CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

:':~.. From: MARILYN SALAY [msalay@q.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 5:05 PM To: Craig Klausing; 'RVCouncil Subject: North Como Community Gardens I am contacting you indicating my support for the RCA reply letter Mr. Leiendecker has submitted and to express support to require a CUP for the proposed gardens on the North Como property. I am an homeowner on Chatsworth St. across from the church. Was raised here as a child and love the neighbors as they are great people and law abiding citizens. Our neighborhood is swell-populated, residential area and the' proposed "public" gardens would have a significant, direct impact on the neighborhood at large. All the 64 plus adult signatures are indicative of this fact and to suggest impact is low or minimal is a real disservice to us residents and taxpayers. To be frank it is rather offensive and a slap in the face as if to say we cannot dissern what is low or moderate?? I would expect higher standards in decision- making than what I have witnessed in this whole process both from the church and city administration. These public gardens are indeed--public. A. Church is collecting a fee of $25 per plot B. The gardens are open to anyone, living anywhere and not restricted to their congregation or church members. C. The church is entering into a written agreement with their "gardeners" which by nature is a business venture since a fee is also involved. I pay this--I obtain this in return. D. The City of Roseville on its website advertised for the church gardens which speaks volumes. Only when it was brought to the cities attention did they remove it obviously realizing it was not going to help their case in his matter. E. Public gardens should be an entity of "cities" such as in a open space area or a portion of a local park. Municipalities are responsible for this role---that's is why we indeed pay taxes and we have a Park and Recreation Division in order to meet this need for the public (and I very much a advocate of Parks and Recreation as I worked with one in another state (Packer Country but always have been a loyal, true Viking fan!!!) Lastly, but certainly not least, I along with other neighbors attended both meeting held at North Como by the churches gardening committee. It was unproductive and the neighbors concerns were either downplayed or minimized. They indicated they followed swell- recognized model in proceeding with their plans however when a neighbor checked on the "model" it indicated Step #1 was to involve and engage the neighborhood--which they never did until the very end of their plans! Quite frankly since we are a "neighborhood" and they excluded us from the very beginning, how are we to voice our concerns and comments? Where is our opportunity to be heard? It is bordering on discrimination of a different nature. It is now unfortunate it has to be taken to the council level. I am a firm believer as I was in my professional career of involving all concerned when ideas are conceived and plans being made. There is a saying that goes, "no involvement, no committment" The neighbors are a wonderful group of persons--we could have worked and perhaps come up with a "win win" situation. However, this now cries out for your consideration and what is right and just. A CUP would give the neighbors that opportunity to voice their concerns and perspectives and to have the city formally assess all aspects, conditions and feasibility of this project since it is not iow but at very least moderate on it's neighborhood impact as the appeal would warrant.