pages: CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-03-07 | 13 | with the inequity and would like to see the policy change implemented sooner rather than later. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter is no longer a referral, it is Council direction; he saw a flaw in the Oak tree situation in that the requirement of a stated reason was not present; the policy needs to be tightened up and Council has the opportunity to do that now; he does not agree with having two Councilmembers call an item for review; there has to be a mechanism of appeal that does not require two Councilmembers; the City has very strict guidance not to pre-judge evidence that comes from the review. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated having two Councilmembers call an item for review does not mean they are pre-judging an issue; saying an issue deserves a second look might yield a different result or make the project better after the second review; making the appeal process financially available to citizens is important; she strongly believes if people opposing a project do not have the financial resource to call for an appeal, that they could approach a Councilmember who could recruit a second Councilmember to call the project for review; these are reasonable questions with reasonable answers. Vice Mayor Vella stated she thinks there is a lot of presumption that more than one Councilmember is on board; it is not a huge ask to send the same request to multiple Councilmembers, as part of the due diligence when involved in a project; she is inclined to support the change, which is feasible, will strengthen the process and ensures there is merit to the calls for review. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; it is important to look at the facts; the Planning Board makes approximately 44 decisions a year, approximately 10% of the cases are called for review; changing the process would also be a Brown Act violation as Councilmembers can only speak to one other Councilmember; issues are worthy for Council to weigh in on; the Planning Board members are appointed, not elected by the people; the Council's opportunity to weigh in is a call for review; the only way to do the due diligence is for issues to come to Council; it is important for Council to protect said ability. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not suggesting Council does away with the process; more deliberation is needed; the call for review for the cell phone project was an exercise of a lot of time spent, when State regulations prohibited change; Council would have known if a second opinion was given. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council considering revising the call for review process to appeal Board and Commission decisions by requiring that two, rather than just one, City Councilmembers initiate a call for review and state a reason for the appeal. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 March 7, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf |