AgdaPkt 2009-01-12 clsd and reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2008, but that this does not stop Council from protecting the community at all costs in all future regards, no matter what made it to ballot and no matter what passed and/or was voted down. Council continued to state that a lot of time was spent, there were costs to everyone in many regards, it was a passionate issue, and that it indeed needed to be put on the ballot, sooner rather than later. Councils' main disappointment was that much of this could have been avoided if discussion regarding the issues in the proposed initiative could have been brought forth sooner. Council spoke to prior planning issues and lessons, including the downtown areas, and how these same processes would have been followed regarding the bay lands, with community outreach, research and then planning and initiatives. Council shared the opinion that it was difficult to continue holding to public process and being an elected official, when this also put them under fire in many regards. Council would, however, through General Plan and other continued processes, continue in its support of what was best for the community, no matter the outcome of the November ballot, to include all consequences. Council spoke to the fact that open space protection and discussions regarding the bay lands remain critical issues, despite the outcome of any November ballot, initiative, countermeasures, or otherwise. Council is aware of these open space concerns ongoing. Council also reiterated the fact that parklands are not in jeopardy within the city either, with many measures taken and planning being done to renew and restore park areas. Council spoke to continued concerns over listing Cargill, specifically, in their countermeasure, but agreed to keep the Cargill language despite consideration of calling it the Salt Works as suggested by Special Counsel, Tom Willis. Mayor Foust worked through the discussion, prior to the vote, on reaching consensus on the motions to vote on. Council's consensus was to put the Charter Amendment Initiative on the November ballot, and return at the next meeting with the new language of the City's countermeasure, which would also go to the November 2008 ballot. She asked that Council, community and all involved be prepared for the next steps as this decision- making process heads them to the November ballot. Council members reiterated the fact that neither the initiative nor the countermeasure will be 1000/0 effective in dealing with all concerns. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to clarify this, since it was her understanding that it was dependent on which way the ultimate voting went, when it came to who, or who was not, protected or covered. Mr. Yamamoto stated any attorney would be cautious to state that anything was 1000/0 effective. With respect to the City-sponsored measure, it does not talk about the Redwood Shores, lagoon or Docktown residents or homeowners in the area, and it only addresses the Cargill lands specifically, and any developments there in the future, in that this development approval would have to be ratified by the voters. He stated these other residents are not addressed in the City's countermeasure. Attorney Willis addressed the ballot concerns and the issue of Cargill versus use of Salt Works in the countermeasure language. He also discussed whether or not to include fiscal impacts in the language of the countermeasure. The Mayor again worked with the Council to reach a consensus and Mr. Yamamoto gave further instructions prior to Council moving towards making motions and voting. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2008 PAGE 9