2007_0723_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� _ ��1 �� THE TWIN LAKES AUAR "UPDATE" JULY I6, 2U�7 BY AL SANDS The proposed "UPDATE" of the Twin Lakes AUAR illustrates how a dacument is inherently inaccurate and dysfunctional when it is prepared by a dysfunctional govemment. The first indication of a dysfunctional government is when you freeze out the citizens in the decision making process. Note that staff wants the Gouncil, alone, to review and then declare the doctunent "co�nplete and accurate" by August 13th, and then distribute it to the reviewing agencies, without any citizen iuvolvement. Not until August 20th, after the Council has rubber stamped the staffs proposed AUAR, and declazed it a "done deal" and sent it off ta the reviewing agencies, would any public comment be introduced. This is a dysfunctional. process, revealing the stafPs fear of public interference in Cheir plat�s. Local government thrives an openness, not secret dealings setting up done deals before the public is allowed "in". The second indication of a dysfunctional governnment is the stafF and Council's apparent determination to prepare a new AUAR based on fantasy scenarios dreamed up by staff, instead of any cifiizen or comrnission interaction, and ram it through quickly. This is in stark contrast to the first AUAR study, then couuled with ure�aration of the e�risting Com_prehensive Plan for Twin Lakes, which took several years and much citizen and commission input before final approval by staff and Council_ Please note that in 2U01, the comprehensive plan and the AUAR were joint projects done simultaneously, so there was no "disconnect" between the comprehensive plan and the AUAR that exists today. All this is in spite of legal advice emanating fram the failed Twin Lakes proposal that it is probably best to not go into a new AUAR at this time. See my note 2 attached. Finally, the document itself is riddled with unttutlis and misrepresentations as to the true nature of the present, existirig situa�ion. Tbe most glaring examples are: (1) Table 6.1 (page 10). That table purports to show existing land uses. Since the collapse of the Twin Lakes LLC proposal, most of this land should be classified as vacant- developable. Yet staff continues to pretend that this is stitl a functioning commercial district of heavy and Iight industrial use. Not True. This is a serious misrepresentation of the existing Iand uses, and needs to be corrected. (2) 'I'he very next paragraph declares that all three development scenarios are consistent with the existing comprehensive plart. This is simply nat true. T�e AUAR. continues this deception on page 11 (second paragraph), where staff states that "the 2aQ1 Master Plan includes "four future land use plans", Options 2,3,and 4. This is an intentional outright rtxisrepresen#atian, the product of wishf�l thinking instead of a careful review of the actual Twin Lakes Master Plan. See Note 1 attached which details the