Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 20, 1988 PLACE: Redwood School Cafetorium, 13925 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Hlava, Moyles present at 7:30 P,M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS~ A. Resolution 2474 Changing Name of Street to George Whalen Way ANDERSON/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2474 CHANGING THE NAME OF A CERTAIN STREET. Passed 5-0. Mayor Peterson noted the many contributions of Mr. Whalen to the City of Saratoga. Mrs. Margaret Whalen accepted the honor; she was appreciative that the City Council had named the street adjacent to the Post Office in honor of her husband. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of April 6, 1988, and April 12, 1988. MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1988, AND APRIL 12, 1988, AS PRESENTED. Passed 5-0. B. Approval of Warrant List: ANDERSON/I--ILAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 5-0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda -.. Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 15, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, April 13, 1988, - Noted and filed. · B . Public Safety Commission Minutes, April 11, 1988, - Noted and fried. C. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, March 16, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Ordinance 71.40 mending Procedures for Modification of Approved Building Plans and Development Conditions (second reading and adoption) E. Ordinance 71.41 amending Article 15-30 of the Zoning Ordinance to authorize summary removal of illegal signs constituting an immediate threat to the public safety (AZO 88-004) (second reading and adoption) // F. Ordinance 71.42 amending Sections 14-80.020, 14-80.040 and 14-80.050 of the City Code relating to vesting Tentative Maps (Second reading and adoption) G. Resolution 2475 Approving Tentative Partial Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract Relating to Property Generally located at 22631 Mt. Eden Road - A. Cocciardi H. Financial Report - March 1988 I. Investment Report - March 1988 J. Treasurer's Report - March 1988 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page APRIL 20, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued K. Resolution 2476 on Bowman Appeal L. Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion for Slun~ Seal II 1987 - Graham Contractors. The City Attorney asked that the record reflect that approval of the Consent Calendar Item 4 D. also constituted approval of a Negative Declaration. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATFORNEY. Passed 5-0 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communicafion~ from the Public and Commissions' Mr. Jerry Bevans, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, responded to the City's letter regarding 14230 Paul Ave. as follows: ~ Impervious coverage: he cited the lack of interest regarding information he submitted and concluded that the City was not concerned about the truth of such information ~ Driveway construction: limited information was made available to citizens; he question- ' ed why that the Fire Marshall was directed not to discuss this issue with him ~ Deck Foundation: limited information available on the 14230 Paul Ave. deck; however, he cited the information mandated in building his own deck; construction procedures ~ used on the Paul Ave. deck were unacceptable for construction of his ~ Roof Covering: noted only one layer of felt was applied on the Paul Ave. roof and added that concerned citizen's observations were of no interest tO the City ~ Noted inconsistencies and unbuildable drawings submitted to the City; examples cited Mr. Jeff Mandell and Mr. Jon Barron, Saratoga High School Speech and Debate Team, invited the Council and public to attend a debate at West Valley College on "Can Saratoga support a prosperous downtown business district?" and "Does the media play too great a role in the political process?" B. WrittenCommunications from the Public 1. Ray and DeLona Zinn, 21848 Via Regina, objecting to neighborhood peacocks: - Received, acknowledged and filed 2. Robert A. Buttalia, 12651 Lido Way, objecting to garbage rates HLAVAJCLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIT. I~ SENDING DRAFT REPLY. Passed 5-0. 3. Fran Parley, City of Agoura Hills, 3010i Agotara Rd. #102, Agoura Hills 91301, supporting AB 3813. Councilmember Anderson was favorable of supporting the City of Agoura Hills in this matter;, Councilmember Clevenger concurred, noting that a letter of support was all that was requested. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO SEND A LETTER TO ASSEMBLYMAN QUACKENBUSH REQUESTING HIS SUPPORT FOR AB 3813. Passed 5-0. 4. Gerald H. Meral, Californians for Parks & W~ldlife, 909 12th St. #203, Sacramento, 95814, supporting Proposition 70. CLEVENGEPqHLAVA MOVED TO COMMUNICATE SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 70 TO THE CORRESPONDENT. Passed 5-02 5. Ann Walt0nsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., asserting that Williamson Act Cancellation was contxary to General Plan. Mayor Peterson 'asked that the last sentence of the draft reply be deleted. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SENDING THE AMENDED DRAFT REPLY. Passed 5-0. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page APRIL 20, 1988 6. OLD BUSINESS The City Manager asked that an Item B. Centedine Barriers on Sea Gull Way. be added to Old Business; the Staff Report of April 20, 1988, presented to the Council for their review. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO PLACE ITEM B., CENTERLINE BARRIERS ON SEA GULL WAY, ON THE AGENDA. Passed 5-0. A. Resolution 2477 Authorizing City Manager to Negotiate Agreement Concerning Cat ID System The City Manager provided information on operating costs and procedures. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2477 AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESS TO THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AND TO APPROPRIATE AND SEND THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR THE SYSTEM TO THE CITY OF SAN JOSE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Passed 5-0. B. Centerline Barriers on Sea Gull Way City Engineer Shook provided information and took note of concerns expressed by Council- member Anderson; Engineering Depml~nent to provide barriers adequate to public safety needs. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PLACEMENT OF PARALLEL DOUBLE YELLOW LINES AND THE INSTALLATION OF PRECAST BARS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SEA GULL WAY AT ITS INTERSECTIONS WITH SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. AND COX AVE. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Report on Upcoming Hearings - Komina Passenger Loading Zone Councilmember Anderson asked that Noticing also be sent to individuals on Oak Street. CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PUBLICITY FOR UP- COMING HEARINGS. Passed 5-0. B. Resolutions 2478 and 2478.1 on Landscaping and Light District LLA-1 MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2478 DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989. Passed 5-0. MOYLES/ANDERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION .2478.1 APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Discussion of Wording of Ballot Measure concerning Freeway Interchanges for November 1988 Election. C~uncllmember Anderson noted the confusion that resulted from the MarCh 2, 1988, Meeting, since a vote was not taken on whether to place this issue on the ballot; Mayor Peterson agreed. Thd Public Hearing was opened at 8:03 P.M. Ms. Dianne Lindow, 19145 Buchingham Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Felt that the Council was qualified and responsible for making decisions on interchanges Wasting taxpayers money by going to a vote negated the Council's responsibility Asked that the Council set a good example to the children and accept their responsibility MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 APRIL 20, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS C!ontinued Mr. J. Getts, Chairman, Freeway Access Committee of Saratoga, (FACS) commented: Proposed interchanges were the best solution for traffic and environmental problems Asked that the question of interchanges be placed on the ballot Divisiveness was caused by a vocal and emotional minority unwilling to .accept the out- come of a vote; the ballot box would be an appropriate forum for settling this issue Wording recommended by FACS: ~ Shall Saratoga City Council amend the Highway 85 Freeway Agreement to provide one more interchange in the City of Saratoga? Yes or no. ~ Indicate your preference for intemhange location: Prospect, Saratoga Ave. or Quito Rd? Summarized that they were willing to trust the judgment of the citizens of Saratoga and would abide by the collective will Mr. Don T. Farina, 13622 Saraview Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Questioned whether the freeway was in .the wrong place? Did Saratoga need it? When funds were originally allocated 20 years ago, Milpitas was not on most maps Cm'rently, congestion was in getting to Milpitas and East San Jose Mr. Kenneth Weller, 19960 Merdbrook Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Interchanges in Saratoga negated any positive benefits to be derived from the freeway It was unfair to those who worked to keep Saratoga a residential, semi-rural atmosphere, to place another measure on the ballot If such were done, the choice of where the interchanges should be located was unfair ~ The budget allowed for only one interchange ~ To place the question on the ballot pined one portion of the City against another - Responsibility for this decision should be made by the City Council ~ Question should be phrased, "Should the City have interchanges? Yes or no" Mr. Victor Beaugnay, 14688 Fieldstone Dr., Saratoga, questioned whether the City Council would be taking a vote on whether interchanges should/should not be placed on the ballot; Mayor Petenon assured him that the Council would vote at the end of public testimony. Ms. Nancy Jamello, 18548 Paseo Pueblo, Saratoga, requested information on the Quito Rd. interchange and the relationship with adjacent cities ff such an interchange were installed. The City Manager provided information requested. Ms.Anne Montagna, 13515 Howen Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Felt that the question of interchanges should not be put on the ballot Did not want a highway nor interchanges; residents had already made the decision Putting the question of interchanges on the ballot eroded the decision making process - Urged the Council to stand fn'm on the current negotiated Freeway Agreement Cited the environmental quality of life, open space and beauty of the City; interchanges- would permanently damage the area Dr~ Stutzman, 15195 Park Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - In 1986, a Santa Clam manufacturing group raised over $14,000 to convince Saratoga that they needed a freeway; only a minimal amount of this money came from within Saratoga Over $4,500 of this money was paid to a local, professional campaign coordinator to orchestrated the movement which was called "Traffic Relief for Samtogans" Even with this effort and money the freeway proposition barely passed - This same campaign coordinator was actively supporting the candidacy of two contenders Special interest wished interchanges which were cosfly to build and very profitable to such Questioned whether taxpayers were willing to subsidize and enrich these special interests, endanger lives of the children and safety of homes, deface residential areas with mammoth access/egress ramps, neighborhood street congestion, pollution, lowered property values? Placed his support behind Councilmember Clevenger's position on this issue Asked consideration of those Whb would best serve the interests Of Samtogans Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, Chairperson, Protect Our Environment, (POE) commented as follows: Concurred that Saratoga had set precedent in 1986 by the Measure B referendum Cited the demographics of signatures/percentages to qualify this measure for the ballot Stated that'the City Council had set precedence, namely: ~ Without a formal vote, an issue was placed on the ballot; this hearing was being held on an issue never voted upon by the Council. She questioned. the effect on other issues ~ Dramatic lowering of requirements of putting an issue on the ballot for a group led by a paid campaign manager;, State Law requirements were cited MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 APRIL 20, 1988 ' PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued' Ms. Hershkowitz continued, stating that Protect Our Envirohment would collect the necessary ' signatures to place other components on the ballot--freeway profile and median; they expected the same consideration as others received on the issue of interchanges. Mr. James Lindow, 19145 Buchingham Ct., Saratoga; commented as follows: Opposed interchanges and had previously opposed the freeway itself - Cited the pros and cons of interchanges - · Suggested wording for the ballot measure to be "Please vote for one or other of the follow- ing advisory statements concerning Highway 85: 1. I oppose the placement of any interchanges within the City of Saratoga 2. I support the Council in its efforts to fred the best solution to Saratoga traffic problems and support an interchange or interchanges, including an increase in taxes to improve the roads if necessary." Mr. Richard Tyrrell, li336 Obrad Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited efforts on behalf of county transportation issues during the past ten years Concurred with Councilmember Moyles' position that people had a fight to be heard Was searching for the practical majority to decide a critical issue, "Do you support or not support an interchange or interchanges at Prospect Ave., Saratoga Ave. and Quito Rd." Wording of the ballot meas,ure should reflect all three possible sites for an intemhange Ms. Lillian Dennehy, Los Gatos, Coordinator, Quito Rd. Citizen's Coalition: Coalition believed that if the question of interchanges were to be placed on the Saratoga ballot, there should be two parts: 1. "Should you have interchanges in Saratoga?" and 2. an informed choice of interchanges Cited the Banon-Aschman Traffic Study, Levels of Service for proposed interchanges Mr. Stephen Belomy, 20011 Glasgow Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Believed that those who would use the interchanges would be the citizens of Saratoga Could not understood the logic of a freeway through the middle of the City without inter- changes that would benefit the citizens; such was a completely negative approach If there was to be an interchange, he would vote for a Saratoga Ave. intemhange--the one closest to his home. He wished to benefit from such an interchange Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Samtoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Felt that it was time to know who favored the freeway interchanges and who didn't Asked that the proposed location of the interchanges also be voted on Noted that the popular vote favored the freeway MS. Jo Ann Couche, 18348 Swarthmore Dr., Saratoga, stated that her young son questioned why they were going to all these meetings; in response to her explanation, he asked "why don't they just raise their hands and count?" Citizens wished to decide by a democratic vote. Mr. Charles Rollo, 21280 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted that this was an emotional issue for many individuals Cited the Barton-Aschman Traffic Study, Linked Volumes and Peak Level Hour Travel Report Conclusions indicate that the optimal situation was to have on/off ramps Felt that the question of interchanges should be placed on the ballot and strongly supported wording of the FACS group Ms. Connie Cast, Representing Sacred Heart Parish, commented as follows: Everyone was vitally concerned with impacts of the freeway on quality of life If an interchange were built at Saratoga Ave., many more commuters would use Law- rence Expressway to Saratoga Ave. Cited the San Jose Mercury News stating that Saratoga Ave./Hwy. 280 interchange was listed as having the second most traffic accidents Saratoga was setting itself up for this traffic record if only one interchange were built; it .would be better not to an interchange at all If such were not possible, she asked that an ~nterchange at Quito Rd. be installed Cited the number of cars parked at the Park and Ride Lot on Bascom and questioned whether Saratoga was ready for a used car lot within the City? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 APRIL 20, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga~ commented as follows: Found it ludicrous at this late date, that 1500 signatures would turn around the Council to reconsider one of the three parts of the Freeway Agreement Such was a betrayal of efforts of those who had worked for the past two years Did not consider the 52% vote on Measure B a mandate There had been no fact sheet from the Council showing the pros and cons of interchanges; cited possible designs, questioned the impacts/costs of the freeway and interchanges Asked that the possible interchange locations not be placed on the ballot as such would position one area of the City against another Mr. Charles F. Early, 20098 Chateau Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: With respect to comments about the children, they should be in school - With respect to concerns regarding pollution, he cited the existing stalled traffic in the City Cited the 30,000 Saratoga residents and two or three cars per family; Saratogans were impacting each other's neighborhoed Questioned where residents worked and stated that it was time citizens paid their dues - Asked that the issue of interchanges be put on the ballot as a yes/no question with a rating of choice of interchanges Mr. Roy P. McCloskey, 12563 Cambridge Dr., Shratoga, commented as follows: Urged the Council to keep promises made two years ago--a freeway without interchanges Position Was widely publicized; there was no opposition until the Agreement was signed Any proposition would add fuel to the existing bitterness that freeway advocates brought to the City, unless the entire Agreement were submitted to voter approval There were no good reasons for having interchanges in Saratoga--only lame excuses Barton-Aschman Traffic Study had elkninated the idea of traffic relief from the freeway - Felt that tactics of fear were being used to sway people in favor of the freeway Concluded that interchanges would be irrational; it would not significantly reduce traffic anywhere and would dramatically increase traffic in the vicinity of the interchanges 'Mr. Fritz Wiedmer, 20304 Glen Brae Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited traffic .impacts from commuters of adjacent cities --- Voted for the freeway in order to be able to use it Urged the Council to amend tbe Freeway Agreement or place the question on the ballot Mr. Clarence Dubell, 21281 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Statements that the freeway was desired only by Gilroy/Morgan Hill were totally wrong Saratogans wished to use the freeway without driving four to five miles in order to do so Existing traffic had to be handled in the most expeditious manner Asked that interchanges be placed on the ballot in clear, precise English Mr. Ramesh Babu, 12802 Glen Brae Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted the importance of maintaining and improving the existing quality of life Interchanges seemed to have a negative impact on the quality of life, thus, interchanges should be eliminated and secondly, decisions should be based on scientific studies If interchanges were allowed, such should be based on scientific studies Mr. George Detre, 19818 Vineyard Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: Was opposed to interchanges in Saratoga and oppo.sed to placing a measure on the ballot Facts demonstrated negative impacts: pollution, nmse, traffic congestion, increasing crime Interchanges increased traffic; commuters could be provided with a bypass Mr. Peter Joachim, 14287 Okanogan Dr., Saratoga; commented as follows: Noted that his position on this issue was familiar to the members of the Council Added that of the 53% of Saratogans voting for the freeway, it was inconceivable that any of them saw a freeway they could not use; freeway access was critical Interchanges should be a ballot measure in language as simple as possible Mr. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Ci., Saratoga, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of this issue and negotiations of the Council Further rehashing of issues was non-productive; issue was wording on a ballot measure Asked that the people decide the issue of interchanges giving the Council some guidance on questions of location of access; majority of the people to determine the outcome MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 APRIL 20, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Shelley S. Williams, Jr., 11951 Brook Ridge Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Supported Recommendations on interchanges in the EIR, July, 1987 ReViewed sources of revenue for this project: increased sales taxes, freeing of impounded Highway trust funds, Government Bond issues, June Ballot--Dan Fox initiative Recommended that the Council place this measure on the ballot; wording as follows: "I favor interchanges, yes or no" and "I favor interchanges at Quito Rd., Saratoga Ave., Prospect Ave. I favor all three interchanges." (yes or no added after each selection) Ms. Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: The General Plan addressed the preservation of the residential character of Saratoga An off-ramp in Saratoga would be going far afield from the intent of the General Plan Other cities were installing off-ramps only in commercial areas Saratoga did not have commercial areas where these off-ramps were being considered; in addition, in other cities the decision was not being left up to the citizens Asked that the Council stay with the original Freeway Agreement Ms. Dorothy Osley, 20707 Seaton Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted that her children crossed Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.to attend school; provisions should be made for children who crossed busy streets Existing Hwy. 85 did not hinder adjacent schools from achieving excellence A singular interchange at Rainbow Ave. would further impact traffic congestion Mr.. Joe Parker, The Vineyards, Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted the lack of information and/or misinformation on Hwy. 85; examples cited Cited hazards to his wife's health from living adjacent to a freeway Had been previously assured that any freeway through Saratoga would be depressed Questioned whether residents would not only have an at grade freeway but an access road Taxes: Asked that citizens not have to pay for road improvements required by interchages Ms. Jean Leonard, 13630 Fern Crest Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted that no pedestrian access seemed to be planned for the protection of the children Residential areas did not need interchanges; she was not favorable to a ballot measure Cited the Monta Vista Fault and questioned what would happen if an earthquake occurred Mr. Fred William, Saratoga, commented as follows: Believed that citizens of Saratoga should be given the opportunity to vote on the issue as well as to indicate their preference on location Suggested wording, "Shall there be at least one Route 85 interchange in Saratoga? Yes/no If funds are available for only one interchange, which would you prefer? Choose one: Saratoga Ave., Prospect Rd., Quito Rd." Fair minded citizens wouldaccept the results of a ballot measure regardless of outcome whereas a Council decision may only lead to further divisiveness Ms. Evelyn Nettehein, 13625 Surrey Ln., Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted surprise at those who opposed the freeway due to existing bumper to bumper traffic Cited pollution in east San Jose and the lowered property values resulting from such Questioned if this was what Saratoga wanted for itself Mr. Garrett, Saratoga, supported Mr. Getts and FACS statement. Mr. Wendell Hamin~ 20200 Hill Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: .' Endorsed Route 85; benefits of such would create a healthier place for Saratoga, an / economically more viable community Without Route 85, the downtown area would have vacancies Saratoga depended upon people in adjacent communities to shop here ' Urged the Council to put the interchange question on the ballot Ms. Jane Julie, Saratoga, felt the past should be a consideration in the issues of an interchange. Mr. Calvin Judd, 18855 CoX Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Use of the freeway and off-ramps were for the people of Saratoga Determining the number of interchanges was a matter of physical laws and demographics · - -Interchanges would make things easier, increasing enjoyment of homes and free time ' Supported the freeway and access to the freeway MEETING OF THE CITY. COUNCIL ~-7~ !'~:;:: .~ Page 8 APRIL 20, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr: Frank Lemon, 30653 ~/oodward Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited traffic hazards crossing Hwy. 9 in the moming and gridlock in the evening Was concerned about potential impacts if only one interchange were installed Urged that the intersection question be placed on the ballot Clarified the record on statements made about advocates of the Freeway Agreement; these individuals, including his wife, did not get paid for their work on this issue Mr. Jack Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Advocated putting the issue of interchanges on the ballot; however, he was not favorable to placing a choice of locations on the ballot for the following reasons: ~ Hwy. 85 transportation system needed to be fine tuned by participation of all cities Asked that the City Council have the negotiating power to work with other cities in determining where interchanges would best serve the area ~ The City Council may find during negotiations that certain interchanges may not be in the best interest of the City ~ Evenmaily, interchanges will be fully built; there Would be sufficient money to do so Mr. Chuck Hershkowitz questioned why the Council was changing its position and placing the question of interchanges on the ballot. Mr. Frederick' Waite submitted a letter dated March 26; 1988, favoring a ballot measure· on interchanges and suggesting wording Of such. · HLAVAJANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:31 P.M. Passed 5-0. Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: Reviewed the 1986 Council decision to place the Freeway Agreement on the ballot Discussed whether or not the signatures gathered jusdfied the ballot measure ~ Circulators of the petition relied on erroneous legal advice that they could, by initiative command the Council to place a policy matter on the ballot; state law dictated otherwise ~ The Council faced the quandary of whether or not to put a policy matter up for vote Reviewed his position on the right of the people to make their position known and the need for policy to reflect this position Noted the inconsistency of some in that when they wished a policy vote, a ballot measure was desired; however, when a vote was undesirable, no one else should access the ballot Could not predict the outcome of a ballot measure on interchanges ~ While familiar with the opinions of those who spoke at the hearing, he wished to hear the thoughts of all the residents through a ballot measure The question of number of signatures gathered was a "red herring" · Favored a ballot measure on an issue of this controversy; following wording suggested: ~ "Should we amend the Freeway Agreement? Yes/no" ~ "Indicate a preference: Prospect, Saratoga Ave., Quito Rd." and "More than one" Councilmember Anderson commented as follows: Noted the study required to assess the Route 85 question Noted that changed jobs and/or living circumstances sometimes determined the conclusions reached by individuals on Route 85 and interchanges; cited an example Noted the difficulty of placing the question of interchanges on the ballot - Was strongly opposed to placing interchange locations on the ballot; neighborhood would be pitted against each other Noted that the Freeway Agreement must be negotiated, working together with other cities; such was the Councirs responsibility Reiterated opposition to interchanges in Saratoga and noted the factors influencing decision · Voted for a Freeway Agreement under the assumption that there would be no interchanges Mayor Peterson commented as follows: Had not changed his mind since the March 2, 1988, hearing on the Freeway Agreement Individuals who previously demanded that the Agreement be placed on the ballot were now demanding that the interchanges not be placed on a ballot; such w~s difficult to understand Responded to the question addressed by the public as follows: the Council was not chang- ing its mind; however, when the Freeway Agreement was negotiated without inter- changes, there were many Saratogans who felt that they wished to be heard on the issue Strongly favored placing the question of interchanges on the ballot MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page APRIL 20, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 'Councilmember Hlava commented as follows: Attempted to explain the difficulty of representing an entire city; examples were cited Ran four years ago and was currently running as an independent council person; in addition, she lived in a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Route 85 Since the freeway was inevitable, she cited efforts to mitigate impacts to her neighborhood, (depression, etc.) that would make the freeway tolerable and acceptable A Freeway Agreement was negotiated on two promises with respect to the interchanges: - The Council believed that citizens wanted a freeway without interchanges ~ No interchanges meant no impacts She now questioned the latter premise; regardless of the interchange question, there were impacts; if such were not the case, people attending this hearing would not have come She now concluded .that premises tl~e Council operated under may not have been correct; secondly, the controversy and dissemion on this issue continued to exist There was no other way to resolve the issue of intemhanges than to place such on the ballot Such was the American way to resolve issues of this magnitude and contioversy Noted the educational effort that would accompany the ballot measure; the Council would secure/request any information needed for the benefit of the electorate Concurred with a speaker who wished to insure .the residential character of Saratoga be preserved; however, such was determined by citizens votes on such matters FaVored placing the issues of interchanges on the ballot Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Was not in favor of placing the issue of intemhanges on the ballot Noted the role of the Council in negotiating compromises on many issues Reviewed the process of negotiations to arrive at the present Freeway Agreement, including the decision that the best solution for Saratoga was not to have intemhanges Noted efforts to provide mitigation for areas impacted by the freeway; examples cited Reviewed the proposed interchange locations and potential impacts Supported the Freeway Agreement; policy of no interchanges was an integral pan of such Removal and placement of one pan of the Agreement on a ballot would result in a less than a fair share of the impacts; Saratoga Ave. would have increased traffic congestion ' Such explained her support of the Freeway Agreement as a whole without change to one aspect; such would no longer be a compromise agreement Cautioned that other parts of the Agreement may be subject to similar action; thus, she was not favorable to placing any one pan of the negotiated Agreement on the ballot If placed on the ballot as comments indicated, she asked that the Council continue to have the discretion to detennine where an intemhange if any, should be located Supported FAGS first recommendation, "Shall Saratoga City Council amend the Highway 85 Freeway Agreement to provide one more interchange in the City of Saratoga? Yes/no" and, secondly, not to place a site specific location on the ballot CoUncilmember Moyles suggested an edition of Saratoga News be dedicated to position state- .ments by FACS and Protect Our Environment; information provided by appropriate sources. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO PLACE THE QUESTION OF ROUTE 85 INTERCHANGES ON THE BALLOT. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger dissenting. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR FINAL WORDING A BALLOT MEASURE ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS: "SHALL THE ROUTE 85 FREEWAY AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR ONE OR MORE INTERCHANGES" AND "INDICATE A PREFERENCE: PROSPECT, SARATOGA AVE., QUITO RD. OR MORE THAN ONE" Councilmember Clevenger noted the difficulty of the Council's negotiating with other cities on the Ageement if a site specific location for an interchange were determined by ballot measure. Councilmember Anderson commented that there was no funding for more than one interchange 'Mayor Peterson called for a Vote on the above Motion. Passed 3-2, Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger dissenting. Break: 10:09 - 10:20 P.M. MEETING OF THE CITY~COUNCIL ~i~:--:~ ~-ii Page 'l 0 'APRIL 20, 1988 :: II ..... ~ . 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Possible Dates for Planning Commission Interviews Consensus reached that Planning Commission interviews be conducted May 18th, 5:00 P.M. B. Reports from IndiVidual Councilmembers - None. C. Discussion of Items for Meeting with Public Safety Commission Councilmembers presented ideas to the City Manager for the upcoming Meeting. The meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 10:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, bs u Recording Secretary