My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_1108
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_1108
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:32:16 AM
Creation date
2/16/2006 11:06:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/8/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 11/08/04 <br />Minutes - Page 30 <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka spoke in support of no further <br />input or testimony being received, based on the quasi- <br />judicial nature of the process as outlined. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned how to limit the experts <br />speaking to the issue for both parties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka noted that that would be up to <br />the presenters, and how they used their allotted time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council were <br />representatives of the public as a legislative body; and <br />questioned how the Council could support limiting public <br />comment, or how to avoid selective hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that it was a procedural <br />decision; and the public could direct their comments to the <br />petitioner or the project proposer as appropriate, but that <br />the Council didn't need to hear additional public comment <br />outside that venue. <br /> <br />Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Ln <br />Mr. Moses opined that the City Council didn't need to <br />wait the full two weeks; that staff could be working on the <br />material now; and questioned whether the City Council <br />was restricted to Mondays for meetings. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, adopting the procedure for <br />the Twin Lakes Development/Citizen Environmental <br />Review Petition, as prescribed and outlined by the City <br />Attorney in his letter dated November 3, 2004, as <br />modified: <br />Procedural Item 3: <br />"Allow petitioners and the project proposer to <br />submit written materials in direct reply to the other <br />party's written materials by 4:00 o.m. on November <br /># [19]." <br />Procedural Item 4: <br />"Hold a hearing [at a Special Council Meeting <br />scheduled for November 29] €Hl }J€r.T@m~€r 22, <br />allowing the petitioners and the project proposer one <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.