Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends design-review efficiency ordinance and phase‑1 objective design standards to the Planning Commission and Coastal Commission
Summary
Council directed staff to submit a draft design-review efficiency ordinance — including a phase‑1 objective design‑standards 'box‑inside‑a‑box' pathway for low‑impact single‑story primary dwellings — to the California Coastal Commission for feedback and to process urgency and non‑urgency ordinance versions, while continuing development of phase‑2 architectural standards.
Get email alerts on the Planning Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council reviewed a comprehensive package of proposed changes to the city’s design-review code, an administrative efficiency ordinance and a two‑phase plan for objective design standards (ODS). Assistant City Attorney Jane Absegg and Deputy Community Development Director Anthony Viera presented the draft changes and the rationale for a two‑phase ODS effort: phase 1 limits certain low‑impact primary dwelling units to a single‑story envelope and objective setbacks so qualifying projects can proceed through an exempt administrative pathway; phase 2 will add objective architectural details and checklists.
Anthony told the council "Phase 1 essentially establishes a more restrictive single story building envelope for new primary dwelling units" and described the "box‑inside‑a‑box" concept that creates a predictable, objective pathway for smaller homes and thereby preserves the city’s ability to exercise meaningful design control for projects that step outside that envelope. The proposed ordinance also consolidates design-review findings, expands some administrative exemptions (for minor mechanical and ground-level equipment), limits the number of public hearings on a housing development to two for design review and clarifies procedures for coastal development permits and lot-line adjustments.
Staff recommended the council direct them to file the draft with the California Coastal Commission for feedback, process an urgency version as well as the regular ordinance, proceed with a Planning Commission public hearing and continue with phase 2 architectural work led by a retained consultant (JKA). The council voted to proceed with the recommended actions; staff will return with the formal public‑hearing schedule, incorporate public feedback and pursue the Coastal Commission review process as required.

