Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poliakoff asked City Attorney Ottinot, for the record,what is the section of the City Code as <br /> to why he believes Robert Solera cannot testify tonight. City Attorney Ottinot said that Mr. <br /> Solera is here on behalf of your firm, and the City's Ethics Code is Chapter 33. Mr. Poliakoff <br /> read into the record Section 33-2 of the Code regarding a Lobbyist. City Attorney Ottinot said <br /> that we can handle this in another proceeding. Mr. Poliakoff said for the record that the City has <br /> prevented them from putting on a material witness by threatening them with retaliation for giving <br /> sworn testimony for a witness who is not being compensated, a witness who wants to speak <br /> about material facts, they believe this is in denial of their due process and at this point they will <br /> not put Mr. Solera on because of the threat of retaliating measures by the City, and they will get <br /> an ethics opinion before this item moves forward showing that it is proper for Mr. Solera to <br /> speak. He also noted that he met with the City Attorney a few days ago and he had specifically <br /> asked if he wanted a copy of their witness list to see if there would be an issue and the answer <br /> was no, and he feels that the City Attorney sandbagged them here. <br /> City Attorney Ottinot responded saying that the word sandbag is inappropriate. If they want to <br /> present witnesses it is voluntary first of all as a Board hearing, there is no need for him to have <br /> his list of witnesses,he can bring anyone he wants. However,Mr. Solera falls under a particular <br /> rule, and he advised him prior to the meeting and Mr. Poliakoff disagreed with him. He <br /> indicated to him, let him make the record clear, Mr. Poliakoff can have Mr. Solera testify but he <br /> will be subject to potential Ethics violations with the City and the County. Mr. Poliakoff said we <br /> would table this item for tonight and get an opinion from the Ethics Commission first thing <br /> tomorrow, and bring it back. City Attorney Ottinot said no, this Board is making a decision on <br /> whether or not to pass this tonight, you make the call. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff concluded his comments and then proceeded to ask the City's Consultant Ellen <br /> Uguccioni the following questions [City Clerk's Note: The following cross examination is <br /> verbatim.]: <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Why were you retained by the City? <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: To evaluate Temple B'Nai Zion for historic landmark designation. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Did anyone at the City speak to you about what you were looking for in your <br /> report? <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: No sir. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Were you advised at any time that the City would like to declare this parcel a <br /> historic site? <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: No sir. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Did the Mayor, or City Manager, or City Attorney or any Planner ever speak to <br /> you about this matter? <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: After I did the report? <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Yes. <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: After I did the report, we had a hearing that you, one of your representatives <br /> mentioned, and at that time I did give a presentation and there may have been questions then, I <br /> don't remember. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Did you ever consider that this site may not be historic? <br /> Ms. Uguccioni: I evaluated this property after having 35 years of experience in doing this. In <br /> terms of the City's Ordinance, and in my opinion, it was in fact eligible. <br /> Mr. Poliakoff: Now we noticed that the oldest part of the Temple,the original part,the part that <br /> Summary Minutes: 2010-0622 HPB Mtg Page 3 of 8 <br />