Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AMENDING TITLE 17
(LAND USE) OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
MULTIFAMILY PLEX HOUSING AND SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING AND TO MAKE UPDATES TO FACILITATE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Date: July 9, 2024
Written by: Autumn Buss, Associate Planner
Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community Development Department that the City Council hold a public hearing and introduce an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish objective design standards for multifamily plex and single family housing, and to make updates to facilitate housing development.
Background
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. Over the past few years, objective design standards (ODS) have become common for nearly all land use regulation that relates to multifamily housing. This is particularly true when a developer invokes State housing laws that restrict the enforcement of local land use standards and/or the City’s review process of a housing development.
The City of Cotati 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. In practice, the MODS is now applied to any multifamily housing development review in the city (except those using the Cottage Housing Ordinance), regardless of whether the project proposes the use of SB 35, due to the larger trend toward objective standards described above.
It should be noted that 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 in terms of local control and in planning and zoning norms as local governments adjust to keep their standards relevant and legal.
The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update includes policies and actions to increase the housing supply in Cotati. Specifically, the Housing Element (HE) includes Program 2-2, “Streamlining Housing Development,” which includes an action item to expand the City’s existing MODS for Senate Bill 35 multifamily housing projects to apply to all multifamily projects as well as single family homes and mixed-use projects. HE 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. “Plex” housing refers to multifamily housing developments that include two to nine units total in a single building or across multiple buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and courtyard apartments. These housing types are also referred to as “Missing Middle.”
On May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public workshop to review options for codification of objective design standards (ODS) for multifamily plex and single family housing, and Land Use Code (CMC Title 17) amendments that would facilitate housing development in Cotati. The May 28, 2024, workshop staff report includes additional background information and can be found at https://cotaticity.primegov.com/public/portal. At the workshop, the Planning Commission and City Council members directed staff to develop a draft ordinance that included all of the options presented and discussed at the workshop, with several minor revisions, which will be discussed below.
The draft ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on June 17, 2024. The Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance, with one revision requesting clarification that a project that qualifies for the State Density Bonus may request a waiver of the maximum unit size development standard as one of its allowed incentives and concessions.
Analysis/Discussion
The draft ordinance to establish Plex Housing ODS and Single Family ODS developed by staff represents a synthesis of the City’s existing design standards and regulatory framework, State legal requirements, community input, and Planning Commission and City Council direction into a cohesive set of proposed standards for these housing types. Several amendments to the existing MODS for consistency with the Plex and Single Family ODS are also proposed. The draft ordinance also includes several proposed amendments to the Land Use Code to facilitate housing development. The provisions of the draft ordinance are summarized below, and a redline/strikethrough version of the proposed Code amendments is included in Attachment A.
Proposed Standards for Plex ODS
The proposed Plex ODS are 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 address the unique nature of this housing type as a middle ground in terms of housing affordability.
Specific provisions in the draft ordinance 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 50’ (in the May 28 workshop, 75’ was presented; staff have determined that 50’ is more consistent with the smaller scale of plex housing). • Architectural design: Follow 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 existing MODS specifically refers 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 residential architectural styles” 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”). In response to feedback received at the workshop, the draft ordinance requires that at least 80% of units in a development meet the following maximums:
o Studio units: 600 sqft
o 1 bedroom units: 900 sqft
o 2 bedroom units: 1,200 sqft
o 3 bedrooms units: 1,500 sqft
o 4+ bedroom units: 1,800 sqft
Attachment B, Dwelling Unit Size Comparison, provides unit sizes for several existing and proposed development projects, for reference.
• 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
Proposed Standards for Single Family ODS
As with the MODS and Plex ODS, the single family (SF) ODS should set design standards that reflect and reinforce Cotati’s character. However, some flexibility in design features is desirable to accommodate individual homeowner budgets and tastes. The draft ordinance includes the following requirements:
• 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. In response to comments at the workshop, plywood siding with vertical wood battens has been added to all three ODS to increase builder options and affordability of construction.
• Maximum garage façade width 25’
• Uninterrupted blank walls limited to 20’ length
• 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 walls of house set back from first story by at least thirty-six inches o Parking behind dwelling (not visible from street)
Proposed Amendments to MODS
Several changes are proposed to clarify the existing MODS and increase consistency with the other ODS:
• 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 (NU) zoning district • Refer to “traditional residential architectural styles” design rather than Craftsman style • Add requirement for 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.
Following the May 28, 2024 workshop, the architectural design-specific standards of the existing MODS and proposed Plex and Single Family ODS were reviewed by the City’s contract architectural consultant for feasibility and consistency with common construction practices. No changes to the proposed standards were recommended.
Additional Code Amendments to Facilitate Housing Development In order to facilitate housing development overall and plex housing development in particular, the draft ordinance proposes updates to a number of development standards in the Land Use Code, 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 NL, NM, and 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.
In addition, it is proposed 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 single family 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 C.)
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; zero setback required between rowhouse units
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, and from 10’ at first floor and 15’ at upper floors to 5’ and 10’ respectively for multifamily of 10+ units and nonresidential; 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. Establish maximum dwelling unit sizes for all residential or mixed-use development in certain zoning districts to encourage development of smaller units which are more “affordable by design” as well as more units overall per property (Section 17.24.030). In response to feedback received at the workshop, the draft ordinance requires that at least 80% of units in a new development meet the following maximums:
a. NM and CD zoning districts: 2,200 sqft
b. NU zoning district: 2,000 sqft
c. All other zoning districts (RR, RVL, NL, DSP districts): No dwelling unit size maximums proposed in draft ordinance
Attachment B, Dwelling Unit Size Comparison, provides unit sizes for several existing and proposed development projects, for reference.
6. Allow uncovered parking spaces and driveways to occupy the interior side or rear setback area if a minimum 30” landscaped strip for parking spaces, and 12” landscaped strip for driveways, is maintained alongside property line in order to increase developable area of smaller lots. (Sections 17.30.020(E)(3) and 17.36.090(A))
7. Increase the allowable projection of porches, stoops, and associated stairs into the front setback to 5’ for all uses 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 automobile 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). In response to feedback received at the workshop, the draft ordinance includes a requirement that projects providing parking at a level equal to less than 1.5 spaces per unit (average for the development) shall submit a parking management plan with their planning permit application. Specific measures to limit neighborhood impact though the parking management plan would be determined for each project through the Conditions of Approval process.
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 automobile parking for residential uses to reduce cost of housing development (Section 17.36.050(A) Table 3-7).
10. Adjust required bicycle and motorcycle parking ratios in order to compensate for potential reduced automobile parking based on #8 above, and clarify bicycle parking design, layout, and location standards. (Section 17.36.070) These proposed amendments were added by staff following the May 28, 2024 workshop.
11. Extend the possibility of shared parking with a Use Permit between adjacent residential and non-residential uses; allow shared parking within mixed use projects; allow a portion of required residential parking to be allowed on-street with Use Permit approval; and allow consideration of parking reductions based on review of quantitative information regarding parking needs and impacts, to allow more developable area for housing in certain projects. (Section 17.36.080(A), (B), (E), and (F))
12. Allow flexibility in driveway width to access parking in a plex property, to maximize buildable lot area. (Section 17.36.090(D) Table 3-9) At the May 28, 2024 workshop, staff proposed an 11’ wide driveway standard. In subsequent discussions with the Rancho Adobe Fire District (RAFD), it became clear that this would not be feasible. A range of options that RAFD considers workable is now included.
13. Clarify driveway spacing and dimensions for residential developments. (Section
17.36.100(B) and (C)) Add definitions for driveway and parking aisle, lot, space, and stall, which were previously not included in Code.
14. 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)) Note that the woonerf standards require a minimum of 80’ of driveway length (110’ if woonerf is off of an arterial street) which features no or minimal parking spaces, which due to smaller lot sizes may disqualify many plex developments from the woonerf requirement even if not exempted explicitly.
15. Update mixed use project standards (Section 17.42.100), residential accessory structures standards (Section 17.42.160), Design Review requirements (Section 17.62.040), and definition of “multifamily housing” (17.90.020) for consistency with other proposed Code amendments in the draft ordinance.
16. Delete Section 17.42.120 Multifamily and small-lot single family projects, as all provisions of this section are proposed to be included in the ODS Code and other sections.
17. Apply architectural design standards of proposed Plex ODS to Cottage Housing projects. (Section 17.42.12)
18. Repeal the 1990 Residential Design Criteria, as they are replaced with the ODS.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17, 2024 to review the draft ordinance.
While supportive of the draft ordinance, the Commission expressed concerns about two issues related to implementation of the proposed code changes:
1. Flexibility for developers related to the proposed unit size maximums: The Commissioners found the proposed application of those maximums to only 80% of the units in a development to be helpful, but asked staff for suggestions for further flexibility, particularly if a development provides affordable units. Staff responded that projects providing a certain number of affordable units may qualify for the State Density Bonus, which provides a process for developers to request relief under specific circumstances from a certain number of development standards, which could include maximum unit sizes. The Planning Commission found this approach satisfactory and amended the recommending resolution to request that this option be made available to developers.
However, a code amendment to this effect is not necessary, as State Density Bonus law already provides this overriding provision which developers may use for qualifying projects.
2. Requirement for parking management plan:
a. In response to comments at the May 28 workshop requesting that a parking management plan be required, staff included this requirement for projects providing the minimum level of parking at the proposed new parking ratios.
However, the Commissioners expressed concern that this threshold might be too low. Accordingly, staff have changed the recommended code amendment in the ordinance to a threshold of 1.5 parking spaces or less (averaged across the development) as triggering the requirement to submit a parking management plan. b. The Planning Commissioners expressed concern about what the parking management plan would entail and how much staff time might be required for review and ongoing management. Staff responded that the parking management plan would be a submittal requirement with the planning approval application, but that individual project requirements would be determined through the Conditions of Approval process in order to minimize the neighborhood impact of each specific project. One key tool, for instance, particularly for larger multifamily projects, might be a requirement for an on-site property manager who would be responsible for monitoring and enforcing rules associated with parking use.
The Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance, with one revision requesting clarification that a project that qualifies for the State Density Bonus may request relief from the maximum unit size development standards, if such waiver or concession is available in compliance with State Density Bonus Law.
Financial Considerations
Except the staff time needed to prepare the draft ordinance, there are no direct financial impacts to the general fund associated with its adoption.
Environmental Issues
The proposed amendments to the Cotati land use code related to housing development are consistent with and implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the 2015 General Plan and the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Given this staff finds that the proposed ordinance conforms to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which provides a streamlined review of the environmental impacts of the project by tiering from the program level analysis prepared for the Cotati General Plan and its certified EIR. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects which are determined to be consistent with the development expectations established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine projectspecific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This focused analysis should be limited to potential environmental impacts of the project not anticipated or analyzed in the Cotati General Plan’s program level EIR. Staff finds that all adopted mitigating General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR will address any potential environmental impacts of the proposed code changes. Further, project-specific environmental analysis of any future proposed housing development proposed under the amended Code will be required and will allow project-specific impacts not previously identified or anticipated to be addressed.