pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� 0 4s6 itself, has to be excluded as "additional information." The City Attorney's a3� interpretation of the code is simply erroneous. Public commentary and relevant a�� analysis of matters already known to the City is simply not new evidence. a�9 Now if my emails were to have included new landscaping plans - instead of a�c referencing the existing NCPC plans that the City reviewed - then that would be 44� an entirely different matter as it would clearly be new evidence not previously a�2 considered. But, as explained, nothing in the emails present anything new that the a�3 City wasn't already aware of at the time of its decision-making. Therefore, the a4� emails (and the commentary and analysis contained therein) simply cannot be au: legitimately considered as being new evidence. a4� This knee-jerk desire to limit what the City Council sees (under the guise of 44 i "additional information" that the City is already itself deemed to be aware) is a��; particularly disturbing to me. Redacting sincere public commentary is never - a�9 ever - the correct path for city government to take vis-a-vis its constituency. aFo Certainly, the City Council needs to understand that the City in promoting the a�� NCPC "community garden" on the city website all the while the planning division a5z was making its decision is very problematic and directly relates to the decision- 4F:j making of the planning division and to the appeal of that decision. It is also quite 454 disturbing that the determination to redact my comments by the City Attorney aF�� have only come following my discovery and reporting of the promotion of a aF� purportedly religious activity by the City on the city website. Concealing this a� i problem does not serve to dispel the obvious crossing of a line that has taken a5�s place. It only serves to amplify the problem and make it significantly worse. a�� Therefore, I respectfully request that the City Attorney reverse the decision to a6o keep my sincere comments (regarding information that the City is already deemed ac � to have been aware) from the City Council. Again, I request that my aF2 correspondence be forwarded on the members of the Roseville City Council for abs their review and timely consideration. as4 With Respect, a6F Larry Leiendecker ab� RE: NCPC Appeal a6� Tue 5/18/2010 2:29 PM 468 From: Craig Klausing 469 To: Larry Leiendecker, J.D. 4�o Mr. Leiendecker, a� � As I read your appeal letter I understand your argument to be that for a 4�2 number of reasons, the city code implicitly requires a landowner to obtain a 473 conditional use authorization for the type of use proposed by North Como. In 474 other words, the code does not specifically say that gardens of a certain size or 475 used in a certain manner require a conditional use permit. Rather, that 476 obligation is inferred from a number of other sections and from the factors a�� you have outlined. Correct? a�� If I have that wrong, and you believe that there is a portion of the code that 479 explicitly requires a conditional use permit, could you identify the relevant asc section of the code for me?