My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017 Remand – Initial Open Record Ending 4-12-17
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
2017 Remand – Initial Open Record Ending 4-12-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:29 PM
Creation date
4/13/2017 10:54:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
4/12/2017
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
237
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
what the Council has approved for a fire apparatus access road, such as Oakleigh Lane, the <br />minimum paving width is still 20 feet. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Despite all the attempts that have been made by the applicant, his attorney and complicit others <br />to confuse and dodge the fundamental issue in this case, the central fact remains simple and <br />glaringly obvious: <br />The proposed site is not a safe location to build and occupy 29 new dwellings. <br />Every single ruse that has been cooked up - including the latest "alternative fact" claiming that <br />our own elected officials had approved a street paving width that wouldn't even let a fire truck <br />or emergency vehicle get past another vehicle - has been knocked down. <br />Isn't it time for at least a majority of commissioners to accept the truth and quit trying to <br />find another way to ignore or contort the plain intent of our code to ensure that future and <br />current residents are not put at risk by inappropriate developments? <br />For the reasons stated above, the Planning Commission must either deny the application <br />or impose adequate conditions of approval as described above. <br />Submitted on the 121h day of April, 2017 by <br />d <br />r <br />Paul Conte <br />EXHIBITS <br />A. Comments to the Planning Commission on October 5, 2015, including Resolutions Nos. <br />4919 and 4608. <br />B. Letter from Lauren Regan <br />C. Letter from Brandts <br />D. Information about Haregu Nemariam, traffic engineer <br />E. Traffic Engineers report with exhibits <br />F. Simon Trautman testimony of August 31, 2015 (without attachments) <br />G. Excepts pages from County of Los Angeles "Best Practices - Emergency Access in <br />Healthy Streets" <br />H. Mountable Curb drawing <br />1. LUBA decision in Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham <br />J. Excerpt from Paul Conte testimony of October 16, 2013 <br />K. Excerpt from Paul Conte LUBA appeal petition <br />L. Excerpt from LUBA appeal decision <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 22 April 12, 2017 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.