JOURNAL 04/06/09

Greetings, Any and All Who Maybe Thought You Were Long Free of E-mails from
Me:

I'm back!

Yes, it's been a very long while, and no, I don't have any good excuse. And
who knows? It could be a very long while after this e-mail again. My
intentions are just never matched by action, and while I keep INTENDING to
change, it just somehow never happens.

But, just because I have been absent does not mean the Gunnison Valley
Community Alliance has been inactive. Au contrair -- at least, that's my
attempt to spell it.

For instance, we are signing up for our fourth (I think that's the number)
group participation in Community Clean-Up, which I believe is set for April
18. We haven't yet been assigned a location, but we are still looking for
anyone interested in helping us out. You can contact Karen Jensen to sign
up, but I don't know what contact information is best. Perhaps she will be
kind enough to provide that.

We are also in the initial planning stages for our farmers' market booth,
and will certainly be needing folks willing to share produce from their
gardens, and we never say "no" to anyone who would like to help staff the
booth. We are in preliminary discussions as well to combine forces (or at
least booth space) with the Master Gardeners, so that the GVCA volunteer
need not be knowledgeable about produce.

We were also going to hold a fund-raiser for the Light Program, which
provides vouchers to see local doctors to people who can't afford the full
cost, but in the interests of time and logistics, ran an ad campaign
instead, encouraging folks to consider contributing.

But my main reason for coming out of lengthy hibernation is to encourage you
to attend the public hearing that will be hosted by the city planning
commission this Wednesday, in council chambers, at 7 p.m.

Last week's public hearing, hosted by city council, was to determine whether
Gunnison Rising, the sprawling proposal for development for somewhere from
two to three miles east of Gunnison (the proposal keeps shape-shifting,
which doesn't seem to faze the city attorney), met the state's basic
requirements for annexation.

While the Gunnison Country Times, a very active proponent of this
development, headlined its story as a process nearing its end, it seems to
me that a discussion on whether this development meets basic state
requirements (such as proper contiguity to existing city boundaries) is
really the first official step forward.

So now we are at a second step, and, to me, it seems incredibly premature.

This will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the land uses
proposed by the developers. However -- and this is where I grow completely
baffled -- there are two versions of land-use documents in the city's
sphere.

For two and a half years, the applicants have submitted documents, plans and
maps that keep changing. The city looks at these documents, asks for more
specifics, and the applicants come back with a different, still unspecified
revision. For instance, the original plan called for the city entrance to be
near Signal Peak Industrial Park, and the first thing entrants would see
would be a "travel plaza," which is somehow (although I missed this
discussion) different from a "truck stop."

Now the plan has abandoned the long stretch on the south, and moved the
travel plaza to right next to the Pioneer Museum, but the details are no
more specifc about what a "travel plaza" would entail. (A place where semis
could idle all night? Big overhead lights so that truckers pulling in after
midnight could see? How big is the travel plaza?)

This is one example of many, and I encourage you to check out the Gunnison
Rising link on the city's website, where you can find the documentation,
including the land-use plans and maps.

And that, apparently, is the land-use that the planning commission will be
taking input for on Wednedsay evening. HOWEVER, the planning commission and
the council have already deemed this particular document insufficient, and
so the commission and city staff have been working on the documents (on the
city's dime) to make them acceptable.

So you, the citizens, are being asked to provide public input on a document
that the city has essentially already rejected. But rather than reject it
and send it back to the applicants, the city has opted to rewrite it for the
applicants. But I am very unclear as to when, or even if, citizens will get
to provide public input on this revision.

At least one member of the city council, Rick Miller, is very keen to get
Gunnison Rising voted on (he means approved) before the council election in
May. That's about one month away.

If you are comfortable with that timeline, and you feel -- as some people
and a newspaper do -- that this will be such a great amenity and boost to
the city that it should be allowed through, no questions asked, then you
should show up and say that. It's not really the point of the discussion,
but that would let the city know that their timeline and actions have your
approval.

On the other hand, if you (like me) are wondering just why exactly this
particular proposal is getting city assistance rather than a rejection and
an instruction to come back with a document that meets the city's
requirements for completeness, you should say that as well.

Or, you could speak to the point of the hearing, and ask questions or make
comments about the proposed land uses. But you might want to clarify, since
you are commenting on the applicants' proposal, which is already in the
process of being rewritten by the city, when you would get a chance to
provide public input (at a formal hearing such as Wednesday's, when all
comments are entered into the official record) on the revised document.

I am also unclear as to what happens at the close of this public hearing.
Usually, when either the council or commission has a public hearing, the
hearing gets closed, either that night or another night following a
continuance, and then the commission or council takes action, voting yes or
no. Since this has already been acknowledged by the city as an incomplete
document, I have no idea what the vote would be on. But perhaps, at the very
least, your comments will help inform the city's rewrite (that I think
should be turned back to the applicants unless we want to set a precedent
that the city will rewrite any applicant's incomplete proposal) and perhaps
direct the vote that needs to be held sometime after the close of the public
hearing.

So please attend if you can, even if you don't plan to speak. This is still
a plan to double the footprint of Gunnison, which makes it the biggest
project, probably ever, to be placed before the citizens of Gunnison and
their elected officials.

Whether you are in favor of this development or opposed to it, the city
really needs to hear from you. And while you think you may have been heard
from in the past couple years, the public hearing held last week was really
the START of any formal application process. The meetings that happen from
here on out are the ones that count.

Okay, that's enough from me today. I may be back soon; I may not. It's just
so hard to predict anymore.

TL