CC_Minutes_2007_0820 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The options as shown in Map 3 were discarded in January 2001, when staff, the planning commission, and the council agreed on a combination of options 2 and 3 to create the actual mix of the Twin Lakes Land use plan. Additionally, they decided to study the impacts of big box and strip malls on blocks six and seven-as requested by the Regan group owning property there. ®n June 26, 2001 staff requested that Council choose between the planned scenario # 1 and the "big box" option-and, to make a final determination of land use. Council elected to amend the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan by accepting the "no retail" option called "scenario #1". And that is the land use plan for Twin Lakes. It is more fully described in pages 9-11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. The only rational for making this claim (that Map 3 provides a multiple of uses) is that Map 3 is still included in the Appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan-but so is the 1988 Plan, and other historical maps. Their inclusion into the appendix has no other real significance. The result of Council relying on this false claim is a flawed, inaccurate, and intentionally deceptive, fraudulent revised Twin Lakes GUAR "update". This is not an update. It is a complete re-write and revision. It's expected "approval" as accurate and complete by a split council will send it on to the reviewing agencies, without any incorporation of any of my citizen's comments. C MEATS T T E P I1I~ The public has no meaningful say or participation in this AUAR process. It's a process between the Council and reviewing agencies only. While the Council must address any future comments of reviewing agencies, it is free to yawn and ignore the citizens of Roseville. That is their option, as usual. So don't be surprised if my comments go ignored, along with other possible "public comments" This process tonight is strictly for "show". 2