Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Aug.30. 2004 6:00PM <br /> <br />No.9309 P.6/8 <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br /> <br />- The City will contract with the same promoter used in previous <br />years, and all net proceeds will be held for the benefit of the downtown <br />area consistent with past practices. In this way, the City will be ensuring <br />that this very popular community event win go fOIWard without potential <br />disruption that could result from choosing One conunwùty sponsor over <br />another. <br /> <br />3 <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />The City Manager also indicated that similar denial notices had been sent to the other <br /> <br />6 applicants. Further, while Appellant contends that it has reached a verbal agreement with the <br />other permit applicants for the same event, it failed to produce probative evidence to that effect. <br />7 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />In the circumstances presented, it is clear that the denial ofLACCSA's application has <br /> <br />been in the best interest of the City, as well as the business community located in the downtown <br />9 <br />] 0 area of the City. As. such, the undersi~ed cannot find that the City's denial. of Appellant's <br /> <br />special events application was "unrea$onable, erroneous or clearly abusive of discretion." <br />11 <br /> <br />Similarly, it is also apparent that, in these circumstances, Appellant has not demonstrated, by <br />12 <br /> <br />convincing evidence, that it is entitled to the pennit wmch it seeks. <br />13 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />As for Appellant's statement that the City Manager did not act within the time period <br /> <br />prescribed in the relevant section of the Code, Appellant offers no specified solution. <br />15 <br /> <br />Presumably, that statement is offered as one of the elements of its overall request for approval of <br />16 <br />its application for a fpennit. The undersigned agrees with the City's positio~ that, since there is <br />17 <br /> <br />no prescribed consequence for failure to act within a specified time period, the language should <br />18 <br /> <br />be construed as "directory" rather than "mandatory." This is especially true where the City has <br />19 <br />20 the implied authority to grant extensions, as done here, to permit an opportunity to rectify <br /> <br />deficiencies, thus extending the time period for definitive action. <br />21 <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />1/1 <br />III <br /> <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />11/ <br /> <br />26 <br />27 <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />6 <br />R£pOltT AND PRO~ION OF HE.ARlNG OFFICER <br />,~~.1w.- -"'".~ ..,,,,..-- <br />