The Hall Park Phase I is not funded
The park design was suppose to be done last summer.
From the Inbox:
Wednesday night the city council heard the appeal of the Planning Department decision to find Substantial Conformance of the design changes in the Hall property park since its approval in 2008. This mainly was related to the encroachment of the I-5 expansion into the park. Jerome Stocks quickly made a motion to go back to the original approved plan and derail the Substantial Conformance issue. Did he think that the city had a weak case? After all it was the city that thought it was necessary to initiate the review before beginning park construction.
Stocks had to withdraw his motion, and the appeal went forward. The Planning Department and the Parks and Recreation Department made NO defense and NO rebuttal of their findings. Isn't this an admission that the appellant was correct? There were statements in the City's letter to Caltrans on the I-5 EIR and in the comments of the consultant SRA that totally contradicted the findings of Planning Director Patrick Murphy. Isn't it odd the Murphy had nothing to say? The contradictions related to decreasing air quality, points may clear by the public speakers.
The council voted 4 to 1, with Barth dissenting, to revert to the approved 2008 plan. This seems an unsatisfactory solution for everybody, as it pretends the I-5 expansion won't take place. It is an attempt to shift all responsibility and cost from the city to Caltrans. Will this fly legally and politically? The lawyer of the appellant said that the city can't ignore a "probable" project, even if unbuilt. City Attorney Glenn Sabine said yes it can and Caltrans would be responsible for all costs. What kind of risk has the city taken on with this decision?