pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3yo behind his administrative determination. The emails also convey my continued 391 thoughts on why the administrative determination is erroneous. This is hardly 392 new evidence. 3y3 Further, the City obviously already knew that it was promoting NCPC's so-called 394 "community garden" on its website - pointing this fact out is not new evidence or 39� "additional information" for the City - as the City is deemed to have already been 3s� aware of its own actions. This fact may have been new to me, but it certainly 39� wasn't "new information" to the City. At the same time, conversations with Mr. 398 Lloyd that revealed the reasoning behind the erroneous determination is not new 399 evidence either. The City is also deemed to have been aware of the reasons aoo behind its own decision-making. So these matters obviously bring nothing new to ao� the table. ao2 Mischaracterizing the subject of my emails to the City Manager - to be included 403 with the appeal - as new or additional information beyond the scope of the 404 administrative determination ignores that the City was already very much aware ao5 of its promotion of the NCPC "community garden" at the time of the 406 administrative determination and was very much aware of its reasoning behind 40� the administrative determination. So, how a citizen providing further thoughts on 4os these very points - after the citizen becomes aware of the information that the City ao� already knew; especially as that information pertains to the "moderate impact 4�o quasi-public use" issue that was already clearly noted in the Appeal Letter (see 41 1 p.4-5) - is considered to be outside the scope of the appeal is way beyond me. a� 2 Indeed, the City Attorney should revisit the language of the city code section a� 3 1015.04(C)(3): a� a The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will reconsider only the evidence a� 5 that had previously been considered as part of the formal action that is the subject 416 of the appeal. New or additional information from the appeals applicant may be 417 considered by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at its sole discretion, if that 4�� information serves to clarify information previously considered by the Variance 419 Board and/or staff. (Ord. 1347, 4-23-2007) (Ord. 1359, 1-28-2008) (Ord.1372, 7- 420 28-2008) (emphasis added) 421 As noted, the code language "will reconsider only the evidence that had a22 previously been considered..." does not restrict my emails concerning what the 423 City of Roseville already knew. What the City already knew is deemed to have 424 already "been considered as part of the formal action." Thus, my finding out what a2s the City already knew and addressing it is not new evidence to the City in the 426 least. The same can be said for the Appeal letter itself. 42� ***Here, under the City Attorney's view of City Code 1015.04 (C)(3) even the 4zB Appeal letter (that 64 residents signed) would be excluded because it would not 429 be "evidence that had previously been considered as part of the formal action...." 43o The City Attorney's interpretation erroneously presumes that all subsequent 431 correspondence concerning the appealed "formal action" is evidence that wasn't a32 previously considered. Clearly, under the City Attorney's view, the Appeal letter 433 because it followed the "formal action" in time, could not have been "considered 43� as part of the formal action." Thus, following City Attorney's line of reasoning, a3s everything following the administrative determination, including the Appeal .►. -.�