Planning commission backs overhaul of design‑review rules, asks staff to add bird‑safe and lighting analysis

San Mateo County planning staff presented a draft ordinance to repeal and replace the county's design‑review chapters for coastal and noncoastal areas and to adopt related zoning text amendments intended to create clearer, objective standards for design review outside the coastal zone and improved standards for coastal review.

Camille Leon, the project planner, said the ordinance would: convert many Bay‑side reviews to a ministerial, checklist‑based review with objective standards where state streamlined processes require objectivity; increase an exemptions threshold on the coast from 150 to 500 square feet with safeguards; require more consistent height measurement; strengthen exterior lighting standards (shielding, color temperature limits and limits on soffit/flood lighting); and add objective controls on grading and hardscaping to reduce large building pads.

Public comment focused heavily on exterior lighting color temperature. Several Midcoast residents and advisory members urged keeping a 2,200K maximum for coastal and institutional lighting, arguing that lower Kelvin values better protect wildlife and preserve coastal nightscapes. "2,200K is known to be wildlife friendly," one commenter said, recommending a lower standard for coastal institutional lighting and streetlights. Other commenters urged broader additions: Lenny Roberts requested incorporation of bird‑safe glazing standards for large coastal windows, and commissioners asked staff to draft a feasible, objective option for such glazing.

Planner Leon said institutional and commercial fixtures would remain subject to a stricter 2,200K standard and that staff had proposed a slightly higher upper threshold for single‑family residential fixtures to reflect market availability and avoid creating widespread nonconformities; staff recommended a pragmatic range while keeping the overall emphasis on downward‑directed, warmer lighting.

After discussion the commission voted 4–0 to recommend the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors and adopted resolutions to submit the draft to the California Coastal Commission for certification. Commissioners also directed staff to return to the board with: (a) a short memo comparing the tradeoffs among 2,200K, 2,700K and 3,000K options for coastal exterior lighting (with pros/cons and availability considerations) and (b) proposed objective bird‑safe glazing language for coastal windows (size‑thresholded and focused on large expanses of glazing facing open habitat or the ocean). The commission's recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider adoption and subsequent submittal to the Coastal Commission.