Alameda Planning Board Workshop on Housing Element and Zoning Amendments - March 14, 2022

The Alameda Planning Board held a workshop and public hearing on Monday, March 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM via Zoom. The primary agenda item was a review of the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report, draft Zoning Code Amendments for residential districts R-1 through R-6, and Design Review exemptions. No formal votes were taken; the meeting served to gather public and board input on two proposed approaches for allowing multifamily housing: a base zoning approach (Option 1) and a transit-oriented overlay district (Option 2). Staff presented the need to meet a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,353 units with a recommended 15–30% buffer (effectively planning for 6,100–6,900 units).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Zach Bowling suggested combining both options, concentrating housing near high-frequency transit but also considering eighth-mile buffers and other bus lines. He cautioned against over-relying on ADU projections and downzoning, citing legal risks under SB 330.
• Karen Bay emphasized fair housing, urging that Alameda Point be developed as a high-resource community with jobs, retail, parks, and healthcare to avoid repeating historical patterns of concentrated poverty.
• Christopher Buckley (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) objected to shifting RHNA targets, requested analysis of state density bonus impacts on historic districts, and questioned the necessity of broad upzoning given rising ADU production (78 units in 2021).
• Josh Geyer supported Option 2 (transit overlay) as more sustainable and efficient, but recommended a hybrid approach and extension to Bay Farm.
• Alex Sparrow questioned the effect of upzoning on historic buildings and suggested incentivizing facade reuse with extra height allowances.
• Drew Dara Abrams supported the R1–R6 zoning changes and the transit overlay, but asked to include ferry terminals and interlined bus routes in the overlay criteria.
• Dolores Kelleher (AAPS) opposed unlimited density, arguing it would invite state density bonus projects that could exceed height limits without guaranteeing affordable units.
• Sophia DeWitt (East Bay Housing Organizations) supported the staff recommendation and transit overlay but stressed the need to distribute affordable housing across all neighborhoods, including Bay Farm.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation (Andrew Thomas, Planning Director): Presented the annual report and housing element update schedule. Key points included:
  • The fifth cycle RHNA of 1,725 units was met, but affordable housing production fell short (15–25% deed-restricted vs. ~50% need).
  • Projected unit sources: ~2,100 from approved projects, 1,489 from Alameda Point, 1,200 from shopping center overlays, 300 from Park/Webster Street upzoning, 250 from northern waterfront sites, 60 ADUs/year (conservative), and 9 SB9 units/year.
  • A 15–30% buffer is needed to avoid net-loss penalties, requiring additional units from residential districts.
  • Fair housing: HCD’s opportunity map shows high-opportunity areas in east/south Alameda; most planned units are in low-opportunity areas (Northern Waterfront, Alameda Point).
  • Two multifamily options: (1) Allow multifamily by right in R3–R6, remove density limits, keep height/setback/form standards; (2) Create a transit overlay district (within 1/4 mile of high-frequency transit) allowing up to 45 feet and removing density limits, while restricting multifamily elsewhere.
• Board Member T: Asked about net-loss consequences and requested a city attorney opinion on whether state law overrides Article 26 (Measure A). Preferred Option 2 with a fair housing overlay allowing four units per parcel in high-opportunity areas, and urged removal of kitchen-based unit definitions and open-space barriers.
• Board Member Cisneros: Favored direct zoning code changes over overlays, citing a letter from HCD stating Article 26 is preempted. Supported a hybrid approach and emphasized equitable distribution of affordable housing.
• Board Member Hom: Liked the overlay concept but wanted a higher affordable housing requirement within it, and questioned definitions (shared living in M districts, religious assembly).
• Vice President Ruiz: Preferred direct zoning revisions for flexibility and equity, questioned the “kitchen” definition tied to unit count, noted the 1,000 sq ft limit on SB9 units vs. 1,200 sq ft ADU limit, and suggested reducing open space to 100 sq ft (market rate) and 75 sq ft (affordable).
• Board Member Rothenberg: Supported Option 1 (prescriptive approach), proposed extending the building code separation reference to R1, and suggested expanding design standard #17 to include seismic and fire safety for chimneys.
• Board Member Curtis: Expressed concern about traffic congestion and emergency vehicle access, urging a study of impacts before approving additional units.
• President Saheba: Supported the transit overlay but recommended extending it to Bay Farm and other underutilized commercial districts.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action was taken; the meeting was a workshop to gather input.
• Staff will revise the annual report to remove prescriptive language about zoning districts and incorporate board direction.
• Staff will continue refining the zoning amendments, with a second workshop on Park/Webster Street at the next meeting (March 28, 2022).
• The draft housing element (complete with all appendices) is scheduled for release on April 1, 2022, for a 30-day public review, followed by hearings in April/May before submission to HCD.
• Staff acknowledged the need to analyze state density bonus impacts, address fair housing concerns, and consider combinations of the two multifamily options.