CCMIN010593 - Laserfiche WebLink

24 segment of the community that was not happy with that vote so we are responsible to the people of the City to take it back to them to get direction. If the ordinance is simply rescinded, it is too -- easy. Although the law requires a certain percentage of signatures, it is still less than ten percent of the population of the city who signs the petition, and Ms. Scribner did not consider that a mandate to do anything. The whole community is entitled to have its voice heard. Many people sign a petition with the understanding they will get more information and have a chance to vote on the issue. Ms. Scribner believed that by assessing the election result, Council can determine if this is a neighborhood issue or a city-wide issue indicating concern with growth or development in the hills. Ms. Mohr concurred with Ms. Scribner. To delay this for a fifth councilmember to have the opportunity to rescind the ordinance and prevent the project from going to a vote is an error. Council is putting this matter to a vote as a result of the referendum process, which is part of the checks and balances of the governmental system. Ms. Mohr strongly supports that right of referendum. Council does not just vote on the easy things and take the hard decisions to the people. Council must vote on the tough things as well. Should there be some portion of the community that feels Council has acted in error, they have the right of referendum. Going to the voters is not a way to get out of the hard work, but a correction in case Council errs. Mr. Tarver believed the decision to call an election depends on whether you support or oppose the project. The process allows citizens to collect signatures and bring those to the Council for it to choose to rescind a decision or put it before the people. Mr. Tarver agreed the tough decisions need to be made and he believed Council should rescind the PUD in the best interest of the City. He believed the project had significant problems with grading, trees, water, traffic and neighborhoods. Mr. Tarver felt the Council should send a message to the public that this is a bad project. Mr. Tarver indicated that was a different approach than putting it on the ballot and saying "what do you think?" Mr. Tarver further stated he had wanted to place the issue on the ballot as an initiative and the developer preferred to go through the referendum process. Mr. Tarver indicated the process allows this Council to overturn the PUD and not submit it to the voters. Mr. Tarver indicated there is another process where the developer can collect signatures for an initiative and put it on the ballot that way. In that case, the developer is carrying a project forward that the Council has indicated it does not like. Mr. Tarver believed that was a subtle difference, but felt he was elected to represent the citizens and he is taking the position that this is a bad PUD. He believed the real intent of collecting signatures is to say that it is a bad project and should be rescinded. 1/5/93 24