Jul 22, 2008

City's charter proposal criticized as inadequate

Groups stick by original open space measure

By Shaun Bishop / Daily News Staff Writer

Backers of a ballot measure that would task voters with determining whether open spaces should be developed in Redwood City blasted a counter-initiative proposed by city officials as inadequate and possibly illegal.

The comments came as the city council got its first look Monday at an alternative measure crafted by City Attorney Stan Yamamoto, an attempt to counteract Open Space Vote, which would change the city charter to require approval from two-thirds of voters for development on lands deemed open space.

The city's proposal, which is also an amendment to the city charter, targets only a 1,433-acre section of Bayfront land owned by Cargill Inc. - the stated focus of the environmentalist groups that drew up Open Space Vote.

Cargill has been eyeing the site for development, but the environmentalist groups, which include Save the Bay and Friends of Redwood City, say it should be restored entirely to wetlands.

The city's measure would require a majority of residents to approve development on the land owned by Cargill.

Yamamoto hoped to create a measure that would not force votes on an estimated 40 private parcels that the city says may be affected by Open Space Vote, which defines open space based on zoning and the city's general plan.

Ralph Nobles, founder of the Friends of Redwood City and one of Open Space Vote's chief proponents, dismissed that warning, saying uses allowed under current zoning would be allowed under the initiative.

"The allegations of unintended consequences were the result of mistaken readings of the facts," he said.

Proponents of Open Space Vote, which received enough certified signatures to place it on the November ballot, also said the city's counter-initiative does nothing to protect open space besides the Cargill land, like city parks and other areas.

David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay and another chief proponent of Open Space Vote, said the city's initiative is "legally vulnerable to a charge of discrimination" against one property owner. "We see no need for any other ballot measure on this issue," he said.

Nobles agreed, saying the city's measure "would in all likelihood be thrown out by the courts."

If both measures are placed on the ballot, the one that gets the most votes will prevail, assuming both receive the required majority to pass.

The city council's discussion had not yet begun by press time, but the council isn't scheduled to take action on the alternative measure until next week.

Still, residents who oppose Open Space Vote urged the council to put its own measure on the ballot, saying they're still concerned about the city's warnings of consequences the initiative might have, despite the proponents' insistence that the city's interpretations are wrong.

Mark Fassett, whose house is built on land designated for parks under the general plan, said he is worried Open Space Vote could affect his home.

"We want to see something passed that takes us out of the mix," he said. "We don't deserve to be in the mix."



E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.