pages: CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf, 18
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-05-17 | 18 | represented; thanked the City Planner for the reports he puts out; stated there is a short time for a Councilmember to call an item for review; 10 days does not delay or impact a project; to wait until a Council meeting to discuss a Call for Review would defeat the goal of the short time period; it is critical that the public holds Council accountable and knows Council has the right to call an item for review; stated the Council does take the issue very seriously, there were four calls for review and one call for reconsideration in 2015 and 2016. The City Clerk clarified that there were four in 2015, including a reconsideration of a prior Council action and two, so far, in 2016. Mayor Spencer stated a Councilmember calling an item for review takes the matter very seriously; Councilmembers review what occurs at a Planning Board meeting before calling an item for review; she does not feel changing the Council's ability to call an item for review is appropriate. Councilmember Oddie stated no one approved of the idea that was outlined; there are three Councilmembers that would like a high level evaluation and the narrow focus could be on the budgetary aspect of the proposal. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is costing the applicant time and money; the Call for Review process has evolved over time; the Chamber of Commerce has asked Council to review the process; she would like to see the process go back to staff and present more recommendations that the Council can consider; she would like other departments to weigh in. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with review as long as Council's authority is not infringed upon. Mayor Spencer stated Council continues to give staff more work and should focus on priorities. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing staff to conduct a review of the current Council review process, the economic implications for the City and implications to the applicant, the ability to carry out some of the mandates for the development areas, and to bring a report back to Council on the implications of the processes as currently configured and any suggestions for improving the process. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with the caveat that staff review past processes and still recognize the authority of individual Councilmembers and that privilege that Council has. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated coming up with some way of reforming the process is still within the framework of Council exercising prerogative. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like Councilmember's to maintain the ability Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf |