July 01, 2008
By Michelle Durand

Call it fighting fire with fire. Or, rather, fighting an initiative with another initiative.

The Redwood City Council may try heading off a charter amendment initiative shifting development power to voters by proposing a measure to change how much a majority is required to pass such a measure.

The move could cut off the initiative at the pass. Currently, the city charter requires a simple majority. The proposed measure, however, asks that construction of new development on open space require a super-majority — or, 66 percent — for approval.

The City Council is considering its own initiative changing the terms of the city charter to require a super-majority. If passed, the so-called Open Space Initiative will have a much higher hurdle to climb.

“I worry a little bit about that. We don’t want to do something that will hamstring our ability to do things,” said Mayor Rosanne Foust.

The charter is most often altered to clean up language or make office terms uniform.

The idea is nowhere near a reality, Foust cautioned, just one of the options open to the City Council which will likely be discussed at tonight’s special meeting on the proposed charter amendment.

The measure affects two zoning districts, the tidal plain and the Redwood Shores Bayfront, all city parks and the uses of five privately held areas of land: Cargill salt ponds; Docktown Marina; marsh land south of Galveston Drive, adjacent to Redwood Creek; wetland area of the Preserve at Redwood Shores; and Oracle’s parcel along Belmont slough.

Although the measure would have far-reaching effects, the initiative was sparked by the pending Cargill saltworks plan. The Cargill site, approximately the size of the Presidio in San Francisco, is the largest untouched land parcel on the Bay and the subject of intense scrutiny for more than a year as developers, the city and the public grapple with its future.

Another suggestion to avoid a city charter amendment, Foust said, is an initiative specific to Cargill asking voters to decide its future. While Foust said it still isn’t idea, no other parcel is as large and a number of residents have an interest in what happens there. Allowing a vote on the project is better than overhauling the entire city charter, Foust said.

Again, the idea is only one being considered by the City Council. Foust hopes residents attend tonight’s meeting in force to “help us figure this out.”

The proposal has sparked wars over words and tactics since the Open Space Vote Coalition announced its intention earlier this year. The bottom line and signature-verification practice is now in the cross-hairs.

Redwood City is already spending thousands of dollars and ultimately will spend thousands more because the city is responsible for the related costs.

Meanwhile, the group suggesting the amendment has some questions of its own about the price tag — primarily why if cost is such a concern the city had more than 8,000 signatures verified by the county Elections Office rather than the city clerk.

“If the city can’t afford this, why did they do it this way? They had a choice,” said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay and member of the Open Space Vote Coalition.

According to Elections Manager David Tom, though, there was little choice.

Unlike state initiatives which have random samplings verified by the county, all local measures receive full consideration by the office, Tom said.

State measures involve a much greater number of names so random samples are more accurate. With smaller pools, random samplings can be skewed, Tom said.

 The Elections Office billed Redwood City $5,700 for the verification.

The real price, according to Yamamoto’s staff report, come with the election. If the city consolidates it with the general November election, the city will spend approximately $45,000. If the matter requires a special election, the cost jumps to between $211,690 and $246,855.

The report also lists hours of staff time devoted to the issue although no numbers are attached. For instance, the city attorney reportedly spent “between one-half to two-thirds of his office hours” on the proposed measure but the report doesn’t pencil out the financial equivalent.

Any lawsuits challenging the initiative could “easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Foust believes questions about the city’s actions are just a way to divert attention away from the actual issue. She also believes the group is misleading by continuing to call this an open space vote rather than a city charter amendment.

The same argument was made by the newly-announced Citizens to Protect Redwood City, a group that opposes the charter amendment initiative. Chair Cherlene Wright questioned tactics of petition signature gatherers and believes the group is purposely focusing on the words “open space” to mislead the community.

Lewis called the claims “ridiculous” and said the group isn’t hiding anything.

“Everything we’ve said is in writing, in the petition and in the fact sheets,” Lewis said. “It didn’t take much effort to convince people to sign this.”

Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102. 

Printer friendly version.