Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-1988 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 5, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call: Mayor Anderson, Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman present at 7:35 P.M. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS: A. Resolution 2516 commending Assemblyman Quackenbush MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2516 COMMENDING ASSEMBLYMAN CHUCK QUACKENBUSH. Passed 5-0. Assemblyman Quackenbush thanked the City Council for the commendation and added that the best form of government was local government; he commended the Council for their efforts. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of September 21, 1988 MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1988. B. ApprovalofWarrantList: MOYLES/PETERSON 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 September 30, 1988. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Commission Actions, September 28, 1988 - Noted and filed. B. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, September 7, 1988, - Noted and filed. C. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, September 12, 1988, - Noted and filed. D. Library Commission Minutes, September 28, 1988, - Noted and filed. E. Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Board Minutes, September 20, 1988, - Noted and filed. F. Public Safety Commission Minutes, September 12, 1988, - Noted and filed. G. Resolution 2473.15 Establishing Policy for Transfer of Development Rights, Village Parking District No. 3. H. Budget Resolution 2492.2 on Continuation of DUI Program approved September 21, 1988. I. Final Map Approval, Tr. 7770, Chadwick Place, Oak Way and Chiquita Way (11 lots), and Acceptance of Open Space Easement (Cocciardi/Chadwick, developers) J. Final Map Approval, SD 87-023, Glen Una Drive and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. (2 lots) (Paul Duncan, developer) MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 OCTOBER 5, 1988 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued K. Acceptance of Open Space Easement - Dittmann L. Financial Summary - August 1988 M. Investment Report - AucJust 1988 N. Treasur~'s Report - August 1988 O. Conditional Approval of Special Events Permit for Chamber/Argonaut Footrace scheduled for October 30, 1988, subject to full compliance with Special Events Ordinance, including all conditions identified in staff report. P. Approval of Special Events Permit for Village Merchants Association Halloween Treat Day, scheduled for October 29, 1988. Ms. Benson noted on Item P, the event would be sponsored by all Village merchants and service people, rather than the Merchants Association as stated. Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, questioned the lack of noticing on Item I; in addition, she requested information on the emergency access road for this subdivision. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC: A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions Mr. Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, made Association members available for questions on the Written Communications 2) from Mr. Sheehan, Cypress Properties. Mr. Bob Clancey, Volunteer Coordinator, Public Access T.V., commended Community Services Director Argow for the recent publicity in the San Jose Mercury News. B. Written Communications from the Public 1) Dave DeCarion, notifying Council of desire not to be reappointed to Finance Committee Consensus reached to authorize advertising and set interview dates for the available position. 2) Letter from Timothy G. Sheehan, Cypress Properties, 3000 Sand Hill Rd., Bldg. 1, 150, Menlo Park, 94025, requesting teevaluation of U-turn pocket at Kosich and Saratoga Avenue. Mayor Anderson noted that Mr. John Gatto, Cypress Properties was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Simpson presented a written statement from the Homeowners Association; residents con- sidered the Councirs decision final and objected to further negotiations on this issue. Consensus reached to not reconsider the U turn pocket at Kosich and Saratoga Avenues; letter to be sent to Mr. Sheehan, Cypress Properties, to this effect. 3) Letter from Angelo J. Siracusa, Bay Area Council, 847 Sansome St., San Francisco, 94111, requesting endorsement of Regional Measure 1 - Bridge Toll Referendum. The City Manager'reviewed Regional Measure I referred to in Written Communications 3 and 4. Councilmember Clevenger noted the Council's policy of not endorsing measures not directly affecting the City; however, if the Measure were endorsed by every other city in the County, the Council could consider doing likewise. Councilmember Peterson was supportive of the Measure; however, support for such did not exist. Councilmember Stutzman added that the proposed measure was a form of use tax; he questioned if such were approved, whether the next step would be toll ways. Consensus reached not to take action at this time. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC 4) Letter from Jim Beall, Councilmember, City of San Jose, similar to above. Further information to be obtained from Councilmember Beall and presented to the Council. 5) Letter from Robert and Janis McCormick, 2980 Benjamin Green, Fremont, 94538, requesting action on horse trail. Councilmember Clevenger asked that this Item be referred to the Trails Committee and a letter sent to the McCormick s informing them of the City's policy on the trail system. Consensus reached to direct Staff to respond to the McCormick s, and to include the issue in policy and budget discussions in Spring 1989. 6) Letter from Stephen B. Greenspan, 13935 Damon Lane, concerning condition of Pierce Road. Consensus to refer to the City Engineer for a response and to the Public Safety Commissionfor revj_ew. 7.) Letter from Gretchen Newby, 20174 Edinburgh Dr., objecting to free speech messages on community access cable television. A verbatim transcript on this Item follows: Mayor Anderson: The next item on the agenda is a letter from Gretchen Newby concerning the public access cable television and whether in fact the policy of equal time is being equally distributed. So the recommended motion there was to refer this to the Foundation for reply and clarification of foundation policy. In fact, Mr. Argow, are you prepared'to talk about this with the Council this evening? Mr. Argow: Mr. Clancey's here on behalf of the Foundation. Mayor: Anderson OK. Mr. Ciancey:: As Chairman of the Foundation... Mayor Anderson: Tell us who you are again. Mr. Claneey: I'm Robert Clancey. I am Chairman of the TV Foundation. And it has been the policy of the Foundation, ever since our formation as a committee appointed by the Council and West Valley College Board of Directors, that one of the major aspects of public access is free speech messages. And that has been written into our policy statement from the very beginning and in that policy statement we explicitly make sure that anybody who has opposing views is welcome. Now, it so happens that the people who have come forward have one particular frame of mind. But I don't think it behooves the board or the policy of any organization to go out and secure opposing viewpoints. I wish they would come forward, we'd be delighted. We'd be very happy to have anybody with any viewpoint come forward on any issue because that's one of the things we would like to see, is people speaking their mind. So I feel that we have tried to live by our policy; we have given the necessary disclaimers as to the fact that this is solely the viewpoint of the speaker and opposing viewpoints are welcome. We offer free air time, free taping time, as soon as they come forward, we have a written procgdure, we have a form that they're to fill out and everybody's done that and expected to follow that procedure. We can't go out and secure, I think, opposing viewpoints. Just like somebody coming forward and saying, "I want to recommend that we have AIDS education in our public schools." It's not for us to go out and find out who opposes that viewpoint in the organizaUon. It's like the editor of San Jose Mercury News going out to find people to write letters opposing some of the other letters that they've received. We have a policy that the Board has agreed upon, that has been submitted to everyone and I would just hope that more and more people of opposing viewpoints would come forward. We'd be delighted to have them and give them every opportunity to speak their peace. I'm sorry Mrs. Newby has this opinion. We will certainly write to you and try to establish with her the relationship and ask her if she would come forward and speak. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mayor Anderson: If you would stay... Mr. Clancey: Sure. Mayor Anderson: There please during our discussion, in case we have questions, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Clancey: Absolutely. Mayor Anderson: In addition to Mrs. Newby's letter, I received a phone call from Robin Yeaman's campaign chair and she expressed to me in a conversation that she was so surprised that Chuck Quackenbush was on our cable television and that her candidate had not been asked also to appear. So, apparently with some of the commercial broadcasting stations, they do go out and seek an opposing view during an election, so it kind of came to my mind that maybe there should be some special policy around an election time which is not maybe appropriate during the middle of the year when someone might come down with any kind of subject about the condition of their street or whatever it is they'd like or dislike about the government or whatever. But during an election period, candidates and initiative viewpoints are known and so that's why I was kind of interested in having a discussion about this once this letter came in and once I got the phone call last week from this other candidate. And so I thought maybe we should open this up for discussion and figure out how to do this if it appears to be even-handed because the community's perception is that this is a Saratoga City channel. And in spite of the fact that it is your foundation and in spite of the fact that you have articles in the paper and you have Todd Argow's picture in the paper and he's city staff and his phone number is on television and it's a city phone number. And so it's not the legalities, it's the appearances that I think somehow become important. And for the citizens or for some other campaign committee to perceive that we're biased in some fashion or we're only supporting one candidate and not another's view, I think it's important to make sure that we're scrupulous in how we implement this policy. I know that you meant well and that you intended to be even-handed, and it is a big job to go out and seek people and I don't expect you to do that during the year, but from my personal viewpoint, I think that during a campaign time, you should set aside some period of time that's reasonable prior to a campaign, and either take that public access away and only have forums where we know everybody's been invited and everyone's there, or else we have to be really careful to make sure everyone knows they're invited and knows that it's available. I notice the last couple of days you've had notices on the bulletin board about the fact that this time is available, but those notices were not on television last week. Mr. Clancey: It's true. Mayor Anderson: Any other comments from the City Council? Councilmember Peterson: Are you suggesting we take free speech away? Mayor Anderson: I think either we... Councilmember Peterson: At certain times of the year. Mayor Anderson: Either we take it away or we just have to be more careful about it .... Councilmember Peterson: I think the answer is to invite Robin down. I would be unalterably opposed to eliminating free speech. I can't imagine we're even discussing this. Now maybe the board made a mistake in judgment by not calling Robin, but I'm a little chagrined to hear that we're thinking about eliminating the free speech message. Mayor Anderson: No, in fact I even think, carrying it one step further, if we're running for City Council, for example, there should be some black-out period where we can't go on TV as we did last year, because that gives an advantage to the incumbent and somehow FPPC will probably end up going after that kind of medium the same way they've gone after those newsletters that give an advantage to the incumbent. I mean... Councilmember Peterson: But aren't you... isn't that a separate issue? Mayor Anderson: Yeah, that's sort of a separate issue. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Peterson: You're talking about if I'm running for office, I go down and use free speech to talk about Don Peterson. Mayor Anderson: Well, you could. Councilmember Peterson: That's the issue... Mayor Anderson: You could... Councilmember Peterson: I mean that's the issue you're talking about. Mayor Anderson: You could. I mean you could talk about the issues... Councilmember Peterson: Separate issue from this. Mayor Anderson: Not really. Councilmember Peterson: I view it as an entirely separate issue. Mayor Anderson: Well, any other comments. Dr. Stutzman. Councilmember Stutzman: I think it's not a matter of limiting a freedom of speech; I think all of us are in favor of freedom of speech. And that's the basis of our whole democracy. I think what Mayor Anderson was pertaining to is to have a balance in presentation because I think that gives a good concept to the community of the station that we all look to as a source of information and I don't think it would involve a great deal of time or effort on the part of the staff running the station to try and get opposing points of view and run them in the same time--not the same time slots, but maybe have one follow the other--so that the perception on the part of the public is better. And I think the more that the public perceives the station as being representative of the community, the more support the station will receive. And I think we're all interested in seeing this public television station really succeed. It will become, it has become already and it can become even .more, a source of dissemination of good information and if the public perceives it as being biased, just as with the newspaper, than a lot of the support is taken away. And I think this would be tragic for Saratoga; so I fully support Mayor Anderson in her concept of trying to balance this. Certainly not trying to deprive anyone of the freedom of speech. I think that would be a horrible thing to have in Saratoga. We'd all be opposed to that. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, the question in my mind is, is it free speech or are they really ads? Election ads. Now prior to the Council election in June, each person was contacted and asked to come in and make a presentation which was then shown on television. And I thought that was a proper way to do it. I don't think anyone could be critical of that. But I think what people ar.e cr. iticizing is that now there is, it appears almost like ads--it's not free speech, somebody just coming tn and wanting to talk about a problem in Saratoga. It's directed towards the election, and it is definitely a campaign statement that is being made. And I have a problem around election time with people coming in with campaign statements, directed towards either a certain person getting elected or a certain issue passing. With this election and all of the insurance initiatives that are on the ballot, I see that the station could be flooded with free speech messages regarding those ballot measures. And I think that the way that the cable TV handled the last election was better where there were six Council candidates and all six had an opportunity. And I think if on the insurance initiative, if you are going to have someone come and talk about them, you would have someone representing each one of those initiatives talk for five minutes and then run that as a sequence. I wouldn't want to look on there and see some of the propositions being supported that, for instance, when the City Council has endorsed one of them, and some of the others are being supported, but if those people were on the ball, they would get to the station and do that. So I think before an election, when there is a Council election or an assembly election, it is better if you interview the candidates and then run that all at the same time, because they're definitely directed towards getting the voters vote. They're not just a spontaneous free speech message. I know that because I know that the FACS Committee for several months has been calling people to make these free speech messages on television; it's been lining it up. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Clevenger Continued: And I think that, I don't know how many you've run for the FACS ones; I suppose that the other side, SAFE, should have equal time. But my feeling is that, in order to be fair--not be fair--but in order to underline how important we think this is, that people not simply come up and make a campaign statement. We should not have anymore statements on TV which are directly related to the November election, and certainly if someone wants to come and talk about the roads in Saratoga, since there*s no road initiative on the ballot, or about... Mayor Anderson: Sewers Councilmember C!evenger: ...or about cultural activities or whatever, that's fine. But I think that we are in great danger if we start in on letting people have these campaign ads, which is the way a lot of people perceive them, on television. I'm not against free speech, but there's a difference between free speech and campaign talks, and I think what we have is a campaign talk on the things that I've heard about, and we're better off to do it the way we've done it in the past, which is to invite everybody who% concerned about an issue, let them come, give their comment. Mr. Claneey: We, incidentally had planned to videotape the October 3rd debate which was post- poned and we intend to still do that on the basis of that is a joint session between SAFE and FACS. Councilmember Clevenger: That's good. Mr. Claneey: And that was a program that we've been planning to do all along. Councilmember Clevenger: I think that*s fine, but I think free speech messages which are directed towards the election are something that the city has to apologize for to people, people who don't participate because they didn't know or for whatever reason. Mr. Cianeey: If they see the channel and object to it, they're certainly welcome to come down and make their message too. Couneiimember Moyles: MadamMayor? Mayor Anderson: Yes, Mr. Moyles. Councilmember Moyles: Pd like to address this. Marry and I have had many differences but I can't think of one more profound than the one I have with what you just said. If you seriously believe you can define in a way that any prudent person can comprehend the difference between what is free speech and a campaign statement, I'd like to see it in writing. And I'll consider it as a policy. But my hunch is the minute you try and put your thoughts on paper, you will recognize the futility of the rule you're reaching for. The purpose of television at the community access level is to facilitate communication. Period. The federal government has essentially removed equal access requirements. Congress has done that. Our job is not to restrict content or as a Council to sit as a judge as to what's an appropriate topic at a certain point in time on a calendar year. We are there to provide people a forum, and I think that policy has to focus on guaranteeing equal access to all points of view. But we are not here to insure that there is some numerically correct symmetrical response from the community. Now, I have to tell you that I was a little bit flattered to read Mrs. Newby's letter. I didn't know anybody was watching. And here's a response. I realize it's not the response I was hoping for, but nonetheless, as a member of the foundation, I think it's working. If she had put half the effort into a free speech message that we have all put into this, or she did into her letter, I think the community would be better off. But I think to talk about blacking out the television to free speech because it's near an election is the worst conceivable response. I can't believe they're serious. I wouldn't put up with it. I will not allow myself, because of my views or my convictions, to be told I can't give a free speech message because there's an election coming up. I can't think of a better time to be on television. Now the letter that we're all referring to, I think, is worth considering. Mrs. Newby wrote that she was "...shocked and dismayed to see this evening [me] attempting to cram yet another ballot measure down our throats via city-sponsored public access cable TV channel. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Moyles Continued: "Exactly what is the policy for pressure groups thinly disguised as elected officials espousing their politics on city-sponsored TV? "Have we deteriorated to the point that volunteers now dictate policy to the city council? "What is happening on our city-sponsored TV station is irresponsible, if not illegal." Now, you know, I have a hard time making sense out of that. Clearly, it's not illegal. And since when is my telling people what I feel about an issue of great controversy irresponsible? I invite her to respond to it. You know, she can get on and tell me I'm full of beans and I don't mind--that's what the format is for. We've given her a pulpit. The fact that there are others in the community who are quick and have used it before her is not a good reason to criticize them. My suggestion is that people who disagree most strongly with this and are complaining about it, would be well-advised to get down there and learn how to use the television. That's the remedy. If the problem is a perceived bias on the part of the city, the remedy is more access, not less. Get 'era down there, and I guess we're doing that tonight. I'm a little surprised they didn't know about it, because this Council, not too many months ago, approved the free speech policy. We all talked about it. Nobody here can claim they didn't know we were doing this. And as far as my own involvement is, when the City Council did its assignments, you all heard me ask to be relieved of this assignment--you know I'm not using this thing because I'm seeking a privilege. I'm trying to di~x:~rse that opportunity as widely as I can through the community. Nobody else wanted to sit on this Foundation. Dr. Stutzman graciously offered to act an as alternate, and I'm been putting this onto my calendar so I wouldn't have to impose upon him, but I've thought --one meeting in particular, I almost called you--but believe me, if the Council thinks that there's any impropriety because of the strength of my convictions on this issue, and you don't want me to sit on the Foundation, I wouldn't get off for that reason. You've no right to ask me to get off for that reason, but if somebody thinks they can do a better job and they've got the time, HI go back to where I was in August and tell you I will gladly step aside to anybody who really wants to work it. It's a wonderful opportunity and it's an up-and-coming thing, and the city's well- advised to develop it. In summary then, if we have a problem, more access, not less, is the answer. And if we're going to talk about a policy, I'll do what I can to make sure it hammers hard on the side of more democracy and not less. I don't want to black anything off this television unless it's hate, race- mongering, or obscenity. And I'd have a hard time telling you what either one of those things are, but those are the.only two things rm willing to put on the table. Councilmember Clevenger: Mr. Moyles, I don't think anyone is suggesting you should step down from your assignment. Councilmember Moyles: I'm still willing to do that... Councilmember Clevenger: I know, but we appreciate your service in this area. Now, you mentioned that we want to facilitate communication. That's the whole idea of the public television. And I think my suggestions would facilitate communication because, when there's an issue, then the TV station would go out and ask all right, all the people on the insurance initiatives would come forward and do this. My concern is that some people on some issues don't know that this is available, and that gives the people who do know an advantage. Now certainly on Propositions L and M, which are Saratoga initiatives, everybody knows that that's available. And they can, and I'm sure if the Council decides that we should go ahead that the other side will be making free speech messages, but I have a problem with people calling me and saying, "Around the election, all we hear on cable television are campaign speeches." And rm not sure that within a month of the campaign that we need to have people espousing their point of view on television. Unless we have a whole round-table. Councilmember Peterson: Marty, out of curiosity, I was going to ask you earlier. Give me an example of campaign speeches that we've seen on Channel 6. I missed them. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Clevenger: I missed them too. Apparently Mr. Quakenbush was on and he's running for the Assembly. Assemblyman Quakenbush was on television, and someone from Ms. Yeaman's campaign felt that that was inappropriate for him to have time on television, and I guess their campaign was not aware of it. Councilmember Peterson: So he was on there making a campaign statement about himself?. Councilmember Clevenger: No, he was making...but as you know, having run for office, you try to get in front of the public whenever you can. And so most of the things you do prior to an election are considered campaign-related. And so I believe that was their concern, not so much what he said but the fact that he had this opportunity and they didn't know about it and their candidate was not asked to appear. So that's the concern that I have heard. Councilmember Peterson: So ifs not campaign; it's just one, this one example. Mayor Anderson That's one example. Councilmember Peterson: We haven't been deluged. I'm hearing from you that we've been overwhelmed... Councilmember Clevenger: No, no I wouldn't say... Councilmember Petenon: ...by people making campaign speeches. Councilmember Clevenger:... that we're deluged with things on very many occasions, but...and as you say, not a lot of people are watching, but it is a criticism. Councilmember Moyles: Two messages is what you're talking about, two. Councilmember Peterson: Yeah. Councilmember Moyles: And it's the content that they're objecting to and not the fact that I was on--they didn't like what I said. They disagreed with me. Councilmember Clevenger: Yeah, I think' probably if...I think that the Cable TV did a better job when every week they had a Council member come and talk. The fact that you were on and no one expressed an opposing viewpoint at the time is what is of concern. The fact that you got there and someone else didn't is the thing. Councilmember Peterson: And so I'm hearing that because of that concern 'h~e.re 're obvj.ously e.b. ree of you seriously considering eliminating free speech? Mayor Anderson: We didn't say that. What we were suggesting was that at the same time one point of view is aired, that the opposing point of view should be aired and that the people that on one side... Councilmember Peterson: supposing that they don't want to come down... Mayor Anderson: Pardon? Councilmember Peterson: Suppose they don't want to come down? Mayor Anderson: They should certainly be invited. I mean, can't...for example, when we ran two years, seven of us--isn't that correct, seven of us, eight of us--eight of us I guess it was were running for council, nine of us--nine of us were running for... Councilmember Clevenger: Many. Mayor Anderson: Many were running for Council, but two people in fact did not participate in the election. They were not on the ballot but they did not participate, they were invited to come down and do their five-minute spot, they were invited to the forum, they chose not to appear. That's their choice certainly. For a situation like this...there was one unfortunate thing that occurred also with ~x,ackenbush, and that was that the technical staff member that happened to be on that night also forgot to put the disclaimer on for the station, so it looked like Cable 6 was espousin~2~ackenbush and his viewpoint on Measure L and that was another disturbing factor. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mayor Anderson Continued: Now I know that the station intends to be conscientious and that they were conscientious after your particular spot was on, but my feeling is that you have...first of all, you'd have a more interesting contrast if you had sort of a point/counterpoint type of situation. And second of all, my feeling about legality, so to speak, is not simply legality, but we're talking about a non-profit. We're not talking about commercial television. And I'm not sure that the equal access ruling pertained to a non-profit the way it did to commercial television. I think that a non- profit, especially one that appears to be coming from the community, coming from the City of Saratoga, just has a special obligation to appear to be unbiased, and the only way you can appear to be unbiased is to make sure that all the points of view at least have the opportunity to appear. In the case of Robin Yeaman, she wasn't aware...I mean she is a citizen of Saratoga, but she really was not aware apparently about cable television and that access opportunity. And of course if you have some issue that our citizens vote on and that's not run by a campaign that's within our city, they might have no idea that that's available to them unless you go out and seek them out. And I do recognize the fact that it's a lot more trouble. But from my point of view, I think it's worth the trouble so that we appear to be unbiased. Councilmember Moyles: Madam Mayor. It's not just a question of trouble. These are volunteers and there are limits. You know, so there is a question of trouble, but it's not just that. Where do you stop? Where do you stop looking? One week POE was actively engaged in developing the format for a debate, and you people were involved and League of Women Voters was involved, and the assumption was that we had a live debate. And the next week they're not. I didn't know SAFE existed until I read Gretchen Newby's letter in the paper. Now maybe Bob didn't either. Mr. Clancey: I didn't read that either. Councilmember Moyles: How in heaven's name do you expect him to anticipat~ the machinations of politicians and contact them and invite them and remind them that they'd better come down because Moyles is going to be on and we must have this symmetry, because if we don't there' might be the perception of bias. Obviously it's impossible. He couldn't. He's not a psychic. Never mind the manpower, just look at the dynamics of communication. It's not static. They're not always the same players issue-to-issue-to-issue. He can't ask somebody, when he comes down to speak, "what exactly do you represent," because I have to get somebody from the opposing pointof view before I can put you on. It'll be insurance reform one time, it'll be AIDS the next, it'll be me the next or Dr. Stutzman... Councilmember Clevenger: I'd be glad to volunteer. I can always tell Mr. Clancey what the different issues are on the ballot and who needs... Councilmember Moyles: No... Councilmember Clevenger: ...to be contacted. Councilmember Moyles: ff I can finish, I think it's inappropriate for you to volunteer because you have inherently a bias. We all do. We ran on our biases and were elected because of them. And we're here presumably to articulate them and try and fashion policy from them. It's not our job to regulate what people say on television. This is either free speech or it~ not free speech. You're asking for governmentally regulated access and I did hear Mrs. Clevenger say she didn't want campaign statements before elections. That is blacklug out a lot of speech. I don't know how you define free speech and campaign speech. [ get back to my very first thought: try and put that rule on paper. Councilmember Cievenger: That's why I think we should black it out. Because I think that when it's directed toward the campaign, like 30 days ahead, I think it's a campaign speech. Councilmember Moyles: Mark her words. She is talking about denying access and cutting off speech. Mr. Peterson asked the question: Are you blacklug out free speech? And Dr. Stutzman said, "Not me. I don't want to do that." And I agree, the cure is more access. Let's each of us promise that we're going to alert everybody we know from every perspective-- Fve been proselytizing this thing as long as I've been the council liaison, I've mentioned it to AYSO, mentioned it to FACS, I've talked to people in my parents'church about it. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 10 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC ContinUed Councilmember Moyles Continued: When they have a mission. Anything. Tape it. Put it on the television, and I hope that by casting these pebbles out, eventually people will have the habit of using it. There'll be no problem. Everybody knows. And if they don't show up, it's their election. It's not some sinister plot to keep them off; they just elect not to testify. But blanking out the testimony is the worst conceivable response to this problem. Mayor Anderson: Well, frankly, I don't want the responsibility of having to go out in the community and alert everybody whenever some issue appears to be on television. Frankly I'm fairly busy and I don't watch it very often, so I really think it's the responsibility of the TV channel and I think that Mrs. Clevenger at one point was talking about at an election time, if you round up, as we did a couple of years ago or even this June, all the candidates for a certain office and each one has a notification of their time slot and each one gets televised and each one has equal treat- ment, that we're not talking about a blackout. We're talking about everybody being on TV at the same time and everybody having the same amount of time to discuss whatever their issue is. And I don't have a problem with that. If they want to use all the air time on political statements, if you can have enough people and you have both sides of the issue, at least having that opportunity and I think, if you can find someone... Mr. Clancey: They have the opportunity... Mayor Anderson: If a candidate says, "Well, I don't really want to go on television" for example, then you just put that down also. So-and-so was invited and declined. I mean that's an important statement to make, I think, so that people don't say "What happened to my candidate?" even if he's obscure, even if he's from a political party that's not in the majority, his...that person has had his opportunity. Councilmember Moyles:: I'd like to make a procedural point here. This is a very good dis- cussion on a very important point. And I'd like the Minutes verbatim transcribed. I don't want to miss a word of what I'm hearing and that's on the tape and I think I have as a privilege as a Council member the right to ask for that, so please, from the start of this point to the very finish, Madam Clerk, I want the whole thing. It's bad enough that we have a local newspaper that has choked off access to the editor by refusing at election time to print more than one letter a week... Councilmember Clevenger: ...of 100 words... Councilmember Moyles: ...of 100 words on an issue that we all know is of critical importance. I have had more anger directed at me because of this fool policy and I tell them, "Call the publisher. Cancel your subscription." It's part of a problem we have to address, and one of the best responses going in town is our television station. There may be as many people watching that now as read the editorial page or what's left of it, of the Saratoga News. Now I'd urge the newspaper to open up the pages from now until election day, print everything people send in and I don't care if they agree with me or not, and I'd eliminate that silly little thing about personal attach. I mean, we're public officials. People are going to attack us. If you're not saying something worthwhile, maybe they won't. But if you're thinking anything, they're going to attack you. Free speech is good; not bad. The newspaper should open up, the TV station ' should be open full-throttle from now until election day. No regulation except for the obscenity and hate, and I'll be happy to call Gretchen and urge her to go down if it would actually help her to get there and do it. I'm being a little bit sarcastic; she doesn't want to hear from me on this point, but... Mayor Anderson: She'd like you to drive her over probably. Councilmember Moyles: I'd be happy to do that. Councilmember Clevenger: We've had a lot of talking and it seems to me that what we're hearing is that the Council supports as much free speech as possible on the television. But my... Councilmember Peterson: Wait a minute. I'm hearing that at least two, maybe three of you, want to set up some policies to modify that... MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page t 1 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Clevenger: If you'll just listen Councilmember Peterson, I would like to go ahead with what I have observed the Council, what I've heard the Council say and try to get some solutions out of this instead of a lot of politicking. It seems to me that every...that people are saying that we need to have as much public exposure on television as possible, and I'm not disagreeing with that. I felt that the way that the television station handled election and electioneering in the past was better than simply opening it up and whoever comes in, fine. And if someone doesn't, then they are simply denied. I thought it was better in the past when the television went out and made an effort to get all of the people on a certain issue to come in and talk and I would agree that that policy is a good one to continue. But I think that on an election issue, which is...especially Measure L and Measure M which are of concern to Saratoga, that we try to balance those presentations so that if there is one on one side,~d'xere .~xould be one following it on the other side. And I think that we should, FAC S should have...or SAFE should have a few days in order to get a couple of responses so that these are run in tandem. And that is...and I think that since Ms. Yeaman's campaign has complained and they're only two people running for the assembly, that you should try to contact those two people. Mr. Claneey: We have already contacted...I've talked to Robin Yeaman personally. Councilmember Clevenger: Well, I think that's a good idea because apparently they did notice it. And if we have any insurance people who come and talk, I think that you should try to contact the local people who are in charge of that and maybe have, since they're so many initiatives, that might be one where you could run it for half an hour, five minutes each. That would at least make it look as if the Saratoga station is being very even-handed. Councilmember Moyles: Would you care to put that in the form of a motion so I can be specific as to what you're proposing? Councilmember C!evenger: Ok. Mayor Anderson: I'd like it to be 45 days rather than ...same as our posters on the signs. Councilmember Clevenger: All right. Mr. Claneey: While you're thinking about your motion, could I tell you about the insurance situation? The state League of Women's Voters has made a one hour video tape on the various ballot measures-- state-wide ballot measures--and we're getting a copy of that tape. It'll be a 60- minute tape and the first half-hour of that is all about the insurance initiatives handled by the League of Women Voters--the pros and cons of each of the various insurance measures. And the other half deals with several other ballot measures. In addition to that, the Los Gatos-Saratoga League of Women Voters is having, on October 20th, a presentation here at the community room of the Saratoga Library and we're going to televise that and put that on. And it's going to cover all of the issues as analyzed again by the League of Women Voters on the basis of pro and con on each issue. So we do intend to show both of those tapes on the various ballot measures. Rather than go out and get the representatives of those issues, we're trying to, in this case, depend upon the League of Women Voters as being the non- partisan people who elucidate the pros and cons for each side. Mayor Anderson: Now they're going to do the pros and cons? Mr. Clancey: Yes. At each of their presentations, and we've used them in the past, have done, I think, a commendable job of saying "This measure means this" and "this is what the people who are for it say, and this is what the people who are against it say" and "This is what really results" and so forth. So, they do a very fine job; they've had a good reputation in the past and each year we've used them to provide those ballot measure issues. That's just a piece of information for you. We're trying on that measure to provide a informational content on those issues. Councilmember Clevenger: I think that's very good. And that's the way that the public cable TV has operated in the past, where you have the whole gambit represented at once. And that's my preference for having campaign information presented. Now I'd like to ask you what you would do if, for instance someone from Prop 100 came in and wanted to give a free speech message and the others didn't come in. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 12 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. Cianeey: If they fit within our policy guide, I would let them speak, because if they complied with the provisions as spelled out here, they would be entitled to speak if they meet those. Which is basically that they are a member of the community. Councilmember C!evenger: I think that's a problem. Because you will have presented an overall picture and then if proponents of one of the ballot measures comes in, I think that does weight it the other way. Mr.. Claneey: I don't think I have a choice but to accept it. I do not have the time to try to search out and do research in who's for and who's against it. I don't want to spend the long-distance calls to find out who's sponsoring this legislation... Councilmember Clevenger: Well, would you run that...let's say someone came in and made that free speech message... Mr. Claneey: If they complied with all of our policies, yes I would. Councilmember Clevenger: How many times would you run that? Mr. C!aneey: I usually run each free speech message once or twice. Councilmember Clevenger: Once or twice. What if then another person came in on that same issue, Prop 100, and you found that you were running those free speech messages just one after the other and they were always on the same viewpoint? Would you continue to do that? Mr. Claneey: I think we should because maybe that's the consensus...as far as I know that's whafs coming forward. The people...I think that it's...it's looking...as I said earlier, it's like asking the editor of the Mercury News to go out and find people in the community to take an opposing viewpoint. They don't do that and I don't think they should. Councilmember Clevenger: But they do, during an election go out and interview candidates, and they make sure that they invite every single candidate to come down. So, it is a little different during election time. Mr. Claneey: It's still the opportunity of the people. For example, in election year, the Saratoga. News does in fact print letters to the editor. And I've noticed that they aren't all necessarily one-sided each week of the year, and then sometimes there's two letters for one person and none for the other. Then next week maybe it's one for somebody else. Councilmember C!evenger: There're very strict rules and if someone doesn't have a letter in, it's simply because they did not submit one. Mr. C!aneey: That's the same thing with the free speech. If they don't come forward and make it, I can't twist their arm and say, "Come on down to the TV studio. I'll come over and pick you up:' That's not my job. Councilmember Clevenger: But what they do is they restrict how many you can have and I think on those propositions, like those insurance propositions, that there should be a limit. I wouldn't like to see somebody who happens to know about this really capitalizing on this opportunity and having one in every day between now and the campaign. I don't think that's appropriate. Mr. Claneey: I don't know how many days there are until the end of the campaign; we're only on two nights a week. Tuesday and Thursday, because we're limited by the fact that our resources are limited. We've had two people volunteer to do the cable casting. And one of them who doesn't even live in Saratoga has been coming very faithfully for the last two and a half years. The problem I see is that we don't have that much exposure anyway. On Tuesday and Thursday evenings. So if we get... Councilmember Clevenger: So, between now and the election, you're saying that really couldn't be ... Mr. Clancey: I don't think it's going to sway the election... Councilmember Peterson: Bob, are you overwhelmed or underwhelmed with requests for free speeches? MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 13 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. Clancey: We've have four so far in this last three months. And they all happen to be... Councilmember Moyles: ...rule? Somebody go down and contradict me. We don't need more rules. Councilmember Clevenger: Someone will, Dave, you can be sure...you can be confident about that. Councilmember Peterson: I'd still like to hear a motion that we can act on here. Mr. Argow: Madam Mayor, ifI enter this controversy just briefly and make some observations and suggestions. First of all, on the access channel, the attempt has been in terms of the items presented for public consumption to definitely make it balance. The TV unit, for example, and its volunteers and the access board--there's a lot of people involved in this process. Never try to create a debate or situation themselves which they handle but rather they cover events that are occurring naturally in the community. A classic example of that of course is that of the League of Women Voters sponsored debates. They're very good, credible, third/neutral party, and they're very desirable to cover. On the other hand, the board has been trying to use the free speech area as more of an area of letters to the editor, presented as opinions. The issue comes up then, to what extent should one attempt to make a balance of these free speech presentations and to what degree do we have responsibility, control and any obligation to make a balance. I think one of things that might be a suggestion is that first of all, we're not the first public access station ever to come on the horizon here-there are other access stations operating throughout the state of California. I'm sure they've encountered similar types of issues. Perhaps the Council might recommend that the Foundation board contact some of these other stations and the California Cable Community Access Foundation, which is a s~ate-wide foundation that was specifically set up to support local-origination public access activities and see what other communities are doing with this kind of situation, see what other kinds of prototype policies are there. I think the issue certainly warrants more looking out and perhaps that might be a way that we can resolve this in terms of seeing what others are doing and get some meaningful suggestions from that. I think that would be an appropriate thing to ask the Board to do,to do more research. Because this obviously is a very controversial item and it's not going to be one that easily resolved in just one evening. Counciimember Anderson: Do you want to do that? Do you want to make a motion to cover this election period or do you want to just take Mr. Argow's suggestion? Counciimember Clevenger: Well, I guess I was thinking about the insurance issue and how that...about people making comments about that. I doubt that there's going to be such... Mr. Clancey: We haven't received any yet. Councilmember Clevenger: ...a tide of comments about that. So that boils down then to the local issue and people commenting about Measures L and M. I would prefer to see equal time given to each side on that. I don't know how much one side has; but I would feel more confident if I thought it were being presented the way the station has presented local political issues in the past, which is to give everyone the same amount of time to have a round table. Now on this one I can see where you don't need a round table; there're just two sides. But I'd like to see those balanced, so that each side gets the same amount of time between now and the election. Councilmember Peterson: Is that a motion? Councilmember Moyles: What are you asking to do? Councilmember Peterson: That's a given. Anyone can go down and do that. We've spent 45 minutes... Councilmember Clevenger: Well, I believe that Councilmember Peterson: ..coming back to the point that anyone can go down for free speech. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 14 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Clevenger: Ok, so what we've been discussing is a letter from the public and if we want to make any changes. And it appears that we're not going to make any changes., except to insure that in any controversial area or anything that's on the ballot, we're going to give each side equal time if they come down. Councilmember Moyles: Why don't we write all the people on our community alert list, do a mail-merge letter, we've got all those home owner groups--"Did you know you can go down" Mayor Anderson: I think that's a good idea. Councilmember Moyles: ...and there's a network we can hit very simply. Councilmember Peterson: Put a bullet that comes on for what--15 seconds?--that says "Free speeches available to any citizen in Saratoga." Now one other thing I might add that I don't think has been suggested...most of the commercial stations get around this idea, and I agree with you entirely Bob, it's not your responsibility to find out any and everyone who may be opposed to someone's opinion but it seems to me either an over-voice or a slide that says "Opposing views will be welcome, please contact so-and-so on this issue." Mr. Claneey: It's on there. We run that... Mayor Anderson: It is now Mr. C!aneey: ...except as Mayor Anderson said, except for one instance where the person on duty that night wasn't aware of the procedures. Councilmember Peterson: Oh, ok, I didn't know. Mr. Claneey: But we run a graphic at the beginning and end of each message that clearly states that opposing views are welcome and gives a telephone number to contact. Mr. Argow: It also states that the views do not represent the station or any of the people involved with it. Councilmember Peterson: I don't know what more we can ask for. Mr. Claneey: The disclaimer as to the effect that these are solely the opinions of the speaker Councilmember Peterson: Good. Mayor Anderson: I will say though that the commercial stations, from what I understand, do make a point when they give the free time to go out and seek out the candidates on both sides or the people representing an issue on each side because they've done that in this election. I know that people on both the FAC S side and the SAFE side'have been contacted by KBAY and each given a one-minute time slot. And in that case, the station itself went out and sought the people to make sure that the equal time was there. Mr. Claneey: Up until yesterday, I didn't even know about SAFE. Mayor Anderson: Yes, so I understand. Mr. Claneey: So I will gladly contact them and request they make an appearance and send their four people. Councilmember Moyles: Madam Mayor, one procedural point and I think it's an important one. The Council, I'm grateful, does not have the power to set this policy directly. We set up an ~ndependent foundation for a good reason. We as an institution will naturally have a bias that may not necessarily mesh well with the policies of communication and TV access. Though if you want to get at policy, we can counsel the board, we can affect its composition by our appointees, but we have no power to tell Mr. Clancey that this is what the policy is going to be and the board has to ratify it. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 15 OCTOBER 5, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Councilmember Moyles Continued: West Valley College has a representative on this 'and they certainly are independent and sovereign and they have a very different attitudes than this Council. If you're looking at blocking out access before election time, I can imagine a much more convoluted policy analysis than we could possibly give it tonight, and incidentally this isn't agendized properly for that sort of action anyhow. So I'd suggest that the remedy really is more access, not less. If we can hit our community alert network, let's do that. And each of us can promise to stir up as much interest personally as we can, but I think it would really be ill advised to cut down the access between now and election day in the pursuit of some sort of symmetry. Mayor Anderson: We ought to improve the numbers of people watching by the fact that we'll have two articles in the papernext Wednesday, in addition to the one that was already in the paper this week. However, you have to keep in mind that 50% of the houses have cable in Saratoga, so it is true that not everyone even sees these programs or has an opportunity to see these programs and know that they have this opportunity available to them. But I think your viewership is going to increase now, wouldn't you say? Mr. Ciancey: That's been the history of other commercial...local cable access channels is when a controversial issue strikes the channel, it increases their viewership. Mayor Anderson: We only did it for you tonight. Mr. Clancey: Thank you. Councilmember Moyles: This will be very useful when we get to another agenda item tonight. One reason Mr. Argow came was to prepare us for discussion of coverage of city council meetings, speaking of controversy generating interest. Maybe we can really get the unit off the ground by exposing the council to the community on a regular basis. Mayor Anderson: Thank you very much for coming tonight, Mr. Clancey. Mr. Clancey: Thank you. Mayor Anderson: Ok, the next Item on the agenda is Old Business, it's a discussion about the h*,qancj property and the City Manager, I presume is going to give a Staff Report regarding water rights or... City Manager: I'm still one Item behind you. Mayor Anderson: Are you? Where are we? I thought we... City Manager: What did you do with Mrs. Newby's letter? Mayor Anderson: Oh, I suppose you should write something to Mrs. Newby; tell her we spoke... what are we going to tell Mrs. Newby? Councilmember Clevenger: That she should get down there. Mayor Anderson: That she should get down there; that's right, that's what we're going to tell her. City Manager: Get down there and tape her message, right? Mayor Anderson: Tape her message. From my point of view, I will say one more thing. I really would prefer to have the two...if you're going to have two messages a night, Mr. Clancey, Mr. Clancey? If you're going to have two messages a night, I'd rather see them piggy backed than have them an hour apart, if you could. I just think .i-t:,vould look better and be more interesting to the public to see the two points of view back to back than an hour apart. Community Services Director Argow: I think it's very wise to put the opposing messages back-to-back so people get a full airing of the different perspectives. Mayor Anderson: Thank you very much. We really appreciate your time tonight. End of Verbatim Transcript. MEETING OF THE CITY'COUNCIL Page 16 OCTOBER 5, 1988 6. OLD BUSINESS: Report on concerns of Wanda Alexander, James Jefferson, and William Robson, Ravine Road, concerning disrupted water service (Continued from September 21, 1988) The City Manager reviewed the Report Re: Condition VIII (F) SDR-1620-1 (Hwang). Councilmember Peterson felt that recommendation to direct the City Manager to institute adminis- trative changes per Staff Report was very appropriate. Councilmember Clevenger concurred with the City Manager's Report; furthermore, action recom- mended would prevent a like occurrence. CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTITUTE AD- MINISTRATIVE CHANGES TO INSURE ALL CONDITIONS AS MUCH AS PRACTICABLE ARE TIED TO SPECIFIC REVIEW APPROVALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THAT REVIEW FOR FINAL APPROVALS INCLUDE DETAILS ON COMPLIANCE FOR ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. Passed 5-0. CLEVENGERfMOYLES MOVED TO REPLY TO ALEXANDER, JEFFERSON AND ROBSON THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET BY NOVEMBER 1, 1988, THE CITY WILL TAKE ACTION TO SEE THAT THE CONDITION IS MET, INCLUDING LEGAL ACTION IF NECESSARY. Passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS: /x.. Publicity for Upcoming Hearing - Cupertino Union School District/Primary Plus Appeal Consensus that the Community Group List be noticed in addition to the legally required noticing. B. Consideration of Agreement between City and Saratoga Community Access Cable TV · Foundation; Reconsideration of Policy concerning Allocation of CATV Franchise Fees Community Services Director Argow reviewed the Report to the Mayor and City Council. Councilmember Moyles summarized that the issue was reciprocity. Mr. Robert Clancey, Volunteer Coordinator, Public Access Cable T.V., provided additional infor- mation on the significant contribution of volunteers and the facilities made available for public access TV. The Foundation wished to hire a part time Access Coordinator who would decrease reliance on the City's Community Services Director. Councilmember Peterson agreed that the issue was reciprocity; he suggested Option 2 be adopted. Councilmember Moyles suggested tracking the impact of the Access Coordinator's time in order to evaluate whether the Community Service Director's time involvement had diminished. Councilmember Peterson added that the Council had made the commitment to aid access public T.V; the amount in question was only $6,700 with the possibility that not funding the request would result in loss of the time and effort already invested. Councilmember Clevenger was agreeable to drafting an amended agreement with the understanding that this Item would be considered in the 1989-90 budgeting session; however, she had serious reservations regarding the amount of time invested by the Community Services Director. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT CONCERNING PAY- MENT OF CATV FRANCHISE FEES ADOPTING OPTION 2. · Councilmember Moyles noted that the Foundation wished direction on broadcasting City Meetings. Mayor Anderson had no objection to broadcasting of the Meetings; there were senior citizens who had difficulty attending and/or hearing the Meetings. Councilmember Peterson was not opposed to such; however, he questioned the potential viewer interest and added that the public access could be utilized in a more productive manner. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 17 OCTOBER 5, 1988 NEW BUSINESS Continued The City Attorney confirmed that the Agreement, 1., read, "Out of the amount so allocated, City shall deduct costs or expenses advanced by the City to or for the benefit of the Foundation..." PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT, 1. TO READ, "OUT OF THE AMOUNT SO ALLOCATED, CITY SHALL DEDUCT COSTS OR EXPENSES AD- VANCED BY THE CITY TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FOUNDATION..." Passed 5-0. 8. PUBLIC BEARINGS: None. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers Councilmember Clevenger stated that complaints had been received regarding the number of real estate signs posted on weekends; the Community Services Director provided information on procedures available for complainants. Mayor Anderson noted the letter from Rides for Bay Area Commuters Re: California Pool Party Day on October 6, 1988. B. Items for Meeting with Commission Chairs on October 11, 1988. Potential Items discussed by the Council. The City Manager advised the Council on the search for the new Planning Director and invited the Council to meet the top candidate~ S~h~ie, priff/t~ ~f~ion, if they wished. PETERSON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER. Passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. on October 11, 1988. :i_ . . "7~ ~. ,. 7~ ..- .-. ':) robst-Caughey~ ~/