Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINNACLE TOWNHOMES - PDP - 34-00A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (6)To: Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning & Environmental Services From: Mary Otten, 1650 Ukiah Ln. Re: Continuance Hearing Procedure, 2/13/02 This hearing was concerning the development, Pinnacle Townhomes, which is proposed for the Prospect Street corridor. It was the second hearing, continued from 1/16/02 due to time shortage and the city's concerns regarding storm and ground water. I was unable to attend the meeting on 1/16. My purpose for attending the meeting on 2/13 was to hear pertinent discussion regarding traffic issues from both the city's and the developer's traffic experts. Having received no information from the city about 2/13 discussion limitations which excluded any discussion items covered in the 1/16 meeting, I was surprised to hear such a ruling made. It appears, however, that the ruling initiated at the meeting itself, and no one in the community was aware of such a limitation. Thankfully, transcripts assisted in sorting out the issue, and the Bearing officer allowed some additional traffic data into the record. Some traffic data, however, was not accepted into the record due to procedures that were not clear. However, there was no opportunity for response to the community data by traffic engineers. Both the city and the developer chose to reject the hearing officer's offer for a continuance to provide the community with city and developer traffic experts' response to community data entered into the record at this meeting. That, I think, is very unfortunate. It is not representative of the cooperation we have received from our city contact, Cameron Gloss. Mr. Gloss has gone out of his way to accommodate requests, and to facilitate our search for information during this process. I am addressing this concern to you for your consideration regarding future hearings of this sort. Is the hearing intended to provide the community an opportunity to express concerns and to learn the rationale and justification for city decision -making? Or is this process simply a required exercise that is necessary for the record? I believe our efforts to engage in discussions with both the city officials and the developers have been civil and responsive to each. I had come to expect the same in return, and was surprised on this occasion by the apparent termination of discussion. It is to be hoped that future engagements will demonstrate this hearing to have been an anomaly to standard practices. Thank`you for your time. Otten� /21/02 ((( cc: Cameron Gloss iI: ', ,;r;v!� i!. .!r I�il� .�li �It: 1l (1 �•,. .',4i, :i;G iU LLill.�%%...a li.'.?:,..