Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a living in her chosen career path. Mayor Foust stated that her career path has always <br />been the target of public scrutiny. She further explained that when she was approached <br />about the job with SAMCEDA, she first checked with City Attorney Yamamoto and the Fair <br />Political Practices Commission regarding any possible or alleged conflicts of interest. <br />There were none, and City Attorney Yamamoto confirmed. Mayor Foust stated she would <br />never place her Council in a position of conflict. <br /> <br />Council took a 10-minute break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Council Discussion <br />Council addressed the options of putting the proposed initiative on the ballot alone, putting <br />the proposed initiative on the ballot with the City's countermeasure, or putting a <br />collaborative measure on the ballot. Council stressed that the proponents were asked <br />repeatedly to join in efforts for a collaborative measure, but there was no interest in this <br />approach. Council took the steps to draft a countermeasure, developed in the public eye, <br />discussed at Council meetings and with the help of the City Attorney, outside legal counsel <br />and the Planning Department, in order to give community members choices in all matters, <br />whether they voted solely for the initiative, or were more in keeping with concerns <br />addressed in the countermeasure. Council reiterated that all of this was in keeping with <br />due and democratic process. Council stated with both measures going to ballot, this <br />would be a divisive campaign, and for that reason there was still merit to coming up with a <br />collaborative effort, even at this late date. <br /> <br />Vice Mayor Howard asked the City Attorney for clarification on how they identified <br />properties that would be affected by the initiative, and why at this point those properties <br />could not be re-designated the General Plan if the measure passes. Mr. Yamamoto <br />stated that these properties, with their current designations (park or otherwise) were built <br />into the initiative, and cannot be changed as of March of 2008. He spoke to the planning <br />and many efforts that went into understanding the proposed initiative in order to draft a <br />countermeasure, utilizing input from Council and community, questions and comments, <br />legal consult with special counsel and looking to the Planning Commission for help with <br />land designations. He stated they were trying to be certain of what they brought to Council <br />without advocating for either side. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor commented that she was ready to make a decision at this meeting, <br />having listened to and spoken to both sides on the measure. She stressed the need to <br />look at any potential consequences and economic costs such as those in the proposed <br />initiative. She was in support of the countermeasure being put on the ballot in an effort to <br />offer an alternative for the community in 2008, along with the proposed initiative and not <br />holding off for 2009. <br /> <br />Council Members reiterated all the points as to how they got to where they are tonight in <br />the process, the initiative measure, the countermeasure, and/or no countermeasure, and <br />the merits and/or negatives of what is carried forth to the ballot in November 2008, and <br />also not holding off until 2009. Council stressed that community members' values have <br />come across, and that Council must listen to this and also uphold the Charter while <br />considering this diversity of thought. Council spoke again to the constraints against any <br />changes being made to the Charter at this time, and/or land designations, as of March <br /> <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />AUGUST 4, 2008 <br />PAGE 8 <br />