M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the Agenda Packet for the March 19, 2024 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
March 19, 2024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk ~
(858) 668-4535 or [email protected]
Item 5 - Amendments to Chapters 2.21, 13.12, 16.10, 17.02, 17.40, 17.46, 17.47,
17.48 and 17.50 of the Poway Municipal Code and the Master Fee Schedule Regarding Rehearing Procedures and Public Noticing
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
WendyK serman
Assistant City Manager
1 of 8
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
Chr~ ~
City Manager
March 19, 2024, Item #5
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jeffrey Schmidt
Qtul.erk
Agenda Item #5, Poway City Council Meeting 3/19/24
Monday, March 18, 2024 11:04:44 AM
eHmioatioo of rehearina.odf
I . You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important EXTER1 A · MA IL
Hello,
Please include these comments in the agenda packet for Tuesday's council meeting 3/19/24 . Let me know if the file opens ok for you.
Thank you.
Jeffrey [email protected]
Phone: 858-692-7664
2 of 8 March 19, 2024, Item #5
March 18, 2024
Jeff Schmidt
13712 Tobiasson Road
Poway, CA 92064
Poway City Council
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Subject: Poway City Council Meeting 3/19/24 Agenda Item #5 Council Members,
The arguments given to eliminate the rehearing process do·not outweigh the reasons to have a rehearing process. In fact, I argue that your points support reasons to not repeal the rehearing process because it rarely becomes an issue. However, if new and different evidence were to be uncovered, I would think that the City Council would be willing to consider it. Taking a matter to court is not an equitable solution compared to simply hearing the evidence. Ten days is not such a burden for the City to grant to the public in the spirit of fairness and openness.
Below are my direct responses to the agenda item discussion:
- Agenda Report, Discussion: "First, with respect to the rehearing process, it is only available where "new and different evidence not available at the previous hearing" is discovered within 1 O days of the relevant City Council hearing/decision. It is very unlikely that any such evidence would ever be discovered within 10 days of a City Council decision,"
o Yes, 10 days is a brief time to discover new and different evidence, however, this impossible prediction of future events is not a legitimate reason. And, if this is true, the small number of imposed re-hearings will not be an issue for the City. Also, there can be cases in which evidence is already known but not disclosed to the council. Ten days is plenty of time to ensure that this evidence is brought to light. Besides, ten days is not a significant amount of time compared to the overall planning process. - Agenda Report, Discussion: "and also unlikely that the very same City Council would reverse course on a decision that it just made."
3 of8 March 19, 2024, Item #5
o This is really a sad statement about our City Council but not a reason to eliminate the rehearing process.
Agenda Report, Discussion : " Indeed, there have been very few requests for a rehearing submitted in since the rehearing procedure was added to the PMC in 1998 (Ordinance No. 492), and City staff is not aware of any such requests that have been granted. Thus, City staff believes that the rehearing process is not an efficient use of City resources or the City Council's time." o Again, if this is true then this is a non-issue. However, in the rare cases that evidence is brought forth it would be important in all fairness to consider the new and different evidence.
- Agenda Report, Discussion: "Nothing about the proposed PMC amendment would change any aggrieved party's ability to (1) appeal any decision made by City staff or any inferior City body to the City Council (see, PMC Ch. 2.20) or (2) challenge a decision by the City Council in Superior Court" o Is the City saying here that the City would rather go to Court over issues that could be resolved by simply considering evidence and making an informed decision?
A particularly concerning issue for me personally is the approval of tentative tract maps.
However, my arguments extend to other decisions as well.
Ordinance reading:
SECTION 4: Section 16.10.060 of the PMC is hereby amended as follows, additions in underline, and deletions in strikethrough:
- "16.10.060 City Council action ReheariRg
4 of8
The City Council's action to approve, conditionally approve or deny a tentative map is final and effective upon City Council approval "i·tithin 1 O calendar days unless a request for a rehearing is filed in accordance 'i'tith Chapter 2..2.1 PMC." o There have been and will be more incidents of evidence not being brought to light in regard to tentative tract maps approvals. Housing projects are complex, and the Council is not all seeing. For instance, the Del Poniente homes got approved to be built directly on the ridgeline in violation of our Poway General Plan. Is the City now saying that they would not consider this information that such plans are in violation, even if the evidence had been brought to light within the rehearing process? And now with this proposed March 19, 2024, Item #5
change, no such evidence will be considered in the future unless the citizens take it to Court, a much costlier and time-consuming process? Here is a letter of comments generated by Al, which I find to be very informative:
A re-hearing process for matters heard by the City Council serves several purposes:
1. Ensuring Fairness and Due Process: Sometimes, during initial hearings, important information may be overlooked, or stakeholders may not have had adequate opportunity to present their views. A rehearing allows for a fair chance to address any such issues.
2. Correcting Errors: Mistakes can happen during the initial hearing process, whether they are procedural or substantive. A re-hearing provides an opportunity to correct these errors .
3. Community Input and Transparency: Re-hearing processes can foster greater community engagement and transparency in decision-making. It allows for additional opportunities for public input and scrutiny.
4. Legal Requirements or Obligations: In some cases, legal statutes or regulations may require a re-hearing process, particularly if certain criteria or procedures were not followed correctly during the initial hearing.
5. Appeals and Challenges: If a decision made by the City Council is challenged or appealed, a re-hearing may be part of the formal process for reviewing and reconsidering the decision.
Overall, the re-hearing process serves as a mechanism to ensure that decisions made by the City Council are thorough, fair, and reflective of community input and legal requirements .
In California, there isn't a blanket requirement for city governments to have a re-hearing process for matters heard by the City Council. However, there are certain circumstances where re-hearings may be required or recommended based on legal considerations, local ordinances, or city policies .
For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may require re-hearings if there are significant environmental impacts that were not adequately addressed in the initial hearing process. Similarly, city charters or municipal codes may include provisions for re-hearings under specific circumstances, such as when new evidence comes to light or when procedural errors occur.
5 of8 March 19, 2024, Item #5
Additionally, some city councils may have adopted policies or procedures that include provisions for re-hearings as part of their standard operating practices to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision -making.
In reading the last paragraph, I find it troublesome that the Poway City Council is considering elimination of the rehearing process.
These are all good reasons to keep the process and I believe outweigh the reasons given to eliminate it.
Jeffrey W. Schmidt
6 of8 March 19, 2024, Item #5
From: Jeffrey Schmidt
Subject: Please write and/or speak about Poway City Council, Agenda Item #5 Friday, March 15, 2024 9:51:08 AM Date:
Importance: High
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1-::XTERNAL EMA IL
Regarding Agenda Item #5, City Council Meeting, Tuesday 3/19/2024 The Poway City Council will hold a meeting on Tuesday 3/19/24. Agenda Item #5 is the public hearing for two proposed changes to the Poway Municipal Code. One of the changes is to repeal the ten-day period for the public to request a rehearing in cases where the City Council approves something without hearing all of the evidence. In the 10-day grace period, new evidence can be · provided to ask for a rehearing of the decision or matter in question.
Please write to the City Council. Letters due by or before Monday March 18 at 3:30PM. Repealing Chapter 2.21 (rehearing process) only takes away our second chance to raise issues about improperly planned projects and other approvals.
The council's arguments to repeal this code section is evidence of their disregard for our right to question and oppose their approvals.
A re-hearing process for matters heard by the City Council serves several purposes:
1. Ensuring Fairness and Due Process: Sometimes, during initial hearings, important information may be overlooked, or stakeholders may not have had adequate opportunity to present their views. A rehearing allows for a fair chance to address any such issues.
2. Correcting Errors: Mistakes can happen during the initial hearing process, whether they are procedural or substantive. A re-hearing provides an opportunity to correct these errors.
3. Community Input and Transparency: Re-hearing processes can foster greater community engagement and transparency in decision-making. It allows for additional opportunities for public input and scrutiny.
4. Legal Requirements or Obligations: In some cases, legal statutes or regulations may require a re-hearing process, particularly if certain criteria or procedures were not followed correctly during the initial hearing.
5. Appeals and Challenges: If a decision made by the City Council is challenged or appealed, a re-hearing may be part of the formal process for reviewing and reconsidering the decision.
Overall, the re-hearing process serves as a mechanism to ensure that decisions made by the City Council are thorough, fair, and reflective of community input 7 of 8 March 19, 2024, Item #5
and legal requirements.
In California, there isn't a blanket requirement for city governments to have a re hearing process for matters heard by the City Council. However, there are certain circumstances where re-hearings may be required or recommended based on legal considerations, local ordinances, or city policies.
For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may require re hearings if there are significant environmental impacts that were not adequately addressed in the initial hearing process. Similarly, city charters or municipal codes may include provisions for re-hearings under specific circumstances, such as when new evidence comes to light or when procedural errors occur.
Additionally, some city councils may have adopted policies or procedures that include provisions for re-hearings as part of their standard operating practices to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-making.
And then some city councils might repeal such a policy for the opposite reasons Jeffrey W. Schmidt
Preserve Wild Poway
Phone:858-692-7664
8 of8 March 19, 2024, Item #5