|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The expected showdown over the fate of an approximately 53-by-60-foot tangle of greenery on Louise Street did not come to pass on July 16. Moments before the Menlo Park City Council opened the public hearing, City Attorney Bill McClure announced that both sides were now talking to each other and asking to delay the hearing until Aug. 20. The council concurred.
What revived the possibility of a compromise between developer Sam Sinnott’s team and Louise Street residents, who had described themselves as implacable in their resistance, after months of acrimony that has included everything from dueling lawyers to police monitoring of yardwork, remains a mystery.
The developer has hired a landscape architect, according to the city attorney, but representatives of both sides declined to shed any light on the latest developments, saying they had “no information to report at this time.”
Mr. McClure said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the parties could come to an acceptable agreement.
Mr. Sinnott and investment partner Mircea Voskerician have been trying to build a paved driveway exiting on Louise Street from a property at 1825 Santa Cruz Ave. that they purchased for redevelopment. The exit would cross over some of the green space in the public right-of-way, and possibly bolster the developer’s case for switching the address from Santa Cruz Avenue to Louise Street, which city staff doesn’t support.
While staff initially granted a permit for the driveway, the council voted 3-1 to revoke it after Louise Street residents protested.
The residents then asked the city to turn over the public right-of-way to adjoining homeowners — a process called abandonment — with plans to preserve it as green space in perpetuity with easements for pedestrian access. The council was expected to decide whether to proceed with the abandonment or grant Mr. Sinnott’s appeal of the driveway permit revocation during Tuesday night’s meeting.
Planning commissioners determined on a 4-2 vote last month that the abandonment would be consistent with the city’s general plan, but noted that they were not voting on the abandonment request itself.
I think a reasonable comprise would be for Micrea to build this oversized spec house in Hayward and to reimburse the neighbors for their legal fees.
Why on GGE did the City Attorney shut down public comment? Again, the City showing a total lack of regard for public input giving favoritism to Developers
McClure and Sinnott are old buddies; McClure’s office is in a building which is owned jointly by a group of which McClure and Sinnott’s wife father are part owners.
Yes, Bill McClure is apparently in practice (legal) with Sinnott’s father-in-law.
Think about this mystery of why? Follow the money – who has it and who doesn’t. Who stands to gain excessive profits and who simply spends to defend a quality of life.
Answer that question and you will be disgusted.
The city has been hijacked by developers. You only need to try and survive a developer-led construction project on your block to know. They are rude, aggressive, unethical and messy.
I have been physically threatened by developers when asking them to act like the neighbors they claim to be.
The proof of this hijacking is simply to ask a few questions;
1. Why is the fine for an unauthorized heritage tree removal so nominal?
2. Why does it now cost money if you desire to object to a heritage tree removal?
3. Why does the city not enforce the signage code (code intended to prevent advertising in our neighborhoods)?
4. Why does the city not enforce job site cleanliness and dust control measures at jobsites?
5. How much money do the developers contribute directly and indirectly to various programs?
Please be reminded that the local realtors are complicit as well — they would much rather sell to a developer than to an individual desiring to live there. The realtor know that when sold to a developer that there will be a subsequent sale at roughly 2x the first sale. GREED BEGETS GREED.
Our city is destined for complete ruin if steps aren’t taken to eliminate this.
How many driveways does each lot need?
Is it not the City’s responsibility to look out for the greater good of the community?
“How many driveways does each lot need?”
Well originally there were only 9 lots on Louise. However via lot splits and flag lots there are now 12 lots not counting the two that also face Santa Cruz. As a result of lot splits and flag lots Lot 1 in the original subdivision now has 4 driveways.
What doesn’t Sam Sinnott pack up his bag (along with his sleazy development practices) and move to another City? He would fit in better elsewhere.
“What doesn’t Sam Sinnott pack up his bag (along with his sleazy development practices) and move to another City?”
What an interesting approach to finding a compromise!
Who else would you like to throw out of MP?
His compromise was to threaten to sue the city. That seems like an even more interesting approach to finding a compromise. Personally I wouldn’t like to throw him out because I wouldn’t want to get that close to him.
I guess when this much extra money is at stake it’s worth it so sue. Perhaps you are his lawyer.
Sam Sinnott probably believes (like so many other developers) that he is improving the neighborhood and improving the property value. It all comes back to the developers love of money – more, more, more.
It’s too bad that you don’t have the opportunity to live next to Sam Sinnott’s project.
” Perhaps you are his lawyer.”
As noted above, I do not know him and have never met him.