street to be situated there given topographical issues. Rezoning would likely render the value of the easement void. The <br />only other option for automobile access to a development there would be building a road across the recreation trail <br />adjacent to the applicant's property. I would think everyone should agree that the city should not allow public, and in <br />this case extremely popular, recreational resources to be compromised in the interest of a single private citizen. Access <br />from the south also brings into play issues and concerns with a long history which are significant to the neighborhood. <br />Given the uncertainties involved with all of these access issues it is clear that no rezoning is appropriate until they are <br />addressed. <br />Additionally, the process followed in determining this land use change has been flawed, hurried, and has deprived the <br />local community of their right to provide informed input. The city erred several weeks ago in allowing annexation of the <br />property in view the obvious inability to provide the mandated city services in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner, <br />as discussed above. Moreover, no public information meeting, discussion, or hearing involving public testimony was <br />permitted to educate local residents on implications of the annexation and its effect on the existing neighborhood. The <br />zone change hearing was scheduled only a few weeks after the annexation so that there was insufficient time for local <br />neighbors to meet, exchange information, inspect plans and land use documents, talk to legal and land use experts, etc. <br />So it is difficult for current residents of the neighborhood affected by this request at this time is to provide informed <br />testimony on the zone change application. <br />In view of the information presented here I think it is clear that the proper decision is that the property in question <br />should remain at its existing zoning classification. <br />