RESIDENTIAL ZONING CODE:
CMC 17.10 Draft Amendments (Attachment 1)
This chapter of the Zoning Code regulates building design in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, and includes standards for height, setbacks, floor area, volume, parking, etc. The following is a staff analysis of the proposed amendments to this chapter:
Home Improvement Exception – In order to promote retention of existing homes, some minor zoning exceptions may be granted through the Home Improvement Exception. In order to qualify for an exception, the project must retain at least 75% of the existing exterior walls and must be either retained or replaced with wood siding (or wood simulated). Potential exceptions include allowing an additional 100 square feet of bonus basement floor area, waiver of composite setback when it is impractical to apply this standard to a new addition, and an exception to plate height of a new addition when necessary to match the floor level of the existing home. The director may also allow minor exceptions of a similar nature. The approval of the Home Improvement Exception is subject to certain standards identified in the Code.
Floor Area – the proposed draft amendments provide a floor area exemption for storage sheds that are less than 120 square feet in area and less than 8 feet tall, and do not include any electrical or plumbing. This allows property owners storage capacity on the property, some of which may currently use their garage for storage. Additionally, staff has made draft amendments that would allow the Planning Commission to deduct unfinished crawl spaces from the floor area calculations when the proposed modifications to the residence meet the design objectives of the design guidelines with regard to mass and bulk.
Bonus Basement – The Zoning Codes allows bonus floor area for projects that include basements; including 100 square feet of bonus floor, as well an allowance for an additional 2 square feet in a basement for every 1 square foot not constructed above grade. The current standard only requires that development be 6 feet from the trunk of a tree. The draft amendments add a standard recognizing that maximum basements floor area cannot always be achieved due to on-site trees and establishes that basement tree setbacks are determined by the Forestry Department. The draft amendments also clarify the existing bonus basemen rules, which are challenging to interpret as currently written.
Plate Height – It is fairly common to have a small portion of a newly proposed residence exceed the allowed plate height requirement. In order to address this, the designer will often sink the entire building below grade. The proposed draft amendments would allow a design to exceed maximum allowed height along a single continuous segment of the exterior wall not exceeding 10% of the total exterior wall length. This will help avoid the excavation associated with sinking the building for the purpose of complying with the plate height on only a small portion of the wall. It will also provide greater flexibility when matching the floor level of a new addition to an existing residence. Of important note is that the maximum allowed ridge height must still be met.
Site Coverage – The proposed draft amendments exempt the first 100 square feet of spaced decking. Current site coverage regulations are very restrictive and this would provide some relief for a surface material that is fully permeable and does not impact storm-water runoff. The modified Code also allows the City to require the removal of additional nonconforming site coverage when necessary to achieve the open space and landscaping objectives of the design guidelines. The Planning Commission consistently requires this when reviewing large remodel projects.
Fireplaces – The proposed draft amendments limit sites to a maximum of one wood-fueled fireplace or device per dwelling, which is consistent with the Planning Commission’s current unwritten policy. There is also a requirement added that outdoor fireplaces and fire pits be gas-fueled only. Both draft amendments are for the purpose of maintaining good air quality in the City and surrounding region.
Detached Parking Structures in Setbacks – Over the past several years, the City has received a large number of applications that propose to place the garage or carport in the front setback, which is primarily intended for landscaping and open space. Applicants often propose parking structures in the front setback in order to avoid having to use their allowed site coverage for long driveway, and also because setting the parking structure back occupies land that could be used for outdoor living spaces such a decks and patios. Staff is concerned that allowing too many parking structures in the front setback could have an adverse impact on the character of the Residential District over time.
The draft amendments would still allow detached parking structures in the front and side-yard setback, but with standards that it be primarily based on necessity, more so than convenience. The proposed Code modifications also allow parking pads in the setbacks, subject to the same requirements and standards that apply to a detached garage or carport. As drafted, a parking pad would not be permitted in the setbacks on sites that also contain a parking structure in a setback.
Garbage Enclosures in Setbacks - Amendments have been made to provide greater flexibility in allowing minimally-sized trash enclosures in the setbacks, subject to certain design standards. The intent is to screen trash cans from public view. The design standards include a requirement that the garbage enclosure only the minimum size necessary to contain receptacles provided by the waste disposal service, that it be set back from the front property line to the maximum extent feasible, and that it be incorporated into other design features such as a wall or fence.
Volume Standards: While exterior volume standards help minimize building mass, there are some potential drawbacks. The exterior volume standards depend on the average grade below the footprint of the residence, and in some cases can heavily penalize a modestly sized residence based on topography of the lot. The volume standards can also have an unintended consequence of encouraging complete demolition and rebuild, in particular when an existing residence does not comply with the volume standards and a new addition does not mesh with the existing building. The volume standards can also limit architectural diversity.
In order to address this issue, the proposed draft amendments would allow the Planning Commission to waive the volume requirements when modifying or adding on to an existing residence, subject to certain standards. The standards are: 1) that the addition and/or modifications are below the maximum allowed plate and ridge heights, 2) the modifications are in substantial compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines, and 3) requiring compliance with the volume standards would unreasonably penalize a project that proposed to preserve and maintain an existing structure. A new residence would be required to fully comply with volume standards.
A separate issue is that the volume requirements do not provide any allowance for structures that are not considered floor area. In order to provide some relief from this, staff is proposing to exempt 150 square feet of an unenclosed structure (e.g. covered deck, pergola, etc.) from the volume calculations.
Lot Merger Bonus – Under the allowed floor area provisions of the Zoning Code, as the lot size increases, the floor area ratio decreases. For example, the sum of the floor area of two homes constructed on individual 4,000 square-foot lots, is more than what is allowed when constructing a single home on an 8,000 square-foot lot. The Zoning Code incentivizes merging lots by providing a floor area bonus of 3% of the site area, which restores some of the floor area lost when building on a larger lot. The stated purpose is to promote diversity in design and housing size and to preserve open space. While staff supports the lot merger bonus program, there is some concern that residences designed with this bonus can appear large and out of scale with neighboring residences, in particular when merging more than two lots. For this reason, the draft amendments reduce the bonus from 3% of the site area to 2% of the site area. As a trade-off for reduction in floor area bonus, staff is proposing a larger site coverage bonus associated with mergers.
CMC 17.06 – Draft Amendments (Attachment 2)
This chapter establishes the general rules applied to the Zoning Code, including rules for construction language, rules of measurement and rules of interpretation. The following is a staff analysis of the proposed amendments to this chapter:
Property Slope – The Zoning Code currently provides two methods for reducing the allowed floor area based on property slope. One method requires that deducted from the buildable area are “continuous portions of the site, occupying at least 10% of the site area, with a slope greater than 30%”. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that property owners are not given credit for unbuildable portions of a lot; however, in staff’s experience a 30% slope is buildable. The Zoning Code is much more lenient when the average slope of the entire property is ≥30% as opposed to properties in which only a portion is ≥30%. When the entire property has a slope of ≥30%, a use permit must be obtained and floor area is deducted out at a rate of 2% of building area for every 1% incline above 30%. Under the draft amendments, the City would the building area through a single method, which is to evaluate of the slope of the entire property only, using the current standard which requires a 2% reduce for every 1% incline above 30%, subject to approval of a use permit.
Easements – The draft amendments make it clear that only public easements are deducted from the buildable area, and not private easements. The City does not enforce private easement agreements between property owners, which is a civil matter.
Height Measurements – Clarifying language has been added regarding the measurement of ridge and plate heights, and how these are measured when a basement is proposed.
CMC 17.08 – Draft Amendments (Attachment 3)
This chapter establishes the general rules for the residential districts, including single-family and multi-family districts. The following is a staff analysis of the proposed amendments to this chapter:
Accessory Dwelling Units – In 2017, the City modified its Zoning Code to allow accessory dwelling units in response to State Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069, which mandated that jurisdictions allow these types of dwellings subject to reasonable regulations. The draft amendments simplify the height and setback standards for accessory dwelling units, by simply requiring that these units meet the Zoning Code standards. Staff has eliminated the requirement that either the single-family home or the accessory dwelling unit must be owner-occupied. In practice, this is challenging to monitor and enforce. Additionally, the City’s primary concern is that the dwellings are occupied by long-term tenants, rather than a requirement that the property owner live on site. Staff notes that the prohibition on the transient rental of accessory dwelling units is still retained in this Code Chapter.
Guesthouses – The draft amendments modify the guesthouse rules so that the minimum lot size is now 4,000 square feet rather than 6,000 square feet. There is also no longer a requirement for a conditional use permit. These modifications to the Code were made in order to make the guesthouse provisions consistent with accessory dwelling units, which are nearly the same type of dwelling unit
Cottage Food Operations – State Assembly Bill 1616, the California Homemade Food Act, was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 21, 2012. State law requires that jurisdictions allow cottage food operations in residential districts. The draft amendments define and allow such use in the residential districts, subject to Health and Safety Code § 113758.
CMC 17.52 and 17.54 – Draft Amendments (Attachment 4)
Chapter 17.52 includes sections that establish rules regarding variance and permit time limits. Chapter 17.54 includes a section that addresses the appeal process. The following is a staff analysis of the proposed amendments to these chapters:
Variances – The Zoning Code currently limits variances to certain development standards, which is restrictive and does not address a variety of scenarios that may arise. The draft amendments include new language that is consistent with state law (Government Code § 65906) governing variances, which provides the City with more latitude when reviewing variance applications. A provision has added that specifically does not allow variances for an increase in floor area, which is commonly requested.
Appeals – The current appeal process states that appeals of Commission and Board decisions are subject to 10 working days, while appeals of staff decisions are subject to 10 calendar days. The draft amendments provide consistency, so that all decision will now be subject to a 10 working-day appeal period. The primary issue with using calendar days, is that City Hall is closed on weekends, and as such, appeals cannot be filed on these days.
Time Limits on Approvals and Denials – The current regulations are ambiguous as to what steps need to be completed within the time limit of a design review permit in order to keep the permit active. The draft amendments specifically identify that for the purpose of evaluating design review permits, implementation occurs with the issuance of the building permit. The draft amendments also extend the Residential Design Review from 12 to 18 months (staff feels that 12 months is too short), and also extends use permits and business licenses from 6 to 12 months, which means that a business owner has 12 months to establish their business in order to keep the permit active.
Time Extension – The Zoning Code currently requires that time extensions of public hearing items must go back to the Board or Commission that originally approved the project. The only basis for denying a time extension is whether conditions surrounding the decision have been changed, or the Zoning Code or General Plan were modified. Because time extensions are typically a routine matter, the Code has been modified to give the director discretion to refer time extensions back to the original Board or Commission that approved the project. Staff notes that if the time extension lapses, the land-use permit would have to be re-issued, which requires a new public hearing.
CMC 17.39 – New Code Chapter (Exterior Lighting – Attachment 5)
Lighting Standards: The Current Zoning Codes allows exterior light fixtures to be a maximum of 25 watts, irrespective of the fixture or bulb type (e.g. incandescent, fluorescent, LED, etc.). The Residential Design Guidelines state to “Preserve the low nighttime lighting character of the residential neighborhood” and “Locate and shield fixtures to avoid glare and excess lighting as seen from neighboring properties and from the street.”
Staff has drafted a new lighting code chapter that regulates exterior lighting. Among other things, the purpose of the chapter is to encourage exterior lighting practices that will minimize light pollution, glare and light trespass, while promoting energy conservation. The Code chapter establishes the application and permitting process and includes standards for both the residential and commercial districts. The new Code chapter contains standards for the residential district, including a maximum color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin, which should produce a “warm” colored light. Additionally, the Code allows a maximum output of 400 lumens with a requirement that the fixtures be shielded. This should produce low-level light, consistent with the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines. The commercial district standards are still under review.
Most lighting-related complaints filed with Community Planning and Building occur when the bulb is replaced with a new one that exceeds the allowed output standards. In these cases, the simplest way to achieve compliance is to regulate the light bulbs. As such, the new Code chapter includes a provision stating that “existing light bulbs and other light sources, which are deemed a nuisance or hazard by the Director, shall be brought into compliance with this chapter.” This will provide the City with a means of enforcing lighting violations when bulbs are replaced in existing fixtures.
Residential Design Guidelines (Attachments 6 and 7)
The Design Guidelines provide guidance to project applicants in developing proposals that are consistent with the City’s design traditions and also “provide a common basis” for decision-making by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. The following is a list of the guidelines that have been amended, with a staff analysis:
Design Concept Review: The Design Concept Review Guidelines are primarily intended to address the siting of new buildings, mass and bulk, building forms, and issues related to neighboring privacy and views. The proposed amendments are focused solely on the chapter pertaining to neighboring privacy and views. New diagrams have been added as exhibits to the revised guidelines. However, these are placeholder diagrams, as some of the initial feedback has been that the new diagrams should match the original hand-drawn style of the other diagrams in the Design Guidelines.
Privacy and Views – One of the most challenging aspects of reviewing residential projects is evaluating view and privacy impacts to neighboring properties. The Design Guidelines can be ambiguous on certain issues, which can sometimes lead to subjective interpretations of what constitutes a significant impact. To address this issue, draft language has been added that better defines what constitutes and important view. Additionally, a standard has been added to help quantify what constitutes a significant view impact, by stating that “in general, building elements shall obstruct no more than 50% of a neighbor’s significant view.”
Standards have also been added clarifying that second-story decks and windows facing neighboring properties may be permitted, but should be sized and located to provide reasonable privacy to neighboring properties. With regard to solar access, a standard has been added stating that “when necessary, consider requiring the applicant to provide solar study to evaluate potential impacts to neighboring solar access associated with new construction.”
Final Details Review: The Final Details Review Guidelines provide recommendations regarding architectural style and finish materials. The entire Final Detail Guidelines have been reformatted with new photographic examples. The original Guidelines with proposed amendments shown are included as Attachment 6, while the new reformatted Guidelines, with the amendments incorporated, are included as Attachment 7.
Contemporary Architecture – Over the past several years the City has seen a substantial increase in proposals for Contemporary-style residences. One issue is that the Residential Design Guidelines do not adequately address Contemporary architecture. A new section has been added that defines Contemporary architecture and characterizes it as: “Building design stemming from a wide range of influences including modernism. Similar to Modern architecture, the building design often includes geometric simplicity, clean architectural lines, cubicle forms, flat roofs, and open interior spaces.” Additionally, standards have been added requiring that it be sensitive to neighborhood context, incorporate natural finish materials, use earth-toned colors, and to consider using traditional roof forms such as gables.
Finish Materials – Residential Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of natural finish materials. Guideline 9.8 encourages woof roofing and Guideline 9.11 encourages unclad wood windows. Over the past several years the City has dealt with the issue of consistently applying these guidelines, while also ensuring that finish materials are safe and fire resistant.
Since the Design Guidelines were originally drafted, there have been technological advances in finish materials. There are a variety of finish materials that are fire resistant, but also present a high quality appearance and are sometime indistinguishable from wood, such as cement fiberboard. In this vein, new language has been added which states: “New technological developments in materials that promote sustainability, fire proofing or fire resistance while maintaining authentic traditional style elements are encouraged” and “fire resistant siding materials that replicate traditional profiles and texture of natural materials, such as wood, are preferred when using as an alternate to natural materials.” Additionally, there is a new section explaining some of the issues associated with wood roofing and there are also associated modifications to the roofing standards. For example, there is a guideline that “asphalt composition shingles that convey a thickness and texture similar to that of wood shingles may be considered.”
Zoning Code/General Plan: Zoning Code regulations are required to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff has evaluated the proposed Zoning Code amendments in relation to the General Plan Policies, and has not identified any inconsistencies. General Plan Objective O1-8 states:
Preserve the traditional characteristics of scale, good site design and sensitivity to neighboring sites in the single-family residential district through the design approval of new homes, additions and exterior remodeling. Encourage the construction of residences that are diverse and innovative in design yet compatible with the forest setting, site design and materials established by other structures within the neighborhood and adopted Residential Design Guidelines.
The proposed amendments comply with this objective and the subsequent policies as contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A more thorough review of General Plan consistency will be provided, as these Code amendments are scheduled for final approval.
SUMMARY: The draft amendments to the Zoning Code and Residential Design Guidelines are still under review, and as such, the Planning Commission may make recommendations for changes. At this point in the process, staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission and the community on this project.