Saratoga News


Mayor Paul Jacobs wants density issues to go directly to the voters.	Jim Shaw wants environmental review, city design before an election.

City Council threatened with recall in hassle over handling Measure G

Council wants to send issues directly to voters

By Julie Mehta

Charges of "back-room politics" and threats of recall last week prompted the City Council to postpone voting on a proposal for implementing Measure G until today.

The proposal would provide for Measure G elections to be held before application review by the Planning Commission or City Council, contrary to what the Save Our Neighborhoods Initiative Committee (SONIC) says is the intent of the measure.

Measure G, which took effect on May 3, requires voter approval for general plan amendments for changing parcels to denser zoning categories.

More than a dozen people berated the council for agendizing the Measure G implementation issue for its meeting on May 7, a special session not telecast by the city's cable TV channel. The meeting was held in a conference room at City Hall instead of council chambers, another gripe of the standing-room-only crowd.

"This is being conducted with a certain amount of haste and without consultation with those of us who backed Measure G," said F.L. Stutzman. "A lot of people who voted for Measure G did not vote yes because they were concerned with land use, but because they were very unhappy with the City Council. I can assure you we have the organization and financial means to have a total recall campaign, and I assure you we will succeed."

Several others seconded that threat and encouraged the council to put off its vote. The council willingly agreed to continue the item to its May 15 meeting and went on to discuss its views on implementation. All members of the council, except Gillian Moran, spoke in favor the staff's recommendations, maintaining that they were the most cost- and time-efficient policies and fulfilled the intent of Measure G by giving voters a say on the greatest number of projects.

SONIC supporters said putting an application on the ballot without first conducting environmental and design review placed an unfair burden on developers, who would have to educate the public about their projects on their own. And they expressed fears that if an election is a first, not a last, step, an application may in final form be very different from what voters approved.

SONIC urged the city to instead give applicants a choice of going directly to the ballot or first through the city planning process. While this is a legal alternative, Mayor Paul Jacobs said he feared putting a project proposal through the city planning process first would make the City Council one of the primary promoters of a given development in an election.

Audience members were unwilling to accept that argument, however. "You want to punish everybody," former councilmember Vic Monia charged. "You're saying, 'Screw you, you're going to the ballot right away.'"

Only Moran agreed that at least some analysis of applications prior to an election would be desirable.

"We would be in a position to help voters. That potentially would give the City Council a leadership role," Moran said. But, perceiving she did not have the support of fellow councilmembers, Moran assured the audience that whatever process the city selects can be amended as needed in coming years.

The city staff intends to determine if projects are covered by Measure G, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and, if needed, the City Council. In its proposal, the city says it will consider exceptions to the election-approval requirement only if a project is turned down by the voters.

SONIC supporters took issue with this as well, saying such a setup would clog the system with unnecessary elections.

The only thing Measure G proponents and the city do seem to agree on is that developers should decide when to hold elections on their applications and foot the bill for them, which could range from $4,000 to $60,000, depending on whether they coincide with other local, state, or national elections or are held separately.

In related business, the council postponed consideration of the Binkley lot-line adjustment application to June 5, since it will potentially be subject to Measure G. The council will again discuss the implementation plan at its May 15 regular meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m.