Aug 28, 2008

Clearing the air on Open Space Vote

Bil Paul / Daily News columnist

Without a doubt, the local issue holding the most interest for the November general election will be the Open Space Vote in Redwood City.

Two weeks ago, I wrote a generalized overview of the politics involved, which generated more pro and con e-mail than I've ever received from a column before. This led me to want to drill down into specific objections to Measure W, the initiative brought forth by the Open Space Vote Coalition, and get responses to those objections from David Lewis of Save the Bay, a high-profile member of the coalition.

Here are some of those objections to Measure W, and Lewis' responses, paraphrased:



- If passed, Measure W could prevent certain homeowners from making any changes to their homes.

Lewis says there are a few homes on land Redwood City's general plan still designates as park land, but which is zoned for residences. However, he says, even if Measure W passes, currently permitted remodels and changes to these homes could continue through normal planning department procedures. It's only if the city council votes to change the designation of open space lands such as park land from open space to a development use that Measure W would be triggered, requiring a two-thirds vote of approval from citizens.



- Measure W only covers half the city's parks.

For legal reasons, the lawyers who drafted Measure W elected to link it to the city's general plan because general plans and their zoning codes govern what development is allowed on each city parcel. However, says Lewis, Redwood City has neglected its general plan for some time (a new one is being worked on), and has allowed some uses inconsistent with zoning. In the same way, the current general plan doesn't designate all of the city's parks as park land, so those are outside the coverage of Measure W. I will add that opponents of Measure W can't have it both ways - if they are against Measure W and its regulation of development upon current park lands, they should welcome the fact that some parks aren't covered by the measure.



- Measure W will make it harder to build new parks.

Nothing in Measure W prohibits the city from acquiring new land which is either open space land or land designated otherwise (such as industrial or residential) and turning it into a park.

If passed, legal challenges to Measure W, or having to put land-use changes to a vote, will be so expensive that Redwood City's financial resources will be drained.

Lewis feels that if Measure W were legally vulnerable, challenges would have been tried already to keep it off the November ballot. That hasn't happened. Also, putting Measure W (and the city's competing Measure V) on the November ballot will only cost approximately $5,000. At first, Redwood City was saying the cost would be 10 times that amount.



- The requirement that two-thirds of voters ratify any change in a designation of open space for a land parcel is putting the bar too high; that means that one-third of the city's voters could dictate the future of the city.

A two-thirds vote (often called a super majority) isn't anything new. It's already required for some financial issues that are put up for vote. Some other cities in California, such as Calabasas and Agoura Hills, have a two-thirds vote requirement for developing open space, and Napa County requires residents to vote to allow agriculture lands to be used for other purposes.



- San Mateo County supervisors came out against Measure W, saying that it could potentially tie their hands in the building of a new jail in Redwood City to replace one that's currently in an area zoned as open space.

The county's resolution against Measure W wasn't well thought out and contained errors of fact. First of all, county-owned lands aren't affected by Measure W. Secondly, if the county buys land elsewhere for a new jail to be built, that wouldn't be affected unless it was on open space land. In the future, the county may choose to keep or sell the land its current jail sits on to a private entity for possible development. A different use there might require numerous approvals, with or without Measure W.



- Measure W would deem that a ferry terminal and dock system on the Bay, and levee improvements, would require a two-thirds vote.

Port land isn't affected by Measure W because it has an industrial designation and wouldn't need to be rezoned for a ferry terminal and dock there. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) also has jurisdiction over any proposed structures in the Bay. Flood control levees on federal and county land aren't covered by Measure W.



- The Measure W campaign is being financed and run by outsiders who want to take over control of Redwood City.

The campaign is being coordinated by the Open Space Vote Coalition, made up of local and regional environmental groups. Lewis' group, Save the Bay, has 700 members in Redwood City alone.



- Under Measure W, the city couldn't take a park and convert it totally for use as a fire station without a two-thirds vote.

That's true because that land isn't currently used for fire station use, and it would result in open space land being converted to another use. However, obtaining a two-thirds vote for that purpose shouldn't be hard at all. However, a senior center is a currently allowed park use in Redwood City, so one could be built on park land without triggering the need for a two-thirds vote.



Next week: Rebuttals to David Lewis' statements from some of those opposed to Measure W.



Tom Elias is a syndicated columnist who writes on state affairs. E-mail him at tdelias@aol.com.