The pre-design phase should have identified the 1.9 mile Staring Lane section between Highland Road and Perkins Road as unacceptable for expansion activities. As you describe events, your design team made a decision to proceed, then looked at the environmental impact.
The lower section of Staring Lane IS within the Highland Road Urban Design Overlay District.
As you state, the Staring Lane Expansion is a local project on a local (EBR) right-of-way versus being a state project on a state right-of-way. You also mention the EBR Unified Development Code is composed of ‘recommendations’ not ‘requirements’. Choosing not to adopt these recommendations because you can is not a sufficient explanation to neighborhood residents. Why would our city government not follow environmental protections felt to be important by the state government, especially ones listed as recommendations in city code? A ‘should’ should be followed if at all possible…not just when convenient.
I seriously doubt many, outside of city government, would agree with your assessment that the Green Light group has “done a good job of protecting as many trees as possible on the Staring Lane project”.
The Green Light project was voted on by taxpayers quite a long time ago, before the recent economic outfall. The cost is staggering (construction amount $26.5M, present cost $43.3M). It should have been brought back before the taxpayers before starting this phase. It was already acknowledged the project highly overestimated future traffic demands in this area: 24000 cars per day in 2019, 38687 cars per day in 2030. Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and walk away from a project.
Can you provide me with the names of the nine members of the Tree & Landscape Commission, and their dates of appointment? Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment