Saratoga News

Right idea, wrong approach

Few citizens would disagree that Saratoga's forested hillsides, picturesque residential neighborhoods and natural open spaces give the city a serene and elegant character quite unlike that of any other Silicon Valley locale. Yet a recently proposed means for maintaining the city's quality into the next century has prompted fractious debate among citizens and all the various players in the development game.

Measure G, a citizens initiative that will appear on the primary ballot this Tuesday, attempts to address the future of land-use decision-making in Saratoga. In so doing, it provides for an amendment to the city's general plan that requires voter approval of all density-increasing rezonings on parcels currently deemed "residential" or "outdoor recreation," with few exceptions. Changes would require a "yes" vote from a majority of citizens.

Although we support the measure's intent--to maintain the city's environmental integrity and the quality of its neighborhoods--it's a poorly crafted piece of public policy.

To begin with, Measure G's scope is too broad, its language vague and confused. It remains unclear whether some neighborhood activists could attempt to apply the measure to home improvements when clearly the measure is intended to prevent intensified commercial and residential projects. A well-drafted initiative would be precise enough in its language so as not to raise fears that each proposal for a patio or a backyard pool would need to be taken to the voters.

Secondly, the measure undermines the existing political process. Currently, before changing the general plan, the city must hold a public hearing. Neighbors can voice any concerns about the project, and, for the most part, the Planning Commission and City Council listen. Citizens also have a right to elect whomever they choose to serve on the council. If the electorate doesn't like their officials' planning decisions, they should throw the bums out.

If citizens oppose a particular development proposal, they should publicly voice their concerns. Before obtaining approval to expand their Fruitvale Avenue facility, the Odd Fellows agreed to add landscaping to shield some neighbors' views of the development, improve drainage in an area that flooded adjacent back yards and designate a large chunk of land along the property line as open space to protect a wildlife corridor.

In exchange for the concessions, the Odd Fellows walked away with a contract extending their development rights for 10 years. They asked for the extra time to complete both phases of the huge project and to add a cushion of time to secure financing.

Those compromises took nearly a year of late-night public hearings and work sessions
by the Planning Commission and City Council.

If Measure G passes, the opportunity to achieve similar compromises at the Planning Commission or City Council level would be replaced with the imperfect process of public elections, which will no doubt be influenced by developers willing and able to spend money to influence public opinion.

Such governance by the electorate could also cost the city $60,000 for each special election (although considerably less for proposals added to general elections), and it might rule out additional senior housing in Saratoga.

If opponents of the measure are correct, the Odd Fellows expansion and Nelson Gardens development could be put to a vote, because of a retroactive clause that applies the measure to general plan changes made between August 1995 and next week's election. Asking voters to veto carefully considered City Council decisions--on the two recent projects, as well as on future projects--is not the best way to protect the interests of individual neighborhoods.

Anyone concerned about the future of Saratoga should start weighing in at City Hall. Clearly, the City Council's management of land-use planning issues has left a number of Saratogans questioning the wisdom of their actions. Other tools, including scheduled elections and recalls, are available to those who think they can do a better job. In the meantime, we recommend a no vote on Measure G.