APB Archives

ELICHONDO'S BAZAAR II(Feb 5, 04)

Ms. ATKINS'S REMARKS (Jan 27, 04)

-
"This is a truly unfortunate situation in front of us here today. The Planning Commission has proposed what they feel is a "balanced" approach to
the situation, which does not satisfy either the community or the applicant.
It seems that the applicant feels that they have been led down a path by the
City. The Community feels that their concerns were not heard or understood by
the Commission.
-
There is no outcome that is going to be satisfactory to everyone, and I am hard pressed to even find a compromise position in the midst of all that has
happened. I understand that property owners cannot be denied the reasonable
economic use of their property. At the same time, we have the right and duty
as a City Council to provide guidelines for the appropriate use of land to
protect and enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
-
There ARE uses that the applicant could pursue by right, without asking for a
discretionary permit.
-
This is a community that has suffered from decades without adequate oversight
of its land use. A dense community has grown around what was once the forgotten outskirts of our city. But it is no longer the outskirts - it is
part of our urban core, and our community plan for this area reflects that.
-
The community plan that we adopted in 1998 was the result of a 5-year effort
on the part of this community. The focus of this community plan was on
revitalization of these once-overlooked neighborhoods. The adoption of the
visionary Mid-City Communities Plan - it is important to note that it includes
multiple communities - inspired several of these communities to work on
localized action plans to implement the larger plan in their neighborhoods.
These plans represent even more years of serious discussion and hard work on
the part of residents to chart the future of their communities. For this
reason, I take it very seriously when I am asked to make a finding as to
whether or not a project is in compliance with these plans.
-
Having said that: I cannot make the necessary findings to support the Planned Development Permit and Neighborhood Use permit.
-
The testimony today leads me to believe that the approval of this project will
set back the efforts of this community to realize their community plan and
revitalization plan. The Euclid Avenue Revitalization Action Program was
clearly developed to implement the community plan. Both the RAP and the
community plan are clear in their call for neighborhood serving, pedestrian
oriented businesses.
-
The permitted uses in this zone include groceries and apparel. The applicant
is proposing a category of sales that includes furniture, appliances and
equipment. Sales of these kinds of goods require customers to transport their larger purchases in vehicles, rather than on foot. Therefore I cannot find that the proposed project is consistent with the land use plan, contrary to what is stated in findings One and Six in the draft Resolution with Findings.
-
There have been uses on this site previously that have been worse for this community, and this is cited as a justification for approving this project. I disagree. The intent of the Euclid RAP is to create a quieter, less chaotic living environment in the neighborhood. A multi-tenant commercial building with multiple commercial vehicles serving it does not meet that intent.
-
For that reason, I cannot make the finding that the proposed development, as a whole, will be beneficial to the community, contrary to what is stated in
finding Four in the Draft resolution, nor can I find that it does not have a
negative impact on the welfare of the community, contrary to what is stated in
finding Two.
-
Therefore: Because I cannot make the findings necessary to approve these
permits, I will move to approve the appeal and deny the Planned Development
Permit and Neighborhood Use Permit."
-

MY REMARKS TO PLANNING COMMISSION (Feb 5, 04)

-
"A week ago the City Council upheld the Euclid RAP Committee's appeal of the
Commission's decision in the Elichondo's Bazaar case. The Committee offered the City Council exactly the same arguments it offered you and gave the Council the same back ground material it gave you. The Council concluded correctly. You did not.
-
The linchpin of our presentation to the Council was a five minute filmclip of
testimony before this body on September 11, and October 16, 2003; testimony
this body clearly knew about. Once the Council saw what a hash this body had
made of the two hearings, the appeal decision was obvious. The video
highlights of what you actually knew about the project were the strongest
evidence supporting the Committee's appeal. It was clear to the Council that you had not done your duty - not your duty to the applicants, not to the
Euclid RAP Committee, not to the city, not to the planning process. This body
failed its duty.
-
In granting the appeal and denying the application, the Council merely did
what this body should have done. The contrast between the Council's
consideration of the testimony and this body's consideration of the same
testimony was stark; arresting; disturbing.
-
Unlike this body, no one at Council tried to force a personal preference on
the situation. Unlike this body, the Council did not seek a middleground, did
not ask the parties to solve its problem, and did not try to force a community planning group to breach its duty. Unlike this body, no one at Council allowed personalities into the process. Unlike this body, every one at
Council read the staff report and our report, and came prepared to hear
testimony and discuss the facts. Unlike this body, the Council shouldered its
responsibility, acted professionally, treated the participants with dignity
and respect, and made the hard choice. That hard choice became its duty after
you abandoned yours.
-
This body's performance in the Elichondo's Bazaar case, Mr. Chairman, was feckless, egregious, and wrong. You should be ashamed of yourselves. We are certainly ashamed of you."
-