(1) Lack of Adequate Communications to Residents
- Given the seriousness and far-reaching effect of these policies and decisions, it is befitting that City Officials embark on a very extensive campaign to adequately inform residents. Sadly, this has not been pursued. The City at best met the minimum legal requirements to inform citizens and increased the effort slightly when citizens complained.
- Methods employed by the City to inform the public have been inadequate and ineffective, as evidenced by the fact that if a typical resident is queried, he/she is not aware of these developments, or, if aware, has very scant information.
Note: It is incumbent upon City Officials to make it easy for residents to avail, process, and comprehend public information. It is their
duty and responsibility to reach out to residents and ensure that they are propery and adequately informed of major development in the
community which will impact their lives.
(2) Lack of Responsiveness to Residents' Concern, Questions, and Feedbacks
- City Officials ignored the 2006 survey where residents indicated their desired usage of the 15-acre vacant public land located between the City Hall and the Peninsula Jewish Community Center.
- There are concerned citizens who have sent a host of questions to City Officials pertaining to the decision process and the plan to add a number of high-rise buildlings in the community. To no avail, some key questions remain unanswered. (Please refer to this section of the website: To Council and Sares Regis / Unanswered Questions.)
- The Planning Commission has been particularly reluctant to address some citizen inputs including apartment location and density. Public input is somewhat tolerated and then rebutted later. This leaves the citizens with the impression that City Officials simply ignore the questions and concerns when making decisions.
Note: This type of response contradicts a basic responsibility of City Officials to address residents' concern and foster an environment
of awareness and active involvement to the community life.
(3) Lack of Transparency
- The Council and City Staff have conducted a number of closed-door meetings. In particular, the terms of the Mirabella Development Agreement were negotiated in private. The public only had visibility when the topic was brought to the City Council on the day of a vote. In the six-month period from December 17, 2007 (authorization of the negotiation business terms) until very close to the July 7, 2008 session (City Council approves the Mirabella expansion and multi-million dollar concessions), there was not updated information available to the public, even after repeated requests from concerned citizens. This may be legal, but is not in the best interests of the public.
Note: The Brown Act enumerates the limited instances when closed-door meetings are allowed. Is this statute being adhered to? Is it in
the best interests of the citizens to negotiate millions of dollars in concessions with only last minute public input?
- Materials relevant to public hearings, including staff reports, should readily be available at the planning desks or transmit-able electronically. They are not uniformly available for review in a timely fashion.
(4) Variability and Frequent Changes to Zoning Codes
- The FC City Planning Management has encouraged developers to increase development density through the use of the Mixed Use zoning. The FC Planning Commission and FC City Council passed zoning changes to allow housing on commercial land at high density.
- Arguably, the zoning changes in recent years depart from the core tenets of what a planned community should be in the light of the lack of Master Planning in a centralized fashion so the overall city has a balance of traffic, structures and quality of life.