[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHeAnHLMLig[/youtube]
Below is the final page of the written comments by Greg N. that he ran out of time for during our ‘TIMED’ public testimony (see the entire comments here: GregInput8-11-2015Â )
Summary, Questions, and Concerns
This is NOT about this particular application, it’s about the PROCESS
In my opinion this hearing in no way fulfilled substantive due process
How are citizens going to have a voice if staff misrepresents the clear language of the code?
I am not a lawyer, but I can read, and the code is CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS
What is the point of a conditional use permit hearing if the governing body is told they cannot deny it and they are severely restricted in what they can consider and condition – both of which are found nowhere in the code!
Staff commentary is a personal opinion, directly contradicts the code, and is not appropriate for consideration
Due Process ONLY exists if citizens have a SUBSTANTIVE opportunity for input and a FAIR hearing
How can a hearing satisfy due process when staff, who guides the governing body, misrepresents the powers and duties of the commission?
If staff wants to force the Planning Commission (and City Council) to grant every conditional use permit, they should bring the ordinance forward
Similarly, if staff wants to force the PC and CC to restrict its considerations and conditions to a list of specific items for a use, bring the ordinance forward
All citizens should be very concerned if this is the direction staff is giving to the Planning Commission
Under these arbitrary rules, the deck is stacked, and the conditional use permit hearing essentially serves no purpose