My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2010 12:42:56 PM
Creation date
3/12/2010 12:42:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
1. The word "Clause" references used hereunder are references to the <br />Document "Request for Planning commission Action" Dated <br />02103/2010. <br />2. All other references are to the specific documents attached to the <br />"Request..." in (1 J above. <br />3. Other references are refereed to as "Attachment A, B, C" etc. and <br />refer to documents submitted by Riaz Hussain. <br />Submittal by Riaz Hussain <br />1. Clause 4.2 States that the subject parking areas must be removed if <br />the determination is made that they constitute a safety hazard and <br />affect the flow of traffic in this area. Then Clause 4.3 states that that <br />determination was indeed made. <br />Riaz Hussain: <br />The change that did not materialize: <br />The document referred to does not specify how the council or the <br />planning commission arrived at the clause in 4.2. A traffic hazard is <br />referred to but no evidence is cited or presented. As a citizen I would <br />expect at least some analysis based on some deductive reasoning if <br />no other physical or empirical evidence is available. Stated as baldly <br />as it is in Clause 4.2, it appears, to my complete consternation and <br />amazement a completely arbitrary statement. I am compelled to ask, <br />is this rule of procedure for the city council or the planning <br />commission? <br />Again in clause 4.3 the said determination is actually used and again <br />there is no analysis. Simply the fact that a Deli use permit was <br />brought up. This last never materialized and did not lead to any <br />change in the use of the parking areas or the building. And yet the <br />council used clause 4.2 to assert that the parking areas are [all of a <br />sudden] a safety hazard and should be removed. I understand that <br />the council covered itself when granting the original use permit by <br />saying that this determination could change. But would it not stand <br />to reason, indeed just for the looks to adduce at least some evidence <br />to support the assertion. Are all previous assertions to be applied <br />blindfold and for what reason? Should not there be some evidence of <br />some sort somewhere in all this? I find all this perilously close to <br />being arbitrary. And that leads to a host of other questions about our <br />modus operandi. Why did the council not make this determination <br />right after granting it then? They could have! Why is it being done <br />now? Why not never? What has changed? I have no answers but I do <br />have some traffic and crash reports from the county and DOT( see <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.