CC Min 2008-08-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mayor Foust thanked members of the public for their comments in this and all prior meetings. She also addressed the comments made as to her and/or any other Council Members' conflicts of interest, the integrity of the Council as a whole, and her right to earn a living in her chosen career path. Mayor Foust stated that her career path has always been the target of public scrutiny. She further explained that when she was approached about the job with SAMCEDA, she first checked with City Attorney Yamamoto and the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding any possible or alleged conflicts of interest. There were none, and City Attorney Yamamoto confirmed. Mayor Foust stated she would never place her Council in a position of conflict. Council took a 10-minute break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:15 p.m. Council Discussion Council addressed the options of putting the proposed initiative on the ballot alone, putting the proposed initiative on the ballot with the City's countermeasure, or putting a collaborative measure on the ballot. Council stressed that the proponents were asked repeatedly to join in efforts for a collaborative measure, but there was no interest in this approach. Council took the steps to draft a countermeasure, developed in the public eye, discussed at Council meetings and with the help of the City Attorney, outside legal counsel and the Planning Department, in order to give community members choices in all matters, whether they voted solely for the initiative, or were more in keeping with concems addressed in the countermeasure. Council reiterated that all of this was in keeping with due and democratic process. Council stated with both measures going to ballot, this would be a divisive campaign, and for that reason there was still merit to coming up with a collaborative effort, even at this late date. Vice Mayor Howard asked the City Attorney for clarification on how they identified properties that would be affected by the initiative, and why at this point those properties could not be re-designated the General Plan if the measure passes. Mr. Yamamoto stated that these properties, with their current designations (park or otherwise) were built into the initiative, and cannot be changed as of March of 2008. He spoke to the planning and many efforts that went into understanding the proposed initiative in order to draft a countermeasure, utilizing input from Council and community, questions and comments, legal consult with special counsel and looking to the Planning Commission for help with land designations. He stated they were trying to be certain of what they brought to Council without advocating for either side. The Vice Mayor commented that she was ready to make a decision at this meeting, having listened to and spoken to both sides on the measure. She stressed the need to look at any potential consequences and economic costs such as those in the proposed initiative. She was in support of the countermeasure being put on the ballot in an effort to offer an alternative for the community in 2008, along with the proposed initiative and not holding off for 2009. Council Members reiterated all the points as to how they got to where they are tonight in the process, the initiative measure, the countermeasure, and/or no countermeasure, and the merits and/or negatives of what is carried forth to the ballot in November 2008, and REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 4, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 8 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 189