pf_02978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"_, .. I", 612b36018J t.U!::.RI::S I I~RuU!~ ':;I~j 1 f-'yj4 JAN 16 '98 18:21 Page Three. January 16, 1998 Kim L. Lee, AICP City of Roseville Council member Goedeke's inappropriate interruption of Everest's presentation at the Planning Commission meeting, with the statement that Everest's late 1980's office proposal had been rejected by both the Planning Commission and City Council. was 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. In short, it is clear to us that City staff has attempted to manipulate the planning process to avoid a fair and neutral hearing of the Everest application on its merits. 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. 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 deciding the application on its merits. We agree with the comment of one of the Planning Commission members on January 14. who expressed that he felt like the Planning 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 decide applications and proposals on their merits. Unfortunately, that is not possible in Roseville, vvhere favored developers get special treatment, VoJhile 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, TJN:lc Cu.,v.nR WInI'--'"