Stop, Drop and Roll

14 May 2007 | Alameda City Council, Alameda Community Development Forum | John Knox White

Mark asked

any comment on the technical argument that the Planning Board is acting outside it’s purview as defined by the City Charter?

The city’s charter says (I’ve bullet pointed it for easier reading and bolded the pertinent parts):

City Charter - Sec. 14-1. The City Planning Board shall have such powers and duties as may be delegated by City ordinance. It shall have power to investigate and recommend plans for

• the future development, improvement and beautification of the City, including landscaping, planting and care of trees on public streets, parks and playgrounds,
• the improvement and development of harbor facilities,

• the location and improvement of public buildings and works and

• the subdivision and zoning of land.

It seems pretty clear, that the Planning Board, in its attempt to discuss Measure A as it pertains to planning and development in Alameda, is well within its charter to have discussions on the issue, being that Measure A directly affects (for better and for worse) many aspects of plans for the future of the city.

There is an argument that the Planning Board’s decision to hold a meeting to discuss holding a meeting is one of policy that the council should give direction to. No argument there. I won’t be surprised when Council Member deHaan makes this argument tonight. I do hope someone asks him why he didn’t wait until the Planning Board had indicated what they wanted to talk about and what the end product of the meeting(s) would be.

Right now, we have an appeal and a call for review on an issue that hasn’t even been suggested, let alone voted on. Honestly, Council Member deHaan (and the bevy of past officials who lost in popular elections who filed their parallel appeal) pulled the trigger on this issue too early. You can’t appeal a non-decision, there’s nothing there to appeal.

For more info on the role of planning boards, as defined by law, the California Government Code, which is state law, also mandates that the planning board be involved in the General Plan process. Again, with an issue as entangled in planning and development as Measure A, it would almost be criminal for the Planning Board not to understand it in its current, 35-year old state. Relevant sections are:

65354. The planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption or amendment of a general plan. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission. The planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.

65356. The legislative body shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any. However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning commission for its recommendation. The failure of the commission to report within 45 calendar days after the reference, or within the time set by the legislative body, shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.

It should be an interesting meeting. I’ll be in the crowd, counting how many arguments against the Planning Board discussing an issue of public importance are actually made with reasoned, on-point discussions. (Don’t forget to drink everytime someone mentions the evil “developers.” Two shots if they manage to work HOMES into the same sentence.)