Laserfiche WebLink
stated that the alternative ordinance would not have been formulated without the <br />Petitioners work and he congratulated them. <br /> <br />Ty Gee, 253 Hoover Court, Open Space Advisory Board Petitioner, gave recognition to <br />the work and dedication of Petitioners and the Council. He noted that each side made <br />concessions to work toward developing an ordinance that would satisfy everyone's <br />concerns. He stated before the petitioners consider withdrawal of the Petition he would <br />propose a friendly amendment. Gee stated the only question remaining is whether to use <br />the "intends to" language or to use the "shall" language, which is included in the <br />management standards. He noted that until recently, "shall" appeared in all the <br />management standards proposed even in Tom Mayer's version. Gee stated the debate is <br />over which language is more appropriate. It was his understanding the language was <br />changed to immunize city open space employees that might make a good faith mistake <br />from possible prosecution and that that issue had been addressed. He stated the reason <br />the "shall" language should be reinstated in the balance of the management standard is <br />that it imparts the importance of land management standards. The "shall" language in the <br />management standard, makes it clearer than the "intends to" language. He stated his <br />friendly amendment to the Ordinance is to replace the "intends to" to "shall" furthermore, <br />with this amendment, the Petitioners would immediately withdraw their petition. Gee <br />thanked Council Members Brown and Mayer for their cooperation. <br /> <br />Davidson closed the public hearing, and called for Council Comments and Questions. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that he suggested replacing the "shall" language with the "intends to" <br />language. He was fearful a city employee, that inadvertently made a mistake, could be <br />prosecuted. Davidson stated the addition of Section 4.03.060, entitled "No Criminal <br />Liability," resolves the issue of "shall" or "intends to" language. He also thanked Matt <br />Jones for all his hard work. <br /> <br />Mayer stated he felt Matt Jones and Councilman Brown brought new energy to the <br />process, and that Jones brought a technical expertise that helped realize the goals.and put <br />them into active language. Mayer thanked Jones and Brown for their hard work. He did <br />not feel the goals were that far apart. He noted that the Ordinance is flexible and <br />addresses lands and not parcels. It establishes zone classifications for various levels of <br />protection identified by the level of human use. Mayer stated if the other issues are <br />resolved, they could dispense with the map and utilize the text. Mayer stated that he <br />would support the ordinance although his concern is the prescriptive language of the <br />ordinance, usually found in management standards rather than an Ordinance. He called <br />the ordinance an ongoing work in progress. He noted there are terms included that are <br />not defined such as "high to moderate levels of ecological importance, "but felt the Open <br />Space Advisory Board and Council could address these issues. Mayer recognized the <br />Petitioners, Mayor and Council for their flexibility and ability to meet the goals. He did <br />not believe that the "shall" and "intends to" language was a major issue but that it would <br />provide a comfort level. <br /> <br />Levihn stated that he did not see a problem with the exchange of "shall" for "intends to." <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />