Title
Objective Design Review Standards Study Session. The Planning Board will hold a study session to review and discuss the most recently adopted City of Alameda Objective Design Review Standards. Environmental Determination: Consideration of objective standards for design review is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), the common sense exception that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning
Body
To: Honorable President and Members of the Planning Board
BACKGROUND
In recent years, a number of new California laws have mandated that local agencies apply only objective design standards rather than subjective design guidelines to the review and approval of housing development projects. The use of objective standards is intended to streamline the review and approval of much-needed housing in the state. Objective standards are defined under state law as “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal” (Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(5)).
In 2020 and 2021, the Planning Board adopted and then revised a set of objective standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects:
<https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/building-planning-transportation/planning/objective-design-review-standards-adopted-2.22.21-with-formatting-revisions.pdf>
In December 2021, the Planning Board adopted a separate set of objective standards for one- and two-family residential projects under SB 9:
<https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/building-planning-transportation/planning/adopted-objective-design-review-standards-for-1-2-unit-projects-4-12-2022.pdf>
The Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards), as adopted, were mostly derived from existing design guidelines contained in the Guide to Residential Design (2003) and Citywide Design Review Manual (2013). Led by a Planning Board subcommittee, the work on Objective Standards focused on these common themes:
1. Facilitate good design
2. Allow architectural variety
3. Avoid excessive cost to housing construction
In terms of applicability, the Objective Standards apply only to certain housing projects that State law mandates to be reviewed against objective standards.
On February 27, 2023, staff requested that the Board provide direction on revisions to the Objective Standards and to establish a subcommittee to work with staff on the revisions. Rather than forming a subcommittee, the Board directed staff to facilitate a study session to gather Board and public comments. The Board also directed staff to solicit input from the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and other stakeholders.
DISCUSSION
Since the adoption of the Objective Standards for multifamily development in 2020 and 2021, the City has processed three applications for housing projects eligible for streamlined review:
• Block A of the Alameda Housing Authority’s North Housing project,
<https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/building-planning-transportation/planning/pln21-0414-north-housing-block-a-plans.pdf>
• Carmel Partners’ 227-unit infill apartment building within Admiral’s Cove,
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5922784&GUID=9BA1E941-5BC8-4711-AC3F-2A75F3B0AFF9&Options=&Search>=
• Trumark Home’s 90-unit townhome infill project at Grand Street and Clement Avenue,
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5952764&GUID=724A6E8F-4147-4923-A5DC-ED125150DAC7&Options=&Search>=
Meanwhile, due to a lack of SB 9 applications, the Objective Standards for one- and two-family dwellings have never been applied. However, these Objective Standards have been useful for staff and applicants on one- and two-family residential additions and other exterior building modifications requiring Design Review.
Staff-recommended Discussion Items
Based on staff and the Planning Board’s experience on the Objective Standards, staff believes there is potential for further refinement of the standards. In addition to lessons learned from housing development projects, there is new information related to climate change adaptation and resiliency which may necessitate reconsideration of certain standards. Staff recommends the Planning Board consider the follow list of revisions:
Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Projects:
• Standard 2B.c., Ground Floor Features, provides three options for walls facing a public street. Developers have advised that the permanent vertical trellis with climbing plants or plant material is something they can provide but it is difficult to maintain. Due to challenges of keeping the plants alive, often times there are portions of the year where plants are bare. Currently, a plant trellis is one of three options along with the options of providing a transparent window or decorative art panels or ironwork. Staff recommends either deleting this standard or providing an additional design alternative.
• Section 3, Building Orientation and Entries, requires that building entrances face the public street and include prominent doorways. Despite these requirements, some designs consistent with the current Objective Standards have resulted in unsatisfactory entries. For example, one proposal showed unassuming breezeways rather than prominent, identifiable doors. Other applicants have expressed a desire for building entries to face interior courtyards and parking areas instead of the public street and sidewalk. It’s worth considering how to achieve attractive and prominent entries that interact with the public realm. Staff recommends at a minimum identifying features that do not meet this standard, such as breezeways and secondary doors that do not function as primary entrances. Staff also recommends exploring possible exceptions for buildings that serve a special needs population where controlled access may be necessary adjacent to a back parking lot instead of a prominent entry facing the street.
• Standard 4A, Equivalent Façade Treatment, requires that buildings carry the same theme on all street-facing elevations, as well as on the first 10 feet of non-street-facing elevations. At the December 12, 2022 hearing for Trumark Homes’ 90-unit townhome project, Board members expressed concerns about the design of building facades that flank drive aisles. Staff recommends revising this standard to require equal design treatment on all building facades and further define what constitutes equivalent treatment.
• Standard 4D, Equipment Screening, requires equipment located on the ground floor to be screened or integrated into the design of buildings. Given the importance of electrification in the City’s climate resiliency plan, staff recommends revisiting the screening requirement to allow equipment such as electric vehicle chargers and electric heat pumps to be located on the front of buildings without screening.
Standards for One- and Two-family Projects:
• Windows: A frequent complaint received by window contractors and homeowners is the complexity of the City’s current design guidelines for windows. The Objective Standards for additions and new buildings on lots with existing buildings contain a number of requirements for window orientation, decoration, recess, and alignment. For example, these requirements often conflict with a homeowner’s desire to install cost-effective, non-wood windows that provide better waterproofing but do not provide an exact visual match with older wood windows. Staff believes the window standards and various acceptable installation methods can be further clarified, streamlined, and supplemented with illustrations.
• Upper-story Additions - F. Second-Story Additions to Bungalows: Second-story additions to existing one-story bungalows must be recessed at least fifteen feet (15’) from the front façade. Recently, the City has received applications for buildings with odd massing and proportions with bulky upper stories and cantilevered projections. This results in additions with massing inconsistent with the architectural style of the building, but which is still consistent with the fifteen foot (15’) recess criteria. Staff recommends adding provisions that address appropriate proportions for all upper stories on certain building styles.
• Standards for Raising a Building - B, Mitigating Design Treatments. The Objective Standards for raising a building incorporate the “Golden Mean” principle from the Guide to Residential Design. Staff recommends clarifying that Golden Mean applies only to certain architectural styles, specifically the Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styles, and other same-period styles with tall basements. Staff also recommends exploring additional design measures or exemptions for situations where raising a building beyond Golden Mean standard is inevitable, particular when high ground water levels make digging down undesirable or infeasible. In September 2020, the City produced a report on sea level rise and emergent groundwater (<https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/alameda-pio/slr2020.pdf>). This report included maps showing where groundwater is projected to reach the surface based on different heights of sea level rise. (<https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/building-planning-transportation/planning/item-7-a-odrs-revisions-board-workshop-exhibit-2-emergent-groundwater-maps.pdf>). This information, along with reports of flooding in habitable basements during this year’s winter storms, suggests the need to explore design options that avoid having to dig below the water table to create living space.
• Add Illustrations: Several parties have commented that the Objective Standards would be easier to understand with illustrations. Staff plans to add illustrations for key standards, including architectural articulation, window alignment, ground-floor transparency, and other standards.
• Design Review Ordinance: Staff is currently reviewing the Design Review Ordinance with the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether revisions to the ordinance are necessary to facilitate review of projects according to objective standards.
Public Outreach and Comments
Staff contacted stakeholders to solicit their input on any changes needed to the Objective Standards. These stakeholders included developers of affordable housing, such as the Alameda Housing Authority, and community organizations. Members of the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) were also asked for their input on the Objective Standards. As of the preparation of this staff report, the City received one comment letter from a HAB member in addition to comments from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society received at the February 27, 2023 Planning Board hearing (Exhibit 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of objective standards for design review is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), the common sense exception that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no climate impacts associated with holding a study session to discuss revisions to Objective Standards. Staff recommends revisions to the Objective Standards to address certain potential climate impacts such as emergent ground water.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and comment on the adopted Objective Standards and provide direction to staff regarding potential revisions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Allen Tai, Deputy Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation
By,
Henry Dong, Planner III
David Sablan, Planner II
Heather Coleman, Planning Consultant
Exhibits:
1. Public Comments