pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 14 | President Teague asked for clarification about the last City Council Meeting. The recommendation was not what he expected. Director Thomas explained the resolution on the Housing Element and the staff report had shown what they had done and had the language that had been removed. The staff thought it was an important decision by the Planning Board but it was the crux of the matter for the council as to why the issue was particularly difficult for the city. They had a conflict and the City Council was going to have to decide between state law and the charter. The staff report described the language that was taken out and why it was taken out. Then the Planning Board's version was also attached as well. He thought it was odd that the Planning Board's version was shown as a strikeout format, which was not how they usually did it. The item would be going to the council on July 6th. President Teague said unfortunately that did not answer his question, he felt that the board's time had been wasted. He added that the information in the staff report did not capture all of the reasoning of why they voted the way that they did. He thought there could have been a separate resolution that covered section 26 because there were very strong reasons as to why that language was struck beyond the legality reasons. He felt that when they passed a resolution that recommended that the City Council should do something he expected them to receive what the board said. There could have been a separate resolution that just covered Article 26, which should be covered by the City Attorney in terms of the legal opinion of if it did or did not preempt state law partially or fully. Director Thomas apologized that he felt they had wasted their time, he added that staff did not feel that it was a waste of time at all. The Planning Board held a hearing that provided an opportunity to hear from the public to learn and talk about these issues and the role of the Planning Board. They had told the council exactly what the board had recommended. He said explained that just because the Planning Board took a different position from the staff on whether Measure A is preempted by state law it didn't mean that staff would automatically change their position. President Teague said he understood all that, but the City Council could have taken an action on two different resolutions. The one the board recommended and the one that the staff recommended, as a separate item. He recommended that the City Council divide the issue when they heard it and then deal with both of them separately. He said another reason why it was done this way was to attempt to get 4 votes from the City Council, on the resolution that included the Tidelands Exchange and the Multi-Family Overlay because it did not approach the preemption aspect of section 26. Board Member Curtis felt there were two sides to the picture. He thought in talking to certain council members about this they were looking to see all sides of the issue. He also thought it was strange to have the strikeout version of the resolution as well. If the council was looking to see all pros and cons of the issue then having the information from both sides would stimulate a more vigorous debate. He saw both points and the middle ground was that the council needed all of this information. He saw there was no harm done and did not feel that it was a waste of time. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 14 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |