My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02978
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2900
>
pf_02978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:27:19 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:56:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2978
Planning Files - Type
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Address
2660 CIVIC CENTER DR
Applicant
EVEREST
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
374
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />"_, .. I", <br /> <br />612b36018J t.U!::.RI::S I I~RuU!~ <br /> <br />':;I~j 1 f-'yj4 <br /> <br />JAN 16 '98 18:21 <br /> <br />Page Three. <br />January 16, 1998 <br />Kim L. Lee, AICP <br />City of Roseville <br /> <br />Council member Goedeke's inappropriate interruption of Everest's presentation at the <br />Planning Commission meeting, with the statement that Everest's late 1980's office <br />proposal had been rejected by both the Planning Commission and City Council. was <br />not only false but a clear indication of the City Council's predisposition to deny the <br />current application without a fair hearing on the merits. <br /> <br />In short, it is clear to us that City staff has attempted to manipulate the planning <br />process to avoid a fair and neutral hearing of the Everest application on its merits. We <br />know that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the subject <br />property for limited business/office is appropriate, reasonable, and well-supported by <br />planning principles. We also know that there is no point in going forward to the City <br />Council with our application because staff and the Council have no intention of <br />deciding the application on its merits. We agree with the comment of one of the <br />Planning Commission members on January 14. who expressed that he felt like the <br />Planning Commission had been caught as a "pawn" in a contest between the City and <br />Everest. The role of City staff and the Council should be to provide a neutral forum to <br />decide applications and proposals on their merits. Unfortunately, that is not possible <br />in Roseville, vvhere favored developers get special treatment, VoJhile others are <br />disadvantaged. <br /> <br />Until favoritism in Roseville is abolished, and fair, neutral treatment and decision <br />making is extended to all citizens and applicants. City business will continue to suffer. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br />TJN:lc <br /> <br />Cu.,v.nR WInI'--'" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.