWER LINES CLEAN.
WHAT DO YOU THINK'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN YOU OPEN UP THAT LAND ACROSS THERE AND YOU HAVE TO PUT A NEW SEWER LINE IN AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CALL HELIX WATER TO PUT IN A NEW WATER LINE AND SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR A NEW GAS LINE.
THE ONLY THING THAT GOES ACROSS THERE IS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES LINE, TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICITY AND CABLE.
THAT IS THE OLD, THIS IS THE OLD BELL AIR ESTATES OF CAJON STARTED IN 1957.
WHY DON'T YOU WISE UP AND CANCEL THIS IDEA OF PUTTING TWO HOUSES THERE.
YOU SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE LAND AND MADE IT A PARK.
SO PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES COULD GATHER, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DIVIDE A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU JUST DON'T THINK EL CAJON IS MY SECOND HOME OF SAN DIEGO, THE HIGH SCHOOL DOWN THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT EAST GRANITE HILLS HIGH IN THE 1940S.
YOU PROBABLY KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT ALCOHOL'S HISTORY BECAUSE YOU DON'T BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT THE PAST, SIR.
YOUR TIME IS UP IF YOU COULD WRAP UP.
IF YOU COULD PULL THAT MICROPHONE DOWN.
I DIDN'T SAY THAT, BUT I GOOD THINGS COME IN SMALL PACKAGES.
THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT ANYWAYS.
UM, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO US.
UM, I'M SURE YOU ALL GOT ONE OF THESE PACKETS.
UM, IT, IT HAS ACTUAL RESEARCH AND IT PROVES EXACTLY WHAT OPENING A THOROUGH STREET DOES TO NEIGHBORHOODS, COMMUNITIES AND WHAT IT BRINGS INTO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, I'VE LIVED IN MY HOME 1572 MINT AVENUE SINCE 1999.
RAISED THROUGH YOUNG CHILDREN, PLAYED OUTSIDE, FELT SAFE, SECURE.
UM, BUT IF THAT ROAD GOES THROUGH THE ANXIETY OF NOT ALLOWING YOUR NOW GRANDCHILDREN BE ALLOWED TO PLAY OUTSIDE, LIKE NORMAL CHILDREN THAT GETS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.
NOT ONLY THAT IT CREATES ANXIETY, STRESS ON
[01:05:01]
THE PARENTS AND ON THE NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMUNITY I'VE PASSED THIS THING OUT, BASICALLY STATING ALL THE BENEFITS OF HAVING A CUL-DE-SAC.IT RAISES IT, YOUR PROPERTY VALUE.
THOSE GOES DOWN WHEN YOU OPEN UP THE STREET, UM, CRIME GOES UP WHEN YOU PUT A THOROUGH STREET COMPARED TO CUL-DE-SAC PROVEN PSYCHOLOGICAL CRIME, YOU NAME IT.
I RECENTLY, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU ALL ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS BY THE PEOPLE AND YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY UP THERE FOR A REASON.
UM, AND WE AS A COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE EL CAJON A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL.
UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE GOT REPORTS STATING THE GROWING CRIME, THE GROWING HOMELESS POPULATION, DRUG POPULATION AND STUFF.
I'VE GOT PROVEN THING FACTS STATING THAT ALL THE HOMELESS GUESS WHAT GUESS WHERE THEY'RE MOVING TO CAJON ENCINITAS, WHICH I WAS SHOCKED, LAKESIDE SANT AND IN UNINCORPORATED A AREAS, BUT EL CAJON IN 2020, OUT OF IN 775 AND 2020, IT WENT UP TO 68.8% IN 2022.
THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE STATS THAT'S I FOUND.
AND THEN IS I FOUND ANOTHER STAT 20, 22.
GUESS WHAT? WE'RE RATED WORSE CITIES, HIGHEST CRIME CITIES.
WE WERE, WE WERE RATED AS FAR AS VIOLENT CRIMES, PROPERTY CRIMES IN GENERAL, TOTAL, WE WERE RATED NUMBER 11 OUT OF 22.
THEY COMPARED US TO RIVERSIDE AND RIVERSIDE AND THOSE GUYS HAVE A HOT LOT HIGHER POPULATION, BUT OUR CRIME RATE HAS GONE UP SO TREMENDOUSLY AND OPENING A THOROUGH ROAD IS JUST GONNA BRING IN OUR LINE OF DEFENSE.
MA'AM UM, I'M, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
UM, I'LL MAKE IT JUST GIMME FIVE MORE SECONDS.
HE'S GOT HOMELESS, BROKE THE LINE OF DEFENSE AND DECIDED TO SET UP CAMP WHEN, WHEN NOTIFIED HEATING CARE.
SO I'M JUST SAYING WE DO NOT WANT A THOROUGH ROAD.
WE DO NOT WANT AN INVESTOR OR SOMEBODY MOVING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S NOT GONNA PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS.
ANY QUESTIONS STEVE? I, I I'D HAVE TO ASK IF HE DEVELOPS THE PROPERTY, DOESN'T THAT MAKE THE HOMELESS SITUATION ON HIS PROPERTY GO AWAY? WELL, IF YOU, IF YOU PUT A DEAD END, CUL-DE-SAC THAT IT'S DETERRENT, IT'S A DETERRENT.
WE HAVE A VERY TIGHT KNIT NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALL LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER, TOM, PATROL'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE WE'RE ALL WORKING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND IF ANYBODY'S THERE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE OR BELONG THERE, HE MAKES SURE THEY MOVE IT ALL.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU THINK IF HE DEVELOPS THE PROPERTY, IT WILL GET RID OF THE HOMELESS ON HIS PROPERTY? UH, PROBABLY NOT, BUT IF WE PUT A THOROUGH STREET, IT WILL, IT, IT WILL OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR MORE HOMELESS.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KATHY SHORT.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOUR VOTE FOR US WILL CHANGE THE DYNAMIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WOULD, UH, ADVERSELY CHANGE IT TO A NEGATIVE, UM, ENVIRONMENT.
THE TRAFFIC WILL INCREASE AND I WISH YOU WOULD ALL COME TO THAT AREA BECAUSE THE STREET ENDS AND IT IT'S LIKE A, WE FEEL SAFE.
AND IF IT OPENS UP THE TRAFFIC, PEOPLE WILL DRIVE DOWN, DOWN THAT STREET MEANT STREET SO FAST AND IT'LL BE A DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE NEEDS OF ONE OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE MANY.
[01:10:01]
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF.I OWN ANOTHER HOME ON GAL AND A HOME ON JADE.
SO I'M HEAVILY INVESTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'VE, I'VE LIVED THERE 42 YEARS.
UM, I THINK YOU GUYS SEE THE BIG PICTURE HERE.
WE'RE ALL FOR THIS GUY, DEVELOPING THAT AREA.
IT WAS WHERE I USED TO PLAY AS A KID.
UM, I WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO GO PAST THAT, THAT AREA BECAUSE NOTHING GOOD WAS GOING ON ON, ON EAST MAIN STREET.
AND IT'S STILL THAT WAY TODAY, TIMES 10, MY KIDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO GO PAST THAT CARLY'S HOUSE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S VERY EASILY, UH, KNOWN.
AND, AND IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE THE AREA, WHEN THE SUN'S GOING DOWN, UM, THE DRUG ADDICTS ARE COMING OUT LIKE COCKROACHES IN THAT AREA OVER ON MAIN STREET, AND IT'S GONNA OPEN IT UP RIGHT TO KENNEDY PARK.
UH, THEY'RE JUST GONNA WALK THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'LL BE FREE FOR ALL.
UM, I, UH, HAD LUNCH WITH THE ELK HOME PD, SOMEONE THAT I KNOW I'LL LEAVE HIS NAME OUT OF IT.
UH, JUST A WEEK AGO, I SHOWED HIM THIS PLAN.
HE HAPPENS TO PATROL THIS AREA AT NIGHT AND HE LOOKED AT ME AND HE SAID, DO WHATEVER YOU GOTTA DO WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS TO GET THIS TO STOP.
HE SAID, IT'S GONNA CHANGE THE WHOLE DYNAMIC OF THAT AREA.
HE SAID, YOU'RE THE ONE POCKET NEAR THE PARK IN GRANITE HILLS.
THAT'S STILL SAFE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REALLY WORRY ABOUT.
UM, WE HAD TO CALL 9 1 1 FOR MY DAD WHO LIVES ON JADE JUST LAST WEEK.
AMBULANCE WAS THERE WITHIN TWO MINUTES.
THERE'S NO ISSUE HERE WITH RESPONSE.
HEY, SURE LOOKS GOOD FREE ROAD.
THIS GUY'S GONNA HELP PAY FOR IT.
BUT, UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, LET'S KEEP THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCKED OFF FROM, UM, JUST THE NONSENSE THAT'S GOING ON IN EAST MAIN STREET.
PEOPLE DIGGING RIGHT UNDERNEATH THAT BRIDGE RIGHT THERE BY INTERSTATE EIGHT EVERY NIGHT.
UH, PROSTITUTION'S OUTTA CONTROL COMING RIGHT FROM THE BIRD'S MOUTH.
THAT'S PATROLLING IT EVERY NIGHT.
AND, UM, YOU'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP TO MY FOUR KIDS AGENT FROM THREE TO 17, UM, TO JUST A REAL, A REAL BAD SITUATION.
SO PLEASE, UH, THINK ABOUT ALL OF US THAT LIVE THERE.
THERE'S A REASON WHY 96 OR HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE SIGN THIS.
HEY, THIS GUY'S GONNA BUILD, LET'S THROW A ROAD IN.
LET'S MAKE HIM PAY FOR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MUCH OF IT.
BUT, UM, I RESPONDED TO EMERGENCIES IN THIS TOWN FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS.
I WON'T SAY WHERE I WORK, BUT, UM, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I COME DOWN DHAM OR IF I COME DOWN MACON, I'M GONNA GET THERE IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
LET'S LET'S SEE THE WHOLE BIG PICTURE HERE.
IT'S ABOUT GETTING A ROAD THROUGH, SO IT LOOKS GOOD.
HEY, THE GENERAL PLANT WAS MADE UP.
ARE WE REALLY THINKING ABOUT THE GENERAL PLANET IN 1950, THAT WAS LOOKED AT IT'S A JOKE, BUT PLEASE TAKE ALL OF US THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE INTO CONSIDERATION.
LAST SPEAKER IS DEL J DEL SHAHAB AFTERNOON.
S H A B UH, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF, UH, THE VAR PROPERTY.
UH, I'M HERE TODAY TO, UH, SAY COUPLE STUFF.
UH, FIRST THING, FIRST HOMELESSNESS.
I TRIED TO GET RID OF THEM, BUT KEEP COMING BACK.
I KEEP PREPARING THE FENCE THAT FORTUNATELY I KIND OF ING ONE OF THEM.
SECOND THING IS, UH, I SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER PROBABLY BEFORE, BEFORE GOING IN THIS, UH, PROCESS ENTIRELY BEFORE PURGING THE PARCEL ACTUALLY WENT TO THE CITY PLANNER.
I ASKED THEM, CAN I, WHAT SHOULD I DO? WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY THEY NEVER MENTIONED ABOUT THE STREET CONE THROUGHOUT ALL AFTER I PURCHASED IT, LONG STORY SHORT, I WANNA BORE YOU GUYS WITH THOSE ENTIRE DISCUSSION, BUT THE FINAL DECISION WAS MADE, YOU KNOW, I PURCHASED ALREADY LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
WHATEVER HAPPENS HAPPENS, UH, TWO WEEKS PRIOR, BEFORE MY PLANNING, UH, HEARING COMMISSION HEARING, UH, NO I MENTIONED, HEY, THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN, UH, ABOUT THE, UH, AMENDMENT TO THE SEQUENCE STUDIES, WHICH I LOOK INTO IT EVENTUALLY KNOW LET'S MOVE FORWARD ALREADY.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO TIME FOR ME TO DO THE INITIAL FINANCING.
I EXHAUST ALL MY FINANCIAL AT THAT POINT.
SO I WENT INSIDE, DID A HEARING, CAME BACK AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN ABOUT IF, UH, WHAT OTHER SEQUEL STUDY, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I TAKE THE CONCENTRATION.
I DID, I STUDIED, I SIT DOWN WITH ENGINEER, I, AGAIN, MORE MONEY WE SPENT TO DO THOSE ADDITIONAL.
DIDN'T JUST MAKE SURE I COUNTER ALL THOSE PERSPECTIVE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS, THE SE WAS TIME WISE, THREE TO FIVE YEARS LONG AND ADDITIONAL COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS I HAVE TO SPEND ON TOP OF IT, WHICH I DON'T HAVE AT THIS POINT.
UH, THE DECISION WAS MADE FOR ME EASY.
YOU KNOW WHAT I ALREADY SPENT I'M ON THIS POINT, I WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST INITIAL PLAN TO GO WITH THE STREET DEDICATION.
[01:15:01]
FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.QUESTIONS, MICHELLE, GO AHEAD.
IF WE, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE WERE TO GO FOR THE APPEAL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU? WOULD YOU ABIDE BY IT? WOULD YOU SELL THE PROPERTY? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I PUT IT ON THE LISTING AS WELL.
SO YOU'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF IT.
THE MOMENT THEY LOOK INTO IT NOW IT'S PUBLIC, ALL THE DATA THEY BACK OUT INSTANTLY.
SO NOW YOU'RE, IF, IF WE WERE TO GO WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS APPEAL, YOU'RE NOW STUCK WITH THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN'T GET RID OF IT.
SO IT'S JUST GONNA BE THERE AND YOU'RE GONNA BE OUT THAT MONEY.
AND YOU, YOU ARE WILLING TO GO WHAT THE CITY SAYS OR WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MADE THE, THE COUNCIL HAS NOT MADE ANY DECISIONS RIGHT AT THIS TIME.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.
AND SO IF YOU MOVE FORWARD, THEN NOW YOU DRAW THE IRE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.
AND HOW DO YOU THINK THAT'S GONNA AFFECT YOUR LIFE LIVING IN A CONTENTIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW? UH, THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE AN IMPACT ON IT, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THE NEIGHBOR UNDERSTAND IT.
ACTUALLY, I SPOKE WITH EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL PRIOR, BEFORE THE COMMISSION HEARING, HEY, I VOTED, I, I EXPRESSED MY FEELINGS ABOUT THE STREET AS WELL.
I NEVER WANT TO HAPPEN INITIALLY EITHER.
BUT NOW AT THIS TIME, UH, FINANCIALLY I'M EXHAUSTED ALL MY RESOURCE.
I LOOK TO ANY TYPE OF POSSIBILITIES.
UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE, ONE THING FORWARD.
I ALREADY SPEND THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY AND I TRY TO DO WITH IT AT LEAST BUILT ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S INITIAL PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING.
STEVE, WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT NEIGHBORS EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT SPEEDING TRAFFIC AND TRANSIENTS WALKING THROUGH AND WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? UH, I ACTUALLY LIVE ON APARTMENT IN OAKDALE RIGHT BEFORE THE STREET ACTUALLY START.
UH, I AM AWARE OF IT THAT THE TRAFFIC THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING.
UH, I DEFINITELY, I, WELL, IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT I FEEL ABOUT IT BECAUSE AT THIS POINT AS MY FINANCIAL POINT, THERE'S NO TURNAROUND FOR ME AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY, UH, CONCLUSION.
IF, IF I WISH I HOPE IF WE CAN REMOVE THE ENTIRE STREET, WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, OTHERWISE DON'T STAY THERE.
THAT WILL BE BE FOR EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBORS AS WELL, AS WELL AS FOR ME.
SO I CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD MY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHERE INITIAL PLAN FROM DAY.
I MAKE A MOTION TO THE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE VOTE MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL, IT'S A IT'S UP TO US.
WE SEE THE LIST OF FINDINGS AGAIN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.
THAT'S THE CRUX OF IT, ISN'T IT? YEAH.
SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE LAW BILL.
SHOULD WE GO THROUGH ONE BY ONE AND DISCUSS THE FINDINGS? YEAH, I MEAN, OR WE COULD JUST, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONLY, UM, THING THAT'S UP.
UPRATING THE DEBATE IS THE NUMBER ONE.
THE PROPOSED MAP IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
IT, IT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN RIGHT NOW.
THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOOKING INTO CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN? I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION UNLESS SOMEBODY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT, BUT PER CITY ATTORNEY, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN TONIGHT.
NO, ALL YOU COULD, ALL YOU COULD DO WOULD BE TO POSTPONE THIS, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, OF, UH, ASKING
[01:20:01]
THE CITY TO BRING US BACK AT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN.AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL.
I GRAHAM, IF THAT'S MY QUESTION TOO, WHAT ARE A CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN? SO ANYTIME YOU DO A CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN, YOU HAVE TO DO SE ANALYSIS.
SO IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE, UH, NOT A, IT'D BE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT PROBABLY YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, YOUR SAFETY ELEMENT, YOUR CIRCULATION ELEMENT, YOUR LAND USE ELEMENT, ANY OTHER ELEMENTS.
SO YEAH, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD DO AN INITIAL STUDY TO IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH A PROJECT.
SO, UM, LIKE GRAHAM MENTIONED, WE WOULD LOOK AT, UM, MAYBE A SPECIAL STUDY ON TRAFFIC, SPECIAL STUDY ON, UM, EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES.
UM, SO THAT THE TRUE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ROAD NOT BEING BUILT COULD BE UNDERSTOOD.
AND WHEN A DECISION WERE TO BE MADE ON THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME.
SO IT WOULD AT A MINIMUM, YOU, YOU WOULD DO THE INITIAL STUDY, UM, AND THEN POTENTIALLY IT COULD BE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION THROUGH SE OR POTENTIALLY, UH, MITIGATION MEASURES IF NECESSARY.
HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE THE STAFF TO DO SO TYPICALLY, UM, INITIAL STUDIES AND SEQ DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED BY, UM, THE APPLICANT OR WE USE CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST US WITH THAT.
UM, FOR MOST, I WOULD SAY AN AVERAGE OF, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO SIX MONTHS FOR, AT THE VERY SHORTEST, UH, COULD WE TABLE THIS FOR SIX MONTHS, BILL OR CITY ATTORNEY? I WOULDN'T SUGGEST YOU DID THAT, BUT YOU COULD, IF THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO AGREE TO A CONTINUANCE FOR THAT LONG, A PERIOD OF TIME, YOU COULD ASK THEM.
UM, QUESTION IS TO, TO WHAT WOULD THE COST BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS? I KNOW YOU CAN'T TELL ME SPECIFICALLY, BUT SO THE CHALLENGE WITH THE SE DOCUMENT IS THE COST OF THE TECHNICAL STUDIES.
UM, AND SO THE SCOPES OF THOSE TECHNICAL STUDIES, UM, I WOULD SAY THE MOST RECENT, UM, SEQUEL DOCUMENT THAT I WORKED ON, THE INITIAL ESTIMATES CAME BACK FROM MULTIPLE CONSULTANTS IN THE 50 TO $75,000 RANGE.
AND THEN THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF IN THAT ESTIMATE FOR, FOR THE, FOR THE FINAL SEQUEL DOCUMENT.
WELL, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE AT HAND WHERE THE, UH, APPLICANT, UM, WAS GIVEN THAT OPTION.
HE LOOKED INTO IT AND HE DECIDED THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO UNDERTAKE THAT.
SO ESSENTIALLY IF, UM, COUNCIL WANTED TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF, UM, WE WOULD, UH, ASK FOR FUNDING, UH, TO LOOK OR TO STUDY THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS NOW, STEVE? SO LET ME FOCUS ON, UM, THE THREE WORDS CALLED SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS. YOU'VE HEARD, UH, PEOPLE SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY, ABOUT, UM, SHORT CUTTING AND SPEEDING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, DO THOSE HEALTH RISKS, SAFETY, RISKS COUNT AS SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS. MR. GO, I'D SAY WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF STREETS JUST LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND WE DON'T HAVE KIDS BEING RUN OVER EVERY DAY.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF I LIVED ON THAT STREET AS WELL.
AND I, I LIVE IN A CERTAIN SITUATION AND MY CIRCUMSTANCE CHANGES, BUT IT'D BE HARD FOR STAFF TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THAT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
CAUSE IT'S NOT HAPPENING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
WELL, LET ME ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY THEN FOLKS, IF, IF YOU COULD JUST ALLOW THIS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT.
SO THIS IS DIFFERENT TO ME BECAUSE THIS IS A CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE, POTENTIAL CHANGE.
I, I UNDERSTAND EXISTING STREETS HAVE SPEEDING.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT WASHINGTON ALL NIGHT LONG, BUT THIS WILL BE A CHANGE FROM BLOCKED TO, TO THROUGH.
AND WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY TONIGHT ABOUT THE CHANGE WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASED RISK TO CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE STREET TO SPEEDING CARS, SHORT CUTTING, TO GET OVER TO MINT, TO GO DOWN TO OAKDALE AND MAINE, DO THOSE KIND OF TESTIMONY COUNT AS A SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEM.
IF THEY CAME TRUE, COUNCIL MEMBER GO, UH, MOST OF THE TESTIMONY, IF NOT ALL OF IT WAS ANECDOTAL TONIGHT, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED OTHER THAN THE, THE OPINION OF THE AUTHOR OF A PAPER THAT WAS FOUND ON THE INTERNET, I SUPPOSE, AND NOT, UH, SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT.
AND SO IT'S ALL THE WHAT IFS OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNICORNS,
[01:25:01]
SO TO SPEAK, WHAT, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN.AND, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF A FINDING THAT IT CREATES, THIS CREATES A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK.
SO IN, IN, IN POINT NUMBER THREE, IT SAYS ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE SO THAT DOESN'T SAY MUST SHOW EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL CAUSE, WELL, IT IS JUST A, DOES THAT INFER THAT IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? WELL, COURT'S GONNA TELL US IF, IF IN FACT YOU SAID, YEAH, WE ARE, WHERE ARE THE OPINION IT'S GONNA CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS OR COULD, OR LIKELY, UH, TO CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH.
THEN THE COURT'S GONNA ASK US, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT, THAT SUPPORTS THAT ANYTIME YOU MAKE FINDINGS AND LAND USE DECISIONS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE.
THE EVIDENCE CAN'T BE SPECULATIVE.
THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE COURT WOULD SAY, OKAY, YOU'VE SUPPORTED YOUR FINDING WITH EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY TONIGHT ABOUT SOME PEOPLE THAT LOOKED UP SECONDARY RESEARCH, HEY, IF YOU OPEN UP A CUL-DE-SAC DO THIS, DOES DOES THAT COUNT? EVEN THOUGH IT'S SECONDARY RESEARCH, IT'S UP TO YOU.
IF YOU'RE GONNA RELY ON SOMETHING THAT ISN'T SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT, I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT TO, TO TAKE A REPORT THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS PROPERTY.
IF THIS REPORT WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE NEIGHBORS TO ADDRESS THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY AND THEIR, THEIR, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS, I WOULD SAY YOU'VE GOT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT, THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE, THE DECISION DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ENOUGH, BUT IT IT'S MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
NOAH, I THINK, UH, WITH MORE QUESTIONS FOR NOAH.
WELL, UM, SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO THE STUDIES, WHICH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS SAID HE'S SPENT A TON OF MONEY ALREADY AND HE'S, HE'S GAST WITH, WITH FUNDING.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO COVER THOSE, THE COST OF THOSE STUDIES, OR I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THAT WORKS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, WELL IT SOUNDED OR PARTIAL A PARTIAL PARTIAL.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY WERE TO INITIATE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THEN AS MR. ALVI SAID IT WOULD BE THE CITY'S DECISION AND THEREFORE THE CITY WOULD PAY FOR IT.
UM, I GUESS THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
YOU'D HAVE TO, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH, UH, WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO SEE IF IT'S BUDGETED FOR GOT IT.
THAT KIND OF WORK IN THOSE STUDIES, ONE OF THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE GEN OF CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN TO BE, TO FIND A WAY TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND THEREBY BASICALLY KILL THE PROJECT.
WELL, ULTIMATELY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE THE ROAD CONNECTION, BUT THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE LAW.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO SEIF OR SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WOULD BE A WAY IF THE GENERAL PLAN WAS AMENDED MM-HMM
AND THAT'S THE OPTION THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE, TO, TO THE APPLICANT SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO STUDY THAT, UH, WE CAN STUDY THAT YOU JUST NEED TO SUBMIT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GO THROUGH THAT SEQ INITIAL STUDY AND DO THOSE TECHNICAL STUDIES, UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION WHEN WE COME TO COUNCIL SO THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER HAVING THE ROAD GO THROUGH OR HAVING IT NOT GO THROUGH.
AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT HE CHOSE NOT TO DO AFTER HIS ANALYSIS.
BUT THERE'S, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE.
I MEAN, ONCE, ONCE WE DO THE STUDIES, THE STUDIES MAY SAY, IT'S ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IF YOU DON'T DO THE ROAD.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STUDIES YET.
SO YOU, YOU, YOU'RE NOT DOING THE STUDY TO, TO ELIMINATE THE ROAD.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO STUDY.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MAY NOT SAY.
SO IF I GET THIS STRAIGHT, THE, THE APPLICANT IS TAPPED OUT.
HE'S HE'S DONE ALL, HE'S DONE ALL, BUT HE CAN, HE'S TAPPED OUT FINANCIALLY.
THE CITY DECIDES WE ARE GOING TO, WE'RE GONNA EXPLORE THIS MAKING, UH, UM, A CHANGE, THE GENERAL PLAN.
WE COUGH UP $70,000, UH, THEREABOUT THIS, THE REPORT COMES BACK NEGATIVE SAYING, YEAH, IF YOU LEAVE IT CLOSED, ACCORDING TO STATE FINDINGS, WHOEVER, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE FEASIBLE.
IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH WHAT'S OUR LIABILITY AS THE CITY.
[01:30:01]
THE NEIGHBORS DECIDE THEY WANNA SUE US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THEIR, THEIR REQUEST.I DON'T THINK MR. ALAVI LIKES TO BE LAWYER.
AND I DON'T LIKE TO BE APPOINTED.
I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED IT TO YOU, BUT I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
IT'S LIKE, WHAT'S OUR LIABILITY.
AND I DON'T LIKE TELLING THE PUBLIC IN AN OPEN SESSION.
WHAT KIND OF RISK WE HAVE? I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THE NEIGHBOR SUED US TONIGHT AFTER TONIGHT'S DECISION, BECAUSE IT, YOU DIDN'T GRANT THE APPEAL.
I WOULD LIKE THAT LI LAWSUIT BETTER THAN IF THE APPLICANT SUED US.
IF YOU DENIED, IF YOU GRANTED, I'M SORRY.
IF, IF THE APPLICANT SUIT, IF YOU GRANTED THE APPEAL, UM, OR, OR COMPARE THAT TO THE NEIGHBORS SUING, IF YOU DENY THE APPEAL, I WOULD TAKE THE, THE LAWSUIT WHERE THE NEIGHBORS SUE US TO DENY THE APPEAL.
THIS IS JUST REALLY HARD BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO GO THROUGH.
HE'S WILLING TO JUST, OKAY, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL ABIDE BY YOUR RULES, BUT THEN THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING, NO, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO ABIDE BY THE WILLS.
WE DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU.
WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE LOSING MONEY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, YOU, YOU CAN'T BUILD HOW YOU WANNA BUILD.
SO IT PUTS US IN THIS, IN THE MIDDLE, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE ENTIRE CITY YOU'RE VERSUS JUST IN A NEIGHBORHOOD MS. MARSHALL, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA MAKE A DECISION WHERE EVERYBODY'S HAPPY.
NO, I, I FOUND THAT AND YOU HAVE A GENERAL PLAN THAT DIRECTS WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WITH THIS PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE CITY.
WHEN YOU DO A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT ELEMENTS NEED TO BE CHANGED AND HOW THAT'S GONNA IMPACT PEOPLE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE NORTH SIDE, THE EAST SIDE, THE WEST SIDE DOWNTOWN.
SO IT'S GONNA BE A VERY INVOLVED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST SAYING THIS ROAD AND THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH, OH, I MAY BE INCORRECT WITH THAT, BUT IT'S GONNA BE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'LL BE THE PROJECT THAT, THAT, UM, TRIGGERS THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT DECISION YOU'RE MAKING TONIGHT.
AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD ALSO SET PRECEDENCE FOR OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TO SAY, WELL, WHAT ABOUT US? CORRECT.
AND NOW WE'VE GOTTA GO BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, TO DO SEQUEL REPORTS AT A COST OF 75,000, $70,000 EACH TIME.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT RESIDENTS THAT SAY, WELL, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING MONEY ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN? AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN SEQUEL REVIEW FOR THEIR PROJECTS, CORRECT.
THAT THIS WOULD BE A FIRST IN MY 22 YEARS HERE, THAT I, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD'VE PAID FOR SUCH AN EXHAUSTIVE SECRET DOCUMENT.
I WOULD BELIEVE MR. SHOOT MIGHT DISAGREE WITH ME.
MAYBE IT'S HAPPENED, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE CITY COUNCIL EVER VOLUNTARILY TAKEN ON THE COST FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT, THAT BRINGS A POINT.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GENERAL PLAN WAS WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS A KID.
WELL, BUT REMEMBER, BUT IT DOESN'T, THE GENERAL PLAN IS RENEWED EVERY SO MANY YEARS, 20 YEARS OR SO WE HAVE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
THIS IS NOT THE 1951 GENERAL PLAN.
IT'S BEEN AMENDED FOR 57, 90, 20.
SO THAT'S ABOUT FIVE TIMES, PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE TIMES SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED.
SO THE LAST ONE WOULD'VE BEEN WITHIN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
AND THIS PROPERTY EXISTED LIKE THAT WITHIN THE LAST 20 YEARS, CALTRANS BUILT INTERSTATE EIGHT PRIOR TO THE LAST 20 YEARS.
SO THE AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT JUST BE FOCUSED ON THIS SCENARIO, SO TO SPEAK.
I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON THE, THE SCOPE OF WHAT, UM, COUNCIL WANTED, DID DIRECT US TO STUDY.
UM, BUT THERE COULD BE A NARROW FOCUS ON LOOKING AT JUST THIS, UM, CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ULTIMATELY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A FUTURE DISCRETIONARY DECISION BY THE COUNCIL.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD PUT TOGETHER THE INFORMATION, STUDY IT, UM, LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND THEN PRESENT ALL THAT INFORMATION TO COUNCIL.
AND THEN AS WAS ALLUDED TO EARLIER, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNICAL STUDIES COULD RESULT IN INFORMATION THAT CAUSED COUNSEL TO DETERMINE THAT THE ROAD COULD, SHOULD GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO, UH, PROTECT, UH, THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF RESIDENTS IN THE CITY.
SO I THINK IT'S HILLS MONT DRIVE AND, AND PETRY, PETRY COMES UP FROM MARSHALL AND IT GOES UP INTO FLETCHER HILLS.
AND I THINK, I THINK IT'S HILLS MOUNT DRIVE.
UH, AND I TALKED TO MR. SHOOT ABOUT THIS A WHILE AGO.
THERE'S A, LIKE A MEDIAN IN THERE OF PLANTS AND STUFF
[01:35:01]
THAT BLOCKS PEOPLE FROM DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD INTO THE VALLEY FLOOR.AND IT'S HILLS WANTS A PUBLIC STREET AND, AND FEATURE IF I HAVE THE STREETS RIGHTS PUBLIC STREET, WHY IS THAT MEETING ALLOWED TO BLOCK TRAFFIC FROM GOING DOWN THE HILL INTO EL CAJON? ANY IDEA I MAY HAVE TO GO TO MR. SHOOT, SINCE HE AND I TALKED ABOUT IT.
WELL, I WOULD SAY ULTIMATELY ANY, UM, LAND USE DECISION AS IT RELATES TO HOW THE ROADS ARE, UM, CREATED AND APPROVED, IT'S, IT'S STUDIED AND ANALYZED AT THE POINT THAT THAT DECISION'S MADE.
SO AT THAT TIME, THERE, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT WERE IN PLACE.
YOU KNOW, UM, CHIEF SWEENEY ALLUDED TO THE CHANGE IN THE FIRE CODE IN 2019, HAVING THESE NEW STANDARDS THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UH, PRESENT.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY 50 YEARS AGO, THINGS WERE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TODAY.
I I'M TOLD THAT THE PEOPLE UP ON THE HILL DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE FROM THE VALLEY DRIVING UP THE HILL TO TAKE A SHORTCUT UP TO
BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, THAT WAS THE STANDARD AT THE TIME.
AND STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT NOW.
WELL, STEVE, THAT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY.
AND THAT'S WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DIDN'T WANT TO BE BY THE POOR PEOPLE THAT LIVED DOWN ON MY STREET.
SO, UM, AGAIN, WAY BEFORE, I MEAN, MY, MY SUBDIVISION WOULD BUILD IN 76, SOME IN 74, SO DIFFERENT REGIME, DIFFERENT DIFFERENT LAWS.
THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT BASED ON THE APPEAL.
WELL, WE HAVE, WE'VE TALKING ABOUT, OKAY.
MA'AM SO NOAH WE'RE, WE'RE FINISHED.
UM, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'M GONNA DO.
I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M GONNA LET YOU COME UP AND ASK YOUR QUESTION.
SO I'M GONNA REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU DON'T NEED A, A MOTION FOR THAT.
SO WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT, UH, UH, ITEMS HERE THAT WOULD GRANT US THE APPEAL.
AND THE ONE THAT ALL OF US ARE STANDING BY IS THE, THE THIRD ONE THAT SAYS THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS. WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMELESS, ALL OF THAT.
I MEAN, WE CAN, ANYONE CAN PAY FOR A STUDY, I'LL PAY FOR THIS STUDY.
WE CAN PROVE, PROVE THAT THERE WILL BE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
SO THE, THE PRO THE PROBLEM THERE IS, THAT'S NOT A SUBJECTIVE KIND OF ARGUMENT.
WELL, ALL OF THOSE ARE SUBJECTIVE.
WHICH ONE? I, I MEANT THAT ONE'S A SUBJECTIVE ONE.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE IN, IN THE QUESTION THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, MR. ATTORNEY, YOU CAN GUIDE ME ON THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT EACH ONE OF THOSE HAS A LEGAL DEFINITION TO THAT.
WELL, CONSISTENCY WITH THE JOURNAL PLAN CERTAINLY IS LESS SUBJECTIVE IS PROBABLY MORE OBJECTIVE THAN NOT.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, UH, THE THIRD BULLET.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE CREATED BY THIS MAP, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, DEAL WITH PLANTS, AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, RIGHT? THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE OF THINGS.
IT'S NOT AS MUCH THE, UH, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SAFETY SORT OF DESCRIPTION THAT IS ANALYZED AS WELL.
AND, AND WELL, WE'LL PAY FOR THOSE STUDIES.
I MEANT WE, WE LIVE IN THAT STREET AND YOU'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP FOR ONE PERSON WHO SAYS HE WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE.
HE SAYS, HE'LL BUILD A HOUSE WITHOUT MOVING THAT ROAD.
WE WANNA KEEP THAT ROAD FROM BEING BUILT.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT IS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A CASE THAT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT? THAT'S FINE.
WAS AS LONG AS I HAVE THE, WE HAVE HER NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
IS THAT OKAY? I, AS LONG AS I'VE GOT THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, I'M NOT GONNA OPEN IT UP AGAIN.
SO IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, I'M KATHY SHORT, YOU I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN MORE.
YOU WERE SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT, FEEL FREE TO COME ON UP.
[01:40:02]
BUT I DO ASK THAT YOU FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED SO THAT WE CAN, HI, WHAT'S YOUR NAME? HI, MY NAME IS AMY CROZIER.I LIVE AT 5 98 MACON STREET, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE HOUSE OF CARLY ON THE CORNER THERE.
UM, YOU KEEP SAYING MR. CITY ATTORNEY, THAT YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT, UM, ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU HOW YOU GOT YOUR FINDINGS AND HOW YOU CAME TO THESE DECISIONS ON YOUR FINDINGS BECAUSE, UM, NOAH, IS IT NOAH KEPT SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO TESTING DONE TO COME TO YOUR FINDINGS.
SO WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? WHERE'S YOUR PROOF? WELL, FIRST OFF, I, I HATE TO STAY ON, ON FUN FORUM, BUT IF YOU ASK ME I'LL, I'LL PASS THAT ON TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AS, SO THAT, OH, THAT JUST KEEPS, KEEPS MY APOLOGIES.
YOU DON'T KNOW, IT JUST KEEPS DECORUM.
SO MR. ATTORNEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? YEAH.
THIS PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE, LET ME, LET ME BACK UP.
IT IS THE APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PRODUCE THE FINDINGS, PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS, TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
THE DECISION WAS ALREADY MADE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT, APPROVED THE TWO LIGHT SUBDIVISION, THE TENANT PARCEL MAP.
AND IT WAS BASED ON FINDINGS UNDER THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S ZONED PROPERLY.
IT, UH, IT WAS APPROVED FOR, UH, WHATEVER OTHER REASONS THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION.
HAVEN'T READ IT SO THAT THOSE FINDINGS WERE ALREADY MET.
THIS APPEAL IS THE APPELLANTS RE UH, BURDEN TO SHOW OR PROVIDE PROOF OF EVIDENCE OR FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS.
SO WE DON'T THE CITY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE NOT IN THE, UH, DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO COME UP WITH FINDINGS.
ONCE AGAIN, IF THE COUNCIL BELIEVED THAT THERE COULD BE MORE FINDINGS, THEY WOULD ASK US FOR MORE TESTIMONY, IF THEY THOUGHT THEY, THEY NEEDED MORE FINDINGS.
BUT, UH, THE POINT IS, IS THE APPELLANTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE? THAT'S FAIR.
HOWEVER, YOU ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE IN AGREEANCE WITH THESE FINDINGS THAT YOU ARE TELLING THEM TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY WITHOUT TELLING THEM TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY, AND THAT THEY CAN ONLY VOTE THIS WAY.
I WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER.
AND YET YOU'RE TELLING US THAT YOU DIDN'T, THEY'RE ASK YOU FOLKS WERE ASKING QUESTIONS, WHAT TESTS HAVE BEEN DONE TO SHOW THAT THERE WILL BE EXTRA TRAFFIC, OR HOW WILL THERE WILL BE EXTRA TRAFFIC? WHAT WILL THERE BE? WILL THERE BE EXTRA CRIME? WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS BASED OFF OF WHAT TESTS DID YOU DO? YOU FOLKS ASKED THESE QUESTIONS? AND THE ANSWER THAT NOAH GAVE WAS WE DID NOT DO ANY OF THESE TESTS TO FIND THESE FINDINGS FOR YOU GUYS.
HOWEVER, THESE FINDINGS ARE SAYING, THERE WILL NOT BE EXTRA CRIME.
THERE WILL NOT BE EXTRA TRAFFIC, BUT THEN HE SAID THERE WILL BE 190 EXTRA CARS.
WELL, WHERE THOSE FINDINGS COME FROM IS MY QUESTION.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THEN.
UH, MR. ALVI MENTIONED THAT HE SPOKE WITH, UM, UH, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
THAT DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WHOSE DEPARTMENT, OR HIS DIVISION GAVE, UH, A QUICK ON THE NAPKIN KIND OF ESTIMATE OF WHAT MIGHT BE WHAT'S LIKELY GONNA BE.
YOU GAVE A QUICK NAPKIN ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT COULD BE.
I DIDN'T, BUT THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER WHO'S TRAINED TO DO THESE TYPES OF THINGS ANSWERED MR. AVI'S QUESTION WITH AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT HE BELIEVED IN, IN THE, UH, BASED ON HIS EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WHAT, WHAT, UH, WOULD BE THE INCREASE IN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC THROUGH THAT AREA? YOU'RE RIGHT.
WOULD BE, UM, JUST AS IT RELATES BACK TO, TO THE FINDINGS, UM, JUST WANTED TO MENTION, AS IT RELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ASPECT OF THINGS, UM, TYPICALLY WE TALKED ABOUT FORESTER CREEK AND SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'LL LOOK INTO A LOT OF TIMES IS WATER QUALITY.
SO IS THERE SUFFICIENT ONSITE TREATMENT AREAS FOR WATER QUALITY? AND SO, UM, THE MAP WAS LOOKED AT THERE'S INFILTRATION BASINS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED, UH, FOR THAT SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, UM, SO THAT THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO FOREST OR CREEK.
UM, AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE OVERALL FINDINGS, UM, AND THE LACK OF STUDIES, I, I THINK THE THING THAT
[01:45:01]
I WANNA EMPHASIZE IS THAT WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN IS ADOPTED, UM, BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, AT THAT TIME THOSE TECHNICAL STUDIES ARE IN PLACE.AND SO EVEN IF IT WAS IN THE FIFTIES, THE SEVENTIES, NINETIES, OR THE TWO THOUSANDS, UM, THAT ANALYSIS WAS DONE AND PUT IN PLACE, SO THAT PROJECTS CAN BE STREAMLINED.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALK A LOT ABOUT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING IS TRYING TO STREAMLINE PROJECTS LIKE THESE SO THAT THEY CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ALLOW SOMEONE TO, TO BUILD, UM, EFFICIENTLY AND QUICKLY.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, UM, IT WAS ADOPTED AND PUT IN PLACE.
AND SO THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT ANALYSIS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE.
SO THE ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO, UM, THE COMMENT, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC WAS THAT NO, NO NEW ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE THAT'S BECAUSE IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WHEN THE GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED.
AND IF WE CHANGE IT, THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE TO DO THAT NEW ANALYSIS.
SO THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE FINDINGS, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE, BUT, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE MAP BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AS FAR AS THE DENSITY AND LAND USE THAT WAS PROPOSED.
UM, HE'S NOT TRYING TO OVER BUILD THE SITE, THERE'S SUITABLE LAND AVAILABLE TO BUILD, UH, THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE PROPOSED.
AND THEN, UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY AND FORESTER CREEK.
AND THEN LASTLY THAT THE SUBDIVISION, UM, IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE EASEMENTS THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CITY AND THE FIFTIES FOR THE FUTURE COMPLETION OF THE STREET.
SO THAT'S KIND OF STAFF SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS.
UM, THIS HAS GOTTEN COMPLICATED AND WE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THIS AND IT REALLY, TO ME, A LOT OF THIS COMES DOWN TO ONE, ONE QUESTION, ARE WE IN THE POSITION TO RE-LITIGATE THIS WHOLE PROCESS RIGHT NOW? ARE WE HERE SOLELY TO, UNDER TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE, UM, APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED OR NOT BASED UPON THE FINDINGS? CORRECT.
THAT'S WHAT, YOU'RE THE CONSIDERATION WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE APPEAL.
SO NOT, NOT REDESIGNING THE PROJECT, IT'S ACTUALLY THE APPEAL, RIGHT? SO WE CAN'T RE-LITIGATE THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE.
I'VE NEVER BEEN IN THE FELT LIKE WE WERE IN THE POSITION TO GET THE, GET INVOLVED IN TRYING TO DEFINE, UM, WHAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS OR WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WAS THAT, THAT THOSE WERE, THOSE WERE FAIRLY WELL DEFINED TERMS, UH, IN, IN CASE LAW.
SO TO ME, COUNSEL, THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE.
I, I FEEL VERY SORRY THAT, THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THIS, BUT I DO THINK I HAVE A COUPLE OF, OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN MAKING DECISIONS.
ONE IS, I BELIEVE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS, I BELIEVE THAT IN AMERICA, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY, WHAT YOU WANNA DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY, AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL AND ETHICAL AND IT'S WITHIN THE LAW.
UM, I, I THINK THAT, THAT IN THIS CASE, IT MEETS ALL THOSE, THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
THE OTHER THING IS I'VE, I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN A FEW TIMES.
I, WE HAD A SIMILAR CASE TO THIS MUCH BIGGER CASE WITH HOME DEPOT.
UM, THEY WANTED TO BUILD A HOME DEPOT IN A PLACE WHICH NOW IS A, UH, A SUBDIVISION.
AND, UH, WE HAD DECIDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD DECIDED TO, TO ALLOW THE HOME DEPOT TO BE BUILT.
AND IT CAME TO THE, THE COUNCIL MAKE TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN APPEAL PROCESS AND PEOPLE GOT SO INVOLVED IN PREDICTING WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
I HAD A LADY COME UP AND SAID, IF YOU LET ALLOW THE HOME DEPOT TO BE BUILT, MY FAMILY IS GOING TO BE MURDERED.
AND, AND MY DAUGHTER'S GOING TO BE RAPED.
AND I SAID, HOW'S THAT GONNA HAPPEN? SHE SAID, WELL, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE GONNA BE HANGING AROUND HOME DEPOT.
THEY'RE GONNA LOOK IN MY WINDOW.
THEY'RE GONNA SEE MY DAUGHTER.
THEY'RE GONNA COME IN A RAPE HER.
AND THEN WHEN MY HUSBAND COMES HOME, THEY'RE GONNA MURDER HIM.
AND I, AND THAT SOUNDS ABSURD, BUT WE HAVE TO KIND OF LIVE WITHIN THE, THE REALITY OF, OF THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE AT HAND.
WE CAN'T EXTRAPOLATE DEEP INTO THE FUTURE.
SO WHAT, WHAT, I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY OF THIS MAKE ANY SENSE, WE HAVE TO TREAT EVERYBODY BY THE SAME STANDARDS.
SO THE STANDARDS ARE THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT, MY STAFF WHO I TRUST, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR A LONG TIME, I THEY'VE NEVER STEERED ME INCORRECTLY TELLS ME THAT THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN DECIDE TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE FIVE FINDINGS OR FOUR FINDINGS ARE WITH THE, ARE WITHIN THE LAW, ARE, IS, IS YOUR APPEAL CONSISTENT
[01:50:01]
WITH THESE, THESE FIVE FINDINGS? AND IF, IF THEY ARE, I, IF, IF WE CAN'T FIND IT ANY, ANY NEEDS TO BE TRUE, WE HAVE TO DENY THE APPEAL.AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
IT'S SO COUNCIL, THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN ARGUE THAT, BUT I, I THINK ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE OPENING YOURSELF UP THE LAWSUITS AND WE'RE, WE'RE BEING CAPRICIOUS AND WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS BASED UPON EMOTION AND EMOTION, BECAUSE WE LIKE TO HELP FOLKS.
I WISH THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD MAKE EVERYBODY WALK AWAY HAPPY TONIGHT AND SAY THAT WE, WE FIGURED OUT A GOOD PLAN FOR ALL OF US, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD BE HAP THAT COULD HAPPEN.
ARE YOU READY FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS? YEAH.
WELL, WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION.
WILL, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE NEVER CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERE.
I, I MAKE A MOTION OF THE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
TAKE MY SPEECH FORWARD THEN TO, OKAY.
WELL, MR. MAYOR, I, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T, UH, MAKE ANY OF THOSE FINDINGS, JUST CAN'T ANYBODY ELSE THAT WILL LOOKING AT ME, I GUESS, NEXT IN LINE.
YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU ON PROPERTY RIGHTS.
I, I THINK, UM, BUT NEIGHBORS HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS TOO.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY IS CHARGED WITH IS TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.
AND I THINK THAT'S, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME.
JUST LET ME JUST, UM, SO I THINK I, I APPRECIATE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE, UH, CONCRETE EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT FOR POINT NUMBER THREE, THE WORD LIKELY, UH THERE'S TO ME THAT'S POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE, AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE.
AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME SAFETY ISSUES HERE.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, UH, IF YOU OPEN UP THE STREET, OAKDALE IS A VERY SKINNY STREET FROM MAINE TO SECOND STREET.
AND IF WE INCREASE CAR TRIPS DOWN THAT ROAD, WHICH IS A VERY SKINNY STREET WITH ITS OWN KIDS AND THINGS OR WHATEVER, UH THAT'S I THINK IT'S LIKELY THERE'S GOING TO BE A SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEM FROM TRAFFIC ON THAT SECTION OF OAKDALE.
IF PEOPLE TAKE THAT NOW, I ALSO JUST BELIEVE IT'S LIKELY THAT IF YOU, UH, MAKE A THROUGH STREET, THERE'S GOING TO BE SPEEDERS.
AND, UH, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE PROB SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS. AND HOW CAN I NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT? BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENS, IT'S ON ME.
IF I SAY, YEAH, I LET IT GO THROUGH.
AND I CAN'T SAY WITH, WITH DEFINITY THAT, UH, THAT, THAT WAS THE CAUSE THE OPENING OF THE THING IS THE CAUSE WAS THE SPEEDER, NOT THE OPENING OF THE ROAD, BUT, UM, THIS HAPPENS TO BE IN MY DISTRICT.
THIS IS, UM, I REPRESENT BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE NEIGHBORS.
AND, UH, AND SO I HAVE FACT TO CONSIDER TOO, I PERSONALLY FIND THE NEIGHBOR'S ARGUMENT MORE COMPELLING THAT THIS SITE MAP IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS IN THE FORM OF SAFETY ISSUES.
SO I AM, UH, GOING TO VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
I, I JUST HAVE TO ASK HER YOU'RE I KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT LANGUAGE.
DO YOU REALLY EQUATE SAFETY AND HEALTH? ABSOLUTELY.
BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, I SAW THE MOST HORRIFIC ACCIDENT ON GREENFIELD YESTERDAY AND A, AND A PERSON DIED IN A TRUCK ACCIDENT AND IT WAS A DRUNK DRIVER AND THE PASSENGER DIED.
AND I CAN ABSOLUTELY SAY THERE'S A LINK BETWEEN HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THAT IS, THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT.
PEOPLE ARE MAKING, SAYING THAT FIREARMS ARE A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.
SO THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN HEALTH AND SAFETY.
[01:55:01]
YOU, YOU ASKED AND I GAVE YOU ANYTHING.I, I, I WAS, I WASN'T REALLY, I REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT.
ALL RIGHT, AFTER YOU SEE THIS ACCIDENT YESTERDAY, IT WAS A DEBRIS.
IT WAS JUST 10 HOUSES UP FOR ME.
DEBRIS FIELD, 150 FEET, TOOK OUT A 70 FOOT FENCE AND ABOUT A 20 FEET OF CONCRETE BLOCK WALL, HORRIFIC ACCIDENT THAT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.
SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A LINK BETWEEN DRINKING, WHICH IS HEALTH AND SAFETY.
A MAN LOST HIS LIFE YESTERDAY, PHIL.
YEAH, THIS, THIS ISN'T AN EASY DECISION.
UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE DESIGN OF IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO SOME KIND OF A, A COMPROMISE WITH REGARD TO KEEPING THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET CLOSED, REDESIGNING IT.
UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THAT IN MY HEAD IS THE COMPROMISE.
UM, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE APPLICANT EITHER CAN DO THAT OR WILL DO THAT.
UM, I'VE NEVER BUILT A HOUSE BEFORE IN MY LIFE, BUT I WORK IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND IT IS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS THE MOST DIFFICULT PLACE TO BUILD IN THE WORLD.
UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, YOU KNOW, KEEPING THAT STREET CLOSED WOULD KEEP THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THOSE POTENTIAL SITES, A LOT HIGHER.
UM, IF THE ROAD DIDN'T GO THROUGH, BECAUSE THOSE, THEY WOULD END THERE.
SO THERE'S A MATERIAL BENEFIT FOR THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN, TO KEEP IT THE ROAD CLOSED.
UM, IT WOULD, IT WOULD FALL IN LINE.
UM, AND THERE'S A, THERE IS A MATERIAL DECLINE IN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CUL-DE-SAC ANYMORE.
THAT'S A BENEFIT TO THEIR PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL.
UM, IT, IT WOULD BE PER THE STAFF ESTIMATE.
IT WOULD BE ONE CAR EVERY EIGHT MINUTES IN AN ADDITION TO WHAT GOES THROUGH THERE NOW.
OH, UH, FOR THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON AVERAGE, ON AVERAGE, ON AVERAGE, ARE YOU FINISHED SHOW? YEAH.
MICHELLE, THIS IS A REALLY TOUGH DECISION.
I, I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR, AS FAR AS LIKE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY HERE, PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE, THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE, UM, BUILDER.
WE'VE BEEN PLAYING THE, WHAT IF GAME ALL NIGHT LONG? WELL, WHAT IF WE DECIDE TO GRANT THE APPEAL? WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE? WHAT IF WE DECIDE TO OPEN UP THE ROAD? WHAT HAPPENS THERE? WE DON'T KNOW.
WE COULD GO AHEAD AND GRANT THEM THE, THE APPEAL AND DO THE TEST AND LET'S PLAY THE, WHAT IF GAME? WHAT IF IT COMES BACK AND SAYS, YEAH, THEY DON'T HAVE A, THEY DON'T HAVE A CHANCE.
THERE'S NO REASON TO KEEP IT CLOSED.
SO ARE WE WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE TO PLAY THE, WHAT IF GAME ON THIS? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ALL NIGHT LONG.
WELL, WHAT IF YOU PUT THAT ROAD THROUGH, WHAT IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS MANY CARS GO THROUGH AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS COME THROUGH.
IF YOU KEEP IT CLOSED, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD WHAT IF FIRE CAN'T GET IN THERE AND CAN'T TURN AROUND.
I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN WHAT IFS ON BOTH SIDES AND NOW WE'VE GOT THE THIRD OPTION.
WELL, IF WE GIVE THEM THE, IF WE DECIDE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WHAT IF IT COMES BACK? NOT IN THEIR FAVOR.
SO, I MEAN, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THIS DECISION WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE NEIGHBORS TO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER? BECAUSE REALLY THE, THE BUILDER IS A NEIGHBOR AND HE'S GONNA BE LIVING THERE.
AND IF WE GRANT THE APPEAL, HE'S ALREADY PUT IN ALL THIS MONEY, WHICH DOESN'T MATTER TO YOUR POCKETBOOK, BUT
[02:00:01]
IT MATTERS TO HIS POCKETBOOK AND HIS FAMILY.AND IF WE LET THE STREAK GO THROUGH, ARE YOU GONNA HOLD IT AGAINST HIM FOR THE REST OF THE TIME HE LIVES THERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT.
AND, AND THAT PUTS, YOU KNOW, FOR ME AS A PERSON NOW I'VE GOTTA, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA HEAR IT.
I'M GONNA SEE YOUR COMMENTS ON FACEBOOK.
AND LIKE, UH, YOU DID THIS AND YOU DID THAT.
SO IT, IT, IT, I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO BE SURE THAT WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, THAT YOU ABIDE BY IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY FOR US.
WE ALL HAVE LIVED IN THIS CITY FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.
AND WE'VE BEEN CHARGED WITH MAKING THESE DECISIONS FOR YOU.
I, I DON'T WANNA MAKE THIS DECISION.
I MEAN, I, I KNOW I HAVE TO, BUT THIS IS A REALLY TOUGH DECISION AND THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTIONS INVOLVED IN IT.
HE JUST WANTS TO BUILD HIS HOUSE FOR HIS FAMILY.
YOU JUST WANNA LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE FOR YOUR FAMILY.
EVERYBODY WANTS THE SAME THING.
THE THING THAT'S STANDING IN THE WAY IS THAT THE END OF THE ROAD.
I KNOW WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT I THINK I KIND OF THINK WE'RE AT THAT POINT NOW.
UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL TO ADD, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, JUST ONE, ONE COMMENT, BILL.
AND I JUST CAN'T COME UP WITH A FINDING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EVIDENCE FOR A FINDING FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THEN TO DENY THE APPEAL.
RIGHT? MOTION CARRIES BY A 4 0 1 VOTE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GO VOTING.
THIS BRINGS US TO ADJOURNMENT THE ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT MEDIA, THE ALCOHOL AND CITY COUNCIL, ALCOHOL HOUSING AUTHORITY SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ALCOHOL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD THIS 13TH DAY.
SEPTEMBER, 2022 IS ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2022 AT 3:00 PM.