Title
Objective Design Review Standards. Public workshop on revisions to Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards), which consist of a checklist of architectural and site design standards that will apply to housing development projects under State law. 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 as a separate and independent basis CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning
Body
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Historical Advisory Board
BACKGROUND
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 goals:
1. Facilitate good design
2. Allow architectural variety
3. Avoid excessive cost to housing construction
In terms of applicability, the Objective Standards apply to certain housing projects that State law mandates may only be reviewed against objective standards.
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. Applying the Objective Standards to real projects provided valuable information about how the standards were working and how they could be refined.
On April 6, 2023, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) held a study session on the Objective Standards. The HAB members who were present provided comments on the topics addressed in the staff report for that meeting. A video of the discussion is at the following link:
<https://alameda.granicus.com/player/clip/3123?view_id=6&redirect=true&h=d48f5a0254da4760665f8e8e2c3f3d65>.
On April 10, 2023, the Planning Board held a study session on the Objective Standards. Staff summarized the HAB’s comments to the Planning Board. Planning Board members provided comments on the same topics and brought up additional topics. A video of the discussion is at the following link:
<https://alameda.granicus.com/player/clip/3125?view_id=6&redirect=true&h=2d268d8d31e9621a2de2c06a791250ee>.
In the course of reviewing a development plan for a supportive housing project on May 8, 2023, the Planning Board heard a request to exempt future buildings in the project from certain Objective Standards or to revise the standards themselves. Planning Board comments from that meeting inform the revisions that staff is recommending.
DISCUSSION
Staff has gathered comments from the HAB, the Planning Board, the public, and affordable housing developers and drafted revisions to the Objective Standards. The proposed revisions for multifamily and mixed-use development are shown in strikeout/underline format in Exhibit 1. The standards for one- and two-family residential development are shown in strikeout/underline format in Exhibit 2.
This discussion follows the organization of the Objective Standards themselves, except that a few of the most minor changes are described in bullet form at the end.
Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Projects
Building Orientation and Entries
Main Entry Orientation
Section 3, Building Orientation and Entries, requires that building main entrances face a public street. Some applicants for supportive and transitional housing have expressed a desire for building entries to face interior courtyards and parking areas instead of public streets. Staff recommends exploring possible exceptions for projects not located along key pedestrian/commercial corridors where a campus style site layout may be preferred, and those that serve special populations, where controlled access may be necessary adjacent to a back parking lot and instead of a prominent public entry facing the street. See the discussion of campus-style developments below.
Acceptable Entries
Section 3 also requires that building entrances include prominent doorways. However, the City has received proposals that do not meet the main entry door standard and instead propose breezeways to access the building and site, and this seems to reflect a current common configuration of multifamily projects.
Planning Board comments on building entry requirements were mixed. Several members expressed a desire to retain the requirement for main entry doors. However, there was also a suggestion that breezeways might be allowed if framed and covered to make them more visible and prominent.
Staff drafted a new paragraph that would allow breezeways to serve as main entries as long as they are framed by vertical elements and covered by roofed projections at least 60 square feet in area. This is presented as an option for consideration.
Equivalent Façade Treatment
Standard 4A, Equivalent Façade Treatment, requires that buildings carry the same theme on all street-facing building elevations, as well as on the first 10 feet of non-street-facing elevations. Planning Board members suggested that the standard be revised to require equal design treatment on all building facades and expand what constitutes equivalent treatment beyond matching the color and materials to include other features. Staff proposes simply revising the introduction of Standard 2A, Façade Articulation, to require the articulation features on all facades instead of just street-facing facades.
Balconies
The design of balconies was a new topic raised at the Planning Board study session in April. A Board member suggested that balconies should be required to be partially recessed. This would avoid decks that appear to “hang” off the sides of buildings. It would also contribute to building articulation. However, requiring all balconies to be recessed could increase the cost of developing needed housing. Therefore, staff looked for a standard that could encourage but not require recessing of balconies.
Staff proposes limited balcony design standards that provide two options: either recess balconies or use materials other than solid stucco or metal “picket” railings. In addition, staff proposes adding recessed decks as one of the menu of options for creating building articulation in Section 2A, Façade Articulation. Rather than being an outright requirement, this would expand the options for creating articulation.
Neighborhood Context Standards
The Planning Board heard public comments and made recommendations related to the neighborhood context standards. Accordingly, staff is recommending revisions to several elements of the neighborhood context standards.
Traditional Design Area
The neighborhood context standards apply within the Traditional Design Area (TDA), which covers areas of the city with pre-1942 buildings. The purpose of the TDA map is to streamline the implementation of the Objective Standards. If a project site is outside of the TDA, the neighborhood context standards do not apply. In addition to the neighborhood context standards, the TDA also applies to certain standards for mixed-use development.
In response to public comments, the Planning Board directed that the areas around North Park Street be included in the TDA. Staff recommends including the Gateway, Residential, and Mixed Use subdistricts of North Park Street District, but not the Maritime Manufacturing and Workplace subdistricts, where the character is more industrial.
The Planning Board recommended that the stretch of Webster Street north of Pacific Avenue not be included in the TDA due to the characteristics of existing development.
Exhibit 3 shows the revised the TDA map reflecting these recommendations.
Applicability to One- and Two-Family Dwellings
Initially, staff had not included the neighborhood context standards in the Objective Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings because we expected that most of the “SB 9” projects subject to these standards would consist of small-scale backyard infill projects rather than larger-scale developments with greater potential visual impact.
In addition to a recommendation from the HAB, the Planning Board heard public comments and expressed support for the idea of applying the neighborhood context standards to one- and two-family dwelling projects if they are located at the front of lots. Accordingly, staff has added a section to the One- and Two-Family Objective Standards stating that construction of new dwellings on vacant lots (of which there are few in Alameda) or within 50 feet of an adjacent street frontage (i.e., the front lot line of an interior lot or the side lot line of a corner lot) and not behind another building is subject to the neighborhood context standards.
The proposed text revision simply refers the user to the multifamily Objective Standards. However, this revision suggests a possible reorganization to combine the two sets of standards, with subsections for one and two-family development, multifamily development, mixed-used development, and so on. Staff could undertake such a reorganization without changing the standards substantively. While major content changes to the Objective Standards need Planning Board approval, staff is authorized to make clarifications, formatting changes, and other minor administrative edits.
Options for Complying with Standards
The neighborhood context standards present four options for selecting a reference building or reference features:
1. Distinctive buildings, including Alameda Historic Monuments and properties designated “N” or “S” in the Historical Building Study List;
2. Predominant architectural style;
3. Adjacent buildings; or
4. Inventory of architectural features.
The HAB and Planning Board heard public comments that these options be placed in a priority order such that if a distinctive building exists in the surrounding context area (Option 1), that option must be selected. Staff has revised the text to require use of Option 1 if a distinctive building exists in the context area. If such a building does not exist, the applicant would be allowed to select from any of the other three options (2, 3, or 4).
Context Area for Commercial Districts
The adopted Objective Standards define the “context area,” from which architectural reference buildings can be selected, to include properties within five lots or 250 feet from the subject property. The HAB and Planning Board expressed support for expanding the context area for commercial districts to encompass the entire respective districts. Staff recommends defining the context area as the entire contiguous commercial district, though only applying this change to Option 1, Distinctive Buildings. Staff also believes this change makes the most sense for Park Street and Webster street (zoned C-C, Community Commercial and NP-G, North Park Street, Gateway) but not for “the stations” (zoned C-1, Neighborhood Business), as “the stations” encompass very small areas.
Ground-floor Height of Mixed-Use Buildings (and Defining Visually Prominent Streets)
Section 5B, Ground-floor Height, requires that ground-floor commercial spaces in mixed-use buildings be at least 14 feet high from floor to ceiling. This standard is drawn directly from guidelines in the Citywide Design Review Manual for the Commercial Block and Workplace Commercial building types.
The applicant for RESHAP, a campus-style supportive housing project, requested an exception to the minimum ground-floor height for nonresidential uses. This brings up the purpose of the minimum ground-floor height, which was intended for storefront development on commercial streets. In case of the RESHAP project, the nonresidential component consists of civic uses and will be located in the interior of the site.
Staff recommends refining the ground-floor height standard so that it applies only on high visibility streets in Alameda. The Street Classification Appendix to the Mobility Element of the General Plan (2022) offers a way to identify the streets most important for pedestrian orientation and strong urban design. The top two levels of street classification, Main Streets and Gateway Streets, would capture Park Street, Webster Street, and other visually prominent streets in Alameda such as West Atlantic Avenue within Alameda Point and Lincoln Avenue and Encinal Avenue at the Stations. The Street Classification Appendix would also be useful for identifying the primary street on corner lots, in order to apply standards such as garage entry location. Most importantly, by joining these requirements with the Street Classification Appendix would ensure that commercial space be designed with adequate ceiling heights. See Exhibit 4 for a map of the Street Classification Appendix.
Campus-style Housing With Services
Housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, as well as housing with care or supportive service components, can have special considerations related to physical access and resident safety. More internally facing site designs may be appropriate for these types of projects.
The City has received requests from project applicants for alternate designs that do not meet all of the Objective Standards. For example, the applicants for North Housing Block A, Habitat for Humanity, and RESHAP have proposed projects that have included assisted living, supportive and transitional housing, common open space, and services and programs for the residents, requested an exception to several Objective Standards, including the requirement for main entry doors facing the street, prohibition on unenclosed stairways on street-facing facades, minimum ground-floor height for mixed-use buildings, and the spacing of elements to break up blank walls.
Staff drafted a new section of the Objective Standards that would allow exceptions to these standards for projects meeting specific criteria. Such projects would need to include Supportive Housing or Senior Residential Care (Assisted Living). Such projects could use alternate site designs with main building entrances facing the interior of the site if they provided pedestrian pathways with prominent gate/entry features at the public sidewalk instead. See details of the proposal in Section 6 of Exhibit 1.
Planning Board comments on this topic have been mixed. While Board members expressed some support for special standards for campus-style housing projects with services, they also expressed concern about holding affordable housing projects to different standards than market-rate housing. Staff is asking the HAB and Planning Board for input on this policy question.
Standards for One- and Two-family Dwellings
Building Massing and Second Stories
Based on HAB and Planning Board comments, staff recommends adding a simple standard that the footprint of upper stories not exceed the floor area of lower stories. This will prevent bulky and oddly proportioned upper stories without being overly restrictive.
Other Minor Text Revisions
The following issues were raised at the first HAB study session but only required minor text revisions to address:
• Standards for Raising a Building - B, Mitigating Design Treatments. Staff proposes requiring all three of the mitigating design treatments.
• Standard 2B.c., Ground Floor Features. Both the HAB and Planning Board pointed out that there was no need to remove the option of providing a trellis to break up long building walls, particularly since trellises aren’t a requirement, just one of three options applicants can select from. Staff added text referring to planter boxes, as recommended by HAB members.
• Equipment Screening. Staff is recommending that electric vehicle chargers be allowed on the front of buildings, given their small size. Most of the time, EV chargers would likely be placed on the side of buildings, but there could be circumstances in which they need to be on the front.
Illustrations
Staff is developing illustrations for the Objective Standards and have developed a draft of standards that most need illustrations. Staff seeks input from the HAB and Planning Board on this list. See Exhibit 5.
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, Habitat for Humanity, and the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
Next Steps
Staff’s recommended revisions to the Objective Design Review Standards along with the HAB’s comments will be presented to the Planning Board in late June/early July, where they will be considered for final adoption. Staff will continue the work of the final formatting with new illustrations of the Objective Standards throughout Summer 2023 and will distribute final copies to both the HAB and Planning Board in Fall 2023.
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
Review and comment on potential revisions to the Objective Standards.
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. Proposed Revisions to Multifamily and Mixed-Use Standards
2. Proposed Revisions to Single-Family Standards
3. Traditional Design Area Map, Revised
4. Map-Street Classification Appendix
5. Draft List of Illustrations for the ODRS
6. Public Comments