1987-01-16 Special CC Minutes14
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
JANUARY 16, 1987
The meeting convened at 3:00 p.m. with President Diament
presiding.
ROLL CALL:
RESOLUTIONS
Present: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Monsef and
President Diament - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Lucas - 1.
*87 -036 Resolution No. 11088 "Ordering submission to the electors
of the City of Alameda at the General Municipal Election to be held
in said City on April 21, 1987, an ordinance entitled, 'Traffic
Management Initiative Ordinance for the City of Alameda,' and
providing for notice thereof."
Walter Moeller, 406 Channing Way, Alameda Alliance of Homeowners,
stated he believes the language proposed for the ballot summary is
clear and is good for synopsis, but not for a summary; and
suggested other wording.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, commented that the phrases
"proposed use" and "land use entitlement" are too difficult for
voters to understand.
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, commented City Attorney's new
version is complex but better than the former one; and that she
likes the Homeowners Alliance summary best.
Jim Davis, 1134 Ballena Blvd., Harbor Bay Isle attorney, stated the
City Attorney's summary is factually and legally correct but the
Homeowners Alliance's summary is a mis- statement of the legal
effects of the ordinance and should not be on ballot.
D. K. Templeton, 376 Channing Way, stated the initiative title is
Traffic Management Initiative Ordinance and those who signed the
petition thought they were signing an initiative dealing with
Traffic Management and subsequent effects, and requested that the
words Traffic Management be included in the summary.
Councilmember Corica stated that Mr. Davis is correct, that what
Council has is legally correct; however Council is trying to get
something more simple; that Mr. Templeton's suggestion to include
the phrase "traffic management" should be used.
The City Attorney noted that land use entitlement is a term used in
the ordinance, and changing it now would be changing the ordinance,
when the public reads the words "acceptable limits of traffic," it
is very misleading for they will put on their own idea of acceptable
limits and not recognize the performance standards required in the
ordinance; that perhaps the term traffic management ordinance could
be put in at the beginnning, though it is not management.
Following discussion on details of summary wording, Councilmember
15
Hanna made and President Diament seconded, a motion that a
resolution be adopted with the wording, "Shall a 'Traffic Initiative
Ordinance' be adopted amending sections of the Combined Land Use
Plan of the City of Alameda to require that prior to the approval of
any large land use entitlement, all signalized or other major
intersections impacted by the proposed use be operating at Service
Level C, defined as an average twenty-five seconds or less delay
during the fifteen minute daily commute hour peak period, all as
fully set out in Resolution No. of the Council of the City of
Alameda?"
Councilmember Corica said the wording Traffic Managment Initiative
Ordinance was requested and asked it be included in the motion.
Councilmember Hanna commented he had been a City Engineer many
years, traffic was a strong area, and it is not a traffic management
ordinance.
Councilmember Monsef stated the title the people gave it should be
in the summary.
President Diament suggested it be put in as a title which would not
reflect whether it was correct or not.
Following discussion of detail, it was agreed that the summary
wording in the resolution would be as follows:
"Shall the 'Traffic Management Initiative Ordinance' be adopted
amending sections of the Combined Land Use Plan of the City of
Alameda to require prior to the approval of any large land use
entitlement that all signalized or other major intersections
impacted by the proposed use be operating at Service Level C,
defined as an average twenty-five seconds or less delay during the
fifteen minute daily commute hour peak period, all as fully set out
in Resolution No. of the Council of the City of Alameda?"
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
NEW BUSINESS
The City Attorney inquired if Council would require a City
Attorney's impartial analysis for the ballot.
City Attorney analysis was excused by consensus of Council.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully sumbitted,
e s6.
DJ B. FELSCH
City Clerk