Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses citizen charter petition on residential land‑use limits; clerk verification underway
Summary
City staff told council on July 22 that a citizen petition to amend the city charter affecting residential land‑use rules was submitted July 17 and is now in the city clerk’s verification process.
City staff briefed the council on July 22 about a citizen petition that seeks to amend the city charter to restrict future land‑use changes affecting residential zoning districts. Staff said petition signatures were submitted July 17 and the city clerk has up to 15 working days to verify residence and signature validity; staff noted a tentative statutory verification completion date of Aug. 5.
The petition, as read in the meeting, would make the city’s residential land‑use rules as of Jan. 1, 2025 the baseline and require voter approval to alter those land‑use permissions. City staff and the city attorney flagged several legal and practical concerns in the petition’s language, including ambiguous terms (for example, definitions of “affected property owners” and which land uses are covered) and potential conflict with state law. Staff explained that if the charter language prevents the city from complying with state law — for example a state requirement to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — the city could face legal and financial consequences and, in some cases, the charter provision could be subject to court review.
The city attorney described procedural options available to council and staff: 1) allow the citizen‑driven process to proceed and let voters decide in a regular election; 2) request a pre‑ballot judicial determination under recently enacted state procedure (available beginning Aug. 6) to test the legal validity of the ballot language before it is presented to voters; 3) draft and refer an alternative ordinance or charter amendment that would clarify ambiguous language and better align with state law; or 4) create local ordinances that directly address a narrower set of the petitioners’ stated concerns (for example, requiring first‑class mail notice to affected property owners for comprehensive rezoning) rather than changing the charter.
Council discussion covered the tradeoffs between letting a citizen petition go to ballot and drafting council‑led measures. Several council members emphasized improving notice to property owners as a practical and lower‑risk response, and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would expand notification for land‑use changes. Some council members also expressed interest in asking a court for a judicial determination about the petition’s legal sufficiency; others warned that any charter change could lead to litigation and could put the city out of compliance with state mandates.
Staff said the clerk’s verification process will proceed and that the petition roll will be checked against county voter rolls during the verification window. Staff further said they would return to council with refined options including draft language for any proposed ordinance, a timeline for any judicial determination or other legal steps, and a recommendation on whether council should place its own measure before voters. Ending: Council gave direction to pursue staff‑level work on expanded notification ordinance language and to explore the judicial determination option while allowing the clerk to complete the verification process.
