Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council & Planning Commission
Subject: PLEX HOUSING AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Date: May 28, 2024
Written by: Autumn Buss, Associate Planner
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council conduct a workshop to consider options for development of Plex Housing Objective Design Standards and Single Family Objective Design Standards and for code changes to facilitate housing development, and provide direction to staff.
1. BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
Objective Standards as a Priority for Cotati
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update includes Program 2-2, “Streamlining Housing Development,” which includes a specific action item to expand the City’s existing Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Senate Bill 35 multifamily housing projects to apply to all multifamily projects as well as single family homes and mixed use projects. Housing Element Program 2-4 also identifies the need to promote development of “plex” or “missing middle” housing. In addition, the City Council has directed staff to prioritize the creation of plex housing ODS for the current fiscal year.
State Housing Legislation
An abundance of State legislation over the past several years has reshaped the way that local jurisdictions review and approve housing development projects. New State laws, aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis, have reduced local control over development, in terms of both setting standards, and approval processes and timelines. In particular, legislation such as Senate Bill (SB) 35, effective since 2018, has created the need for “objective standards” that do not allow for any subjective judgement by staff or decisionmakers when reviewing housing projects. More broadly, objective standards are becoming the norm for nearly all land use regulation that relates to housing.
State legislation has also provided a number of ways for developers to circumvent local development standards including: SB 35 (reduced parking), the State Density Bonus (increased density, reduced parking, waiver of city standards), SB 9 (increased density, change in allowed uses, and reduced parking, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes), accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law (increased density, reduced parking and setbacks), SB 684 (reduced parking, setbacks, and minimum lot size), SB 2097 (no parking minimums within ½ mile of rail transit stations), and more. This has shifted the housing development landscape not only in terms of local control, but also in terms of planning and zoning norms as local governments adjust to keep their standards relevant and legal. See Attachment B, Comparison Table of Housing Mandates and Programs, for more information.
Objective Standards
The City of Cotati (City) responded to SB 35 with development of Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS) specific to SB 35 projects, which also require streamlined, or expedited, review. State law and the Cotati Municipal Code (CMC) define “multifamily” as any residential structure containing two or more dwelling units. The MODS is now applied to any multifamily housing development review in the City, regardless of whether the project proposes the use of SB 35, due to the overall trend toward objective standards described above.
The MODS were the outcome of a thoughtful public process, including a “visual preference” survey in which respondents provided rating and feedback on the design of a number of existing multifamily housing developments in the county; significant research by staff; consideration of existing City standards and guidelines; two public workshops with the Planning Commission; and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
It is important to note that in addition to the MODS, the City has numerous other objective standards that relate to housing and other types of development. These include standards in the Land Use Code that relate to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, street design, and more, and these are applied when the City reviews a proposed project. See Attachment C, Residential Zoning Development Standards, for a summary of the most relevant of these standards.
Even with the advent of objective design standards and streamlined processes, housing projects still need to be reviewed for conformance with all applicable standards and receive City approval. In the case of SB 35 applications, single family homes, ADUs, and certain other projects subject to State laws, this occurs at the staff level. Other types of multifamily or mixed use development are reviewed at the Planning Commission level (and at the City Council level, in limited instances). The requirement for a building permit and the need to adhere to the Cotati Building Code has also not changed.
With or without objective standards, all types of development projects are classified as requiring either “ministerial” or “discretionary” review. Ministerial is also referred to as “staff level” and refers to approval that does not involve any personal judgement or interpretation of standards by any City staff or Commission or Council member. A building permit is a classic example of a ministerial approval. Ministerial approval is required for projects that use SB 35 or a number of other new State laws. Discretionary review has traditionally referred to a review process where one or more City official may exercise discretion or subjective judgement when considering an application. The plethora of State housing legislation that requires ministerial review and/or objective standards has somewhat blurred the distinction between ministerial and discretionary review. For this reason, adopting objective standards that apply to different types of housing development can both simplify the review process, and help ensure compliance with various State laws.
Objective Design Standards for Plex Housing/Missing Middle “Plex” housing refers to multifamily housing developments that include two to nine units in a single building or within multiple buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and courtyard apartments. This type of development is significantly different from larger multifamily projects in terms of design, construction, and neighborhood impact, and it is therefore prudent for the City to have ODS that specifically address plex housing.
Facilitating the development of plex housing is important for several reasons. Plex housing can be more affordable to the occupant, due to the typically smaller unit sizes. Smaller units are also attractive to smaller households, which are increasing as part of a nationwide demographic trend.
Smaller homes may also use less energy and other resources, and can contribute to a compact, development pattern that supports walking and biking. Furthermore, plex housing can be more compatible with single-family homes and create less neighborhood impact than larger multifamily developments. Moreover, a number of Cotati’s development opportunity sites are of a relatively small size, which means that a plex housing development may be feasible where a project of ten or more units may not. Thus, for Cotati, and many other jurisdictions, facilitating small-scale infill development can be a key strategy for meeting housing goals.
Interest in plex housing has been growing across California and the nation recently, for these reasons and more. In this movement, plex housing is often synonymous with “missing middle” housing. “Middle” refers to the fact that this housing type is between single family homes and large multifamily apartment buildings in scale and tends to be financially more available to middle-income households than single family homes. “Missing” refers to the fact that these housing types have rarely been built in the United States since the 1940s. For more information, see Attachment D for the article Missing Middle Housing by architect Daniel Parolek.
Objective Standards for Single-Family Homes
Although the growing emphasis on objective standards for housing at the State level has been focused on multifamily, policy and legal consistency point toward the wisdom of adopting objective standards for single family homes as well. Single family development in Cotati is currently subject to the Residential Design Criteria adopted in 1990. Over time, these guidelines have become outdated, and they do not provide a level of specificity or objectivity that allows clear implementation or interpretation.
Benefits of Objective Standards
In addition to compliance with State law, adopting objective standards has a number of benefits.
Importantly, objective standards introduce a significant level of certainty into the development process, reducing developer risk, which is a key impediment to development activity. Knowing how to design a project to meet clearly stated standards and be reasonably certain of approval is very important to a developer, as is the opportunity to reduce approval timelines. This may spur housing development, which can help the City meet its housing goals. Furthermore, the use of objective standards can make a City’s review of projects more efficient, focused, and consistent, thereby reducing staff time and the use of City resources.
Plex and Missing Middle Housing in Other Jurisdictions
As mentioned above, interest in plex or missing middle (MM) housing has been growing rapidly at the regional, state, and national levels. Seeking ways to diversify their housing stock, increase affordability, meet the needs of a growing number of senior and single-person households, and incentivize infill development, many jurisdictions are adopting a variety of measures to facilitate plex/MM housing. These include: adoption of objective standards; allowing plex in single-family zoning districts; adjustment of development standards such as lot coverage maximums, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and number of dwelling units per acre or parcel; reduction or removal of parking minimums; allowing increased density as unit sizes are reduced; and more.
One notable example is the City of Sacramento, which is poised to adopt significant code and policy changes to facilitate MM. The County of Marin adopted a form-based land use code in December 2022 that sets forth a number of standards meant to promote MM development. See Attachment I, Suggested Further Reading, or web links to these jurisdictions’ documents as well as other background reading on plex and MM housing.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS FOR PLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY ODS Process and Community Engagement
Staff engaged in the following activities to develop the options for plex and single family ODS:
• Review of existing City policies, including MODS, 1990 Residential Design Criteria, DSP, Land Use Code, Cottage Housing standards
• Review of other jurisdictions’ efforts to create plex standards and promote Missing Middle housing
• Review of State housing legislation
• On-line visual design preference survey of community members (Open February 8- March 14; 73 responses)
• Development of ODS options/draft Code amendments
Community outreach for the plex and single family ODS has been as follows:
• Plex and single-family ODS informational webpage
• Visual design preference survey
• Announcement of process, webpage, and survey on social media, City webpage, monthly utility bill newsletter, and e-blasts to housing and sustainability interest lists • City Council and Planning Commission Workshop (this meeting) Community Survey on Plex and Single Family Design
Staff conducted an online Visual Preference Survey to gather community input on architectural and site design features to help shape the Plex ODS and single family ODS. The survey, which asked participants to provide their reactions to and comments regarding seven examples of single family design and ten examples of plex design located in Cotati and nearby, was live from February 8 to March 14, 2024. There were seventy-three responses to the survey.
Overwhelmingly, survey respondents preferred dwellings that appeared approachable and interfaced well with the public sphere, with clearly visible entryways, porches, and windows on the street, and garages and parking either completely out of view or set back from the street.
Respondents favored Craftsman and other traditional housing designs, particularly porches, peaked roofs with a low pitch, inviting entryways, generous windows, and simple but strong details (such as wide eaves, stout/tapering porch columns, horizontal siding, gables, joists, bay windows). Boxy buildings and those that were perceived as “cookie-cutter” were not highly rated. Dwellings that were perceived as “country” or “small town” in character were preferred over those considered to be “urban.”
In rating and commenting on the single family examples, respondents showed a preference for cottage-style and modestly-sized homes. Plex housing was viewed favorably, and many comments mentioned the need to build more units on properties to meet community housing needs. The summary of survey results can be found in Attachment E.
The process to develop the MODS in 2021 also included a visual preference survey, using higher density multifamily housing examples. The responses were generally consistent with the recent survey, in particular the preference for more traditional residential design features, aversion to large boxy buildings, and the desire to maintain a small-town feel.
Some of the findings of the Plex and Single Family survey are also supported by the results of the Housing Needs and Opportunities Survey that was conducted for the preparation of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update. That survey had 147 respondents, and key takeaways included the value that residents place on Cotati’s “small town” feel, coupled with its compact and walkable/bikeable nature. Respondents felt that the most successful new housing types for Cotati would be as follows (question was phrased as “check all that apply”):
• Smaller single family homes—64%
• Townhouses or duplexes—44%
• ADUs—34%
• Apartments/condominiums 31%
• Downtown upper-story units—31%
3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CITY STANDARDS
Summary of Existing Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS) The current MODS requires “Craftsman-style” design features for multifamily buildings, as well as articulation of building facades, windows and entrances oriented toward public streets, avoidance of long stretches of blank wall, and screening of parking areas so that the development integrates with the neighborhood and enlivens the public sphere. This interactivity with public streets is also echoed in the MODS site design and layout standards, including screening of trash enclosures and mechanical equipment, standards for fencing, and limits on the amount of paving in the front setback. The MODs ensures a high-quality living environment for residents including a minimum amount of usable open space and amenities, consistent architectural style between residential buildings and accessory structures, pedestrian walkways and bicycle parking, porches, and provision of laundry and storage facilities.
1990 Residential Design Criteria
The City’s Residential Design Criteria (RDC), adopted in 1990 and revised in 1997, provide general guidance and are neither objective nor mandatory. The RDC emphasize Craftsman design, usable, unenclosed front porches, wood or stucco exterior treatments, and generous garage setbacks. The RDC also advocates for minimizing pavement, maximizing open space, providing multimodal access, provision of street trees, and xeriscape. It is proposed that the RDC be repealed with the adoption of ODS for plex and single family, as many of the criteria are proposed to be incorporated into those ODS and are present in the existing MODS. Attachment F includes a copy of the RDC.
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
Adopted in 2009 and updated in 2023, the DSP is a “form-based” specific plan that establishes design and development standards for buildings to support a vibrant downtown area. The DSP regulates the Historic Core, La Plaza, Northern Gateway, and Commerce Avenue zoning districts, where multifamily residential use is allowed but single family development is not. The current MODS draws heavily on residential standards set forth in the DSP, including the following: Main entries for ground floor units to be accessed from the street or a common courtyard; living space orientation toward courtyard or the street; a minimum of 150 square feet of shared open space per unit; and a minimum dimension of 20 feet for courtyards. The MODS, Plex ODS, and single family ODS will not be applicable in the DSP zones, as the objective standards of the DSP are applied in this area.
Santero Way Specific Plan (SWSP)
The SWSP, which is currently being updated, also sets forth its own set of objective standards that are applied to properties in that area, where only higher density multifamily and mixed use are allowed. Therefore, the MODS, Plex ODS, and single family ODS will not be applicable to this area.
Cottage Housing
The Cottage Housing Ordinance (CH), codified as CMC Section 17.42.125, provides a discretionary approval process for a specific residential development type featuring modestlysized single family detached or attached units arranged in clusters oriented toward common open space areas. CH has its own standards primarily relating to site design and development which are generally objective in nature. A number of these standards are similar to those in the MODS; however, CH identifies a very specific housing type and site design with significant common open space and amenities, whereas the ODS generally apply to an array of different development types, sizes, and intensities. CH does not currently include architectural design standards, however, and staff are recommending that the CH ordinance be amended to refer to the proposed Plex ODS and Single Family ODS for this guidance.
4. OPTIONS FOR ODS FOR PLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN COTATI The options for Plex Housing ODS and Single Family ODS developed by staff represent a synthesis of the above-described design standards, legal requirements, community input, and existing regulatory framework into a cohesive set of potential standards for these housing types.
The options proposed are summarized below. The options are also presented as redline changes to the Land Use Code text, for context with existing Code requirements, in Attachment A. A number of amendments to the MODS for consistency with the Plex and Single Family ODS are also proposed.
Plex ODS Options Summary
The Plex ODS can be similar or identical to the MODS across a number of standards. However, some changes are warranted to address the reduced scale and number of units of plex development relative to larger multifamily developments. Other aspects of the Plex ODS should address the unique nature of this housing type as a middle ground in terms of housing affordability. Options for consideration include:
• Similar to MODS, orientation of unit entryways, porches/stoops, windows toward street, and street-facing parking not allowed
• Maximum 3 story (35-feet) height; 3rd story set back 30’ from single family homes in lower-density zoning districts
• Maximum street-facing façade width 75’
• Architectural design: Echo MODS’ emphasis on traditional cottage or bungalow style design and specific architectural details such as low-pitched roofs, deep eaves, exposed rafters, usable front porches. (While the MODS has specifically referred to “Craftsman” design, staff feel that this is too limiting, and does not accurately reflect Cotati’s architectural style, which is a mix of Farmhouse, Mission, Victorian, Colonial, and California Craftsman. The phrase “traditional California bungalow” is recommended for use throughout the ODS.)
• Maximum unit sizes, to encourage smaller units which are likely to be less expensive to rent/buy (“affordability by design”). A comparison of dwelling unit sizes for several developments proposed or already constructed in Cotati is in Attachment G. o Studio units: 600 sqft
o 1 bedroom units: 900 sqft
o 2 bedroom units: 1200 sqft
o 3 bedrooms units: 1500 sqft
o 4+ bedroom units: 1800 sqft
• Site design and accessory elements similar to MODS, except for reduced usable open space requirement of 100 sqft per unit (MODS requires 150 sqft), and no common amenities required
Single Family ODS Options Summary
As with the MODS and Plex ODS, the single family ODS should promote design standards that reflect and reinforce Cotati’s character. However, some flexibility in design features and clarity in criteria is necessary for individual needs effective administration.
Options include:
• Primary entry to home clearly visible from street, with open porch of minimum six by eight feet in size
• Echo MODS and Plex ODS in exterior materials: Wood or concrete-based wood siding or shingles, stucco, brick, and/or stone.
• Maximum garage façade width 25’
• Minimal uninterrupted blank walls
• Maximum 40% of front setback area paved
• Comply with at least 5 of the following:
o Low pitched roof
o Deep eaves with exposed roof beams
o Triangular knee brace supports, extended or decorative roof beams o Divided light windows
o Double hung, single hung, casement, or fixed windows with wide wood trim o Entry door with recessed panels or glazing, with wide wood trim o Ground floor raised twelve to thirty inches above grade o Porch roof supported by wide columns
o Upper story(ies) of house set back at least thirty-six inches from first story o Parking behind dwelling (not visible from street)
Summary of Proposed Amendments to MODS:
• Clarify that MODS applies to all multifamily projects of 10 units or more, and not exclusively SB 35 projects
• Add stoops as an alternative to porches in Neighborhood Urban zoning district • Refer to “traditional California bungalow” design rather than Craftsman • Add requirement to porches to be enclosed by railing or low wall, for a more finished look
• Require that a minimum 10% of units be single-story and designed for accessibility • Remove prohibition on removal of heritage trees—this is redundant with the requirement for a tree removal permit that is already stated in the tree preservation ordinance, and is not grounds to deny a project based on objective standards Additional Options to Facilitate Housing Development
In order to facilitate housing development overall and plex/MM housing development in particular, the City may wish to consider amendments to a number of development standards in the Land Use Code (Cotati Municipal Code Chapter 17) as summarized below and shown in the redline code amendments in Attachment A.
1. Update allowed uses to be consistent with zoning district descriptions: This change would simplify the tables to reduce the number of different residential uses, and allow plex housing by-right in the Neighborhood Low Density (NL), Neighborhood Medium Density (NM), and Neighborhood Urban (NU) zoning districts, and multifamily of 10+ units in the NM district, in keeping with Section 17.30.20 Purposes of the zoning districts:
a. NL (Neighborhood, Low Density) Zoning District is applied to areas developed with and appropriate for neighborhoods of detached and attached single-family homes, and duplexes, including limited neighborhood retail uses and related, compatible uses.
b. NM (Neighborhood, Medium Density) Zoning District is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of housing types, including small lot single-family housing, and various types of multifamily housing (for example, duplexes, townhouses, and apartments), limited neighborhood retail uses, and related, compatible uses.
c. NU (Neighborhood, Urban) Zoning District is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of higher-density housing types, including all types of multifamily housing, neighborhood serving commercial uses, and related compatible uses.
An additional option is to require a Use Permit for a duplex in the NU district, with a finding that such development does not preclude further development of the property with additional dwelling units in the future. This is currently a requirement for singlefamily homes in NU and NM. (Section 17.22.020 Allowed Uses Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4) (A Map of Cotati’s Zoning districts is included as Attachment H.)
2. Reduce minimum parcel size and width in the NM, NU, Commercial East Cotati Avenue Corridor (CE), and Commercial Gravenstein Corridor (CG) districts to increase feasibility of development of plex housing and small-lot subdivisions. (Section 17.24.020 Table 2-4)
3. Reduce or adjust setbacks to increase housing development feasibility as follows (Section
17.24.030):
a. NL: Side interior from 5’ on one side and 7’ on the other, to 5’ on both sides b. NM: Front from 20’ to 15’; side interior to be 5’ for plex housing; rear from 20’ to 15’
c. NU: Side interior to be 5’ for plex housing; street side and rear from 15’ to 10’ d. Downtown Commercial (CD): Side interior to be 5’ for plex housing
4. Remove pavement from lot coverage calculations. Cotati is unique in including pavement in lot coverage, and doing so may unduly challenge plex and multifamily development. (Section 17.24.030)
5. Introduce maximum dwelling unit sizes to encourage development of smaller units which are more “affordable by design” as well as more units overall per property, as follows (Section 17.24.030):
a. NM and CD: 2,200 sqft
b. NU: 2,000 sqft
6. Allow uncovered parking spaces and driveways to occupy the interior side or rear setback area if a minimum 3’ landscaped strip is maintained alongside property line, with wheel stops installed to protect landscaping, in order to increase developable area of smaller lots. (Section 17.30.020(E)(3))
7. Increase the allowable projection of porches, stoops, and associated stairs into the front setback to 5’ for plex housing to increase developable area of smaller lots. (Section
17.30.020(F) Table 3-1)
8. In accordance with Housing Element Program 3-1, set minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing to be consistent with those allowed by the State Density Bonus, as follows (Section 17.36.050(A) Table 3-7):
a. Studio and one-bedroom units: 1 space
b. Two- and three-bedroom units: 1.5 spaces
c. Four+ bedroom units: 2 spaces
9. Remove the requirement for covered parking for residential uses to reduce cost of housing developments (Section 17.30.020(F) Table 3-1.)
10. Extend the possibility of shared parking with a Use Permit to residential uses and within mixed use projects; and allow a portion of required residential guest parking to be allowed on-street with Use Permit approval, to allow more developable area for housing in certain projects. (Section 17.36.080(A), (E), and (F))
11. Allow an 11’ wide driveway to access parking in a plex property, to maximize buildable lot area. (Section 17.36.090(D) Table 3-9)
12. Exempt plex housing projects from including a woonerf to reduce cost of development and increase buildable area of smaller lots. (Section 17.36.100(F))
6. NEXT STEPS
At this workshop, the Council and Commission is requested to consider options for development of the Plex ODS and Single Family ODS and other potential code changes to promote housing development, and provide feedback and direction to staff, with the goal for staff to bring a draft ordinance with proposed changes back to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at public hearings.
7. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council conduct a workshop to consider options for development of Plex Housing ODS and Single Family ODS and for code changes to facilitate housing development and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Redline of Land Use Code amendment options
B. Comparison Table of Housing Mandates and Programs
C. Residential Zoning Development Standards
D. Missing Middle Housing article by Daniel Parolek
E. Plex and Single Family Design Visual Preference Survey Results Summary F. 1990 Residential Design Criteria
G. Dwelling Unit Size Comparison Matrix
H. Cotati Zoning Map
I. Suggested Further Reading
.