Claremont Mayor Karen Rosenthal presides over the discussion of the KGI/BFS referendum. Photo by David Chen

Discussion of the referendum item began at 8 p.m. and lasted two hours. Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tem Paul Held recused himself from deliberations because of a conflict of interest. He owns a condominium complex near the proposed building site. CUC and Friends representatives advocated the immediate repeal, while referrendum backers supported placing the referrendum on the March ballot.

The City Attorney began the discussion by presenting three options to the council. The referendum called for a repeal of the current land development proposal for BFS. The council could 1) repeal the ordinance, 2) ignore the referendum and let it go to the March ballot for Claremont voters to decide, or 3) repeal the ordinance and request that if and when CUC resubmits a development proposal, the proposal must adhere to a recent settlement agreement between CUC and leaders of the "Friends of the Bernard Field Station" (Friends).The City Attorney advised the council to adopt the third option.

Brenda Barhnam Hill, a CUC vice president, affirmed that CUC plans to return at a later date with an agreement that includes terms of the settlement, what she described as a "hard fought compromise" between CUC and leaders of the Friends. That settlement includes provisions that protect 45 acres of the current BFS from development for 50 years and stipulates that a botanist will ascertain how much of that 45 acres is a viable environment for the re-planting of sage brush.

Carol Gill, a Claremont resident and referendum organizer, admitted to the council that she was in the awkward position of asking the council to not obey the referendum and allow the decision to go to ballot. She said that most referendum signers were under the impression that the referendum would appear on the March ballot and repealing the ordinance now would "not be in the spirit of the

referendum."

Many Claremont residents voiced their opinions during the hour-and-a-half allotted to public comment, to the point of extending discussion deep into the night. Highlights of the public discourse include comments made by a representative of the Tongva/Gabriellino tribe. He called the entire consideration of land ownership into question by declaring that "we never sold a square inch, we never signed a treaty" and that "we will never sell our birthright," in reference to BFS. One Claremont resident, a senior man, said that since the land in question is private property, the owners (CUC) should be able to do with it whatever they wished. Lenny Molina (PO '02) represented protesting students in his advocacy of preserving BFS, and when it seemed the council was not receptive to what he was saying, ended by reprimanding Mayor Rosenthal to "at least pretend to pay attention."

Following public comment was deliberation amongst councilmembers. Councilmember Algird Leiga reminded the audience that "we have 1,200 acres of hillside open space," implying that Claremont was not lacking in open spaces. Councilmember Sandra Baldonado asserted that many "referendum signers didn't understand the referendum" and that "they may have thought it would alter land use" when indeed it only referred to the current development proposal before the council. Mayor Karen Rosenthal summed up by saying that although debate over preserving BFS was relevant, the issue before the council was a simple decision to yield to the will of the 3,000-plus petitioners who signed a petition requesting a repeal of the ordinance or not. With that, the council voted unanimously to adopt option 3, repeal the ordinance and request that CUC include provisions of the lawsuit settlement in their next proposal.

After the vote, audience members, considerably thinned through the night, stretched their legs and voiced their reactions with one another. Student Ryan Ausanka-Crues (PI '04) said that the council "pre-empted voters" by repealing the ordinance now and did so to "save face." He noted that the vote today allowed CUC to resubmit a proposal "in a few days instead of next year," after the March election. The City Attorney joined the public in the gallery to explain why the referendum did not refer to land use policy and only to the specific development proposal.

Molina reacted to the vote by saying, "Obviously we hoped for better, as this seems to be just an excuse for the city and colleges to bypass the referendum and resubmit a plan that is basically the same that much sooner. Fortunately, there are still many options open to us in opposing the project and we have no intentions of giving up the struggle."

.........................................................................................................................