John Knox White has spent a fair amount of bandwidth over on In Alameda talking about how the Kohl’s Call for Review went down. So, it turns out that it was Doug deHaan that made the Call for Review and there was some confusion as to whether or not the Call for Review (essentially the City Council’s version of an appeal without the need to pay the fee) needed to be in writing and whether the Call for Review was appropriately made.
But instead of just saying, “hey, I’m messed up, I didn’t realize that I needed to provide a reason why I am calling something for review, mea culpa.” Doug deHaan proceeded to go into a lengthy defense saying that he had told the Interim City Manager and the City Attorney was present and that at that time, neither of those two officials told him that it needed to be in writing.
Then the Interim City Manager chimed in to say that she didn’t realize that a call for review needed to be in writing and that she didn’t even know there was a form (yeah, I know!) for the Call for Review request.
Personally, it’s okay if someone like you (as long as “you” are not a high level employee of the City of Alameda) and me didn’t know that there was a form for the actual Call for Review process. After all, most of us have better things than to follow the minutiae of the City Council, but it’s a little more troublesome with our Interim City Manager who has been lauded for being practically super human doesn’t know that there is a form for the Call for Review.
And even if there wasn’t a form for a Call for Review, at the very least, if someone is going to initiate a call for review, isn’t important that a reason be stated for a Call for Review. And a valid reason. Not because of, say, someone didn’t like the pants that the applicant was wearing on the third Tuesday in December.
So, she even brought up the fact that Frank Matarrese had recently filled out the Call for Review form as part of the Call for Review for the convenience store/smoke shop on Park Street but that she didn’t notice it because she doesn’t look at every form in many packets.
Fast forward to the summary of this whole torturous conversation, it turns out that the reason that Doug deHaan brought it for review was because his memory was incorrect as to what the City Council direction regarding the early morning holiday opening times for Kohl’s was. He remembered that they had put a number to it (35 days) and even pointed the finger at Frank Matarrese as being the one who came up with the number. Frank Matarrese quickly corrected that he wasn’t the one to designate 35 as the number of mornings Kohl’s could open.
JKW has the video of both Doug deHaan’s reasoning last Tuesday for bringing the Call for Review, as well as the discussion from 2008 regarding this topic. But see, had proper procedure been followed for the Call for Review with the form filled out and the reason stated as to why the Call for Review was being initiated, someone could have reviewed that tape prior to the meeting and said, here’s what was decided, do you still want to move forward with the Call for Review? But none of this was done.
The most ironic part of all this, was the statement by Doug deHaan that Alameda is, in fact, business friendly. Even after he dragged Kohl’s through an hour long discussion over a handful of early morning holiday openings. I’m sure Kohl’s agrees wholeheartedly. This statement and insistence on wanting Kohl’s holiday opening hours limited to 40 days rather than allowing them to choose from November 1 to January 1ish which days they wanted to open at 6:00 a.m. came after Planning Board president Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft spoke saying that the reason why the Planning Board opted to allow opening for a designed time frame rather than a set number of days was because it would been more complex for the City to monitor compliance if it is 35, 40 or 50 days during the holidays. But setting a start date and end date makes it a lot simpler for the compliance officer and allows flexibility for the business.
And finally, filled under correct, but funny statements. Frank Matarrese asks for the minutes to reflect that the City Council was directing the process of the Call for Review to be properly memorialized so that it could be followed for future Calls for Review. Something I didn’t notice the first time I watched this part, but I found sort of funny on the second listen was that Frank Matarrese asks for this to be memorialized so that he doesn’t have “to try remember to remember two years later.”
Now recall that Frank Matarrese is termed out in November, but is running for Mayor, so either he has forgotten that he won’t be around as a Councilmember in two years or he is extremely confident about winning the Mayor’s race.
Or of course it just means that he intends to remain involved a la Barbara Kerr even if he is not elected, but the other two reasons are more amusing.
More likely, Frank wants to have the minutes reflect the memorialized of the Call for Review so he’ll have the dates correct when writing his commemoration to himself for his past service to the City in his autobiography.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 22, 2010 @ 8:34 am
Let me repost here when I said on The Island (in response to a petty criticism of Anne Marie Gallant), which is fundamentally relevant here:
Measure B lost by EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT — let me emphasize that since I guess it hasn’t quite sunk in. This kind of loss did not come about because of the undue influence of a few individuals — such as Anne Marie Gallant or Doug deHaan — so you can drop the personal attacks on both of them that you and John Knox White have been carrying on.
It’s interesting that Measure B required so much spin to promote it — apparently there weren’t that many good things to say about it, at least where the community was concerned. And when the spin fails, that leaves nothing but personal attacks to fall back on, which is what’s happening here.
The Election Reports that Ms. Gallant oversaw was objective and fair, and it pointed out, in objective and fair terms, the problems inherent in SunCal’s initiative. Please note that the Chamber of Commerce and Renewed Hope — obviously pro-development groups — produced their own analyses, which were just as critical. To put it in plain english, Measure B was an attempt to scam us, and we can thank all the people who saw thru that.
Please drop the small minded efforts to belittle people because they happen to disagree with you. In the end, you do nothing but belittle your own cause.
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
I’m looking forward to a similar treatment of Lena Tam’s comments during the Default Notice discussion, because — after all — she raised all those issues about the ENA that were OBVIOUSLY wrong! Didn’t she READ it?! Doesn’t she CARE?! NEVER MIND that it was 2:30 AM in the MORNING!!! (blah, blah, etc.)
The issues that Lena Tam raised w/ the ENA’s requirement for an MA-compliant plan etc. were in fact completely pointless, but my best guess is that Ms. Tam was raising issues that some constituents wanted to see addressed, so for their sake she went ahead with that, at length, even tho it was 2:30 AM — tho I can’t blame the city attorney for getting annoyed.
Councilmembers are supposed to represent constituents, that’s how it works — with or without the correct form.
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
#2: It only seems fair to post my “petty criticism of Ann Marie Gallant” to which you refer:
“Ms Thomas,
“It is deeply disappointing to hear someone say in all seriousness that Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant offers ‘real leadership in this town,’ when Gallant has tried to keep the inner workings of local government shrouded in secrecy, allowed the release of a purportedly neutral but clearly biased fiscal-impact report, and seems to think that a large part of her job involves land management.
“I suspect that you offer up Gallant as a ‘real’ leader mainly because she is in lockstep agreement with your vision for Alameda Point, i.e., keeping the Point the way it is, even if it means governance by fiat, conducting business in bad faith, and diverting limited resources away from more pressing concerns. This kind of partisanship is tiresome and counterproductive. Gallant is not a leader, and she is not the answer to ineffective local government: She is part of the problem.”
and my response to your comment:
“dlm,
“I am stating facts about Ann Marie Gallant’s actions and not making any ‘personal attacks’ of the kind you have just resorted to.
“Yes, I know that ‘Measure B lost by EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT’ — yes, that has ‘sunk in’ — but according to ‘The Island’ polling results reported earlier this month, just 40 percent of the 85 percent who voted against B did not like the land plan.
“With regard to the ‘objective and fair’ election report: An independent review commissioned by the Greenbelt Alliance ‘found that the election report relied on several worst-case assumptions. A more standard analysis would have likely revealed that [Alameda Point]‘s fiscal impacts would be either neutral or slightly favorable for the City.’ “
Comment by ct — March 22, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
ct –let’s get back to square one — blaming an individual, even several individuals, for the outcome of the vote is ridiculous.
You guys need a new script — tho I guess it’s a little late for that. Let’s see what SunCal plans to file as a compliant plan.
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
DLM, You could use a new script of your own.
This post concerns the Vice-mayor’s and the Interim City Manager’s joint failures to follow established and proper procedures. (And apparently the City Attorney’s failure, too, if you count failing to remind the Vice-mayor that a form needed to be filled out and submitted.)
This is not a matter of making personal attacks but of calling our elected and appointed officials to account for not doing what we, the voters, have elected them (or are paying them) to do.
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 22, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
Okay, so it’s 4:40 pm and counting. Will there a press release if SunCal files — or doesn’t?
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
DLM,
ICM’s use of worst case scenario on accessing SunCal’s financial projections in the initiative for amenities and other infrastructure is part of her record of action. Other than that I have moved on from the election when it comes to focusing on whether ICM should be retained permanently before the November election, or at all.
Based on consistent principle, I would expect average anti-megaplex activist (which may be before you moved here) to have trouble with ICM’s autocratic style with regard to things like the Down Town Plan for example. My reason is the lack of transparency and other things anti-SunCal activists have expressed concern about. ICM is not unfriendly to the principle of redevelopment and I believe she wanted the AP RD zone increments mixed with other RD zones, which to me is crazy whether you favor RD zones as a concept or not.
Rather than pro SunCal people having it in for ICM based on her actions in that process I feel that anti- Measure B people who feel ICM was on the right side in that battle now think she can do no wrong.
I’m with Jon on your script. For me SunCal default is it’s own issue. My computer clock now says 5:19, tic-tic-tic.
Comment by M.I. — March 22, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
I have a suggestion for an online poll directed at the city’s voters:
Which of the following is more important to you?
A. That the City Council takes my concerns seriously.
B. That city staff always uses the right form.
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Darcy,
write it as:
B. city staff and council follow the law as defined in the municipal code.
and you’re closer to the point. It’s not about a form, it’s about the fact that the law in Alameda requires that a Call for Review include “reasons and justifications,” so that those involved have some idea what the issue is about.
The fact that you’re arguing in favor of secretive and illegal council actions (whether intended or not) is rather surprising.
Comment by John Knox White — March 22, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
What is rather surprising is that DLM would think it matters what John Knox White writes about. His credibility is at 15% approaching zero. Nobody cares.
Comment by Mr. Simpleton — March 22, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
Music to read by…
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XODUxNjk5MTI=.html
Comment by Susan — March 22, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Yes, Mr. Simpleton, very true.
John: As I said before, once the spin campaign fails, there’s nothing left but personal attacks, absurd personal attacks at that. If you’re right, then why can’t you prove it w/out stooping to this?
Comment by dlm — March 22, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Darcy, what does this mean? Personal attacks? Prove what? stooping to huh?
Comment by John Knox White — March 23, 2010 @ 7:00 am
DLM: I realize that it makes you feel like the issue is not as important when you say that the issue is something as simple as not filling out the right form. But the proper procedure for a Call for Review is fairly important given that a Call for Review is essentially an appeal but without the fee that citizens like you or me have to pay.
The Municipal Code is fairly clear that both Calls for Review and Appeals must have a reason stated as to why the Call for Review and/or Appeal is being made. While I’m sure no one has a ton of sympathy for Kohl’s, if this were a private citizen whose individual construction project were being held up because his neighbor had a beef with it and then that neighbor managed to get a City Council person to initiate a Call for Review, without any hint of WHY the Call for Review were made, I’m sure the howls of outrage could be heard from the top of Mt. Trashmore.
Point is, there are rules, there is a process. Those rules and that process wasn’t followed. If our City Council can’t manage to follow the rules and procedures outlined in the Municipal Code, they have no moral authority to chastise businesses and citizens for not doing the same.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 23, 2010 @ 7:13 am