1970-10-05 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING
BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA - HELD JOINTLY
MONDAY EVENING - OCTOBER 5, 1970
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen 'Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
On roll call by the City Clerk, the following members of the Planning Board were noted present
Messrs. Watson L. Butcher, Eric Essex, Herman J. Kihn, Ronald W. Matheson, Raymond Moser, Melvin R.
Sanderson and Chairman Lynne F. MacNeill, (7). Absent: None.
Also in attendance were H. D. Weller, City Manager; Fred M. Cunningham, City Attorney, John D. Goss,
Assistant City Manager; Irma L. Nelson, City Clerk, Donald F. Johnson, Planning Director; and Robert L.
Venable, Assistant Planning Director.
Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of said Special Meeting to each body had been acknowledged by the
Councilmen and the members of the Planning Board and was on file with the Clerk and the Secretary, respec-
tively. The purpose of the meeting was for discussion of four points in connection with future develop-
ment of the City and planning matters, as set forth herein.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. President La Croix read a prepared statement setting the format for the evening's discussion. He
expressed the opinion that the subjects for major concern were the question of residential densities and
controls over building architecture in the City, another in the area of the respective responsibilities
of the Board and the Council, particularly involving matters with regard to implementation of the General
Plan. He expressed the hope that it would be possible to develop at this meeting a framework for realistic
policies to control population densities and aesthetics, within the provisions of the General Plan prepared
by Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall in 1968. He said this was the law of the community and it must be
the basis for every action in zoning, variances, use permits or subdivision developments.
President La Croix expressed the opinion that it would be necessary to agree on procedures to be followed
in implementing the particulars of the Plan before considering the matter of policy. He pointed out the
Plan actually consisted of three plans the Trend, Horizon and Policy plans, which provided the desired
flexibility but also required that a particular choice must be made before the Plan could be used as a
guide to policy. He stated the members of the Council and of the Board had received from the staff reports
dealing with methods of General Plan implementation. He pointed out Ordinance No 1586, New Series, by
which the Plan was adopted on April 8, 1969, set forth the procedure to be followed in developing specifics
of the Plan and remarked on the questions arising in this connection. He commented on residential
densities, present zoning regulations and the matter of communications between the Board and the Council.
President; La Croix announced to those in the audience that the meeting was a work session, not a public
hearing, and no specifics would be arrived at or decisions made.
Chairman MacNeill of the Planning Board, on invitation, stated he shared the thoughts expressed by Presi-
dent La Croix and said he hoped this meeting would develop into additional sessions in the future between
the Board and the Council
2. -The first item to be given consideration was that of architectural and design controls. Mr. Johnson
was requested to explain restrictions of this type existing in the surrounding area and what had been
accomplished thereby.
Mr. Johnson stated cities generally were in design control and architectural review from several stand-
points, pointing out the City of Oakland had several design review zones of one sort or another, some
rather simple for staff determination and others in which the Planning Commission made a broad and sweep-
ing determination. Generally speaking, he said, design controls stemmed from zoning, the zoning ordinance
containing certain zones requiring design review which were levied on a piece of property. He pointed out
the only design review in the City of Alameda was the Planned Development zone, which was not actually
very broad or encompassing and generally concerned uses rather than architecture, although there were
definitely architectural overtones in the types of things the Board reviewed and required from a developer.
He said it would be possible to design review from several standpoints, such as by zones, from a preserva-
tion standpoint or by requiring such a review for certain things, like commercial structures, off - street
parking, residential structures, multiple residential structures only or broadening the present PD provi-
sions to apply in rather gross areas like over all the developing areas of Bay Farm Island or all of the
so-called Del Monte properties, et cetera.
Mr. Johnson pointed out the City of Fremont had a very critical design review requirement over all develop -
ers in commercial development. He said there were many different criteria which could be used for design
review but recommended the best way would be through the zoning ordinance for application of specific
design zones for Planning Board discretion or recommendation and Council ordinance;
There was a lengthy discussion with regard to setting up these controls with, possibly, an architectural
control board, participation by merchant groups and the Chamber of Commerce, the problems involved, the
type of instrument to use to accomplish the desired control and the enforceability of such an instrument.
It was agreed that a suggested policy had been projected and the Planning Director, through the City
Manager, was requested to furnish to the Board a proposal for study and consideration and eventual sub-
mission to the Council for possible action.
City Attorney Cunningham pointed out the City would not impose architectural standards upon existing
buildings insofar as reconstruction was concerned - it would not be possible to force owners, absentee
or otherwise, to tear down buildings and rebuild them to City standards. He felt sure this was understood
but it should be emphasized that the report would contain the same advice. He said Mr. Johnson had also
mentioned something very important, a strict program of building code enforcement, which was very difficult
to accomplish. He suggested if this was being considered, the Chamber of Commerce might wish to be so
informed and poll its members as to their thinking in the matter before the City staff was authorized to
start the program.
President La Croix suggested the Chamber be informed through the City Manager's office that the Planning
Board and the Council were desirous of moving in this direction and, at the same time, the Planning Director
prepare a report of facts and figures on the subject which the Board could start to study.
3. Consideration of population density standards was the next subject for discussion.
President La Croix stated this was a subject which was paramount in the minds of many people in all commu-
nities and there were trends in building which dictated greater density. He invited comments.
It was pointed out that density, per se, could not be said to be bad and this was something which many
failed to acknowledge. There were many developments of heavy density which were much more attractive
because of some of the design features and total development program, than lighter density type developments.
It was suggested that the City should look to the density in relationship to the services it must provide
and also to the economic feasibility of any development.
President La Croix stated he felt there was need for control of certain trends wherein they become an asset
to a community and not a liability. He said he felt the quality of life must be given consideration in
thinking of the density to be allowed in the City and that adequate and proper living should be provided for
people of all economic levels. He said at the same time he would like to see as little increase in density
as properly possible. He said he had found the trend throughout the State was going toward the garden -type
apartment in any numbers of units but always, under good controls, providing for people the right to enjoy
life, with lawn and play areas. He said he considered the Casitas Alamedas type of development one of
desirable dwellings, and yet it consisted of more units than previously seen in the City.
Mr. Essex expressed the opinion that the attempt at this meeting was to establish the beginning of a philo-
sophy in the direction of the quality of life to be lived by the people of the community. He said there
had been a "tug of war" to change the Alameda of the past, primarily a residential community in the center
of a nine- county complex, with tremendous pressures upon it to become other than what it was. The direction
it would take would primarily be up to the Council and the Board with the kind of leadership provided, the
decisions made and the kind of environment created. He said he felt that any plans which might come before
the Board or the Council would be economically feasible so the emphasis should be on the aesthetics and good
planning aspects such as density; it was the responsibility of the representatives of the community to be
sure that the community would continue to be one in which people would desire to live and one which people
could respect. He emphasized that he did not demean the economics of the situation at all.
Chairman MacNeill suggested the Board might be in a better position if it had some idea of the density
desired in the City or in a given area, in discussing with a developer the pros and cons of his proposal.
Mr. Johnson explained that basic provisions of the "R -4" and "R -5" zones had been changed some years ago,
reducing the density in the latter zone substantially and in the "R -4" somewhat. He said this pointed up
the main problem that the basic zoning ordinance actually dated from 1929. The subsequent ordinances,
adopted in the 1940's and the present one adopted in 1958, for the most part, actually liberalized the pre-
vious ordinances in the amounts of residential units provided. This basic ordinance would permit on the
old island, excluding the fill area, a population in excess of 200,000 people. He said this was basically
the problem as many people had had an investment since that time and it was extremely difficult to tell a
person who had had "R -4" zoning for these many years that now he had only "R -2". He suggested the problem
could be attacked from another standpoint, through the General Plan.
President La Croix pointed out Section 5 of the General Plan - Policy Plan Level of Development for the
City of Alameda - specifically what had been bought in the General Plan. He again expressed his thinking
with regard to density, that on any plan which might be presented in which the quality of life, the general
open area and the services to be rendered by the City were felt to be proper, he would undoubtedly vote for
it, regardless of the number of units per acre. He said he would have to see a plan for consideration
before he could take action and was of the opinion the other members of the Council felt the same way.
There was discussion with regard to the Letter of Understanding dated May 4, 1970, between the Alameda Uni-
fied School District, Utah Construction & Mining Co. and the City, providing for school and recreation
acreage allocations on the Bay Farm Island fill area. It was pointed out that the document was based on a
sliding scale of population, and that information on the subject was available through the City Attorney and
the Planning Director. It was emphasized that there had been no density implied in the Letter.
Mr. Kihn commented that if consideration was to be given to reducing the density in the City there were many
sections which should be rezoned, and this would cause dissatisfaction among land owners. At the same time,
he said, he could not see a lot on Santa Clara Avenue with 7,500 square feet and an old home, which would be
redeveloped with a single-family residence rather than an apartment dwelling.
There was discussion on the methods of accomplishing the desired density modifications. It was stated this
was a challenge as the Board was charged with implementation of the General Plan, with the support of the
Council.
Chairman MacNeill said he felt the Board would like to proceed with a comprehensive study of the various
ways of administering density in the community. President La Croix stated he felt that within the rights
of individual property owners there was a very thin path as to dictating what could be built in a zoned
area but there were other aspects which could be searched out as far as planning was concerned without
usurping the rights of the individual to develop. He expressed the thought that anything which could be
done to better the entire community and better the people living in it, whether another 10,000 or 15,000
people were added or not, would seem to be the task of the Board.
Councilman McCall called attention to the large parcels in the City, other than those on Bay Farm Island,
such as the Del Monte, Ballena Bay and others. He said he had received calls from owners of agricultural
lands on Bay Farm Island that they were being taxed out of business and were ready to give up. He said he
had been quite disturbed to hear this and felt these people should be protected, mentioning the Williams
Act. He commented also on the young people who had been forced to buy homes in other areas because of the
high cost of land in Alameda.
4. The next subject for discussion was General Plan implementation priorities.
Mr. Johnson stated it would be necessary in the near future to make some decisions with regard to the
general traffic circulation problems with or without the Southern Crossing freeway, also City capital
improvements. He said within the directions previously set out he could go a long way on the housing
element of the General Plan but he professed some lack of direction on the subjects of traffic circulation,
capital improvement and parks and recreation. He said there was a recommendation from the Board on the
agenda of the regular meeting of the Council the following evening with regard to the Zoning Administrator
system, which would implement a portion of the Plan; the open space requirement of subdividers, adopted
by ordinance some time ago, was a recommendation of the Plan and the open space zone which was created by
the City, by broad interpretation at least, was within the Plan.
President La Croix stated he knew very well how diligently Mr. Weller had pursued the subject of capital
improvements raised initially by the City Council - one brought up recently by Councilman Fore concerned
a new City Hall complex on which a study and report had been requested. He said the past summer he had
visited the City Hall complex in Victoria, B. C., which had been very attractively developed with a street
closed off to make a beautiful plaza. He said this was only a thought for consideration.
President La Croix also suggested the Victorian park be discussed for the preservation of some of the
history and tradition of the City, on which he had received a report from the Mayor's committee on the
subject.
The subjects of access routes and truck patterns were also mentioned as matters for discussion. Council-
man Fore stated he had tried for eight or nine years to get an industrial highway in the City.
Mr. Kihn remarked that if the plans for an industrial highway had been adopted as envisioned some years
ago, the Del Monte properties would be in trouble at this time. Mr. Johnson stated in future plans this
route would be called the North Side East-West Arterial.
Mr. Kihn said the discussion of priorities in connection with the General Plan brought to mind the Eighth
Street and Webster Street proposals and the Tube traffic. He pointed out that growth would come with the
new College, development of the Del Monte properties, et cetera. If something was to be done about traffic
from the Tubes, he said, he felt now was the time to start and he called attention to the plans presented
by the City Engineer some time ago in connection with this problem. He commented on the proposal of Mr.
Butcher that traffic proceed south of Webster Street and then through a tunnel behind the old Neptune
Beach property to Westline Drive to bypass the park area, also an overpass had been suggested on Webster
Street
President La Croix explained that when the Council had first seen the plan for Eighth Street it had felt
the proposal should be held fur further information from the staff.
In reply to a question, President La Croix stated that, initially, priorities should come from the Board
as the body charged with implementation of the General Plan. He pointed out that the Council, out of
necessity as to the availability of funds and the ability to proceed, would have to control the acceptance
of those priorities.
Mr. Essex suggested that the discussion illustrated the need for more adequate communication between the
Board and the Council. He said on many recommendations forwarded to the Council, the members of the Board
were never quite certain of the rationale which supported the Council action, particularly on reversals
of Board recommendations. He suggested if some form of communication could be developed wherein findings
would be attached to reversals, this situation might be corrected.
It was agreed that what was needed was a cooperative and coordinated philosophy between the Board and the
Council.
5. President La Croix stated the discussion seemed to have proceeded to the question of Council-Board
coordination. On the question of informing the Board as to reversal actions of the Council, he suggested
the reasons for Council action should be given greater emphasis and the staff should relay these back to
the Board, through the minutes and available information.
City Manager Weller, on request, stated, in the first instance, the Planning Board was not always right in
its actions. Also, he said, there was some agreement on the part of the staff that neither the Board nor
the Council, in fact, followed the direction of the planning ordinance in matters of rezoning, variances,
et cetera, so there was reason to believe that both bodies could be technically wrong from time to time
He expressed the opinion also that there was a substantial distinction between the role and the attitude
of the Planning Board as distinguished from that of the City Council. The latter is an elected body
which, in turn, appoints the members of the Planning Board and he felt this tended to presuppose the Board
follows exactly the direction of the ordinance, and they are in the position of "calling it as it is".
The City Council is not quite in the same position. The Board, first, should feel that it has done its
job properly in conformity with the law when it transmits its recommendation to the Council. Secondly, it
should not be overly upset when the City Council does not happen to agree with it. He suggested that a
review of the record would reveal that the batting average of the Board was quite high, that the percentage
of times when the Council overrides the Board's recommendation was quite small.
He expressed the opinion that there were these fundamental differences the Board has the responsibility;
of following exactly, precisely and cold - bloodedly the requirements of the ordinance. The Council may
have the same responsibilities but it does not have to do it and in some instances it does not do it.
Finally, Mr. Weller pointed out, there were frequent situations where the evidence submitted before the
City Council was not the same as heard before the Board; other evidence comes up, there is other testimony,
there are other arguments advanced which have not been heard by the Board. He said he did not think it was
remarkable at all that a completely different body, differently oriented, would come to a different conclu-
sion. He said he felt this was not unique as he had discussed the matter with other City Managers and Plane
ning Directors and had had experience in other cities and it was a very common situation that the Planning
Board is typically upset with the City Council because they do not bat 100%. He submitted that they should
not do so, because if they did there would be no reason to have an appeal procedure at all. He said he felt
it was a healthy situation where the City Council from time to time overrides the Planning Board. The Board'
job, essentially, was to call the case as the law provides.
President La Croix thanked Mr. Weller for his remarks and expressed the opinion that a point cleared up in
this discussion was that both Board and Council were going in the same direction and agreed on what was
desired for the community. He said he felt this would be a help in the future. He suggested the matter of
communications receive some attention.
Mr. Johnson stated he would take the major share of the responsibility in this matter. He informed the
Board of changes he planned in making his declaration of findings broader to give the Board more room to
make decisions so that the recommendations to the Council could be more in the form of positive findings.
He felt this would help in certain cases of appeal. Also, Mr. Johnson said, under the new ordinance just
proposed, appeal procedures had been somewhat restricted. If the Council should see fit to adopt the recom-
mendation on the Zoning Administrator proposal, it was possible that it would receive fewer matters on appeal
than formerly.
Councilman Longaker expressed the opinion that one of the best ways to coordinate Council and Board efforts
was for members of both bodies to visit meetings of the other occasionally.
After some further discussion, President La Croix expressed the hope that there had been a meeting of the
minds in this session as to where the City wanted to go on these matters. He said there were some items on
which information and projection had been requested of the staff for the Board and the Council He said he
hoped the Board and the Council members felt they were a supportive group, that he did not in any way mini-
mize the importance of boards or commissions within the City but honestly felt that probably the Planning
Board was the most important board, with all deference to the tasks of the Civil Service Board and the
Recreation Commission, and he wanted the members to feel they were a team.
Chairman MacNeill, on request, stated he would have liked to grope with some more specific problems this
evening and possibly in the future, if the Board was unable to resolve some of the priorities, -he might
request another meeting between the Board and the Council.
Councilman McCall remarked that he had been wondering what had happened to the proposed new post office in
Alameda, and about the rumor that the Department of Motor Vehicles would leave the City. He expressed the
opinion that the time had come when the Federal, State and County agencies should have some kind of rapport
with the City, through the Board and the Council.
Chairman MacNeill stated Councilman McCall had opened a subject he had planned to stay away from in this
meeting and this was the question of Planning Board involvement in the aesthetics and design of civic and
recreational projects in the community, post offices and this type of building.
President La Croix said the only thing that could be hoped for was to build the line of communication with
the City's representatives and hope they would keep the City informed. He recalled the circumstances
involving the proposal for a new post office on Webb Avenue some time ago.
ADJOURNMENT:
6. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council and the Planning Board
ing in joint session, adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk