Title
Objective Design Review Standards. Public hearing to consider revisions to Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards) applicable to Multi-Family/Mixed Use and One- and Two-Family Developments. Adoption of the Objective Standards 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 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.
Body
To: Honorable President
and Members of the Planning Board
From: Allen Tai
Acting Planning, Building and Transportation Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 26, 2023 the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider staff proposed edits to the City’s Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards). This public hearing was held after three study sessions throughout Spring 2023 with the Planning Board and Historical Advisory Board. The staff report for the June 26, 2023 Planning Board meeting can be accessed online at:
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6261881&GUID=D2B4C77D-604D-42E2-B739-9067633A6F3D&Options=&Search>=
After hearing public comments, the Board directed staff to incorporate edits into the Objective Standards and bring them back for Planning Board approval. Staff has incorporated the Board’s latest direction into the Objective Standards and is recommending the Planning Board approve the proposed Objective Standards (Exhibit 1).
DISCUSSION
Staff has made the following edits based on Planning Board direction and after further review of the Objective Standards:
Merging of Multifamily and Mixed Use Development and One- and Two-Family Dwelling Objective Standards
Currently the City has two independently adopted Objective Standards documents; one for multifamily and mixed use developments (Multi-Family Standards), and another for one- and two-family developments (SB9 Standards). Staff has merged these independent documents into one document and has reorganized its layout (Exhibit 1). The body of the Objective Standards are now separated into four sections: Introduction, Multifamily and Mixed-Use Development, One- and Two-Family Dwelling Projects, and Neighborhood Context.
Redline versions of the Multi-Family Standards and SB9 Standards have been provided as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively, as reference to show proposed edits incorporated in Exhibit 1.
Introduction
Staff has added a subsection that details the review process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and provides direction on where to find ADU development standards.
Multifamily and Mixed Use Developments
1. Façade Articulation, Standard 2A
The Objective Standards currently in effect requires façade articulation measures on all elevations visible from the street. Board members noted during the review of a project subject to the Objective Standards that this led to elevations that lacked articulation when located in the interior of a multi-building site. Staff’s original proposed revision reworded the standard so that requirements for articulation applied to all elevations of a building. At the June 26, 2023 hearing Board members expressed concern for instances when elevations are adjacent to narrow walkways and corridors, primarily that requiring façade articulation may cause building layout problems.
Staff’s recommended revision is to exempt the façade articulation requirements for side elevations that are within five feet (5’) of an interior property line or within five feet (5’) of the side elevation of a building on the same property.
2. Façade Articulation, Balconies, Standard 2A.5
The Board requested staff look at using a specific measurement for the required recess of balconies instead of a percentage of the balcony depth.
Currently, Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-5.12 requires private balconies be at minimum sixty square feet, with a minimum depth of five feet (5’), to be considered private open space. Staff proposes using these measurements to define the minimum size a balcony must be to comply with this standard. As a result, with a minimum depth of five feet (5’) the minimum 25% required recess for the smallest balconies will be fifteen inches (15”).
3. Balconies, Standard 4C.2
Staff originally recommended a standard that balcony railings cannot be 100% opaque. The Board expressed concern that applicants could propose a 99% opaque balcony railing and comply with the standard, but would not meet the intent of requiring open balconies facing a street. The Board recommended a standard that requires minimum 50% transparency for railings on street facing balconies. Staff has revised Standard 4C.2 to implement this recommendation.
4. Campus-Style Alternative Site Designs, Standard 6B.4
The Board requested staff include a wayfinding program on the list of required alternative design measures for campus-style developments that will not have a main building entrance facing a public street.
Staff’s recommended revisions adds a fourth required design element that a project provide a wayfinding program, and further defines that a wayfinding program at minimum must include one non-internally illuminated directional sign.
5. Board and Batten, Standard 7F.5b (Also Standard 3H.2 of the One- and Two-Family Dwellings Objective Standards)
Based on the Board’s direction, staff has removed the requirement that battens be located at minimum eight inch (8”) intervals on center.
6. Garage Door Width
In addition to the revisions based on the Planning Board’s direction staff has included a revision to Site Design, Standard 1B.2c. Currently the standard limits the width of rear and side garage doors to eighteen feet (18’). Shared parking facilities like a parking garage often have wider doors. Additionally, emergency vehicles need a garage door opening at least twenty-six feet (26’) wide in order to enter the garage. Staff is recommending revising the standard for shared parking facilities to provide for a maximum allowed width of twenty-six feet (26’).
One- and Two-Family Dwelling Projects
1. Raising a Building, Standard 10
The Board directed staff to add an objective standard that permitted the raising of existing buildings to create a full new story when the front entrance and stairs are relocated to the new lower floor. Staff’s recommend revision is to define two separate scenarios where raising a building is permissible, where each scenario has its own set of mitigating design standards.
The first scenario is the existing standard where the main entrance and stairs will remain on the original lower floor that is being raised. In such instances the project will either need to comply with the “Golden Mean,” where the new lower floor is no more than 60% the height of the floor above it, or provide all four mitigating design measures to preserve the appearance of the “Golden Mean.”
In the second scenario a building can be raised to create a new full story under the original building provide that it meets the following standards: The finished floor level of the new full story must be at or above grade.
a. The new full story must meet a minimum required ceiling height. Staff proposes seven feet and six inches (7’6”), which is generally based on the California Residential Code.
b. Porches and entry stairs shall be relocated to the new full story on street facing elevations.
Neighborhood Context
As part of the reorganization of the document to include both sets of Objective Standards the Neighborhood Context section has been moved to the end of the document, comprising sections 11 and 12.
1. Neighborhood Context Standards, Architectural Details, Standard 12D.10
Based on Board direction staff has expanded the number of required architectural details from two to four and has eliminated the option of the developer choosing two architectural details not listed.
Various Locations
Based on Board direction, where the Objective Standards refer to “vacant parcels” staff has revised to now read “vacant and/or cleared parcels.”
Next Steps
After the Board adopts the Objective Standards staff will continue working with a consultant to produce example illustrations as well as make format and text edits and other administrative clarifications as needed. Staff anticipates presenting a final version of the Objective Standards with example illustrations to the Planning Board in Fall 2023.
CLIMATE IMPACT
The adoption of Objective Design Review Standards are generally consistent with the City’s Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and do not present any climate impacts.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt both the Objective Design Review Standards for Multi-family and Mixed Use and the Objective Design Review Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, as set forth in the draft resolution (Exhibit 3).
Respectfully submitted,
Allen Tai, Acting Director of Planning Building and Transportation
By:
David Sablan, Planner II
Heather Coleman, Planning Consultant
Exhibits:
1. Draft Amended and Restated Objective Design Review Standards
2. Objective Design Review Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed Use (Redline)
3. Objective Design Review Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (Redline)
4. Draft Resolution