8. Do any new developments have to go through the ‘normal planning process’ as claimed? NO Some supporters of the McConnell land purchase routinely state that any other project that is proposed for the remaining acreage must go through the “normal” planning process. Proponents such as REVIVE spokesperson Rocky Slaughter have been misleading using such statements as “any future developments have to be related to education. It doesnt have proper zoning for a strip mall, for example.” This is patently false, as described and clearly documented below. First, all deed restrictions requiring “educational” uses were removed at the demand of the McConnell Foundation. Second, the zoning language was changed so that virtually any type of commercial use, including strip malls, are allowed. This is why a Hotel (not educational) is being allowed on the property. To top that off, new developments there do not even require the approval of the City Council, and quite possibly not even require the approval of the City Planning Commission.If any new project goes through the same process as the hotel, then the answer to the above question is a resounding “NO”. The hotel project has received unbelievable special treatment from city staff. The project had to overcome a series of hurdles including improper zoning, insufficient parking, no secondary access, deed restrictions, a lease that didn’t allow sub-leases, two ‘no’ votes on the city council, and a ‘yes’ vote who likely would have had to recuse herself. Any one of these obstacles would have stopped any other project in town, dead in its tracks. The difference here is that the applicant was the former boss of the entire city management team that was needed to get this through. As proven below, city staff and the proponents of this land sale have lied repeatedly, acted unethically several times, and shown without a doubt, that they are not looking out for the best interests of the citizens of Redding, but for their former boss and his associates. This is apparent not simply by one or two coincidental occurrences, but through an established pattern of dishonesty.Here are just some of the specific issues (with documentation provided) that illustrate the depth of the dishonesty surrounding the proposal of this hotel on land owned by the People of the City of Redding. Improper Zoning:The land that the hotel project sits on is designated as a ‘Public Facilities’ zoning district. This is for schools, churches, libraries, museums, airports and other public uses. Commercial uses were not allowed on public facilities zoned districts until April 13th 2010. That was the date of the City of Redding Planning Commission meeting where the Development Services Director Jim Hamilton (former subordinate to Turtle Bay CEO Mike Warren) lied to the Commission and proposed a “cleanup” of the public facilities zoning designation (source: Planning Commission Report 4/13/2010).Hamilton’s proposal fundamentally changed the language of that type of the zoning for the entire city, by allowing “supporting commercial uses.” He used examples like Peter Chu’s restaurant and Fed Ex out at the airport to convince the planning commission to adopt the changed language. There was never any mention of the hotel at Turtle Bay. However, the City Council staff packet proposing the new hotel, dated the very next day(source: Council staff packet 4/14/2010) specifically stated ”The entire 20 acres under lease is designated as “Public Facilities.” Independent of the Turtle Bay proposal, staff has initiated a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code that would provide for limited commercial uses within Public Facilities-zoned areas, when appropriate and consistent with the overall use of the property. That amendment is also necessary for the development of a hotel/restaurant on the property and was considered by the Planning Commission at its April 13th meeting.” The Development Services Director of the City of Redding lied to the Planning Commission and changed the language of a zoning designation throughout the entire city under the guise of a “clean-up”, so that his former boss would not have to go through the appropriate, legal, and public process to get the property rezoned for his project, as required by law. This means that no members of the public were notified, as required by the Brown Act. The Redding Record Searchlight covered this extensively in both news articles and an editorial (source: Record Searchlight 4/27/2010) (source: Record Searchlight 5/1/2010).This change in zoning language also lowered the threshold for approval for any commercial project on that type of zoning (i.e. the additional 9 acres being purchased). Before, this type of project would have required a Use Permit, which in turn requires a planning commission approval. Now after insertion by the Director, any project under 30,000 square feet in size only requires a Site Development Permit, and only the approval of the Board of Administrative Review. (source: COR Public Facilities Zoning pp.35-36) So in other words, the McConnell Foundation can build any commercial use under 30,000 square feet (including a gas station, homeless shelter, or fast food restaurant, among other things) and it will not be required to go to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Even if it were appealed, the City Council can not deny a project if the applicant follows planning guidelines for that type of use, which have already been rigged in their favor by city staff. This is all the more worrisome, since the McConnell Foundation and Turtle Bay refuse to tell anyone what they want to do with the additional 9 acres they are purchasing, even though they stated that it was a “deal breaker” if they did not get that additional acreage. Deed Restrictions:The City Attorney specifically lied to the Planning Commission when asked at their September 14th 2010 meeting (source: Planning Commission minutes 9/14/2010) regarding the hotel use permit if any deed restrictions existed on the property. He answered that the federal deed restriction that existed as part of the original grant, no longer applied due to federal legislation, and that “City Staff determined that the property was unencumbered with any restrictions.” This was proven to be a lie when at the March 4th 2014 City Council Meeting (source: Council Report 3/4/2014), the Council was required to approve three resolutions that rescinded several deed restrictions (primarily ensuring educational or recreational uses) that had been placed by the city decades ago, and had been in place all along. Insufficient Parking:The City required the Hotel to construct only 59 new parking spaces (well under the amount required for any other hotel of this size). (source: Planning Commission Report 9/14/2010)This was done by drastically reducing the required number of parking spaces for the museum and the bridge and crediting them toward the hotel. In the words of staff, this was done because “parking originally required for TBEP was based on a projected museum visitation of 350,000 visitors per year, but that maximum visitation had only been one-half of that projected…even with factoring in Sundial Bridge users…” Countless projects have been denied in Redding because the applicant could not construct the exact number of parking spaces required by the planning department guidelines, even if other parking existed near by. But in this one isolated case, those requirements did not apply to this applicant.Summary:Turtle Bay and the McConnell Foundation had the City of Redding change Public Facilities zoning laws to accommodate the hotel and future projects. Any future projects they propose will likely not even have to go to the Planning Commission for approval, let alone the City Council.
Posted on: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 22:19:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015