pages: PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2017-09-11 | 7 | Staff Member Thomas explained the options the board is considering. He said one way would be to have a two week call for review period, where the first call for review would have to be submitted within seven days. He said they would put in language that notifies all the council members when any council member submits a call for review. He said the other option would be to have a standing agenda item for recent board and commission decisions to provide an opportunity to call something for review. Board Member Sullivan said council members are elected individually to represent the community and does not see how requiring a second member would change the frivolity of some calls for review. Staff Member Thomas said that under the current system there is no way to have staff evaluate the merits of a call for review. He said it is the only place where one council member can determine what city business gets done or not, regardless of what business the council as a whole has determined is important. Board Member Köster said there needs to be a little bit of checks and balances. Board Member Burton said he would lean towards the plan where staff is notified for calls for review and staff notifies the rest of council. President Mitchell said he likes the staff recommendation, but recognizing the Brown Act issues. He said he wants to find a way to do this without adding more work for staff and council. Board Member Zuppan said that having the call for review discussion at city council meetings is the superior option because of potential timing issues. She said there needs to be time for people to do their research because most people do not watch planning board meetings. Staff Member Thomas said he hears a consensus to give council early notice of decisions and to have a standing item on the city council agenda to consider calling items for review. Board Member Zuppan said that there should be enforcement of the provision that requires a reason to justify calls for review. Board Member Zuppan made a motion to recommend moving the item to council as discussed with the parameters for the Brown Act included, the typos and process corrections offered including agendizing the item early in the meeting, and considering whether a similar process should be created for other boards in the city. Board Member Köster seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2017-4654 Approved Planning Board minutes Page 7 of 9 September 11, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-09-11.pdf |