Loading...
1967-04-11 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD JOINTLY TUESDAY EVENING APRIL 11, 1967 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. ROLL CALL: Councilmen Bartley, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. The following members of the Planning Board were noted present: Messrs. Eric Essex, Victor L. Hanson, Jr., Carl W. Johnson, Herman J. Kihn and Melvin R. Sanderson, (5). Absent: Messrs. Jerry J. Holst and Milton E. Soma, (2). Also in attendance at this meeting were H. D. Weller, City Manager; Frederick M. Cunningham, City Attorney; Mark J. Hanna, City Engineer; Richard E. Watson, Assistant City Manager; Shirley H. Tennier, City Clerk; Donald F. Johnson, Planning Director; and Robert L. Venable, Assistant Plan- ning Director. Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of said Special Meeting to each Body had been acknowledged by each of the Councilmen and the members of the Planning Board and was on file with the Clerk and the Secretary, respectively. The purpose of said meeting was for the discussion and consideration of the proposed comprehensive planning study of the West End of the community and its possible extension to the entire City - and to take action thereon, if so desired. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1V President Godfrey stated this meeting had been called at the request of the Planning Board in its letter dated March 31, 1967, and which had been presented to the City Council at its regular meeting held April 4, 1967. He then briefly outlined the steps previously taken on the subject by the Planning Board and its Staff leading up to its request of January 12, 1967, that the City Council authorize sufficient funds for consultant services toward the preparation of definite land use and traffic circulation plans - with the emphasis on land-use economics. At the Council meeting of January 17, 1967, the request of the Board was given attention and the Board was authorized to proceed with its study within the limits of its present Staff and current budget. However, the Council also asked the Board to develop some speci- fic information with regard to consultant services and costs. Subsequently, Councilman Bartley was appointed to the Joint Committee charged with this assignment. On April 5, all members of the City Council and the Planning Board received from Planning Director Johnson a memorandum giving the Committee recommendations as follows: (1) A comprehensive Planning Study be ordered for the entire City; (2) The firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall be engaged; and (3) It be clearly understood that the fee would range approximately between S105,000 and 8150,000. President Godfrey stated he had prepared and submitted to each a set of four questions pertinent to this matter - and suggested the discussion be contained within the scope of these questions. (1) Does the City need a Master Plan? (2) If so, what portion or sections of the City should said Master Plan encompass? (3) What general qualities, requirements and specifications were desired in this Master Plan? (4) What future commitments would the City make to insure control and implementation of the Master Plan if and when it was adopted? At this point, Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, was called upon to indicate his thinking on the subject. He emphasized the great need for a Master Plan and stated the considerations for one arose from "so- called natural causes" - said causes being those over which the City had little or no control. Gen- erally, these had occurred in the West End. He pointed up the six major developments proposed or pending in the West End - (a) Alameda Campus of Peralta Colleges; (b) The so-called "Whale's Tail" area; (c) The Pacific Marina; (d) The Alameda Memorial State Beach; (e) The Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay and the Shore Line Freeway and (f) The development of Navy Housing on the site of the former Estuary Housing Project. Mr. Johnson said the questions to be resolved were: What would these developments do to Alameda gen- erally, and to the West End specifically, in traffic generation and in economic and social impact? These particular developments precipitated the Board's request for a West End study. He also com- mented that the corollary to these was the eternal question of what to do about Webster Street to enhance it as a market place. Further, there was the problem of the condition of some of the housing in the West End. As these problems were explored, more questions came up - it was not possible to determine how all of these items could be fit together - should the City be rezoning, should it be providing certain traffic arteries, or interchanges, or certain opportunities for commercial or resi- dential development in this area? Therefore, it was noted that this was a study beyond the depth of the small planning staff and its capability to explore the full range of problems and solutions. He felt the study had certain design parameters which must be considered in the way of economics and traffic circulation beyond that ordinarily sought in a Master Plan Study. These phases must enhance or add to the land-use element of this particular Master Plan. He pointed out the difficulties experienced by developers in the West End. Uncertainties, vague appre- hensions on how to handle the developments, have necessitated the need for a definite pattern which could guide the City in order to make the best use of both private and public pending developments. Mr. Johnson stated a consultant, in his research, would take a great deal into account that was not necessarily Alameda centered by giving consideration to external influences which would be brought to bear on the City of Alameda. Therefore, to confine the study only to the West End was rather ineffi- cient. The study should be broadened to the entire City - or, at least to the main island. This would gain much efficiency and the City would have a much better frame of reference in which to judge pending developments. If the City does not have a definite study in this respect, it still faces the same problems. It would simply have to continue with its present "problem-hoping" operation - not really knowing how the answer to certain problems now would possibly create new problems eventually or how it would answer problems yet to be developed. He felt, therefore, the staff needed some definite guide-lines to give the community - not only City Government but also private property owners as well. Mr. Johnson stated that in the specifications of the study, it had been stipulated that said survey 'must be oriented toward the private property owner to enhance his position - not necessarily to make his decisions for him, but to point out the best answers to his problems and to give him proper guidance, in order that he might capitalize on his present position for the benefit of both himself and the community. In response to President Godfrey's question, Mr. Johnson replied that the recommendation of the Study Committee was for a comprehensive study plan of the entire City and that the specific firm mentioned in his report be engaged. With reference to the Wilbur Smith & Associates' Report, Mr. Johnson remarked that it was prepared in 1960 and presented to the Council and Planning Board in 1961. At that time, the planning staff had no knowledge of the present connection of the Shore Line Freeway or the Southern Crossing in its pre- sently adopted location. Also, lacking at that time, the major traffic generators under consideration. Councilman Rose inquired if Bay Farm Island would be included in the study and Mr. Johnson pointed out that most of Bay Farm Island was under the aegis of a single developer and was probably not subject to any far-reaching or immediate control by the proposed consultant. In other words, the community of Bay Farm Island was already being handled by another consultant. The consideration of Bay Farm Island in the proposed study would include its traffic generation to the main island and also, its future land uses as far as economics were concerned. Councilman La Croix inquired how the City would hope to build into its study the traffic problems which would arise with the advent of the Southern Crossing, which would have a Bay Farm Island terminus, if Bay Farm Island were to be excluded. Mr. Johnson explained that-Bay Farm Island might be excluded only insofar as land-use recommendations were concerned. The traffic loadings from Bay Farm Island would have to be taken into account, as they affected the rest of the community. Councilman McCall commented that he believed all facts should be known - a thorough discussion had - and advice given by the City Attorney, the Planning Director and members of the Planning Board before any definite answer could be given to the question, "Does the City need a Master Plan?" Mr. Eric Essex of the Planning Board was called upon to summarize the Board's thinking. He stated the study originally started in the West End but as it progressed, the related problems grew to embrace the entire main island and, he felt, one could not exclude Bay Farm Island because it was certainly a part of the community. He pointed up that an investment in the review of any Master Plan should be made, possibly, every ten years. A community was subject to a number of forces from its surrounding area and he believed the City should re-invest in this procedure if it wanted to keep the existing essential attributes. He underscroed the need for a revised Master Plan and, perhaps, a review of said Plan periodically. President Godfrey stated he assumed that if the Council decided to proceed as recommended, the Commit- tee and Consultants would mutually prepare some type of contractual agreement. This would be presented to the Planning Board for its perusal, consideration and recommendation to the City Council. Then, if accepted by the Council, the Consultants would call for public hearings. It was agreed this would definitely be the procedure. Councilman Bartley then spoke on the subject. He called to mind the difficulties faced by property owners and developers in improving their properties, under the present Master Plan. He felt the zoning and pertinent regulations had caused much frustration in the development of Alameda in recent years because there was no foundation for determining what was good or bad for the City. Councilman Bartley stated that the Committee's discussions with the firm of Consultants had developed the fact that the Master Plan would be documented by Zoning requirements, by investigating the Building Code, the Use Permit procedure and the entire scheme of how the City would control the development of the Master Plan. He pointed out there would be within said document "recommended development standards and controls, administrative guides and procedures". He said there would be many other technical requirements which would be contained in the documentation of the Master Plan. Councilman La Croix inquired if there would be a moratorium on building during the period in which this study was going on. Councilman Bartley replied that the Consultants had been asked this very question and they were very much opposed to placing such a moratorium on construction in the City. President Godfrey asked if the Consultants had indicated how long it would take to complete their survey. It was answered that the first three months would be spent in making a detailed economic analysis and marketability study, traffic generators and all technical information from which the Traffic Engineers, the Planners and Designers would work. The next four months would be spent in developing material for the "conceptual" stage. During this phase the Consultants would conduct many public hearings and they would start assembling the "package". This firm believed that all segments of the community must fully participate in putting together this Master Plan, because they felt the success of said Plan depended upon the complete, intelligent acceptance by all the people of the City. The final phase would take three months to fully assemble the final product. It was brought out that the original time estimate was based on the West End Study - but if the entire City were included, it was felt it would take no longer than one year because, necessarily, most of the time would be spent in research of the entire community anyway. In response to the President's question, Mr. Johnson replied that he and his Assistant could make them- selves available to the Consultants only up to approximately twenty-five per cent of their time. They could not devote more time and still do justice to their regular planning and administrative duties. Councilman La Croix queried of the City Manager how the cost of this study would affect the tax base of the City. Mr. Weller explained how this project could be financed from the reserve funds, and pointed up the fact that there would be no necessity to go into the Capital Outlay Fund or to levy a special tax or go into a bond issue. President Godfrey remarked that he did not like the name "Master Plan" and he was hopeful the Committee might be able to suggest another name for such a document which would be more acceptable to the general public. The Planning Director agreed with this thought and pointed out this name was used merely because it was the generally-accepted term and everyone apparently understood what it meant. He com- mented the State enabling legislation used the term "General Plan" but he felt this, too, was not fully descriptive. Mr. Johnson said the Committee could probably recommend a more euphemistic name which would embrace "a comprehensive and general guide to future growth of the City of Alameda". City Attorney Cunningham pointed out that both in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances it was provided that one of the purposes of these regulations was to implement the official Master Plan. The Planning Board, the City Council, the Staff and everyone who had anything to do with construction, zoning or subdividing, must give heed to the Master Plan and must attempt, through the zoning and building regu- lations, to adhere to said Plan. The implementation thereof was assured by ordinances already in effect. Councilman La Croix expressed his thinking that the study should encompass the entire City of Alameda. Councilman Bartley further presented his views on the subject and then moved that this Council (1) authorize a committee comprised of one Councilman, one Planning Board member, the City Attorney, the City Manager, the City Planning Director and the City Engineer to negotiate tentatively with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Planning Consultants, for the development of a full and comprehensive Master Plan for the City and to present a form of agreement with said firm for such services within the cost range of $120,000-8140,000 to this Council for its consideration and (2) that upon the completion of such Master Plan and its acceptance, after required hearings by this Council, that it be adopted by an appropriate ordinance and (3) that upon such acceptance and adoption of the new Master Plan, the Council enact an ordinance by which the City will commit itself to appropriate capital outlay, or other funds in an amount sufficient to carry out the public element programs or undertak- ings set forth in the Plan. Councilman La Croix seconded the motion. Speaking on the question, the President inquired about the specific amounts set forth in the motion and Councilman Bartley replied that the firm had indicated a "West End Study" would cost S80,000- 100,000 and the entire City would cost S120,000-8140,000. He stated many details would have to be worked out by the ComMittee to determine what type and how many plans would be required, what depth to go into, how many public hearings would be required, etcetera, to establish the definite cost after specific requirements were fully agreed upon. President Godfrey inquired if the Planning Board had taken any action on the Committee's recommenda- tion, as presented, and under consideration at this meeting. Mr. Essex, spokesman for the Planning Board, replied that this same report had been discussed and it was the unanimous agreement of the Board that it would support this recommendation. Councilmen Rose and McCall concurred with the need for such a study but raised questions about commit- ment at this time of the Council for expenditures at a later date as indicated in the "No. 3" portion of the motion. Councilman Bartley explained the proposed procedure of negotiations with the firm involved and the "intent" of this section of the motion to eventually assure that the Master Plan would become a reality. Mr. Essex further pointed up the need for an Impartial review of the community to give the City statistical information by which it could support its judgments on requested developments. He said he believed the firm in question was one of the best in California. It would still be the responsi- bility of the Planning Board to recommend, and the City Council to adopt or reject whatever was ultimately submitted by the firm's findings. Upon query by the President, Councilman Bartley said he would withdraw the No. 3 portion of his motion if agreeable to his second. Councilman La Croix concurred. Councilman La Croix then suggested that possibly in the No. 1 portion of the motion it would be wise to eliminate a specific cost as set forth therein - 3120,000-$140,000 - and determine upon said amount when negotiations had been completed. He then moved that this section of the motion be amended by deleting the phrase "within the cost range of 5120,000-$140,000". Councilman Rose seconded the motion. The question was then put on the amendment which carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Bartley, La Croix, McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None. Upon request, the Clerk read the motion as it had been amended. "(1) That the Council authorize a Committee comprised of one Councilman, one Planning Board member, the City Attorney, the City Manager, the City Planning Director and the City Engineer to negotiate tentatively with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Planning Consultants, for the development of a full and comprehensive Master Plan for the City - and to present a form of agreement with said firm for such services, to this Council for its consideration; (2) That upon the completion of such Master Plan and its acceptance, after required hearings by this Council, that it be adopted by an appropriate ordinance. COunciIman McCall moved said motion be amended to also delete item No. 2. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The question was then put on the original motion - as amended and with the withdrawal of Item No. 3 by the maker - and it carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President then asked that the present Committee members continue to serve as said Committee in this matter and added that he would appoint the City Attorney and the City Engineer to the membership thereof. President Godfrey explained that the meeting this evening had been conducted as a work session between the Council and the Planning Board, with no audience participation. However, he announced that as the study progressed there would be many Public Hearings during which all interested parties would be given ample opportunity to express their opinions. 2. At this point, President Godfrey stated that, if there were no objections, he would declare a recess, following which the Council would retire to the Conference Roam for an executive session. ADJOURNMENT: 3. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned. Respectfully submitt7d, J./ d.4--/Clerk (_0)