As voters in the City of Sugar Land we have the power to repeal the passage of the Imperial Development and to limit further apartment development throughout Sugar Land. Those efforts are now underway and we expect to have the required petition signatures in no time. This will force the City to place this issue on a ballot for a vote. This is still a democracy Sugar Land City Council. Jacquie Chaumette showed, once again, that she is all about Jacquie...she voted against the plan; where has she been for the past year? She never came out publicly nor did she stand up for the community...just a polite little vote at the very end. NOT GOOD ENOUGH; ONLY SELF SERVING. Why didn't she ever mention the 2009 Mobility Study that rated Main Street an "F". She was on the committee. Why didn't she ever mention the Nalco request to not place apartments next to their plant. JACQUIE CHAUMETTE IS NO LEADER. City Council and the City Manager referenced the success of the PD process by pointing to Lake Pointe, a community that failed due to the concept, not becuase of the economy. Trust this same concept at Imperial?

The next "performance" is scheduled for April 3. City Hall 5:30pm

The City of Sugar Land Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously passed the apartments for the Imperial Historical District last night. They could easily have stopped the application one year ago by using the CURRENT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Chapter 6, Land Use for this tract specifically states "Representatives from Nalco have likewise expressed concern that there be no residential uses immediately adjacent to their site...the gross density for any residential area, inclusive of the buffers, should remain between 3 and 4 dwelling units per acre, which is the average gross density of the conventional suburban single family areas of the city". The recommendations in Chapter 6

This information was NEVER PRESENTED in ANY public presentations by the city nor the applicant. The community was presented this information in 2005. They were assured this would be the plan going forward. So where will the apartments be built...just north of Nalco. Having personally experienced being in the midsts of a chemical release at the Nalco plant a few years ago, I have to wonder what liability the city and the taxpayers might have should a toxic release occur. Afterall, Nalco is on record and their statement a part of the Comprehensive Plan, advising against residential in the area. I had to shelter in place while white gases surrounded my home on Brooks Street. How would you shelter in place at an adjacent open air ball park? The ball park that was to be built at the UH site.

THE COMMUNITY IS NOT ANTI DEVELOPMENT. Chapter 6 was written and ADOPTED when there was no pressure from a developer, when clearer heads prevailed.

WHY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE WHEN OUR CITY LEADERS CHOOSE NOT FOLLOW THE PLAN?

Should this pass City Council, which in all likelihood it will, that will bring the total number of units now approved for Sugar Land to 1625. 400 in Telfair, 600 in Riverstone and 625 at Imperial. Meanwhile, we have some class sizes as large as 40 in FBISD schools due to overcrowding in some areas. But the City of Sugar Land At Large Representative, Jacquie Chaumette, says the school overcrowding is not the City's responsibility.

Could that lead to a school district tax increase? Something developers won't pay. Well, they are getting that 50% tax exemption at Imperial according to the documents I read.

How will they vote tonight? For the developer or for the community

When voters went to the polls to approve the ball park and entertainment venue, this was the public presentation. When University of Houston was unable to lease the location to the city (but did offer to sell it), the city chose to quickly move the site. The change was made over a two week public notification period. The City indicated 150 residents were made aware of the change through their public notification outreach program.

As Planning & Zoning has struggled on how to mitigate the traffic in this already congested residential area, suggestions of adding another overpass at University to the ballpark have been discussed.

ESTIMATED COST OF THE ADDITIONAL OVERPASS
$20 MILLION AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE

WIDENING BROOKS STREET...COST UNKNOWN, EMINENT DOMAIN

OVERTIME FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO DIRECT TRAFFIC...TAXPAYER EXPENSE

WHAT IS THE TAX BURDEN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT???

THE TAX BURDEN IS ON SUGAR LAND RESIDENTS: FORT BEND ISD NEVER SIGNED ON TO PARTICIPATE, FORT BEND COUNTY HAS NEVER SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO PARTICIPATE.