CC Min 2008-05-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

questions regarding this initiative. He stated there are considerations that must be made regarding open space and expressed concern over election costs. Chris Davenport, on behalf of Trumark, stated they are in the planning stages with City staff for their new vision for this area. He stated if the charter amendment passes, further investments in the property will decrease and it may have a ripple effect throughout the city. He cited long-term planning and financial concerns that might come with the charter amendment. Daniel Paley discussed the amendment proposal and pointed out several items that had already been mentioned. He stated this is a great city with great potential. He stressed the importance of letting the City Council continue doing its job. Pat Dixon stated she gave her opinions in April and stands by the same views. She thanked the City Attorney for answering questions, and asked for further clarification on the map areas. She is uncomfortable with the petition workers, the finro-thirds vote, and supports the Council in its continued process. Council Discussion Mayor Foust thanked the speakers for their thoughtful and measured comments and looked to Council for questions. Council asked for clarification on Docktown, and also whether or not it was half the parks in the city that were involved in the initiative plan. An analysis was requested on charter changes versus the referendum process. A request was made for discussion of Council's right to put something on the ballot if the initiative passed. Council asked (if the initiative passes) who would pay for the legalities if a member of the community challenged the initiative's validity. Council asked for clarification on the South Bayside System Authority Treatment Plant (SBSA) property and the Redwood Shores Lagoons, and the area north of the airport. Council also asked for clarification on the impact to the Docktown Marina. Mayor Foust asked for clarification on the costs associated with the initiative and whether Council could add something to the initiative in that the parties who initially backed it would also cover any impact costs. City Attorney Yamamoto stated they would be creating a transcription from this meeting and would answer all questions posed. He stood by his feeling that his report and analysis are clear but stated ambiguity arises when trying to apply the report's analysis. One Council Member asked for clarification on whether the initiative would affect the housing obligations since she found conflicts to this in the report. The City Attorney spoke to this but deferred to Planning Manager, Jill Ekas, who stated they are looking at the current conditionally, approved elements that were not potentially affected by the initiative. One Council Member asked about docktown development impacts and Mr. Yamamoto stated it could affect these developments, but would speak to this further at the next meeting, and so noted the concern. Council reiterated that the initiative seemed simple on the surface, but still had gray areas in designation as to what is and is not a park in the plan. Council asked for clarification on permissible approval of conditional uses. Discussion on legislative versus administrative acts was held. Mr. Yamamoto spoke to the CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MAY 19, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 9 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 104