pages: CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 19 | Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney's office would have to take some time to do additional analyses for any legal implications related to the takings clause; noting takings clauses are usually associated with zoning changes; questioned whether the takings clause still arises under the General Plan designation; inquired whether the City Attorney's office needs more time for analysis. The City Attorney responded that his initial read of the motion is allowing a wide range of commercial uses; stated the range provides comfort that there is the likelihood of a successful, defendable, takings claim; the more Council narrows the use, the more difficult it will be for staff to defend actions on a takings claim; staff cannot predict how a Court will rule in any litigation. Councilmember Daysog stated the commercial recreation designation in the General Plan is under the institutions category on page 51; the designation consists of two paragraphs, which do not reference housing; inquired whether the absence of any reference to housing means that there cannot be a reliance on the General Plan land use designation to seek housing. The City Attorney responded the absence of the reference does not mean housing is prohibited; stated many things are not prohibited but are not mentioned in the General Plan; the General Plan is a high-level policy document and is not intended to cover every detail; people will read the General Plan in conjunction with the zoning ordinance to determine what can be done; Council can set specific policy which creates limits as proposed by Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any reason why Council would need to approve the current motion; questioned whether it is possible to table the matter in order for further legal analysis to occur on the topic of the taking clause; stated the risks are high; given the magnitude of risk involved, he would feel more comfortable with tabling the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Councilmember Daysog can withdraw his second for the motion. Councilmember Daysog stated the matter will still need to return. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can provide staff with direction. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for providing staff direction; stated that he seconds the motion with a friendly amendment that staff perform further legal analysis to supplement the observations shared. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Council will vote on accepting the General Plan; if Council does not make the change, the General Plan will be approved as-is and the City will continue to have the issue; her preference is to hear from staff. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he recommends Council adopt the General Plan as-is with direction to staff to come back with additional analysis on the Harbor Bay Club issue; he shares concerns raised by Councilmember Daysog; Council should tread carefully; the Harbor Bay Club is a separate issue filled with legal implications on both sides; holding off on the General Plan to sort through the implications of the Harbor Bay Club would be a shame. The City Planner stated whether or not Council adopts the General Plan, if a residential Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 19 | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |