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:

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

RECOMMENDATION

1.

a.

Amend, by ordinance, the Zoning Regulations to enact permanent Design Standards for One-Family and Two-Family Residential Development in the Midcoast, as shown in Attachment A. This includes authorizing the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) 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. This also includes required 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.

Amend, by resolution, the General Plan (Local Coastal Program) Visual Resources Component Policies 8.12 and 8.13a, as shown in Attachment B.

c.

Direct staff, by resolution, to transmit the aforementioned permanent amendments to the California Coastal Commission for certification of conformity with the California Coastal Act, as shown in Attachment C.

2.

Consider adopting an urgency interim ordinance enacting the Design Standards for One-Family and Two-Family Residential Development in the Midcoast, as shown in Attachment D. Such adoption would require your Board to find continued reliance on the existing design standards constitutes an immediate threat to the public welfare.

PROPOSAL

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

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2004, your Board considered and 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.

From October 2001 to May 2003, the Coastside Design Review Committee (CDRC) held public meetings to develop the proposed design standards. On August 27 and December 10, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the proposed design standards, and voted 5 to 0 to recommend their approval.

DISCUSSION

A.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DESIGN STANDARDS AND ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

All proposed development in the Design Review District must comply with both objective zoning development standards and subjective design standards. For example, a new house on a 5,000 sq. ft. parcel in the R-1/S-17 District may not exceed 2,650 sq. ft. in floor area and 28 feet in height, and also must respect the scale of the neighborhood and conform to the existing topography of a site.

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. The new design standards include many suggested architectural techniques that can be used to make homes of different sizes appear compatible (e.g., lowered eave lines, centered second stories, etc.). Nevertheless, there may be situations when nothing short of a reduction in house size or height is sufficient to find compliance with design standards, even if it means that the home must be smaller than the maximum size or height allowed by the zoning development standards.

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. As indicated, your Board requested that alternatives to this provision be examined, since the term "substantially" may be too vague and does not adequately define how much of a reduction from the floor area or height limit could be required.

In response, staff has developed four substantive alternatives and two procedural alternatives for your consideration. As stated in the Executive Summary and described further in No. 3 below, staff's preferred approach combines substantive alternative "d" with procedural alternatives "a" and "b."

1.

Substantive Alternatives

a.

Guarantee Zoning Development Standards

This alternative would include language in the design standards that prohibits the CDRC from requiring design changes that result in a de facto lowering of the zoning development standards. For example, the CDRC could not require design changes that result in a house smaller than 2,650 sq. ft. on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-1/S-17 Zoning District.

Pro: This approach provides the most certainty for homebuilders, i.e., being able to count on a certain house size and height.

Con: This approach permits no flexibility on a case-by-case basis, i.e., the development standards become entitlements, rather than upper limits or maximum allowances. Although parcels may be the same size, the natural features of each site and the character of surrounding homes may vary considerably. As such, a home of the maximum allowed size and height may be out of scale with the neighborhood, in violation of the design standards.

Many homebuilders who attended the community workshops and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors supported this alternative, but the CDRC, the Midcoast Community Council and the Planning Commission did not recommend it.

b.

Enact Numeric Limit on Reduction from Zoning Development Standards

This alternative substitutes a numeric limit for the term "substantial." With this approach, the CDRC could require design changes, provided they do not result in a house size or height that is either 5%, 7.5% or 10% less than permitted by the zoning development standards.

Pro: This approach avoids the uncertainty associated with the term "substantial," allows balancing between zoning development and design standards on a case-by-case basis, and provides reasonable expectation to builders.

Con: Enacting a numeric limit could lead to a de facto reduction in the development standards. For example, rather than search for design solutions when a home design is out of scale, the CDRC could automatically require that the size or height of the home be reduced by the specified numeric limit. This places the focus on house size or height, rather than on its appearance relative to its site and surrounding homes.

This alternative was considered but not recommended by the CDRC, Midcoast Community Council or the Planning Commission.

c.

Enact Numeric Limit on Reductions or Increases from Zoning Development Standards

This alternative is similar to "b," above, in that it would authorize the CDRC to allow reductions up to 5%, 7.5% or 10% from the zoning development standards. However, the CDRC could also require design changes that would allow increases by the same amount over the zoning development standards.

Pro: This approach has the same advantages as Alternative "b."

Con: This approach raises some of the same issues as Alternative "b," but in this case, allowing a specified increase above the zoning development standard could lead to a de facto increase in the standard. It may also give the CDRC too much discretion to override the existing maximum floor area and height limits for the Midcoast, which were developed through a cooperative Task Force process in 2000.

This alternative was considered, but not recommended by the CDRC, Midcoast Community Council or the Planning Commission.

d.

Keep the Term "Substantial" and Include Numeric Limit for Guidance

This alternative would retain the language recommended by the Planning Commission, i.e., the term "substantial," but would also give a numeric limit of 5%, 7.5% or 10% for guidance.

Pro: This approach keeps the focus on qualitative rather than quantitative standards, helps define what amount would be considered "substantial," and provides some certainty to builders.

Con: To a lesser degree, this approach may have the same problems as described for Alternative "b."

This alternative was not considered by the CDRC, the Midcoast Council, or the Planning Commission.

2.

Procedural Alternatives

a.

Limit Zoning Development Standard Reduction to Last Resort

This alternative would allow the CDRC to require design changes that result in reductions from the zoning development standards only upon finding that other design techniques (e.g., lowered eave line, increased facade articulation, variation of exterior materials, etc.) have been tried and are insufficient to achieve compliance with the design standards. In other words, any reductions from the zoning development standards would be required only as a last resort. This alternative could be applied with any of the substantive alternatives.

Pro: This approach increases the emphasis on design solutions, rather than house size standards.

Con: None.

This alternative was not considered by the CDRC, the Midcoast Council, or the Planning Commission.

b.

Identify the Design Standard as Basis for Reduction

This alternative would allow the CDRC to require design changes that result in reductions from the zoning development standards, but only if the design standard(s) triggering the reduction is clearly identified. This alternative could also be applied with any of the substantive alternatives.

Pro: This approach ensures that the reason for the required reduction is clearly stated and is related to compliance with a specific design standard.

Con: None.

This alternative was not considered by the CDRC, the Midcoast Council, or the Planning Commission.

3.

Staff Preferred Approach

Staff recommends that the Board adopt substantive Alternative "d," in combination with procedural Alternatives "a" and "b." This would retain the term "substantial," but would also give a numeric limit for guidance in defining what "substantial" means. This approach keeps the emphasis on the qualitative design standards, and, in combination with the procedural alternatives discussed, will prevent the numeric limit from becoming a de facto development standard.

With regard to the numeric limit, staff recommends that a reduction would be "less than substantial" if it were up to 7.5% of the zoning development standard. This would allow a reduction of up to about 200 sq. ft. in floor area and about 2 feet in height for a home on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-1/S-17 District. To provide perspective, 200 sq. ft. is approximately the size of a 1-car garage, and 2 feet in height would equate to the minimum height reduction that would be noticeable. More than that could be considered a substantial reduction.

With regard to the procedural alternatives, these mandate that findings be made 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

1.

Background

As indicated, your Board directed staff to evaluate how the new design standards could be adopted immediately, rather than waiting for Coastal Commission certification, a process that could take six to nine months. Your Board expressed concern that continued reliance on the existing standards may be disruptive to the community.

The typical alternative that would enact the standards immediately would be the adoption of an urgency interim ordinance. Government Code Section 65858 governs the adoption of urgency interim zoning regulations, as included in Attachment E. This section provides that urgency interim regulations may prohibit or regulate any uses that may "be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal under study or consideration by the local government."

The process is intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare during the period that the proposal is under consideration. The legislative body must make findings that there exists a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare" which the interim regulations are designed to protect against and that the further approval of development would contribute to that threat.

The ordinance requires a four-fifths vote of the legislative body. Notice need not be provided for the initial "urgency" ordinance, which expires after 45 days. Subsequent extensions do require notice, and the maximum life of the ordinance, including all possible extensions, is 24 months.

Ten days prior to the expiration of any such ordinance or extension, the legislative body must issue a written report stating what has been done to alleviate the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare.

It is County Counsel's opinion that the proposed urgency interim regulations do not require certification by the Coastal Commission. Typically, permanent regulations are developed during the term of the interim ordinance, and such permanent regulations require Coastal Commission certification. Pending your Board's decision, both the interim and permanent regulations could be adopted together, and staff would subsequently forward the permanent design standards to the Coastal Commission.

2.

Discussion

The key consideration for your Board is whether the finding can be made that continued reliance on the existing design standards constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed new design standards enhance the existing standards, by adding clarity. However, the existing standards are not as effective as they could be in fostering community-compatible home design, and their lack of clarity has lead to numerous permit appeals.

In the past, your Board adopted urgency interim zoning regulations to reduce the house height limit and enact floor area and daylight plane controls for the Midcoast and West Menlo Park, finding that the potential for oversized development allowed by existing regulations represented an immediate threat to the community's welfare. Also, your Board adopted urgency interim zoning regulations to require neighborhood serving commercial uses along Alameda de las Pulgas in West Menlo Park, finding that non-neighborhood serving office development represented an immediate threat to the community's welfare. Should your Board wish to adopt the new design standards as an urgency interim ordinance, staff has included the necessary ordinance as Attachment D.

When approving new zoning regulations, your Board typically adopts a "grandfathering" provision that specifies which development proposals being processed are exempt from the new regulations. This is usually done by exempting projects that have reached a specified point in the County review process. If adopted, the draft urgency interim ordinance (Attachment D) includes a provision that exempts development for which the County has received a complete development or building permit application.

C.

INPUT FROM THE CDRC

The Coastside Design Review Committee will meet on April 6, 2004, to review this report. Staff will report the Committee's comments to the Board at the April 20 Board meeting.

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

LCP amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9.

E.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

County Counsel

Coastside Design Review Committee

VISION ALIGNMENT

The proposal promotes the commitment of redesigning our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion, and Goal 12, encouraging land use decisions that consider impacts on the environment and on surrounding communities. The revised design standards contribute to this commitment and goal by encouraging residential development that is compatible with the local neighborhood and surrounding community, as well as integrated with the natural setting.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Ordinance Enacting New, Permanent Design Standards

B.

Resolution Amending LCP Visual Resources Component

C.

Resolution Directing Transmittal to Coastal Commission

D.

Urgency Interim Ordinance Enacting New Design Standards

E.

Excerpts from Government Code Re: Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance

F

Letter dated March 25, 2004 from San Mateo County Association of Realtors.