Alameda Planning Board Study Session on Article 26 (Measure A) – January 13, 2020

The Alameda Planning Board held a study session to discuss Article 26 of the City Charter (commonly known as Measure A), which restricts housing to single-family homes and duplexes and caps density at 21 units per acre. The meeting was convened by President Curtis with all board members present. Vice Mayor John Knox White and Councilmember Tony Daysog (represented by Vice Mayor) addressed the board, framing the discussion as a workshop on the impacts of Article 26, not a decision on whether to put a charter amendment on the ballot. Planning Director Andrew Thomas presented a staff evaluation concluding that Article 26 is an exclusionary policy that hinders affordable housing, increases traffic per unit, and conflicts with state law. Over 30 members of the public testified, with opinions sharply divided between those advocating for preservation of Measure A and those supporting modification or repeal. Board members offered a range of perspectives, with some recommending removal of the multifamily ban while retaining density limits, and others urging further study as part of the General Plan update. No formal action was taken; the board’s comments will be forwarded to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

• None. The board did, however, consider a separate item under Agenda Changes: a request from Trumark Homes to change exterior materials on Block 6 at Alameda Point (60 townhomes). Staff deemed the change minor and consistent with the original design. The board concurred without objection, allowing staff to sign off on the building permit revision.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jerry Schneider opposed changing Measure A, arguing that Alameda is an island with limited egress and that the city is already doing its part with developments like the former Navy base and the cannery.
• Dolores Kelleher urged a more rigorous, balanced evaluation and supported the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society’s (AAPS) position for careful study.
• Kevin Kearney (City Auditor) raised concerns about insufficient analysis of infrastructure costs, traffic, and the lack of a transportation plan, and noted that only voters can change the charter.<br>
• Shannon Whitley worried that removing Measure A would lead to demolition of historic homes and that new construction does not match Alameda’s character.<br>
• Conchita Perales accused staff of bias (noting Andrew Thomas does not live in Alameda) and argued that new multifamily projects are ugly boxes, not representative of the staff’s slides.<br>
• Catherine Saxby noted her dense West End neighborhood already has diversity and urged waiting to see impact of existing projects before changing Measure A.<br>
• John Galloway requested a citywide data simulation to model impacts of development.<br>
• Marjorie Siegel stressed that infrastructure (transit, sewers, parks) must be in place before increasing density, and questioned the stability of housing demand.<br>
• Dorothy Freeman argued that Measure A protects historic character and that building more market-rate units will not create affordable housing; she favored workforce housing.<br>
• Steve Slausser said Alameda is already doing its fair share and sees no reason to change Measure A now.<br>
• Grover Wayman Brown (staff at East Bay Housing Organizations) supported removal, stating that exclusionary zoning has harmed low-income and minority communities and that his generation needs dense, affordable housing.<br>
• Bradley Potts (architect) noted that Measure A prevents him from adding an in-law unit to care for aging parents and favored modification or elimination.<br>
• Betsy Matheson argued that Measure A preserves existing affordable units in Victorians and that repeal could lead to displacement of low-income renters.<br>
• Karen Lithgow (owner of a Victorian fourplex) said historic buildings provide durable housing and that new apartment buildings are “styrofoam cup” structures; she opposed change.<br>
• Sharon Les raised that 90% of non-single-family zoned parcels are under 10,000 sq ft, implying that lifting Measure A would lead to teardowns.<br>
• James Snyder echoed concerns about character and the rush to change.<br>
• Paul Foreman accused staff of a biased evaluation, citing errors and noting that Article 26 has not hindered diversity—white population dropped from 90% to under 50% since 1970.<br>
• Karen Boudelier highlighted police and fire staffing shortages due to unaffordable housing and urged solutions for civic servants.<br>
• Mr. Gutlam (retired contractor) warned about seismic safety of the Posey Tube and lack of emergency water supply, supporting Measure A.<br>
• Jim Smallman supported Measure A but favored adjustments, referencing the AAPS letter.<br>
• David Burton (former planning board member, architect) advocated for modification to allow mixed-use on commercial corridors and transit-oriented development.<br>
• Joy Malloy (senior) wanted to legally rent a unit in her large home for income and care support, calling for change.<br>
• Laura Thomas (Renewed Hope Housing Advocates) urged repeal, stating Measure A has discriminatory effects and hampers affordable housing; she referenced a 1999 lawsuit against the city.<br>
• Christopher Buckley (AAPS) said the organization is open to modifications but needs a more rigorous analysis within the General Plan update; he emphasized that a charter provision acts as a firewall against short-term council decisions.<br>
• Kathleen Mertz (as a citizen) argued Article 26 has exceeded its useful life and should be removed from the charter.<br>
• William Smith (former county planning chair) supported repeal to allow business growth, attract state funding, and address climate change.<br>
• Doug DeHaan (former vice mayor) opposed change, noting that a 2010 Measure B to override Measure A was defeated 85%. He cited safety concerns with the Posey Tube and high per-unit costs of recent affordable projects.<br>
• Jay Garfunkel criticized the process as rushed and dominated by staff; called for a real workshop as part of the General Plan update.<br>
• Ruth Abbey supported modification, arguing the city should codify what it wants (historic preservation, density) and let voters decide.<br>
• Lynette Lee (Renewed Hope) agreed with staff’s findings and noted that nonprofit developers under Measure A built at only 30 units/acre, whereas Oakland builds 60 units/acre, doubling affordable housing potential.<br>
• Christy Cannon said Measure A needs revision to allow teachers, police, and firefighters to live in Alameda.<br>
• Jonathan Soglin (20-year resident, AC Transit commuter) called Measure A a blunt tool; the city needs surgical precision using design review and other tools.<br>
• Nancy Gordon (longtime realtor) blamed rent control, not Measure A, for loss of affordable units (2,700 units removed from rental market).<br>
• Elizabeth Green said the staff report is too heavy-handed and misleading; she supported AAPS’s suggestions to keep Measure A with modifications.<br>
• Carol Gotstein (former planning board member) argued Measure A stopped demolition of Victorians and raised safety concerns for disabled residents in high-density buildings.<br>
• Janet Gibson (over 80) shared historical perspective on Alameda’s population during WWII and urged preservation of all historic homes, not just Victorians.

Discussion Items

• Staff Report: Andrew Thomas presented the evaluation, explaining that Article 26 bans multifamily housing and limits density to 21 units/acre. He argued it is exclusionary, conflicts with state law, and makes housing more expensive because each unit must carry the cost of 2,000 sq ft of land. He stated that Measure A is not growth control—RHNA determines the number of units—but it forces the city to build fewer affordable units and more traffic-generating single-family homes. He noted that multifamily housing produces less traffic per unit and fewer greenhouse gases. He also warned that the next RHNA will be higher, and without change, the city will have to rezone more commercial land for housing, harming economic development. Thomas concluded that while staff will work with whatever charter remains, they recommend modification because Article 26 hinders the city’s ability to meet its general plan goals for affordable housing, traffic reduction, climate action, and economic development.<br>
• Board Member Comments: <br> - Teague began by separating the two parts of Measure A: the ban on multifamily (Section 26-1) and the density cap (Section 26-2). He recommended removing the ban on multifamily but modifying the density cap by area, keeping it in the charter to protect historic districts while allowing moderate density increases elsewhere. He noted that SB 330 prevents downzoning, so any changes are irreversible.<br> - Rothenberg supported AAPS’s recommendation for further study as part of the General Plan update, stating the discussion is premature and not urgent.<br> - Hom emphasized balancing preservation with current needs like climate change and housing crisis. He favored a nuanced approach—different rules for different areas—and suggested using form-based codes or FAR standards instead of a rigid density cap. He also called for more outreach to underrepresented groups.<br> - Cavanaugh echoed Teague’s views on Section 26-1 as a barrier and supported exploring historic preservation districts to allow other neighborhoods to share density burdens.<br> - Ruiz recalled the demolition of Victorians before Measure A but recognized that state law is forcing change. He stressed planning for safety, transportation, and multi-modal solutions, and encouraged breaking down the issue for voter input.<br> - Saheba noted his own experience living in a converted Victorian and argued that design review and other ordinances protect neighborhoods. He supported allowing multifamily in residential districts to avoid concentrating all density in a few pockets, which stresses infrastructure.<br> - President Curtis summarized that the General Plan should define land use, and Measure A should conform to it, not vice versa. He acknowledged the public’s fear that without Measure A, the council could upzone improperly. He suggested modifying Measure A to ensure the General Plan cannot be changed by politics, thus preserving trust.

Key Outcomes

• The board reached no formal vote or decision, as this was a study session.<br>
• The board’s comments and recommendations will be transmitted to the City Council for consideration as the council explores possible charter amendments.<br>
• A consensus emerged among several board members (Teague, Hom, Saheba) to recommend removing the multifamily ban (Section 26-1) while retaining or modifying the density cap (Section 26-2) within the charter, with area-specific adjustments to protect historic neighborhoods.<br>
• Others (Rothenberg) urged caution and more comprehensive study as part of the upcoming General Plan update.<br>
• The board approved staff’s handling of the Block 6 material change (minor design revision), allowing staff to sign off on the building permit revision without a formal hearing.