On January 22, the Planning Board voted to recommend that City Council adopt comprehensive revisions to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance to remove barriers to affordable housing development. The Board also held a study session regarding zoning ordinances for reasonable accommodation, fences, and nonconforming buildings and uses.
Background
In November 2022, the City adopted the Alameda Housing Element, which set a housing production objective of 5,353 new housing units by 2031 to meet the community’s existing and projected housing needs. To help meet this goal, the Housing Element stipulated amending the subdivision zoning code to facilitate approval of land divisions, lot line adjustments, and plans resulting in parcel sizes that enable affordable housing development.
The City adopted its subdivision ordinance in 1974, and it has been amended sparingly since then, so in addition to being out of alignment with Housing Element goals, the ordinance is inconsistent with current state law. Planning staff deemed a complete rewrite necessary.
Discussion
The draft revised ordinance (link automatically downloads the document) would amend the City’s Subdivision Regulations to align with the State’s Subdivision Map Act, current City practices, and State housing laws, which mandate that the City apply only objective standards for certain housing developments to streamline review.
Key proposed updates include:
- Delegating authority to approve minor subdivisions (four lots or fewer) to the Planning Director and City Engineer, with the Planning Board serving as an appeals body. This streamlining would reduce City Council workload and align the City’s process with neighboring cities.
- Adding a new section for urban lot splits in compliance with SB 9 and SB 684, which mandate that City staff be able to approve urban lot splits and small lot subdivisions.
- Adding provisions to address climate change impacts, including flooding protection and sea level rise mitigation.
- Updating subdivision design standards, map requirements, and improvement agreements to follow current engineering standards and best practices and be consistent with State law.
- Adding provisions for bond security and other guarantees benefitting the City.
Other provisions aim to reconcile inconsistencies, bring general alignment with zoning and state regulations, and clarify definitions, enforcement authority, and Certificate of Compliance provisions.
Comment and vote
There was no public comment. The Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. City Council will consider and vote on the draft ordinance at a future meeting.
Zoning ordinance study session
In furtherance of Housing Element programs and to conform to state law and current practice, the Planning Board also held a study session on updating the City’s zoning ordinances for nonconforming buildings and uses, reasonable accommodation, and fences and barriers. The Board originally planned to consider recommending proposed updates to City Council, however elected instead to consider the discussion a study session.
Nonconforming lots, buildings, and uses
Nonconforming lots, buildings, and uses refer to buildings and uses established under prior rules that have become inconsistent with new rules but may still be viable to maintain indefinitely. When these uses and buildings need repair, expansion, or to change use, the zoning code provides rules for how to consider those changes in light of property rights and general intent to gradually bring nonconforming uses and buildings into line with current expectations.
Staff proposed several code clarifications, new definitions, and reinstatement of an inadvertently deleted section. One fundamental definition would affirm that nonconforming buildings and uses established without permits are illegal and, therefore, not eligible for provisions of the nonconforming code.
Reasonable accommodation
Reasonable accommodation provisions, as applied to zoning codes, aim to facilitate housing for persons with disabilities through building and site modifications, even if inconsistent with zoning and development regulations. Staff proposed revising the City’s zoning code to simplify procedures for obtaining these accommodations, such as providing a shortened review period and providing that no public notice or review is required. Public correspondent Shelby opined that such streamlining could result in abuse of process by eliminating public review.
Fences and barriers
Key proposed updates to the Fences and Barriers ordinance included redefining fences to exclude hedges, establishing sight triangles for driveways, and revising the allowable height of front yard fences.
In proposing to exclude hedges from the definition of fences, staff argued that although hedges provide the same function and improved aesthetics as a fence, they are also living elements that grow and require maintenance to stay within a prescribed height and width. As such, they are challenging to regulate. The City could still address concerns about adequate visibility to back out of driveways by establishing driveway sight triangles.
In response to public requests to raise the height of front yard fences, such as to enclose dogs and children, staff proposed raising the allowable front yard fence height from three to four feet, with an additional foot allowed if the top section was see-through.
Christopher Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) recommended modifying the definition of “see-through” fences to be at least 25% transparent, in order to exclude translucent plexiglass fences that aren’t truly see-through.
Buckley and speaker Betsy also argued that raising the allowable fence height would create a walled-off look. Several Board members concurred. Board President Hanson Hom said he wanted to see Alameda’s beautiful home architecture define neighborhood character, not fences. Board Member Teresa Ruiz suggested that residents of homes without a backyard who desire a taller front yard fence, such as to enclose children at play, could request a design exception.
Staff will now take Board and public comments under advisement and return with revised proposed updates at a future public hearing. The Board will then consider recommending amendments for City Council approval.
Contributing writer Karin K. Jensen covers boards and commissions for the Alameda Post. Contact her via [email protected]. Her writing is collected at https://linktr.ee/karinkjensen and https://alamedapost.com/Karin-K-Jensen.
