Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 8.A '� <br /> Page 60 , <br /> raises this very interesting question: Have you or the City Council routinely required submission of this level of I <br /> evidence for scheduling conflicts from all parties who have sought continuances before the Council? This is a � <br /> simple Yes or No question, to which I respectfully request a simple Yes or No answer, in writing. (For your <br /> information, we are preparing a record for a possible subsequent appea] to the courts. One ground for that <br /> appeal may be based on the pro-properiy-owner bias which I believe is manifest in your Planning Department <br /> policies and procedures, and, possibly, by the Council; and, in this specific case, it may also be based on <br /> possibie discrimination and prejudice against our Appeal and me personally -- as it has been abundantly clear to <br /> us from your conduct and your responses that you and your colleagues do not appreciate being challenged -- <br /> even meritoriously -- on the facts and law, nor on how you institutionally conduct yourselves. I personally <br /> believe such conduct may actuaIly involve an abuse of discretion.) <br /> As it stands now, because you have denied our reasonable request to have more time to conduct field research <br /> and prepare reports, as well as engage experts and organize community support, we will be submitting an Offer <br /> of Proof presenting what we believe we couId have dernonstrated in our snbmissions and in person at the <br /> hearing, had you been more gracious and fair-minded in this matter. We do this in part to prepare a record for a <br /> possible court challenge to your unreasonable treatment of this whole matter, and in part because our only <br /> submission to date is our Statement of Reasons or Grounds, which, as you know, provides no factual proof or <br /> legal analysis. <br /> Speaking with Ms. Ekas after last Monday's Council meeting, I believe she informed me that she would have <br /> the Planning Department's submission in this matter ready for my review 72 hours before the November 22nd <br /> Council meeting. That would be, in effect, Friday, November 19th, if I understood Ms. Ekas correctly. Yet, as <br /> I understand it, I must file my Offer of Proof with the City Clerk by close of business on Monday, November <br /> 15th. Please confirm this information. If I did not correctly understand either the City's last filing date or ours, <br /> T'd appreciate it if you would provide rne with the correct information about both filing deadlines. If my initial <br /> statement about two different deadlines is correct, then please explain why I am required to suffer f,his <br /> disadvantage, as well. <br /> Finally, because we will not be submitting evidence per se, but rather only an Offer of Proof setting out the <br /> nature and conclusions of the evidence we had expected to produce had we been given the opportunity, it is <br /> important that we understand the standard of evidence that the Council will apply in making its <br /> determination. Candidly, we need to dispel our concern that by demanding a standard of proof that you and the <br /> City Council clearly already know we could not meet with an Offer of Proof, you could be fatally biasing the <br /> hearing and predetermining the outcome before the first word is spoken before the Council. If such were the <br /> case, we would not dignify a pointless hearing with an appearance. <br /> In past communications, you have ignored most of the questions I posed and the information I requested. This <br /> time, I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience that actually addresses my questions and <br /> concerns, particulazly with respect to my deadline far filing our Offer of Proof. (Please respond separately <br /> today, over the weekend, or first thing Monday morning to my request for clarification of my filing deadline.) <br /> Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Marc Wazsowe <br /> PS: As a matter of understanding your interpretation of the facts and law -- and to satisfy my intellectual <br /> curiosity -- please explain to me the relevance to our actual situation of the legal opinion your expressed in your <br /> prior email (02:12 PM 11 /9/2010) pertaining to the purpose of a noticed hearing. In stating the purpose of a <br /> noticed hearing, you restated the obvious -- but isn't it the case, factually and logically, that a postponement of a <br /> z <br />