CC Min 2008-07-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

park lands and how they are affected by the initiative. The City Attorney stated that the advice in his staff reports had not changed, and to be clear there are uncertainties in the issues of the residential areas as well as Red Morton Park and the Senior Center, to be included in that uncertainty. The Mayor stated that in reading from the law firm for the proponents, hearing comments by proponents and looking at staff reports, she sees one side saying no unintended consequences and one side says not sure. She cited examples where these unintended consequences might come into play. The City Attorney agreed there were examples where this would come into play, but it comes down to the same issue of whether or not administrative acts that are inconsistent with the Initiative can continue to be approved by the City. Council asked about approval of projects and whether they, and any appeals, are considered administrative and/or legislative. The Mayor asked again regarding who is responsible for fees arising, should the Initiative pass. The City Attorney stated that if the City was making an attack on something that stood within the charter initiative, then the City was likely to incur those costs. The Vice Mayor asked also how far those costs to the City stretched and was told by the City Attorney that they stretched up to and including final judgment. Council asked the City Attorney to speak on how the seven homeowners on park land relate to the amendment. The City Attorney stated it to be his understanding that the notion that the seven properties were designated as park, was not known, and it was his understanding that research is now being pertormed by proponents of the initiative on how this occurred. He stated the position taken by the coalition lawyers is that they have the same rights as all homeowners. He stated this may not be the case because all other homeowners are not affected by the proposed initiative. He repeated the fact that Council did not write this initiative, that it was a private endeavor, and that what they can do at this time is look at the language and see if they can track what is going to happen. He stated parts of the initiative are clear, but there are legitimate areas of concern and questions. Council asked how homeowners might respond to these concerns and questions. The City Attorney said they would need to obtain legal counsel in order to find out what was in their best interest should the initiative pass. When asked if there is a way to take these areas out of the proposed measure, the City Attorney stated this would have to go through the General Plan in changing the land use designation. Mayor Foust stated they had gotten a letter regarding changing these inconsistencies in land designations and that she would like a brief statement at the next Council meeting to address this. Council spoke to ambiguities in the proposed initiative and the alternative proposal made by staff. Council asked for more information on the effects of the initiative regarding Red Morton Park and the Senior Center. Council asked to hear back on the legal sustainability of the countermeasure. Council spoke to changing some of the language in the countermeasure to make sure that it was tight in understanding with lesser room for loopholes. Council also stressed that the community should have the opportunity to explore what could happen to the Cargill lands with regard to all the proposed conditional uses. JOINT SPECIAL CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD JULY 21, 2008 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No.165