Council splits on appearance-review path after long debate over "supersized" homes

Planning staff presented 22 concepts to address oversized single-family houses and categorized each by legal feasibility given recent state law (Senate Bill 180) and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris Act. Staff emphasized there is "no one-size-fits-all silver bullet," and recommended focusing on lower-risk, voluntary measures such as a pattern book, increased notice and targeted overlays rather than codified mass-and-bulk restrictions that are likely preempted or legally risky.

"No matter if they are colored red or yellow or green, this does not mean they are either recommended or not recommended by staff," planning staff member Steve Mayer told council and then added, "there is no 1 size fits all silver bullet that is a solution for every case or every issue you have with appearance review." The staff presentation mapped a range of options: green items (low legal risk) like a voluntary pattern book and enhanced notice; yellow items (possible but uncertain); and red items (high legal risk or preempted), such as codified FAR limits or mandatory mass-and-bulk rules.

Public commenters on the ridge said they feared losing property rights and value if restrictions were imposed on 314 affected properties. Council members were divided: some argued for preserving subjective appearance criteria as a community-protection tool, while others, citing legal risk and staff concerns about defensibility, favored reverting to base zoning and using voluntary tools. Council ultimately voted to direct staff to stop using the two-step staff metrics (the "test 1/test 2" methodology) when judging single-family homes (roll call 4–1) and then—after further motion—voted 3–2 to move forward with option 1 (revert single-family review to staff and remove architectural review elements preempted by state law). Staff was asked to return with drafts for the voluntary tools (pattern book, notice) and an implementation plan.