Taft: City Hall didn’t require a traffic plan | Inquirer News

Taft: City Hall didn’t require a traffic plan

/ 08:22 AM April 17, 2012

THE developer of the Horizons 101 condominium project in General Maxilom Avenue said there was no traffic plan because the Cebu city government didn’t require one.

Vincent Tomaneng, lawyer of developer Taft Property Development Corp., said this as he clarified that they haven’t applied for permits for Tower 2 yet.

He said they secured permits for Tower 1, the project being developed, whose excavation wall partly collapsed last week.

Article continues after this advertisement

Engineer Josefa Ylanan, chief of the Office of the Building Official (OBO), confirmed that Mayor Michael Rama recently issued an order requiring traffic plans from developers of high-rise buildings in traffic-prone areas.

FEATURED STORIES

The Cebu City Integrated Traffic Operations Management (Citom) earlier said they received a resolution from the City Council to conduct a traffic impact assessment on the second phase of Horizons 101.

That’s when Citom chairman Sylvan Jakosalem experssed concern about adding pressure on worsening traffic on Gen. Maxilom Avenue and other narrow streets in uptown Cebu City, where he said there was no budget for road widening.

Article continues after this advertisement

Jakosalem said a comprehensive traffic study has to be made first.

Article continues after this advertisement

Plans for the two towers of Horizons 101 provide for 1,500 condominium units in the tallest buildings to be erected in Cebu City.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Mayor Michael Rama issued the order recently. If there is no traffic plan, then there’s no locational clearance and no building permit,” Ylanan of OBO said.

She said this order caused the suspension of work on a major store in Mambaling, Cebu City.

Article continues after this advertisement

Ylanan said both structures of Horizons 101, a project of Taft Property Development Corp., didn’t have traffic plans because there was no order yet from Rama requiring developers to make one.

The issuance of the building permit was based on the National Building Code.

Ylanan said it’s a “general” code and there’s no amendment by the city government requiring a traffic plan for high-rise buildings.

Ylanan said there’s no coordination between her office, Citom and the City Planning and Development Office.

“For all contractors, it’s mandatory to verify the area before they proceed to excavation,” she said.

She also said the rehabilitation plan submitted by Taft Property on the collapsed retaining wall on Tower 1 of its project is much clearer.

Taft Property public relations officer Cerwin Eviota said Tower 1 is presently their concern.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“This (Tower 2) is still hypothetical. Tower 2 is just a dream. It has not even reached the drawing board,” Eviota said. Correspondents Tweeny M. Malinao and Jessa Chrisna Marie J. Agua

TAGS:

No tags found for this post.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.