Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attorney stated the changes were not substantive in nature, and read the specific changes <br />that had been made in findings and purpose in the drafted countermeasure. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor asked for additions to be made regarding minority and majority voting, <br />and the City Attorney reiterated that all of Council's changes and comments would be <br />inserted at Council's direction. Items regarding ferry service and waterway issues were <br />also asked to be inserted. <br /> <br />Because of the ongoing discussion of unintended consequences, and the proponent's <br />position that there were none in the proposed initiative, the Mayor asked for clarification of <br />this. The City Attorney went over the concerns regarding conditional use permits and the <br />property owners whose homes were on designated park lands. He went over the General <br />Plan, zoning and other administrative versus legislative concerns in this area and urged <br />community members to read the initiative for what it is, and not to interpret it in terms of <br />their own personal views. Outside counsel for the City, Attorney Willis, gave additional <br />information on the two-thirds voting legislative action versus administrative acts on the <br />areas now designated as park lands, and gave an example to the Mayor on what mayor <br />may not happen, if the initiative passes, with regards to any senior center expansions. <br />The Mayor stressed Council and community members' position that there were <br />unintended consequences in the initiative that need be looked at in order to prevent <br />litigation in the future. Mr. Willis went over the issues of Redwood Shores, dock issues <br />and existing zoning and permits. <br /> <br />Council spoke to the Cargill issue, and specifically naming Cargill in its countermeasure. <br />Council stressed that other Charter Amendment would be going on the ballot at some <br />point, and that Council's continued discussions on and/or placement of a countermeasure <br />on the ballot did not change that. Council stressed its countermeasure was being drawn <br />up in place of any shared measure with the proponents of the initiative, since it was <br />obvious that would not be happening. Council discussed whether or not the specific use <br />of Cargill in the countermeasure could be taken out if they found another definition or <br />language for same. Council spoke to changing some language, also, in the area of <br />exceptions in the countermeasure to be applied in the area of privately owned homes or <br />docks, which includes floating homes and public buildings on public property, which would <br />then eliminate ongoing concern over the senior center. Council stressed that the invitation <br />was still out there for the proponents of the initiative to work with Council in the coming <br />weeks in an effort to put a shared measure on the ballot. <br /> <br />Council asked for clarification on whether or not warehouses could potentially be built on <br />Cargill property. Mr. Willis agreed that under the current designation in keeping with the <br />conditional use permits, warehouses could be put on Cargill property. Council asked what <br />it would take to redesignate the residential areas that were now listed as parks. Mr. Willis <br />stated that redesignating these lands would not change the bulk of the initiative, since it <br />was set in place as of March 13, 2008, and no further changes could be made to its <br />language by Council's efforts. <br /> <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />JULY 28, 2008 <br />PAGE 10 <br />