CC_Minutes_2007_0806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

T ~1 I..1~ S AUE~ c~~ A ~~ JULY , za The proposed "UPI~ATI/" of the Twin Lakes AUAR illustrates how a doc ent is inherently inaccurate and dysfunctional when it is prepared by a dys ctional gaverntnent. The first indication of a dysfianctianal governrr~ent is when you freeze out the citizens in the decision making process. Note that staff wants the Council, alone, to review and then declare the document "complete and accurate " by August 13th, and then distribute it to the reviewing agencies, without any citizen involvement. Nat until August 20th, after the Council has rubber stamped the staffs proposed AUAR, and declared it a "done deal" and sent it off to the reviewing agencies, would any public comment be introduced. This is a dysfunctional process, revealing the stcd~s fear of public interference in their plans. Local government thrives on openness, not secret dealings setting up done deals before the public is allowed "in". The second indication of a dysfunctional goven~nment is the staff and Council's apparent determination to prepare a new AUAR based on fantasy scenarios dreamed up by staff, instead of any citizen or commission interaction, and ram it through quickly. This is in stark contrast to the first AUAR study, then coupled with pre oration of the existing Comprehensive 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 2001, the comprehensive plan and the AUAR were joint projects done simultaneously, sa there was no "disconnect" between the comprehensive plan and the AUAR that exists today. All this is in spite of legal advice emanating from 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 untruths and misrepresentations as to the true nature of the present, existing situation. The 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 still a functioning commercial district of heavy and light industrial use. Not True. This is a serious misrepresentation of the existing land uses, and needs to be corrected. (2) The very next paragraph declares that all three development scenarivs are consistent with the existing comprehensive plan. This is simply not true. The AUAR continues this deception on page 11 (second paragraph), where staff states that ``the ?001 Master Plan includes "four future land use plans", Options 2,3,and 4. Thls is an intentional outright misrepresentation, the product of wishful thinking instead of a careful review of the actual Twin Lakes Master Plan. See. Note I attached which details the