City Attorney’s Evolving Comments On Civic Arts Building
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 21 August 2008 — 2 comments below »
The Waterfront Now initiative was adopted by the City Council at the July 22, 2008, City Council meeting. During the public hearing, the City Manager and City Attorney responded to a resident’s specific questions regarding the initiative’s impact on the restored historic Civic Arts Building.
At 1:50 (see video below), City Attorney Mick Cabral says, “There will be plenty of opportunity to comment on each project that comes along [in the Waterfront], of course.”
At 2:14, the resident asks, “Will there be opportunity to discuss further use issues?”
At 2:18, Cabral answers, “Absolutely. Yes.”
Compare that with the comments that Cabral made days before the July 22 meeting… “The Planning Commission and City Council will still retain discretion to determine whether a proposed use is a proper fit on any given parcel. I do not believe Sala Thai will stand a better chance under the Central Hercules Plan zoning [with changes resulting from the Waterfront Now initiative] than it does under current zoning.”
And compare that to Cabral’s most recent comments on the subject, from yesterday’s article… “On balance, staff considers a decision by the City Council to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration in light of the Waterfront Master Plan Initiative to be the fairest and most equitable for all concerned.”
The fairest and most equitable for all concerned… That hints that the Planning Commission and City Council do not definitely “retain discretion to determine whether a proposed use is a proper fit,” or that the public is assured of the opportunity to “discuss further use issues.”
The alternating logic of the City Attorney is a very big issue. It brings to question his ability to advise the Council (and the City) appropriately. In 2006, Cabral had advised the City Council to commence eminent domain procedures to obtain the Walmart parcel, even though the City did not have the right to do so (that privilege had been expired for nearly a decade). That course of action eventually led to the nullification of the eminent domain proceedings.
Frankly, I don’t see any alternating logic in Mr. Cabral’s remarks. He said quite clearly that the Waterfront Initiative settled the issue of rezoning and that there is no reason to expect for this to be revisited. That has been consistent with the way this has progressed. He said also that there would be further opportunity for residents to have their voices heard on this issue, and that has been the case, despite the fact that the dissenting voices have not prevailed regarding Sala Thai.
@Jeff Boore – Anyone can have their voice “heard” during public comments at any City Council meeting. If the comments expressed have no potential for effect, it is not a discussion.