My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2008-12-15 Clsd and Spec
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2008
>
AgdaPkt 2008-12-15 Clsd and Spec
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2008 12:58:35 PM
Creation date
12/11/2008 2:38:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
12/15/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The City Attorney stated that zoning is not the issue here for the seven homeowners; the <br />issue is the General Plan Land Use Designation. If Council were to consider amending it, <br />it would go through a General Plan amendment like any other project, which included a <br />CEQA review, etc., and he expected that this would be probably part of the new General <br />Plan process which is already underway. Mr. Willis reiterated that, even if all this were <br />done, those lands would still be listed as they are in the language of the proposed <br />initiative, and would still be subject to the two-thirds vote. <br /> <br />The City Attorney moved on to the sections of the countermeasure regarding election <br />selections and time periods. Mr. Willis stated the countermeasure was drafted in a <br />manner that would not require a special election. He stated that this way they would have <br />an election 88 days after a development was voted on, with the earliest statewide election <br />and/or a general municipal election to try and reduce costs in that area. He stated they <br />had also drafted an exception in this area in the event of an emergency election or <br />concern. <br /> <br />Council continued to ask questions about the Cargill site and how to protect or prevent <br />extensive development in that area in their countermeasure. The City Attorney stressed it <br />was not a "this" and/or "that" issue, and restated that even prior to the initiative being <br />brought forth, there were checks and balances in the system with respect to any <br />development, whether it be Cargill or anybody else. He stated, for any development, there <br />would have to be the full CEQA process and at the end of that process, they would have <br />to go through a full-blown Environmental Impact Report. On the Cargill measure there <br />was consensus to add the requirement "regarding" future Development of Cargill Lands". <br />There was consensus to have this included. <br /> <br />The Mayor stated to the community members that a project has not yet been approved for <br />the Cargill lands, nor is Council in support of any project that is being shopped at this time. <br />She also talked about the General Plan process, its price tag of $1.6 million to which they <br />expect the community to be engaged in over a 20-month process. The Vice Mayor further <br />stated that Council's work is not based on its opinions on what should or should not be <br />developed or preserved when it comes to the Cargill lands, but their work is to protect the <br />community and its residents. <br /> <br />Council asked for an explanation of what would happen if two initiatives are put to ballot <br />and both pass. The City Attorney explained by giving the following example: <br />-Measure A and Measure B would reach ballot and the majority voting process. <br />-Both Measure A and Measure B reach the 50% approval mark, but Measure a received <br />60% of the vote and Measure B received 55%. <br />-Measure A would then go into effect. <br />And/or by further example: <br /> <br />-If Measure A were challenged in court as to its validity and lost, Measure B would go into <br />effect. <br /> <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />JULY 28, 2008 <br />PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.