1975-07-24 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD THURSDAY - - - - JULY 24, 1875
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diam2Ot, Hurwitz and President Corica, (4), were
noted present. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). Design Review Board Members Nicol, Friedman,
Hanson, Tuchsen and Chairman Cervelli, (5), were noted present. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. HEARING: Consideration of amendments to Ordinance No. 1715, New Series, Establishing Structural
Design Regulations and Procedures, Creating Design Review Board, Providing for Membership, Powers
and Duties Thereof, and Requiring Submission of Permit Applications to said Board for Review of
Design of Buildings, Improvements and Structures Within City.
President Corica stated this meeting had been called in response to complaints of the citizens of
Alameda relative to the operation of the Design Review Board. He stated this meeting would be con-
ducted as a hearing, with staff and Design Review Board commenting first and then receiving comments
from those attending the meeting.
Planning Director Patterson prefaced his remarks with an explanation of the Urban Design Theme
as how a city looks and feels about itself. He stated Alameda has residential, shopping, college,
Naval Air Station and water and recreation oriented areas, Alameda has definite theme areas such
as the Victorians, the Gold Coast, Bay Farm Island and Ballena Bay. He stated Alameda/3 residential
areas were superior in design quality to the commercial ureos. He remarked that identification and
conservation of special character of an area is most important to a design theme.
Assisted by Planning Assistant Peter Braun, Mr. Patterson illustrated his remarks with slides
showing the various areas of Alameda, the variety of architectural styles, commercial structures
and signs, examples of modifications to residences showing how even minor changes can either enhance
or destroy the unique character of a structure. He also presented examples of commercial treatments
in other cities utilizing design control.
Speaking for the Design Review Board, Mr. Patterson stated the Board recognized that, because the
ordinance was a new one, it needed to be reviewed and modified. He summarized the Board's recommen-
dations, i.e., (1) Change the method for determining Design Review Board jurisdiction from "cost"
to "Use" and permit minor projects such as reroofing, carports, room additions, doors, lighting,
garages, porches, stairs, balconies, windows, etc, to be approved by staff. Any impasse would be
handled by the Board. (2) Since R-1 and non-R-1 single-family dwellings had led to some claims of
discrimination, allow the Board to review all permits for external work. All minor applications
would be reviewed and a ted upon by staff. (3) Modify the fee structure to charge $10 for minor
applications. (4) All signs to be reviewed by the Board with fees of $25 for signs costing more
than $1000 and $10 for signs costing less. (5) There currently is no time limit on approvals; the
Board suggested five years. (6) Make Design Review Board approval expire the same time and the
building permit.
Mr. Patterson suggested amendments to the Design Review manual could solve many of the concerns of
the citizens. He urged extending Board jurisdiction to cover single-family residences in order to
allow development of a design theme. In conclusion, Mr. Patterson stated three things could change
the face of a City; an effective sign ordinance, an Urban Design Theme and an effective Design
Review Board. He said he and the Board felt the city should develop, promote and preserve a unified
image of Alameda. This could be accomplished, without impinging on personal property rights, by
preserving the value of all property for all citizens,
President Corica opened the meeting for public comment and stated a five-minute time limit would be
imposed on each speaker. At the end of the public comment, he said, the Council and Board would
discuss amendments to the ordinance.
Mr, Robert Smith, 3530 Magnolia Drive, stated he had talked to a number of people since the last
meeting and suggested the Council not take action for 90 days in order to give people time to pre-
pare material on what they felt was wrong with the Board and its administration. He alleged the
Statement by Mr. Patterson presented only half of the story, the Board should not have anything to
say about types Of materials used in certain areas of the city, and the Board members acted capri-
ciously and out of their authority.
Mr. Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, related his experiences with the Board when he built a balcony,
including a railing. He objected on the ground that the balcony was in the back yard and not
visible from any of the streets. He stated whatever was done with the ordinance, it still had to be
administered by people with common sense.
Mr. Don Perata, 1608 Alameda Avenue, reminded everyone of the change in the community in 1973 and
stated the Design Review Board was an excellent step toward its improvement. He stated he would like
to see the problems in the ordinance ironed out and the quality of life in Alameda preserved.
President Corica stated passage of "Measure A" in 1473 prevented many of the problems the Design
Review Board was created to solve; and had "Measure A" not passed, there would be a greater need
for the Board.
Mrs. Emily Silva, 1094 Melrose Avenue, stated she lived in the Garden Isle Townhouse project, an
excellent appearing, well designed development which had been done without benefit of the Design
Review Board. She commended the make-up of the Board but expressed disapproval of Mr. Nicol's
actions. She indicated the Board should be encouraged as a forum for discussion and not a place
where edicts were handed down.
Mr. James 5mdllmdO, 2242 San Antonio Avenue, President of the Victorial Society, stated the
society considers both the Planning Board and the Design Review Board assets to the community.
He acknowledged the problems but expressed hope the difficulties could be worked out, and reminded
everyone it will take some time for the Board to have a visible effect on the community. While
some projects have been well done, he said, others have not. He commended the Board members for
their contributions to the community.
Mr. John Miller, 420 Cola Ballena, stated he had been to several Board meetings during a planned
expansion of the Ballena Bay development, and the experience had made him proud to be living in
Alameda. He said he believed we had a responsibility to future Alamedans to preserve what we
have and urged a strong and effective Board with some procedural Ckanges. He stated both he and
the Ballena Bay Association supported the Design Review Board,
Mr. Jack Dixon, 311 Grand Street, said he was partially in support of the Design Review Board
concept and reminded all those present that the recently completed Goals Study had some concep-
tions of the role of the Board. He suggested the Board be expanded to oversee signs and preserva-
tion of historical elements. He recommended removing smaller items from Board consideration which
would allow them time to concentrate on large developments and commercial areas.
Mr. George Gadsby, 1423 Cottage Street, stated in his opinion there would be two basic problems,
i.e., what we want to see in the visual impact of Alameda and money. He stated he would like to
see the Housing and Community Development Funds used for the preservation of homes in middle and
low income areas.
Mr. George Thenn, representing Arbor Development Company, stated his contact with the Board had
been early in its existence which might account for their difficulties. He stated he would like
to see people presenting projects be required to utilize appropriate professionals to prepare
their material.
Mr. William Thomas, 1918 Everett Street, said he was a roofing contractor and had been before
the Board on a reroofing project. He stated the Board had many little things which needed
correcting and this should be done without upsetting the entire community.
Mr. Robert Wood, 3150 Phoenix Lane, stated he had attended several Board meetings as an interested
citizen. He said the Board's approach at all meetings was serious, rational, fair, professional
and dedicated to improving the building and landscaping environment in Alameda. He commended
their efforts and urged the council to reinforce the Board's ability to deal with issues which
would enable the community to be a better place in which to live. On question from President
Corica, he stated he did not always agree with the Board's decisions. He observed many people
who came before the Board were not prepared, and defended the Board's suggestions on minor items.
Mr. Richard Roth, 1417 Fifth Street, stated he had become involved with the Board when he applied
for a garage permit. He related the procedure needed and suggested it was not the Board's fault
but rather staff's and partially Council's. He stated he felt he had done a good job on his house
but didn't want someone with taste different than his own telling him how to build his «araqe. He
Stated he respected the job the Board was doing and recognized it was difficult. He related his
observations, from serving on the Housing Task Force, that Alamedans like the variety of styles
available. He suggested the single-family residences be exempt, and the Board be a little more
tolerant of problems associated with both individual and business applications,
Mrs. Candy Gadsby, 1423 Cottage Street, stated they had recently purchased a home and were having
to do some work on it. She alleged if the Board had been in existence ten years ago, they would
not have had to do the work they are now compelled to do.
Mr. John Borni, Jr. , 1277 Bay Street, stated he was presently applying for a duplex to be built.
He related the ordinance required several items such as roofing materials and COlOrS. He alleged
staff and the persons who wrote the ordinance were the only ones who understood, or partly under-
stood it. He suggested the public be allowed to review ordinances prior to their passing.
On question, City Attorney Stroud stated that since this is a part of the Zoning Ordinance, a
public hearing would be required at both Planning Board and Council levels prior to passage of an
ordinance.
Mr. Robert Hutchins, 3319 Central Avenue, stated he had appeared before the Planning Board, was
referred to the Environmental Impact Board and saw the same mon. He suggested appeals be handled
in some other manner than that which now existed,
Councilman Hurwitz noted the ordinance provisions were appealable to the Council, not the Planning
Board.
Mrs. Madilyn Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated she was pleased to hear the changes proposed,
especially for minor improvements. She said she felt this kind of ordinance was needed but minor
applications should not require all the extra material, and the Board should not get involved in
giving aesthetic lessons to applicants.
Mr. Chris torpus, 509 Santa Clara Avenue, stated he thought by creating the Board, this would mean
only beautiful houses in Alameda. He called attention to the box-type structures being put up at
Eagle and Buena Vista Avenues and asked they not be permitted in Alameda in the future.
President Corica stated the appearance of those homes would be much improved by the time the work
was completed.
Mr. Gerhard D2g20aDD^ speaking for the Bonded Remodelers Council of Northern California, stated
his organization was formed to protect the consumer and to professionalize the remodeling industry.
He said his Council suggested a contractor sit on the Board, as architects are sometimes not as
aware of costs as a contractor. He asked more information on the items to be turned over to staff
and questioned who on the staff would do the reViewing.
There being no further speakers, the public discussion portion of the meeting was closed and a
ten-minute recess declared.
On reconvening, Councilman Hurwitz stated he would like to hear from the Board members in connection
with the complaints and suggestions which had been made. He indicated many of the problems could
be taken care of by amending the ordinance, and noted there had been some people very pleased with
the results of the suggestions made by the Board.
President Corica stated most of the complaints he had heard were from people in single-family homes
located in other than "R-I" zones, and for items which he considered trivial. He recommended that
all xR" zones be exempt and the $1000 exemption level be raised to $5000.
On question, Mr. Patterson stated the areas of shrubbery, paint, materials and roofs were very
sensitive in the community if it were going to adopt an urban design theme. He illustrated
several areas that could be considered to have established design theNes. He stated he is not
advocating establishing strict design limitations, however other communities in the Bay Area have
done this. He felt this was one way of preserving property values which might otherwise be adversely
affected by changes to neighboring property, and it was the community's choice as to which way to
go
Design Review Board member Hanson spoke regarding the importance of landscaping and shrubbery in
Creating and forming outdoor spaces, and stated the species and variety of plants was critical as
to how the areas developed. He related his own experiences with Casitas and stated the purpose
of the Design Review Board was to protect future residents of Alameda.
Board member Dave Tuchen reviewed the solutions suggested by the Design Review Board and expressed
his belief they would solve most of the complaints. In regard to signs, he suggested all signs
be under the jurisdiction of the Board in view of the coming sign ordinance.
A lengthy discussion followed covering exempt residences, the fee schedule, the need for the
Board to be established, individual property rights, voluntary neighborhood design themes, scope
Of the Board's power, concepts of urban design theme, and the effect of the Board on businesses
coming into Alam8dd.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Beckam moved that the necessary ordinance changes to
initiate the proposed changes be made and that the entire ordinance be reviewed in order to write
a better OrdiDdDC8. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz, and he requested a report on
the feasibility of Mr. Smith's suggestions. On the call for the question, the motion failed to
Carry on the following vote. Ayes: Two. Noes: Councilman Diament and President Corica, (2).
Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
Following further discussion on either including or excluding single-family residences from the
ordinance, action on this item was postponed and the City Attorney was directed to write several
alternatives to handle the "R-lx situation.
Councilman Hurwitz moved adoption of solutions Nos. 1 and 3 proposed by the Design Review Board
relative to minor application approval by staff and a $1O fee for minor applications, excepting
references to single-family dwellings. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried
On the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: NOOe, Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
It was the consensus of the Council that proposed solutions Nos. 5 and 6 relative to time limitation
and expiration date for Design Review Board approvals should be adopted.
Councilman Beckam moved solution No. 4 relative to signs be adopted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: NOD2,
Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
Councilman Hurwitz moved the meeting be adjourned until the draft ordinance was available. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
��'
Deputy City Clerk