Laserfiche WebLink
<br />issues of the residential areas as well as Red Morton Park and the Senior Center, to be <br />included in that uncertainty. <br /> <br />The Mayor stated that in reading from the law firm for the proponents, hearing comments by <br />proponents and looking at staff reports, she sees one side saying no unintended <br />consequences and one side says not sure. She cited examples where these unintended <br />consequences might come into play. The City Attorney agreed there were examples where <br />this would come into play, but it comes down to the same issue of whether or not <br />administrative acts that are inconsistent with the Initiative can continue to be approved by <br />the City. Council asked about approval of projects and whether they, and any appeals, are <br />considered administrative and/or legislative. The Mayor asked again regarding who is <br />responsible for fees arising, should the Initiative pass. The City Attorney stated that if the <br />City was making an attack on something that stood within the charter initiative, then the City <br />was likely to incur those costs. The Vice Mayor asked also how far those costs to the City <br />stretched and was told by the City Attorney that they stretched up to and including final <br />judgment. <br /> <br />Council asked the City Attorney to speak on how the seven homeowners on park land <br />relate to the amendment. The City Attorney stated it to be his understanding that the notion <br />that the seven properties were designated as park, was not known, and it was his <br />understanding that research is now being performed by proponents of the initiative on how <br />this occurred. He stated the position taken by the coalition lawyers is that they have the <br />same rights as all homeowners. He stated this may not be the case because all other <br />homeowners are not affected by the proposed initiative. He repeated the fact that Council <br />did not write this initiative, that it was a private endeavor, and that what they can do at this <br />time is look at the language and see if they can track what is going to happen. He stated <br />parts of the initiative are clear, but there are legitimate areas of concern and questions. <br /> <br />Council asked how homeowners might respond to these concerns and questions. The City <br />Attorney said they would need to obtain legal counsel in order to find out what was in their <br />best interest should the initiative pass. When asked if there is a way to take these areas <br />out of the proposed measure, the City Attorney stated this would have to go through the <br />General Plan in changing the land use designation. Mayor Foust stated they had gotten a <br />letter regarding changing these inconsistencies in land designations and that she would <br />like a brief statement at the next Council meeting to address this. <br /> <br />Council spoke to ambiguities in the proposed initiative and the alternative proposal made <br />by staff. Council asked for more information on the effects of the initiative regarding Red <br />Morton Park and the Senior Center. Council asked to hear back on the legal sustainability <br />of the countermeasure. Council spoke to changing some of the language in the <br />countermeasure to make sure that it was tight in understanding with lesser room for <br />loopholes. Council also stressed that the community should have the opportunity to <br />explore what could happen to the Cargill lands with regard to all the proposed conditional <br />uses. <br /> <br />JOINT SPECIAL CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD <br />MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />JULY 21, 2008 <br />PAGE 10 <br />