Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br />CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement <br />November 30, 2009 <br />Response: The request before the City comes in two parts, (1) should the City allow conversion <br />of industrial land to another use other than industrial, and (2) should that new use be a mixed <br />commercial / residential project as proposed with the site plan and design standards? The first <br />question deals with land use policy, the second question deals with a specific project and its <br />impacts. <br />The land use policy question is driven by the applicant, and they are asking for mixed use <br />residential, not some other use such as a university. The current zoning of the site allows for <br />schools and university uses. <br />Regarding the question of construction details, such as parking, size of units, club houses and so <br />on, the commenter is referred to the proposed Design Guidelines in Appendix E of the DSEIS. <br />That represents the starting point of what could happen on this site. The development would be <br />required to meet the standards which would be approved through the zoning / Planning Overlay <br />process. <br />Regarding the comment, "support future airport growth," the commenter is referred to Comment <br />18 in Chapter 3. <br />As for multifamily leading to a "Casino Road — slum housing situation," the reference to Casino <br />Road has been raised numerous times during this process. Standards for multiple family housing <br />have been revised since early units were placed along Casino Road. The CEMEX proposal <br />includes design standards and a site plan that would limit multiple family housing and provide <br />design standards as part of the Planned Development Overlay process for the construction of the <br />project. The designer was involved in the Mill Creek Town Center project, and that would be a <br />better example of the quality they are trying to archive, rather than the Casino Road area, which <br />had no master plan. Thank you for your comments. <br />50. Sharon and Lance Ehde <br />Mr. and Mrs. Ehde are opposed to this proposal. They express concern for school impacts and <br />over traffic congestion. They list several locations where traffic is, "at capacity or <br />overcrowded." They make it clear they are looking for an open and fair discussion of all issues." <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />Chapter 1 — General Comments <br />n <br />