By Julie Mehta
Bob Binkley has found himself in the unenviable position of guinea pig since speculation started that his proposed lot-line adjustment would be the first case covered by Measure G, and on June 5, the great Measure G implementation experiment began.
While the council did not offically vote to subject Binkley to Measure G, it verbally countered his assertions that his case should not be affected by the measure. But echoing other councilmembers' opinions that he was being snagged by a technicality, Councilmember Gillian Moran suggested an alternative to Binkley that would allow him to achieve his objective without needing voter approval. Instead of moving the boundary line been his lots, she asked if he could combine his two lots into one and then split them.
Community Development Director Paul Curtis indicated that this would require the smaller lot to be at least two acres and did not guarantee that this option would work. But Binkley agreed to look into the possibility and come before the council on June 19 either to pursue it or ask for a final decision on Measure G's applicability to his case. He has already indicated that if Measure G applies and he chooses to press on with his application, he would want to go through the planning process before the public vote.
Binkley's odyssey into city-planning politics began last year when he first applied for a lot line adjustment. When his father died, Binkley decided to sell off the smaller of his two lots, located off Pierce Road. He wanted to adjust the boundary line between his nine-acre family farm and the smaller half-acre lot to double the smaller lots' size, thus improving its building site and increasing its salability.
But the lots each fall in a different zoning category, and therein lies the problem. Measure G requires voter approval for General Plan changes from a lower zoning density to a higher zoning density, and this would be required if the boundary line was moved.
Binkley obtained the planning commission's recommendation for his proposal on March 27, one day after Measure G passed. The City Council delayed consideration of his project until it had adopted procedures for Measure G implementation. Binkley was informed by letter that his project was affected by Measure G, but Binkley argued that Measure G proponents had told him the law was not intended to cover his situation.
The city issued its familiar refrain that it had to obey the language, not the intent, of the law, though the council voiced regrets about having to subject Binkley's case to Measure G.
"I almost feel like we should be apologizing to you. It's almost like you're the victim of a drive-by shooting and are just an innocent bystander," said Councilmember Ann Marie Burger. "I think this is only the beginning of the problems we're going to see with this legislation and not simply an anomaly. I hope we can find a better solution for you."
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, June 12, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved