CC_Minutes_2007_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 YYLL. 11VYYl V VVY\.111 t4 t.l~~' --U L. 1 4U1 11V11V~:1 11V.)J LililLV11Q11~11~1Q~'1 JU11G G/ -----Original Message-- From: esands2612~a aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Sent: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:25 am Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 --Original Message-- From: esands2612@aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Sent: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paut Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 IQ~G G Vl GG I was not aware the city attorney had presented legal advice to staff on the matter. What proof do you have? Is it in writing? Have all council persons received a copy? AI Sands ---Original Message----- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 8:19 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Howt o Govern aCity -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Al, The court ruling, as I have read it, did NOT pass judgment on whether the Rottlund plan was or was not consistent with the 2001 Master Plan. It merely said that a vote that was taken to change the 2001 Master Plan required a 4/5 majority, and having not achieved that, was not a successful vote to change the plan. The court did not say whether or not .that vote needed to be taken for the project to have been pursued, as far as I could tell. I do not know whether we would be in the same spot today if the Rottlund plan had been approved on the basis of being already consistent with the 2001 Master Plan, since that is not how it happened. If the approval had occurred in that manner, then I suppose your buddies at the FOTL would have challenged THAT in court, and we might have a court ruling as to whether the Rottlund plan was consistent with the 2001 Master Plan. As we sit here now, we don't have that kind of ruling, in my opinion. The court ruling as to the AUAR was that the area-by-area uses/impacts in some cases were different than the AUAR, so the AUAR needed to be updated, even though the project-wide impacts were lower than the original AUAR. As the ruling noted, the fact that 5 years had passed meant that the AUAR needed to be updated anyway. The updated AUAR has been developed on the basis of being consistent with the 2001 Master Plan, including legal advice to staff to that effect. I know that you disagree with that finding, but I have not found your arguments persuasive. However, you are still entitled to your opinion. Dan Roe -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: ~r_c ~~i2~a~i,, .corr. > One more question for you regarding the Twin Lakes Master Plan:? If, as you say, http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007