AgdaPkt 2008-06-30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 5 permits, (2) variances, (3) planned unit development permits, and (4) subdivision map approvals. 5. Who makes decisions regarding conditional use permits? Response: The Zoning Administrator. (Redwood City Zoning Code, Art. 42.) 6. Is it possible to grant a conditional use permit for property covered by the initiative when that use might be inconsistent with the "Open Space" uses identified in the initiative, without triggering the two- thirds voter approval requirement? Response: Unclear. As discussed in the May 19, 2008 staff report to City Council, the initiative is arguably ambiguous on the question of whether administrative acts, such as granting a conditional use permit, are subject to the two- thirds voter approval requirement when the permit would allow a use that is permissible under the City's Zoning Code but is not an "Open Space" use defined by the initiative. This issue is relevant because some of the conditional uses permitted for lands covered by the initiative go beyond the limited "Open Space" uses defined by the initiative. Under the initiative, covered lands can only be used for (1) agriculture, (2) certain extractions from the San Francisco Bay, (3) public parks, or (4) restored wetlands, without triggering the two- thirds voter approval. At the same time, many of the covered lands are zoned to permit conditional uses that go beyond those "Open Space" uses, including garbage disposal, landfills, public uses, warehouses, airports, racetracks and commercial recreation facilities. The question then is whether the City Zoning Administrator could approve a permit to build, for example, a warehouse on covered land without triggering the two-thirds voter approval, even though that use is not an "Open Space" use listed in the initiative. The text of the initiative is ambiguous on this matter, and resolution by the courts is likely if a dispute arises. On the one hand, proponents of the initiative contended at the May 19th City Council meeting that the initiative was limited in scope and would not require two-thirds voter approval of administrative decisions that grant conditional uses on covered lands. Proponents rely on the fact that the vote requirement applies only to legislative acts. (Proposed Charter Initiative, S 6a(A).) On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce contends that the vote requirement will extend to administrative acts, such as granting permits. The Chamber relies on section 6a(C)(4) of the initiative, which states in part that "[n]o . . . tentative subdivision map, parcel map, conditional use permit, planned community permit, or other discretionary entitlement for use shall be approved unless consistent with the provisions of section 6a." This section includes administrative acts and appears to indicate that no administrative act can be approved unless it is consistent with the limited "Open Space" uses listed in the initiative. The Chamber contends that the 5