Loading...
1990-04-24 Special CC Minutes129 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APRIL 24, 1990 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with President Corica presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, Withrow, and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION 90 -289 President Corica adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session to consider: a) Guyton v. City of Alameda, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act. b) Labor Relations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act. * * * * * * * * 90 -290 Council reconvened at 7:52 p.m., and President Corica announced the action taken during the Closed Session, as follows: a) Guyton v. City of Alameda, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: the City of Alameda and Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement which resolves the lawsuit. b) Labor Relations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: [Council adjourned to Closed Session following the open session of the Special Meeting at 8:30 p.m., to discuss this matter.] President Corica stated that all of Council supports Measure A. He requested the City Attorney to prepare a ballot me &Sure to be placed before the voters; and stated he will be asking the Council to call a special election as soon as possible to protect Measure A; to downzone residential areas R -3, R -4, R -5 and R -6 to R -2, and residential area R -1 and R -2 in all commercial and industrial areas would be excluded from downzoning, and if a building containing multiple units is destroyed, it may be replaced to its density When it Was destroyed; and added an ordinance could accomplish the objectives but could be overturned by a simple Council majority. Councilmember Camicia stated Measure A could be protected immediately by taking immediate action on an ordinance and then reaffirmation during a reqularly scheduled election to protect Measure A from an act of future Councils; and he would like a report, the pluses and minuses thereof, on whether or not the April 24, 1990 100 matter can be accomplished with an ordinance, before going ahead with an expensive special election; have Council take a stand on the issues raised by President Corica, and reaffirmation during a regular election. Councilmember Camicia and President Corica agreed they would like the matter handled quickly. President Corica commented some voters may wish to work on a ballot measure. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90 -291 From City Manager regarding pertinent issues raised in the Council's review of the William L. Berg Appeal of UP -89 -21 and V -89 -9. James Kennedy, 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, commented he would like to encourage Council to consider the Appeal only on the issues and facts at the time of the Appeal; concurred with the staff report that Council should not adopt a new policy at this time because that would affect Mr. Berg's Appeal; the matter should be considered on the policy, rules and regulations that existed at the time of his application to the Planning Board. [Note: Mr. Kennedy believed policy excluded speakers during Appeals.] Bill Wire, 2153 Central Avenue, stated he believes it is vital that residents of that block [2100 block of Central Avenue] should be able to give input into the issue. Councilmember Thomas questioned if information faxed earlier in the day from the City Manager should be considered additional evidence. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes Councilmember Thomas has a valid point, but he thought the City Manager's memorandum was a recap of what transpired at various meetings held. The City Manager stated his memorandum [report and recommendation dated April 20, 1990] summarized what was discussed at Planning Board Meetings, and also the Housing Element, as requested by Council at the previous meeting. President Corica stated speakers cannot present new evidence, and expressed concern how that would be monitored. The Acting City Attorney noted Appeal packets contain Planning Board transcripts which can serve as a monitoring tool; also, Planning staff is present to assist Council. Following further Council discussion on the updated information received, the City Manager commented it was background material and not specific to the case. Councilmember Thomas stated she believes some information, e.g., April 24, 1990 131 statistics on Use Permits granted, applications approved, etc., now influences her decision as to whether or not this application should be granted; she does not know the circumstances or situations involved and does not believe she should have received the information at this point in time; and she believes everyone should be allowed to speak at the Appeal. In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Withrow, the Acting City Attorney stated, according to the Municipal Code, Council reviews the record of the Planning Board hearing, the Applicant makes a statement as to why he or she is appealing, and Council makes a decision based upon that. Councilmember Camicia stated Council essentially decides whether or not the Planning Board acted appropriately. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not see how Council can exclude people from speaking. Randy Reed, 2159 Central Avenue, stated he would like to make sure that if some people are allowed to present anything new, that others will have the same right. President Corica entertained a motion that Council continue with current practice [allowing citizens to speak under Appeals]. Councilmember Withrow so moved. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-292 From City Manager regarding landscaping at Harbor Bay Isle. Ron Lappa, 140 Gainsborough Court, commented the original landscaping concept for Harbor Bay Isle is great but he believes there were short term decisions made regarding the types of trees that were put in, discussed the size of trees to be put in, and stated he believes the issue is, probably, expense. Councilmember Camicia stated [moved] the same rules should apply to the Lantern Bay Appeal as determined under the previous item [Berg Appeal]; the old rules should be retained. Councilman Arnerich agreed. In response to President Corica, the City Manager described procedure used in replacing trees and commented that he believes Mr. Lappa's concern is the issue of cost versus aesthetics; and the Planning Board had asked for a 24 inch box size tree versus a 15 gallon container which is considerably less in price. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion to handle this in the same manner as the previous item. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. April 24, 1990 132 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION 90-293 President Corica adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 8:30 p.m. to discuss Labor Relations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act. [C].osed Session ended at 9:00 p.m.] Respectfully submitted, DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. April 24, 1990