Alameda Planning Board Meeting – January 27, 2025

The Alameda Planning Board met on Monday, January 27, 2025, at 7:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers to discuss the draft Urban Forest Plan and an update on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. All board members were present, and the meeting was called to order with a quorum. The board approved the consent calendar and provided extensive feedback on both regular agenda items, with no formal votes taken on the discussions.

Consent Calendar

• The board unanimously approved the draft meeting minutes from December 9, 2024, and December 16, 2024.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Irene Dieter (resident) urged the plan to include a section with site-specific, easily implementable actions and a mid‑cycle progress schedule, noting that empty tree wells remain along many streets.
• Betsy Matheson (resident) emphasized that trees over pavement, especially on bicycle routes, cool the air and encourage walking and biking; she advocated for taller trees rather than short species under utility lines to meet climate goals.
• Christopher Buckley (resident) praised the plan but raised several concerns: the draft drops the previous Master Street Tree Plan’s designations of tree palettes for major streets, recommends 25‑foot maximum tree height under all utility lines (which could harm iconic streetscapes like Central Avenue), and contains inconsistencies in the tree species matrix.
• (No public comments were made on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance during the regular agenda period; one speaker addressed this item later, as noted under Discussion Items.)

Discussion Items

5‑A: Urban Forest Plan Review and Comment

• Staff (Danielle Mueller, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, and consultant Ryan Allen of Dudek) presented the draft Urban Forest Plan, which aims to guide the city’s tree canopy management over the next 10 years. Key points:
  • Current citywide canopy cover is 11.2%; the target is 20% within 30 years, requiring an estimated 9,600 new trees.
  • Three funding scenarios were outlined: an “enhanced business as usual” (current net planting of ~135 trees/year, reaching 14‑15% canopy), a middle scenario (adding $450,000/year for 115 net new trees, reaching ~18%), and a third adding an Urban Forest Manager ($250,000/year) to reach 20%.
  • The plan includes a priority planting score to address equity, as canopy cover is correlated with income and social vulnerability.
• Board members provided the following feedback:
  • Strong support for the equity focus and community engagement.
  • Concern that the 25‑foot height limit for trees under utility lines would prevent the large, iconic trees that define Alameda’s major streets (e.g., Central Avenue); urged retaining a street‑specific tree palette from the previous Master Street Tree Plan.
  • Suggested adding more site‑specific implementation actions and performance measures.
  • Recommended better coordination between the plan and design guidelines, and stronger tree preservation/replacement requirements for private development.
  • Advised that the tree species list should be treated as guidelines, not absolute, and that planting strip widths should be considered.

5‑B: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update

• Staff (Steve Buckley, Planning Services Manager, and consultant Rick Jacobis) presented the scope of work for updating the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. Current requirements: 15% inclusionary citywide (4% very low, 4% low, 7% moderate income) and 25% at Alameda Point; 55‑year deed restrictions (later corrected to 59 years). Since adoption in 2004, the program has produced 140 ownership units and 318 rental units.
• Key issues to be studied: adjusting AMI percentages (especially for moderate income), expanding in‑lieu fee options beyond small projects (5‑9 units), allowing off‑site or land‑dedication alternatives, and clarifying resale procedures for for‑sale units.
• Board members raised the following points:
  • Support for differentiating policies between rental and for‑sale housing, as economics differ.
  • Caution that moderate‑income inclusionary units may not be in high demand; suggested reviewing vacancy data.
  • Interest in allowing in‑lieu fees for larger projects and using fees to rehab existing units.
  • Request for clarifying how maximum resale prices are set and what happens if no qualified buyer is found.
  • Support for a flexible toolkit (off‑site, land dedication, shared equity) while avoiding inequitable siting.
  • Consideration of waiving inclusionary requirements for small projects (under 10 units) to encourage “missing middle” housing.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
• Urban Forest Plan: The board provided extensive comments for staff to consider; no vote was taken. The plan will continue through public workshops, a study session with City Council on February 4, and public comment through February 14, with a final draft expected in spring 2025.
• Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update: The board offered early feedback that will inform the ongoing work of a working group (including two board members). No vote was taken. The consultant will continue to develop options, and the item will return to the board for further discussion.
• Staff Communications: Noted recent actions and upcoming items including short‑term rental and universal design ordinances.
• Board Communications: Board member Ruiz recommended inviting the Urban Land Institute to provide educational sessions on housing finance and development; staff agreed to follow up.