HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh G-3 E-Mail 12-10-18 fm C-Uchida LU 18-0059EXHIBIT G-3/1 OF 1LU 18-0059
From:Siegel, Scot
Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:17 PM
To:McCaleb, Iris
Subject:FW: LU 18-0059 & Ordinance 2803: PC continued deliberations
From: Cheryl Uchida [mailto:uchida.cheryl@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:10 PM
To: Siegel, Scot <ssiegel@ci.oswego.or.us>
Subject: LU 18‐0059 & Ordinance 2803: PC continued deliberations
Hello Scot,
FYI, at the public hearing held on Nov. 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, for which you were not
present, I want to report a few troubling remarks that the LO Planner, Leslie Hamilton, made during her report
to Commissioners.
Since PC deliberations will continue tonight and public testimony has been closed, there is no opportunity to
further communicate with the PC about our (Jeff Novak, Carolyn Krebs and myself) concerns. Please refer to
our written testimony G-1 submitted before the public hearing held on Nov 26, 2018.
When PC members asked about the content of our written testimony, Ms. Hamilton said that the group she
convened were made up of residents and business property owners with experience in developing the
LGVCO.The group met three times. Though Ms Hamilton mentioned that there were 8 people who made up the
group, she failed to mention not all eight were present at all of the meetings. In fact, at the last meeting there
were only 3-4 of us present. At this third meeting, we thought we would continue to meet mainly because issues
mentioned in Ms. Hamilton's staff report under #2 were not agreed upon and completed. During the PC public
hearing, when asked about the content of our letter, she misrepresented the "charge" of our group. And, at the
end of her staff report, when asked about the content of our letter, she said that we were only three of eight
members who were a part of the group convened, thereby grossly dismissing our involvement.
The last issue I am raising is the focus on only one "onerous situation" relating to tree mitigation. That land use
development located at 15948 Quarry Road was approved by the DRC at the dismay of the Waluga NA. Ms.
Hamilton was the assigned planner for this application, so she was very familiar with the applicant and what
ensued up to and during the approval process. Large Douglas Firs could've been save had the developers been
willing to downsize their plans. This had been in the past, a single family property. Trying to squeeze in a
mixed use development in two buildings, though allowed by code, is clearly an example of too big development
on too small space. To my knowledge, this is the only onerous development relating to the LGVCO tree
requirements that has occurred since it's inception. And furthermore, it didn't stop the developer from going
ahead with developing this small piece of property with staff and DRC approval. So how does this develpment
get the reputation of being labeled onerous?
In light of the CCI discussions that you are facilitating, I would like to point out that the situation I've described
during the Nov. 26 PC Public Hearing for LU 18-0059 and Ordinance 2803, is a very poor example of citizen
involvement and engaging the public especially with the code amendment process.
Thank you,
Cheryl Uchida