AgdaPkt 2008-07-07 Clsd and Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

REPORT 78 Page 1 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council frolll the q~t, ; ""paer July 7,2008 SUBJECT Possible Counter Initiatives to Charter Amendment - San Francisco Bay Front and City Park Land, RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare and submit any counter initiative(s) or advisory measures. BACKGROUND At its June 30, 2008 meeting, City Council discussed the proposed Charter amendment initiative that would require two-thirds voter approval for a change in the uses of certain designated lands within the City. In the ensuing discussion, the City Council considered the possibility of placing one or more initiatives on the ballot that would address some of the procedural as well as land-use planning issues raised by the proposed Charter amendment. The purpose of this report is to answer questions City Council raised about counter initiatives and propose several alternative approaches for counter initiatives. City Council has broad authority to place initiatives on the ballot. City Council may propose (1) Charter amendments (Efec. Code, 9 9255), (2) ordinances that would change the General Plan, Zoning Code, or make other legislative changes (Elec. Code, 99222), or (3) advisory measures, which allow voters "to voice their opinions on substantive issues, or to indicate to the local legislative body approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal" without binding City Council in the future. (Elec. Code, 9 9603.) Any proposed initiative or advisory measure must be approved by City Council no later than August 8,2008, if it is to be placed on the November ballot. ANALYSIS I. RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS ABOUT COUNTER INITIATIVES A. Reauirina the Charter Initiative to Pass Bv a Two-Thirds Vote During the June 30 City Council meeting, the question arose whether a counter initiative could be placed on the ballot requiring the proposed Charter amendment initiative to be approved by a two-thirds vote. The initiative requires two-thirds voter approval for certain future actions so it seems logical that such a measure should be approved by the same supermajority vote. State law, however, prohibits such a requirement. The California Constitution, which would preempt any City law, requires that city charters must be approved and amended by a majority vote. (Cal. Const., art. XI, 93.) The proposed Charter amendment initiative would amend the City Charter and therefore must be approved by a majority vote. 1