1977-08-30 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY AUGUST 30, 1977
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall with
President Corica Presiding.
ROLL CALL;
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Sherratt, Tillman and
President Corica, (5) were noted present. Absent: None.
Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Meeting had been acknowledged by
the Councilmen and was on file. The purpose of the meeting was a work session to
discuss the combined land use plan, (CLUP) and action thereon, if desired.
`t 1. The Mayor noted this meeting was to be a work session, no public comment
would be heard as Element would be scheduled for public hearings before both
the Planning Board and the Council at a later date.
President Corica stated he was concerned about those portions of CLUP dealing
with the Fernside Extension which had been prepared prior to the March 1977,
election (Measure E). and had not been amended, references to the 1973 initiative
election (Measure A), and that some of those persons working on CLUP were
unfamiliar with the City. He stated a majority of the Council was interested
in seeing the draft before it went to the printer. He commented the copy
received was very difficult to read.
Councilman Tillman called attention to page 123 which showed proposed roads and
included the Fernside Extension.
Planning Director Patterson introduced Elaine Costello, who had prepared the High
Street corridor section of the report, and she explained the printed report would
be twice the size of the copy the Council had received. She noted the references
to Fernside were prepared before the election and indicated those recommendations
were based on the technical review of the traffic patterns in the area. She
commented the wording of the initiative and results of the election were noted
in the report, and it would be the responsibility of the Planning Board and the
Council to direct implementation.
Mr. Patterson stated CLUP referred to Measure E and how it was stated in the
petition and the results of the election. He stated the technical data was
not changed by the vote which was overwhelmingly in favor of the extension.
He noted the question of policy, implementation and funding were now the concern
of the Council.
Councilman Diament stated there was no policy decision to make; it had been made.
On question from the Mayor, Mr. Patterson explained the proposed 14x17" size
was chosen to better illustrate the graphics of the report.
President Corica returned to the topic of the Fernside extension, and Measure
A and charged the report should not contain recommendations contrary to election
results.
The Planning Director noted the Fernside portion was a technical analysis and did
not oppose the vote of the people.
Councilman Tillman stated he did not feel the Council should be taking any
position other than informing themselves prior to the public hearings.
Councilman Diament noted the guidelines outline what must be done with regard
to traffic and asked the City Attorney if these must be followed regardless
of public expression.
City Attorney Stroud responded the guidelines were not that specific. He
stated it was necessary to look at the factual data available and try to
project for the future. He concurred that the policy decision had been made
and noted the question was one of implementation.
President Corica commented on references to Measure A and challenged staff's
listing of areas which could be potentially medium density development and
charged the staff was interfering with established policy and recommending
the question of Measure A be placed on the ballot again.
Mr. Patterson responded the staff's approach to Measure A had been to leave
it alone. He stated staff was not recommending an amendment to the ordinance,
that would be the prerogative of the people if and when they felt it was necessary.
He also commented that medium density does not reflect greater density than
was presently possible. Mr. Patterson reviewed the history of the proposed
Element. He noted the planning had begun in 1974 with the Goals Study which
was used as a basis to revise the Land Use Plan. Because of the court case
between the Port of Oakland and the City, the Open Space and Circulation
elements were included. In July, 1975 the City was allocated funds to revise
the Combined Land Use Plan, complete the Housing Element, conduct an Imageability
Study and complete various area plans. He stated two associate planners were
hired in October to work on the CLUP and area plans, but the court case caused
the emphasis to be placed on CLUP. In May, 1976, a sketch draft was completed
and reviewed by senior city staff. A second draft incorporating comments was
distributed and subsequent meetings were held. A presentation on the Bay Farm
Island portion of the plan was prepared and held in February, 1977; the High
Street Corridor plan prepared during March. During July & August of this year
intensive review culminated in the present document.
Councilman Diament questioned why the document had not been reviewed by Council
during that time. Mr. Patterson responded the approach taken on all Elements
was that staff developed each element and utilized the Goals Study as public
input along with several public meetings. City Manager Goss responded the
draft completed a year ago was not completed staff work and for that reason
was not transmitted. He noted a great deal of the report was technical data
and supplied for the purpose of information, in order for the Council to make
their decisions following the required public hearings.
Following further discussion of Measures E and A, Councilman Diament requested
the technical backup data be deleted and a summary of recommendations be
presented. Mr. Patterson commented that once the document had been printed
and copies distributed to Council, Planning Board and State Clearinghouse,
public hearings would be held before the Planning Board and City Council
and the document would be before the Council with recommendations of the
general public and the Planning Board. He stated the document remains in
draft form until the City Council adopts the final report taking all comments
and recommendations into consideration and making any changes it feels necessary
or desirable. Following adoption of CLUP by the City Council, all nine of the
state mandated Elements will be completed for this community, then normally
a summary document would be prepared reducing the elements to policy statements.
Mr. Goss noted for Council's information that evaluating comments and revisions
by Council may create a further delay in terms of completion of CLUP depending
on the amount and extend of Council's direction at this time.
Following a discussion of the City Attorney's concern, Councilman Diament
moved changes to pages 71 -72, 131 (twice), 127, 134 (twice), 135, 136 and 140
be made in concurrance with the City Attorney's recommendations. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Councilman Beckam questioned if the Council was preempting review, consideration
and action by the Planning Board and suggested staff be directed to review these
considerations. Mr. Stroud replied the Council would not be preempting the
Planning Board. Mr. Goss questioned if the City Attorney was still concerned.
Mr. Stroud replied if it was his understanding those items were to be deleted,
then he was satisfied. A discussion of the format, opportunity to amend and
procedure followed.
Further discussion of Measures E and A followed. Mr. Patterson and Mr. Goss
pointed out the technical information was provided to raise issues to evaluate
situations. Councilman Beckam noted consideration of Measure A was addressed
by the Goals Study Task Force for Housing and Physical Planning. Mr. Goss and
Mr. Patterson pointed out that staff is not advocating increasing density at
all and that maximum density allowable under Measure A is 17.5 per acre depending
on style of construction. Disagreement with the interpretations of the report
were expressed.
President Corica suggested the Council consider a motion on what to do about
the City Attorney's concerns, the Fernside Extension and Measure A. Mr. Stroud
requested the questions be treated separately.
Councilman Sherratt stated he would withdraw from action pertaining to the
document as he had been out of town and had not had an opportunity to thoroughly
review it, and did not feel he could respond.
Councilman Diament moved the references to the Fernside Extension be changed
to reflect the vote of the people. There being no response, the President
suggested he step down from the chair in order to second the motion. The
City Attorney indicated the President could second the motion. The motion
was seconded by President Corica.
CouncilmanBeckam stated he would abstain from voting on any motion because of
the present document's small print and lack of graphics. Councilman Tillman
expressed his reasons for voting no because he believed action at this point
would circumvent later review. The motion failed to carry on the following
roll cal vote. Ayes: Councilman Diament and President Corica, (2). Noes:
Councilman Tillman, (1). Absent: None. Abstain Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt, (2).
Councilman Diament moved that references to changing Measure A be deleted,
from the draft. The motion was seconded by President Corica and failed to
carry on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilman Diament and President
Corica, (2). Noes: Councilman Tillman, (1). Absent: None. Abstain:
Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt, (2).
On question from Councilman Sherratt, Mr. Patterson responded the document
would be printed after these corrections are made, printing would take about
one month, the document would be at the State Clearinghouse for 30 days and
then a public hearing before the Planning Board could be held; and estimated
75 -90 days prior to public hearings. The manner of printing was discussed.
2. Councilman Sherratt moved the Council retire to executive session to
discuss litigation and personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote.
3. At the conclusion of discussion it was determined no action would be
taken at this time.
ADJOURNMENT:
4. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Deputy City Clerk