Alameda Planning Board Meeting - February 10, 2020

The Alameda Planning Board convened on February 10, 2020, at 7:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. The board considered two major items: adoption of citywide Objective Design Review Standards (Item 7-A) and proposed text amendments to the zoning ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Item 7-B). Both items involved extensive public testimony and board deliberation. The board adopted the design standards with refinements and voted to recommend the ADU ordinance amendments to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

• No consent items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

Item 7-A – Objective Design Review Standards

• Dorothy Freeman (resident): Expressed strong support for preserving Alameda’s historic character. Praised the Mulberry (2100 Clement) project as an example of good design that fits the neighborhood. Urged the board to adopt recommendations from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).
• Greg Smith (architect, West Alameda Business Association Design Review Committee): Asked for stronger inclusion of West Alameda/WEBster Street design guidelines to prevent inappropriate development. Highlighted specific sections (1.89, 3.1c, 3.4) that needed tightening.
• Karen Lithgow (president, AAPS): Urged full adoption of AAPS’s February 5 and February 10 letters, stating the current draft still falls short of ensuring neighborhood compatibility. Used the metaphor of “frozen music” to argue for high architectural quality.
• Doug Biggs (executive director, Alameda Point Collaborative): Asked the board to delay adoption, citing insufficient input from affordable housing developers. Warned that the standards could add cost and burden, undermining SB 35’s intent.
• Kathleen Mertz (director of housing authority): Requested a continuation for further review of cost implications. Noted that Everett Commons cost about $1 million per unit partly due to design standards. Supported good design but urged balance with affordability.
• Danielle Thoe (Housing Authority): Argued that many proposed standards (e.g., recessed windows) lack objective safety or planning rationale given modern construction methods. Encouraged focusing on genuinely objective standards.
• Betsy Matheson (resident): Strongly supported detailed, prescriptive standards to prevent architectural surprises and preserve Alameda’s character. Suggested using Secretary of the Interior standards and avoiding 1960s stucco boxes as context.
• Christopher Buckley (AAPS): Explained that objective standards must be detailed to cover all variables. Clarified that the context section should use a majority-based rule for design elements (roof, materials) rather than picking individual buildings. Asked for clearer boundaries for context (e.g., 300 feet or five lots).

Item 7-B – ADU Ordinance Amendments

• Kathleen Russo (architect, property owner): Objected that the 25% limit on multifamily ADUs (1.75 units, rounded down to 1) made her project economically infeasible. Suggested rounding up to allow two units. Also raised concerns about short-term rental enforcement via platforms.
• Betsy Matheson (resident): Supported ADUs as a way to add housing in existing neighborhoods while preserving historic fabric.

Discussion Items

Item 7-A – Adoption of Objective Design Review Standards Staff (Heather Coleman, planning consultant) presented the revised checklist of standards aimed at complying with state laws (SB 35, Housing Accountability Act) that limit city review to objective criteria. Key changes from the September 2019 draft included a neighborhood context section, added materials standards, and a menu of options for facade articulation.

Board members questioned:

• Board Member Saheba: Asked how context boundaries are defined (staff said it would be the entire block face and the block across the street; diagrams will be included).
• Board Member Curtis (president, absent): Noted through others that applicant could potentially mix styles; staff clarified they expect one context building to be used consistently.
• Board Member Hom: Supported the document but suggested revisiting within a shorter period than a year.
• Board Member Rothenberg: Concerned that the context section (pre-1942) might not sufficiently guide design; suggested using Secretary of the Interior standards.
• Board Member Kavanaugh: Raised lack of green/solar energy standards and asked if prohibiting vinyl siding might exclude future materials.
• Board President Teague: Emphasized the need for input from housing providers on cost, and that the state is moving toward applying these standards to all residential projects. Proposed a six-month review.

Item 7-B – Proposed ADU Ordinance Amendments Staff (Allen Tay, City Planner) presented amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 to comply with 2019–2020 state ADU laws. Changes included:

• Removing the 50% floor area rule for ADU size, setting a 1,200 sq. ft. maximum.
• Allowing ADUs on multifamily lots up to 25% of existing units or two detached ADUs.
• Eliminating owner-occupancy requirement for standard ADUs.
• No replacement parking required when converting a garage.
• Reducing processing time to 60 days.

Board discussion:

• Board Member Rothenberg: Asked about low build-rate (32 built out of 120 applications); staff cited high construction costs.
• Board Member Hom: Asked about solar panel requirement (state energy code); staff noted it’s mandated but costly.
• Board Member Saheba: Questioned interpretation of state law on “one ADU and one junior ADU”; city attorney said it’s read as alternatives (A or B).
• Board President Teague: Proposed amendments to allow rounding up for multifamily 25% (e.g., 1.75 → 2 units), allow two detached ADUs to be attached to each other (duplex), and remove the word “attached” where it referred to existing space conversion (a typo). Also raised concerns about lot coverage and design standards but withdrew the design amendment after discussion.

The board adopted these amendments.

Key Outcomes

Item 7-A – Objective Design Review Standards

• Motion: To adopt the February 10, 2020 draft of the Objective Design Review Standards, subject to refinement and amendment within six months with collaborative input from the Housing Authority and other stakeholders. The motion included an amendment by Board Member Ruiz to increase facade articulation requirements (instead of picking one option from a menu, pick two). Seconded by Board Member Hom.
• Vote: Unanimous (6-0, with President Curtis absent).

Item 7-B – ADU Ordinance Amendments

• Motion: To recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed ordinance with the following amendments: (1) for multifamily lots, the 25% allowance shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number (e.g., 1.75 → 2 units); (2) the two detached ADUs permitted on a multifamily lot may be attached to each other (i.e., a duplex); (3) remove the word “attached” in the section on converting existing non-habitable space (a typographical correction).
• Vote: Unanimous.

Other Actions

• Minutes of December 9, 2019: Adopted unanimously.
• Staff Communications: No actions; next meeting February 24, 2020 for a study session on general plan amendments and site A waterfront park.

Next Steps

• Staff will convene stakeholder meetings (including housing providers, AAPS, West Alameda Business Association) to refine the design standards and bring back a revised version within six months.
• The ADU ordinance as amended will be forwarded to the City Council for final adoption.