HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1986 City Council Minutes SAPATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Tuesday, February 25, 1986 - 8:00 p.m.
PLA~E: Col~i~nity Center Multi-Purpose Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli,
Hlava, MDyle.s and Mayor Clevenger were present.
1. Discussion of Initiative Petition
City Manager read the Certificate of the Registrar of Vofers indicatiPg that
the initiative petition bad been signed by 3434 qualified voters of the City
of Saratoga, which is more than 15% of the number of registered voters at last
report.
Mayor Cleveng~r asked for the City Atterney's report on procedure. The City
Attorney explained that in his opinion the measure was not a proper initiative
because it is not legislative in character; does not relate to subject matter
which is strictly a municipal or local affair; and concerns the establishment
and construction of a State highway, which is controlled by State ~aw which
preempts any local ordinance to the contrary. As a matter of law, he said,
it could be put on the ballot only as an advisory measure. The Council's
options, he went on to say, were thus to put nothing on the ballot; to put
the measure on the ballot as an advisory measure; to change the language of
the measure and put it on the ballot as changed; to place beth the advisory
measure and a maasure prepared by the Council on the ballot. He then pointed
out that if the measure were placed on the ballot as an advisory measure,
people in favor of the freeway would have no ba.~is to challenge the measure
because of its impropriety as an initiative.
Each Councilmsnber than spoke on the initiative. Councilmenbear Hlava said
t_hat since the City Attorney had give_n his opinion that the measure was not
appropriate as .an initiative, the best course was to put it on the ballot as
an advisory measure. Councilmember Moyles said that although the measure was
defectivq, the remedy was an e~sy one,: to place it on the ballot with the
original wording as an advisory measure. Councilmember Fanelli favored placing
it on the ballot because so many people had taken the time to gather the required
signatures. She felt personally, however, that it was not a good idea because
it might weaken the City' s negotiating position in obtaining the most desirable
configuration for the freeway. Councilmember Callon concurred in general with
previous cc~l~ents and favored placing the measure on the ballot as an advisory
measure. Mayor Clevenger also favored placing it on the ballot as an advisory
~easure.
Mayor Clevenger announced that one person in favor of the initiative and one
person against the initiative would be permitted to speak, although the item
was not a public hearing.
Joan Hershkowitz~ one of the proponents of the measure, requested that the
Council give the people the opportunity to vote on the measure as written.
Shelley Williems, Brookridge Drive, stated that he opposed the initative and
. requested that the Council place a pro-freeway measure on the ballot as well
as the proposed measure. He believed that the initiative petition had k~en
· mis-advertised and felt that there ~s'much pro-freeway sentiment in the City.
He also believed that many people had-misunderstood the petition because it
was worded in sdch'a way that in 'order to vote for the freeway one would have
to vote no on the measure.
Mayor Clevenger stated that scrne Councilmembers were also concerned about that
aspect of the petition' s ~Drding; since the petition had been circulated with
that wording, hc~ever, the wording of the measure should remain the same.
MOYT.P.q/FAN~T.LI M~JED"TO AOOPT RESOLUTION 2315 CAI.LTNG A SPECIAL ELBCTION FOR
AN ADVISORY MEAS~U~E. Passed 5'0.
She then recessed the meeting frcm !8:25 to 8:31 p.m.
Councilmenber Cal2Lon then brought up ballot arguments. City Manager explairt~
the procedure for su~nitting arguments, noting that the last date for filing
argunents wi~h the City Clerk was March 14, and the last date for filing
rebuttals was Marc_h 24. He then pointed out t/~t the City Clerk is' required
by law to give pn..ference to the legislative body or member or menbets of the:
legislative body authorized by. that body in selecting which argument is to
be printed if more than one is submitted. There was consensus for the City
Council to write {~e ballot argument against the measure.
City Manager then brought up the need to determine whether the City Attorney
should write an impartial. analysis of the measure for inclusion in the sampld:
' ballots. The City Attorney noted that this was a discretionary action on the
part.of the~Councj.1; he preferred not to write such an analysis. The language.
of the initiative is ambiguous, he said, and if it passed it would be up te~
the Council to decide how to implement it. Because of the ambiguity, he said,
he would nob be able to state how a person should vote on the measure if the
person were willing to have a freeway under certain conditions. Moreover,'
he said, the~impact of the measure ~oUld depend to saue extent on future events.
CounCilmenbet Callon said she wished the City Attorney to write the impartial
analysis; he could[ address the poinlt that the measure is advisory only, end ·
he could'point out that it is unclear what the Council would de to implenent
· the measure. Councilmember Fanelli. agreed.
FAN'~.T.I/CAT.TnN MO~D TO DIRBCT THE CITY CT.~K TO TRANSMIT A OOPY OF THE MEASL~E
TO THE CITY ATIORNEY SO THAT HE MAY, PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE
SDDWING THE ~'~'~CI' OF THE MEASURE ON THE EXIST]lqG LAD~ AND THE OPERATION OF
THE MEASURE. Pas.=~d 5-0. {
I'Councilmember Hlava expressed concern as to the extent to which the State has
authority to build. highways. She feared that the measure might adversely
effect the City' s negotiating position on the highway. City Attorney
explained that his concern as to the impartial analysis regarded the issue
of the effect of the measure and 'how it could be implemented.
Mayor Clevenger shared Councilment~ Hlava's concern and felt it'would be best
if the issue of pre-emptien were not included in the analysis. She then stated
that if the Council objected to the{City Attorney' s analysis, she would like
the opportunity to reconsider the vote directing that the analysis be prepared.
The meeting was adjournedat 8:52 p.~. to a closed session on personnel.
Respectfully subnitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk