Planning Board Approves Design for New West End Multifamily Housing

On July 28, the Planning Board conditionally approved the design review permit for a new multifamily rental housing development planned near the Webster and Posey tubes. The eight-story residential building at 2433 Mariner Square Loop will have 356 apartments, including 54 units designated for affordable housing.

Background

Comprising 356 apartments, including 55 studios, 200 one-bedroom units, and 101 two-bedroom units, the project will help the City meet 6.6% of its state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 5,353 units by 2031. Parking will include 283 onsite parking spaces and 356 bicycle spaces in a multi-story garage, as well as 124 off-site parking spaces in an adjacent lot.

The site, which includes 2363 and 2381 Mariner Square Drive, as well as 2415 and 2433 Mariner Square Loop, was redesignated during the 2023 Housing Element update to allow residential use under streamlined, by-right review processes. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the project is not subject to discretionary use permitting; the City may only evaluate objective design standards. Planning Manager Steven Buckley explained, “We can’t really deny the project or reduce the density without some really special findings… true health and safety impacts.”

Planning staff contend the project meets all development standards related to density, height, parking, setbacks, and lot coverage. Staff also deem the project compliant with Objective Design Review Standards, such as parking and rooftop equipment screening, the use of varied siding, and recessed and projecting balconies, as well as articulated building mass and façade treatments.

Staff also assert that the project qualifies for a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) infill exemption, supported by technical studies addressing habitat, traffic, noise, and water and air quality. Further, CEQA is not triggered for projects under design review only.

The project will begin with the demolition of the four existing commercial buildings.

Project team presentation

The project team, comprising the developer, architect, and landscape architect, highlighted the project’s design and sustainability features, its alignment with City goals, and its responsiveness to community feedback.

Stephen Siri, representing the developer, The Martin Group, emphasized the project’s roots in Alameda’s housing policies: “We’ve been working on (this) since 2023…shortly after the Housing Element was put into place.” He called it a “smart growth” project contributing to local housing and economic vitality.

The project includes electric vehicle parking, solar panels, and bicycle/pedestrian amenities. Siri described the units as adaptable, with an average of 812 square feet and incorporating work-from-home features. He highlighted the project’s integration with nearby transit and retail, stating, “The diversity and close proximity of various surrounding uses…creates a great live-work-play sort of community.”

Public feedback led to the preservation of all seven redwood trees onsite. Architect Ian Murphy noted that the redesign buffers the building visually: “These redwoods are going to greatly soften and buffer the south-facing side of the building.”

Murphy detailed key design elements: “We wrapped the entirety of the garage with units so you’re not faced…with any open parking, (but) a more handsome and residentially appropriate façade.” He noted the project’s articulated massing, in which the volume of a building is broken down into smaller, distinct forms to create visual interest, reduce the perceived bulk, and enhance the human scale. Murphy added that material selections aimed to match the neighborhood, featuring a mix of stucco, cement plank boards, and brick.

Landscape architect Colin Bly highlighted the layered outdoor areas: “We were able to create this little plaza space that both picks up stairs and ramps and integrates planting. The pool courtyard (on an upper floor) is pretty amazing… and the roof deck looks out (toward) downtown Oakland.”

Public comment

Public comment was divided, with supporters advocating for more worker housing while neighbors expressed concerns about building height, traffic, noise, and neighborhood compatibility.

Matt Regan of the Bay Area Council said, “We are talking about 356 sorely needed homes for families in Alameda… That’s the North Star in all of this effort.” He emphasized the project’s alignment with city and state requirements: “It meets all state standards for streamlining and exemptions from CEQA… your job is really to stop a developer from building something hideously ugly… and it’s clear that’s not the case.”

Mitch, a local worker, agreed, adding, “We are in a housing crisis. This has become a homelessness crisis and an affordability crisis.” Regarding traffic, he argued, “If the homes don’t get built here, they’re going to get built in Tracy… that’s going to contribute far more to traffic.”

However, neighbors expressed dismay at the project’s scale. Lindy said, “I’m appalled that it’s going to be such a high rise…We will be boxed in.” She added, “Bay 37 is not yet filled. Why don’t we work on filling the housing that we already have instead of building more?” She expressed concern about affordability: “Can the people who you want to house even afford this place?”

Gail agreed, saying, “Eight stories just seems so high… most of the residential buildings in that area are at most four stories.” She added, “These seem to be luxury apartments… I don’t see how that really addresses the affordability crisis.”

Sharon asked that the scope and scale be reduced, and expressed concern about traffic: “We’re talking about 400 parking spaces—it’s a substantial traffic congestion.” Others expressed concerns about the noise and dust of demolition and construction.

Board discussion

Boardmembers thanked the public for offering their comments but emphasized the limits on their discretion under state law while seeking to address some neighborhood concerns. Boardmember Andy Wang opined, “Under state law, we cannot reduce the density of this project unless we meet certain conditions.” Boardmember Hanson Hom added, “(The project) does comply with our general plan (and) zoning ordinances.” Boardmember Teresa Ruiz further clarified, “We can only comment [on design]. If the building is really ugly, then we can comment on it.”

Boardmember Andy Wang commended the developer’s restraint in providing parking, noting that they were allowed under code to provide far more vehicular parking but instead promoted bike parking and the use of alternative transportation given the project’s proximity to bus lines and bike lanes. Boardmember Teresa Ruiz noted that securing a parking space is optional and comes with an additional fee to further encourage transit use.

Aiming to alleviate neighborhood impact and improve the design, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the design review permit on condition that the developer:

• Provide vector control during demolition.
• Provide window washing for adjacent properties after construction.
• Work with the neighborhood homeowner’s association to provide more tree planting at the residential border.
• Comply with the arborist’s report regarding the protection of trees.
• Include windows or other transparent treatments on the west side.
• Provide sun shades to the south façade.

Board President Xiomara Cisneros concluded, “We recognize there’s a housing crisis, so I do think this is a great addition to our community.”

Boardmember Andy Wang added, “This project is a testament to the hard work that staff and this body did on the Housing Element.”

The Board’s decision is final unless appealed or called for review within 10 days.

Contributing writer Karin K. Jensen covers boards and commissions for the Alameda Post. Contact her via [email protected]. Her writing is collected at and