COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

DATE:

March 31, 2004

   

SET TIME:

9:45 a.m.

   

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 20, 2004

 
 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of Revised Design Standards for Single-Family and Duplex Residential Development in the Midcoast

 
 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.

Amend the Zoning Regulations to enact new residential design standards for the Midcoast.

   

2.

Amend the General Plan (Local Coastal Program Policies 8.12 and 8.13a).

   

3.

Direct staff to transmit the amendments to the Coastal Commission for certification.

   

4.

Consider adopting an urgency interim ordinance enacting the design standards.

   

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to enact updated and revised design standards for single-family and duplex residential development in the Midcoast.

 

PREVIOUS ACTION

 

On March 23, 2004, your Board continued this item in order for staff to develop alternatives guiding how the design standards relate to the zoning development standards. Your Board also directed staff to evaluate how the proposal could be enacted prior to Coastal Commission certification, such as by an urgency interim ordinance.

 

On August 27 and December 10, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the proposed design standards, which were drafted by the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC). The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the standards.

 

BACKGROUND

 

All proposed development in the Design Review District must comply with both objective zoning development standards and subjective design standards. The relationship between the two sets of standards is at issue when a proposed home cannot be found to be in scale with the neighborhood, even though it meets the floor area and height limits. When such conflicts arise, the proposed design standards authorize the CDRC to require design changes, provided they do not result in a house size or height that is "substantially" less than that permitted by the zoning development standards. Your Board felt the term "substantially" may be too vague, possibly leading to confusion and permit appeals.

 

SUMMARY

 

A.

Design vs. Zoning

   
 

Staff developed four substantive alternatives and two procedural alternatives controlling how the design standards relate to the zoning development standards, as described in the staff report. Staff recommends retaining the existing statement, but adding a numeric limit for guidance. Specifically, staff recommends that the CDRC be authorized to require design changes, provided they do not result in a house size or height that is substantially, i.e., up to 7.5% less than permitted by the zoning development standards. Also, the CDRC must make findings whereby reductions from the zoning development standards can only be required when other design techniques have been tried and deemed insufficient, and the design standard(s) necessitating the reduction is identified.

   

B.

Urgency Interim Ordinance

   
 

Adoption of an urgency interim ordinance would enact the design standards immediately, rather than waiting for Coastal Commission certification. To adopt such an ordinance, the Board must find that continued reliance on the existing design standards constitutes an immediate threat to the public welfare. The proposed design standards build on and refine the existing standards, to add clarity and reduce confusion. However, the existing standards are not as effective as they could be in fostering community-compatible design and their lack of clarity has lead to numerous appeals.