1975-08-04 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD MONDAY - - - - - - - - - - - AUGUST 4, 1975
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p,m, in the Conference Room, No. 303, at the City Hall
With President COrica presiding.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Daiment, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
1. Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Meeting had been acknowledged by the Council-
men and was on file. The purpose of the session was for consideration of certain proposed public
improvements in connection with the Harbor Bay Isle project, and action thereon, if so desired.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. On request, City Manager Goss reported there had been some ongoing discussion at various
levels of public improvements in connection with the project, and it was appropriate to have a
work session to review some of the planning evolved so far and determine what steps may be
necessary by the City in terms of furtherance of the project. He noted the Recreation Commission
had viewed a schematic plan for the adjacent shopping center and the Design Review Board had
Viewed the plan of Harbor Bay Boulevard.
Mr. Ronald M. Cowan, Chairman of Harbor Bay Isle Associates, stated Utah International and Doric
Development had entered in to a joint venture in March of 1972 and had formed a joint partnership,
at which time title of the land was transferred from Utah to the partnership. He noted Utah had
S28,500,000 in the project at that time, Doric and Utah were to share expenses, and after the
Original investment had been returned to Utah, profits were to be split evenly. He said Doric
had run out of money one and one-half years ago, however the partnership was still in effect and
they had been borrowing from Utah. Mr. Cowan reported the partnership was administered by a
Governing Board of eight members, four from Utah and four from Doric, of which he was the Chairman
and had a relatively broad range of authority and responsibility, was allowed to commit any dollars
within the budget approved by the Board each year, and allowed to spend $150,000 on any single item
over budget. He said the Executive Committee consisted of himself and Mr. Alf Branden and they
had broader powers as a subcommittee of Utah.
Utilizing a posted land use plan of the Harbor Bay Isle project, Mr. Cowan reviewed the plans
dealing with the first phase of development bounded on the east by the new improved Island Drive,
On the south by the new Harbor Bay Boulevard, on the north by Street "C" and on the west by
Street "R". He stated their initial research led them to develop a style which would provide
the public with a sense of identity, as opposed to being one of many homes. He said they had
arrived at a concept of neighborhoods containing from 100 to 175 homes which would provide an
economic base for Home Owners Associations, and then group neighborhoods into villages and
villages into communities. He stated five villages were planned, each with its own land use as
far as type of home, and because of "Measure A» and the "R-l" zoning, they would all be single-
family homes of one nature or another, some cluster, some single-family detached, some placed
four to an acre, and others six to an acre, with prices varying from neighborhood to D8ighborh0Od.
Neighborhoods were to be divided by landscaped buffer areas, villages by arterials, and they would
be tied together with a lagoon system which would act as a circulation spine. Around the entire
perimeter of the residential area would be a major landscaped strip housing a meandering bicycle
and pedestrian path and a place to drive golf carts. This system would also be used along the
lagoon edge, with spokes coming out at intervals tying both together, which will mean one could
go from neighborhood to neighborhood and village to village without crossing a dedicated street.
To use an automobile, one must go to the perimeter and there would be no cross connection of
automobiles from one neighborhood to another or village to village.
Mr. Cowan noted the first permit received was the Planned Development permit for Village I for
711 units, followed by approval of the preliminary subdivision map for Village I and by a final
subdivision map and building permit issuance for the first eleven units, the model complex. He
Stated the final map for Village I was on file with the City staff but not yet acted upon; Village
II has had Planned Development permit issuance, preliminary subdivision map approval, and the final
subdivision map was in the process of being drawn up. He reported the shopping center project
was being reviewed by the Planning Board this date and approval was anticipated.
Mr. Cowan indicated that after coming across the Bay Farm Island Bridge, one would turn on to the
improved Island Drive, the two lanes currently existing would become northbound lanes, two new
southbound lanes would be constructed, and Island Drive would be dividied by a sixty-foot wide
planting median. He stated their goal was to provide a parkway-like appearance by landscaping
both sides and down the center, with an architecturally designed stone wall lining Island Drive
at its perimeter. He noted twenty-four acres had been reserved for a school site, which was
currently being planned, with construction to start in early 1976 and to be occupied in 1977. He
stated this would be a kindergarten through fifth grade school, would be a one-level construction
with wood exterior and pitched roof, and there would be playground area and a lot of green turf.
He stated Street "C" would then be constructed and the model complex representing proposed homes
for Village II would be located there,
Mr. Cowan stated the planned shopping center would contain approximately eight acres and they were
presently looking for more tenants and smaller shops; the average store would be under 2,000 square
feet with Safeway being the only major chain, and they planned to have clothing stores, flower
shops, dental, medical and attorney offices, and a Savings and Loan branch office. He reported
that currently 10,000 trips a day were going down Maitland Drive, most to provide service to
existing residents, and it was hoped to keep those trips on the Island by providing a broader
shopping service so the new residents would create a minimum of traffic impact.
Mr. Cowan noted home costs would range from $55,000 to $200,000. He continued by stating that
adjacent to the shopping center would be the six -acre park, and adjacent to the park site would
be Neighborhoods 1 and 2 of Village I, an adult oriented single - family clustered housing develop-
ment, where the purchaser would own the land under and in front of the home and the patio area but
walkways would be owned in common. He stated Neighborhood 1 would be reserved for adults over 18
years of age, the homes would be smaller in square footage, and over 50% would be one -story construc-
tion. Neighborhood 2 of Village I would be family oriented homes, primarily two and three stories,
leaving more open space for tot lots and play areas and children would be encouraged. Both Villages
I and II would share a common Recreation Center, or Country Club, which would provide 8 tennis
courts, a major adult education facility, both adult and family oriented pools, volley ball court,
beach area for swimming, and docks for sailboats. A lagoon system will be installed in the first
phase from Streets "C" and "D" including a circulation system running along the edge of the lagoon
and pedestrian paths tying them all together.
On question, Mr. Cowan stated each Neighborhood would form its own Home Owners Association which
would deal with assessments and problems specifically within that Neighborhood; each Neighborhood
would have a representative on a Community Association having responsibility for the common areas;
and the Association assessment would approximate $30 per month. He said the cost for building
the Recreation Center would be included in the price of a home; however depreciation, staffing and
maintenance reserve would be a part of the makeup of the dues. Also, there would be a private
security force and they were working on a plan to put equestrian security personnel on the lagoon
area and the community circulation system. At the present time, it was thought the one Recreation
Center would also handle Villages III and IV; however if there were an indicated need, additional
recreation areas would be provided.
Mr. Cowan noted the building plan had been redefined over the past three years and it was their
opinion it met exactly what the citizens wanted; the density had been lowered to 3,000 dwellings,
all single- family housing and primarily lot and block, and presented an opportunity for the City
to add to its tax roll.
There followed discussion of pending litigation with the Port of Oakland. Mr. Cowan requested an
indication from the Council that it wanted to see Bay Farm Island developed in accordance with the
plans developed and approved to date.
Mr. Cowan reported Utah International had approved his recommended budget of $9,700,000 which
called for capital improvements to build Island Drive and Harbor Bay Boulevard, the lagoon system,
the model complex of Village I, pre- development dollars to do earth testing and schematic designs
for Villages II and IV, reclamation bonds, and overhead expenses for the next fiscal year. However,
he stated the approval was contingent on the following conditions. (1) The City commit itself to
purchase the park; (2) the City pay its share of the undergrounding for the utility lines on
Island Drive and Harbor Bay Boulevard and (3) the City improve the now existing northbound lanes
of the new Island Drive concurrently with the developer's construction of the two southerly lanes
and the addition of the planting median and landscape area.
On the park issue, Mr. Cowan said they felt this was a necessity even to existing residents, and
good economics dictated it would be better to install the park now rather than later because of
inflation. Concerning the improvement of the northbound lanes of new Island Drive, he said this
had never been a point of argument between the developer and the City. However, he stated, the
undergrounding of the utility lines posed a considerable problem. He estimated this would cost
approximately $425,000, of which $200,000 would be paid by the developer and $50,000 would be credited
by the Bureau of Electricity, leaving a deficit of $175,000. He said they were willing to finance
the $540,000 cost of the park and undergrounding deficit of $175,000 and work out a reasonable
long -term repayment arrangement. In this regard, he suggested they might consider an exchange
of properties or credit on future permit fees.
In a discussion of the undergrounding of utilities, Mr. Jack Shepard, General Manager of the Bureau
of Electricity, noted there were two parts to the problem. One is that the Bureau had a policy
following the Subdivision Ordinance wherein the developer put in the conduits, boxes, etc., and
the Bureau provided the wire, equipment and installation. Also, the Ordinance provided that any
major trunk lines need not be placed underground. He noted the point of contention was placing
the trunk lines underground on the two major streets; major trunk lines for Islandia and Casitas
were overhead. He stated the Bureau would like to see them placed underground, however, their
rate structure was not designed to cover undergrounding. He stated the rate structure was designed
to generate the excess fund which was transferred to the City every year; and if they had to spend
the extra $175,000, it would mean this year's net income would be short that amount unless the
rates were raised in order to generate the additional revenue. To do that, in view of the fact
that citizens had already experienced a 60% rate increase in the past year, would be unconscionable.
He said they had no objection to putting in the undergrounding, it was merely a matter of where
the money was coming from to pay for it.
Mr. Shepard stated the developer had already agreed to spend $200,000 to put in the conduits and
boxes. In addition, it would cost between $225,000 and $300,000 to purchase the wire, transformers,
switches, etc., and install them. Of this latter amount, he said, the Bureau was prepared to give
a credit of $50,000, their cost to relocate the pole lines, which left $175,000 which the Bureau
felt their customers should not have to pay.
Mr. Cowan reported it was not the developer's position the Bureau should raise its rates to pay
for the undergrounding, but that the City should consider it an investment in the future. He
repeated their offer to put the money up for all phases of the underground, except $50,000 and the
park and to finance it in such a manner so the City could look forward to increased assessments
and taxes to pay for it.
On request, City Attorney Stroud explained the legal position of the City.
In a discussion of the improvement of the northbound lanes of the new Island Drive, Council-
man Sherratt noted the City had plans to reconstruct these lanes in about four years, and the
City Engineer had indicated Gas Tax Funds would be available for this pUrpOse. On question, City
Engineer Hanna stated there was no objection to rebuilding concurrently with the construction of
the two southbound lanes, and it was his opinion the cost of approximately 50,000 would benefit
the present residents of Bay Farm Island.
On request, Mr. Cowan exhibited and explained a schematic preliminary plan of the new improved
Island Drive. He said Gallagher & Burk, Inc., had the bid with the contract deadline of August 8,
working drawings had been approved by the City Engineer and Bureau Of Electricity, except for
the actual light standards, and if all issues were resolved at this meeting, they were in a posi-
tion to be under construction on August 11. He noted the Design Review Board had approved the
designs of Island Drive and Harbor Bay Boulevard.
Concerning maintenance of the new Island Drive, the City Engineer stated the City would assume
responsibility for taking care of the median, pathway, bikeway and lighting, and everything else
would be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Cowan reported Harbor Bay Boulevard would be
an entirely new construction and after dedication its maintenance would be the responsibility of
the City.
City Manager Goss reported that should the Council take action approving the improvement of the
two northbound lanes of new Island Drive, this would require a modification of the Gas Tax Budget.
Councilman Diament moved the Council go On record approving the concurrent improvement of the two
northbound lanes of Island Drive. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and, on roll call
Vote, carried unanimously.
In a discussion of the proposed six-acre park site in the project, Recreation Director Grant
Mainland reported Mr. Abby of the landscape architectural firm and Mr. Barry, representing the
developer, had worked with staff. The proposal had been presented at a Recreation Commission
meeting and the Commission had expressed its interest but wished to take a further look at it as
there were questions concerning the parking area and how the building would be reached to provide
supplies and mai0teDaDcg. As to the estimated cost of $543,000, he stated this was a good 8St10dtg.
On question, he said it was his opinion there was a need for a public park in the area which would
also service the existing residents of Bay Farm Island.
There followed a lengthy discussion of the three projects and means by which they might be financed.
At its conclusion, Councilman Sherratt moved the Council commit itself to funding a portion of the
cost of undergrounding utilities along Island Drive, the oevelopment of an approximate six-acre
park adjacent to a proposed shopping center, and concurrent improvement of the northbound lanes
of Island Drive, as long as an equitable agreement could be worked out by the City Attorney and
City Manager, possibly in a swap of land, legal agreement on deferred payment, or some other
financial arrangement, but Only to these specific projects and not to further development on Bay
Farm Island. The motion was seconded by Councilman 82Cka0 and on roll call carried by unanimous
vote
ADJOURNMENT:
3. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk