HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.04.06PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL STUDY MEETING
FOR DISCUSSION OF BAYFRONT ALTERNATIVES
APRIL 6, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.
Present: Commissioners Frank Cistulli, Jules L. Francard, Ruth E. Jacobs,
Everett K. Kindig, Charles W. Mink, Thomas W. Sine
Thomas C. Taylor was necessarily absent; Ruth E. Jacobs,
Chairman presiding.
Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner; John R. Yost, Assistant City
Planner; Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Commission received a letter dated April 6, 1978 from David Keyston, Anza
Shareholders' Liquidating Trust and discussed the mix of land use. The concepts
presented by Mr. Keyston were to reduce the traffic.
Commissioner Mink believed the Commission should focus on optimal development
for the long term. He felt widening Airport Boulevard is an issue of long-standing.
He did not believe the Commission was asked to consider procedures for current
applications. (City Planner thinks study area permits commit land use without
benefit of a Bayfront Plan.)
City Engineer Kirkup reported that the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission has
recommended that the street system provide not less than service level D;
development should be staged; and that City property should not be available
to State for a rest area unless the buttonhook freeway connection is also provided.
General discussion ensued.. Commissioners inquired about residential density of
other existing developments. The idea was expressed that the Bayfront area be
considered one big planned unit development. A plan might be selected and
subsequently determine the areas to be rezoned and what restrictions should apply
within said PUD.
Commission felt they should take a position on residential land use; optimize the
Bayfront for the benefit of the public by maintenance of park land and property
management for the public. City Engineer Kirkup felt that if the City took the
land and BCDC approval was obtained, we could get the buttonhook in three years.
Chairman Jacobs polled the Commission members to obtain their comments concerning
the Bayfront Alternatives. Commissioner Cistulli advocated Plan 3 with the
alternative that more open space be achieved by developing an 18 hole golf course.
Commissioner Francard gave support to Plan 4 with particular emphasis upon a
design for a well landscaped residential community on the present drive-in site.
He cautioned there should be adequate public facilities to serve any residential
uses.
Planning Commission Special Study Meeting
April 6, 1978
Page 2
Commissioner Kindig would favor something between Plan 1 and 2 with staged
development for other than residential land use. He was cautious about residential
because of the isolation on that side of the freeway, but if residential land use
were approved, he felt Plan 4 would be too few dwelling units. Commissioner Sine
firmly recommended Plan 2. He stated he thought the present zoning is okay and
no change is needed. He asserted there is no precedent for developing a territory
such as the south shore; we must do our own pioneering.
Commissioner Mink was inclined to support Plan 2 because he felt the property
should be self-supporting, with revenue being 10 percent greater than costs.
He stated the Bayfront is a unique area because it is close to San Francisco Bay,
and no residential use is permitted on State land. Commissioner Mink suggested
the following priorities: (1) public access and public recreational uses; (2) public
commercial uses for visitors and public enjoyment; (3) private commercial with
office buildings; and (4) a residential enclave but only if it is self-sustaining.
Chairman Jacobs favored Plan 4 or a modification with fewer dwelling units than
proposed by John Blayney Associates. She expressed the hope that the City would
maximize access, open areas for public use1and development that would.have low
visual impact.
Commissioners Jacobs, Mink and Sine asked to serve as a committee to represent
the Planning Commission positions with the subcommittee of City Council.
Commissioner Mink indicated he will attend meetings if Council members approve.
(Chairman Jacobs will attend meetings of committee and Council.)
In summary, the consensus achieved by this special meeting to consider the
Bayfront Alternatives was:
1. Maintain the open space character and provide maximum public
access to the shoreline and recreational areas.
2. Recognize traffic as the major problem with a need for staged
access to the property.
(a) Recommend staged growth.
(b) Permit mixed use with interim uses so that some development
may proceed as soon as possible.
(c) City is obliged to provide street improvements and services.
3. Planning Commission tilts toward Bayfront Alternatives 1 and 2 and
away from residential land uses.
4. Land uses in the Bayfront area should be self-sustaining (with tax
revenue greater than municipal costs).
(from notes
by Wayne M. Swan)