My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2012 11:22:57 AM
Creation date
11/18/2010 5:05:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
11/22/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
418
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
8.A <br /> Page 61 <br /> hearing date has absolutely no impact whatsoever on your stated purpose of a noticed hearing? I don't <br /> understand your reasoning as to why postponing this noticed hearing would not "allow both parties to be present <br /> and offer their respective views" at the time at which the postponed noticed hearing subsequently takes <br /> place. The requested extra time is clearly too short to make this a"justice deferred is justice denied" situation <br /> for Bob Carroll, the Planning Department almost certainly will not be less ready however many weeks later, and <br /> the Council meets every week, or every other week, in any case, so I am clueless. Also, I find it hard to believe <br /> that the City Council has never postponed a noticed hearing -- if they have, then what is the legal justification <br /> for such a postponement, given the unavoidable conclusion from your prior pronouncement that the law does <br /> not permit such postponernents, because postponements apparently deprive the parties of their right "to be <br /> present and ofFer their respective views"? Therefore, I respectfully request that you pmvide me with the legal <br /> basis for the Council's legally binding decision to deny my request for a continuation. <br /> At 1 I:53 AM I 1/10/2010, you wrote: <br /> Dear Mr. Warsowe: <br /> In thinking about your request to continue the hearing on your appeal now scheduled for November 22, 1010, 1 <br /> was concerned by your assertion that you may not be available on November 22, 2010. This is new information <br /> and if you would like to provide evidence — such as deposition subpoena or court order -- of a conflicting <br /> obligation to appear in court on November 22 in Connecticut, this is information that the City Manager would <br /> consider. <br /> I <br /> Pamela Thompson j <br /> Pamela Thompson <br /> City Attorney <br /> 1017 Middlefield Road <br /> Redwood City, CA 94063 <br /> Phone: (650) 780-7200 <br /> Fax: (650) 780-5963 <br /> 3 <br /> � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.