2006-10-27 tcouncil - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

E. You see, if the Director takes action in 120 days and rejects the application, all right, then E kicks in; and then the private person can go to the Council and try to get a resolution. Right? And I would say, you know, without changing the language that if the Planning Director doesnt do anything in 120 days, then the person can go to the Council. If thats necessary to add as a clarification to E, thats fine as well. You can simply say that if the Planning Director rejects an application or if the Planning Director does not act within the 120 days, then the applicant takes it to the Council. Cause the Planning Directors inaction cannot override the Charter requirement, that either the Council or the Director are the only ones that can initiate a General Plan amendment. Plus the ordinance does give a recourse to the member of the public who has their application rejected by the Planning Director, they can go to Council. This is, again, the basic framework of this is the same as the current law; and its meant to have an orderly process. The public should first go to the Planning Director to initiate the amendment if they want to initiate it and then they can go to the Council. ALAMEDA:CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Thankyou,Mr.Chair.TheotherpointInoticedisthatintheproposed amendment, the limitation of initiating an amendment to exclude the comprehensive review period is deleted from the Council- and Planning Director-initiated amendments but retained in the general public-initiated amendment. Why is that? YUEN:The ordinance, Exhibit 3 says that the Council can initiate an amendment at any time except during, they still cannot do it during the comprehensive review after this deadline that I talked about. So at the very beginning in a comprehensive review, the Planning Director sends notice to the Council that, Hey, the comprehensive review is starting -. IWASHITA:Sorry, I would think the wrong one -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, would you like the Director to consider the language change on the inaction of the Planning Director? IWASHITA:I guess, well, Im bringing these things up, these are my present concerns. My main concern really is that we follow the proper process. I dont think, and I guess Id just like to make, get a clarification that we will get our Counsel to research and make a report to us on whether or not, you know, my technical kind of legal concerns are appropriate. ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe, are you comfortable looking into Commissioner Iwashitas concerns about protocol? TORIGOE:Yeah, sure. Just to clarify, youre mostly concerned about the second or third, the third BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, and the fourth, and the possible conflicts with the current General Plan procedure? IWASHITA:Yeah, the language Im concerned is BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the completion of the feasibility study and Planning Commission public hearing within 60 days from the transmittal of this resolution to the Planning Director, which is contrary to 16.2, and then the following paragraph which directs the presentation of an ordinance, proposed ordinance within the same time period. 12EXHIBIT B