pages: CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-10-02 | 5 | Urged keeping the easement for a path as a future option: Jon Spangler, Alameda. Councilmember Johnson stated that she was concerned about the process complying with the Brown Act; stated significant change after the close of public comment should be noticed. The City Attorney stated the Brown Act was not violated; the Brown Act only requires adequate notice of the topic of the item being discussed, not the individual pieces. Mayor Gilmore stated often times matters come up in the course of discussion that could not have been noticed in advance. Councilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with Mayor Gilmore but disagrees about the significance of the change. Councilmember Tam questioned how the public is being deprived of access to information. Councilmember Johnson stated the Planning Board should have re-noticed the matter to include opening the gate. The City Manager noted that noticing every possible outcome curbs open deliberations. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if the Police Department could provide a history and analysis about the public safety components of the potential access point. The City Manager responded the analysis would not be meaningful because the gate was opened 20 years ago. Mayor Gilmore stated the City does not have money to do Americans with Disabilities Act access; questioned whether the access would be desired 20 years from now; stated the issue is preserving possibilities. Councilmember Johnson stated that she would like to separate the motion and address the subdivision map application, then Condition 9. Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Johnson is proposing approval of the tentative map without the condition, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing adjacent to Tilden Way would be six feet and whether the adequacy of the height was ever discussed. The Acting City Planner responded that the height of the fencing was not discussed; condition of approval requires submittal of a plan as to how that edge is treated so the entrance is attractive. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 October 2, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf |