Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-1976 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, August lO, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL ~ Present: Councilmen Bridges, Kraus, Brigham, Corr, and Matteoni Absent: None II. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Consideration of Resolution No. 781, Calling a Special Election in the City of Saratoga for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors of Said City a Certain Initiative Measure, Fixing the Date of Said Election, the Manner of Holding the Same, and Requesting Consolidation of Said Special Municipal Election with the General Election to be Held on November 2, 1976 The Mayor reviewed the situationto date on this matter, including a letter received on August 10, 1976, from the proponents of the Initiative Measure. In it, they agreed to stipulate to the court to a November 2, 1976, GEneral Election provided that the City Council resolved the following: 1. Accept and include with the sample ballot arguments by proporents of the "SAVE OUR HILLS" measure urging a "YES" vote, 2. Refrain from use of taxpayers dollars and City staff time to aid developers and land owners in opposition to the "SAVE OUR HILLS" measure, 3. Include the entire "SAVE OUR HIL~"'Initiative Measure in the sample ballot as it was circulated includin9 the Notice of Intent to ~irculate the petition, 4. Hold up development approvals and rezonings that are inconsistent with the initiative in the "Slope Conservation Zone" and affeFted lands within a thousand (1,O00) feet of the "Slope Conservation Zone" of the 1974.Saratoga General Plan until after the vote the "SAVE OUR HILLS" measure. The Acting City Manager, Jim Hendrickson, reported on the various oF ons open to the City. He indicated that through his discussions with the Santa Clara ~County Registrar of Voters office, it would be practicall' infeasible to hold the election on October 12. The Council could choose to adopts_Resolution No. 781, Calling for the Consolidation as late as August 20, 1976. It could also appeal for court's ruling to place the measure on the ballot in order to get a ruling on the merits prior to the election Finally' the City Attorney c uld seek an E., Party'Order from the Judge of the Superior Court to have the measure placed on the November 2, 1976, ballot independent of receiving a stipulated agreement with the proponents of the measure. Councilman Brigham urged the adoption of Resolution No. 781 this evening. Councilman Matteoni stated that the letter from the proponents of the measure was interesting to him because it indicated no willingness to consolidate with the November 2 election. He further stated that he was amenable to Condition No. l, Condition No. 3 was obligatory anyway, and under Condition No. 2 the City would continue to use staff time to provide information to the interested public. As to Condition No. 4, he did not see any real development on the horizon. He felt that if the City were unable to get a stipulated agreement, the City Attorney should proceed to secure an Ex-Party Order. Councilwoman Corr indicated she concurred with Councilman Matteoni. Council- man..Kraus ~tated thatthe would like a consolidated election with the November 2 one. He concurred with Condition No. 1, but indicated he had problems with Condition No. 4. Mayor Bridges said that he was concerned about the additional"attack- ability" that the City might be subjected to in illegally inserting ballot agruments in the sample ballot materials~ This is contrary to the Attorney General's opinion. He felt we might end up in the same situation as the City of Palo Alto-- defending the initiative against taxpayers'suits. He stated he would like the City Attorney's opinion regarding this question. Councilman Brigham moved the adoption of Resolution No. 781. The motion was seconded by Councilman Matteoni. Councilman Matteoni asked Mr. Crowther if the proponents could submit their ballot agruments within a week to the City Council in order that the Council might make a decision on placing them on the ballot. Mr. Crowther stated that due to the various vacation schedules, he was unsure as to whether this could be accomplished. He also stated that their group had written the City Council a letter regarding Condition No. 4 .but never got an answer to it. Mayor Bridges stated that the proponents of the measure assume that the City Council wants high density development. In fact, the reverse is true. This is an erroneous assumption'by the proponents. He, as wel~l as other members of the Council are in favor of as low deh~ity as can be achieved without inverse condemnation. The Council approved Resolution No. 781 unanimously. III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. A~ City Manager