1998_0126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page Three January 16, 1998 Kim L. Leer AI P City of Roseville Council member Goe deke inappropriate ina ro riate interruption of Everest's presentation at the Commission meeting, with the statement that Everest's late 1980is office Planning � � sal had been rejected both the Planning Commission and City Council, was propo � y not only false but a clear indication of the City council's predisposition to deny the current application without a fair hearing on the merits. it is clear to us that City staff has attempted to manipulate the planning i n short, . process to avoid a fair and neutral hearing of the Everest application on its meats. We know that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the subject property for limited business/office is appropriate, reasonable, and well-supported by planning principles.in rinci les. We also know that there is no point in going forward to the City Council with our application because staff and the Council have no intention of 'din the application on its merits. We agree with the comment of one of the deciding Pp Planning nnin Commission members on January 14, Mo expressed that he felt like the Planning'n Commission had been caught as a "pawn" in a contest between the City and Everest. The role of City staff and the Council should be to provide a neutral forum to e applications and proposals on their merits. Unfortunately, that is not possible decd pp p p in Roseville, where favored developers get special treatment, while others are disadvantaged. Until favoritism in Roseville is abolished, and fair, neutral treatment and decision making is extended to all citizens and applicants, City business will continue to suffer. Sincerely, EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, LTD. mothy J. Nelson TJN;lc C &MR WnOLeftm