DATE:
November 21, 2023
TO:
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
FROM:
Chad Smalley, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Objective Development Standards:
First Reading And Introduction Of An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Emeryville Amending The Planning Regulations In Title 9 Of The Emeryville Municipal Code To Streamline The Development Review Process For Multifamily And Mixed-Use Residential Projects Requiring Ministerial Approval To Comply With State Law Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Emeryville Amending The Emeryville Design Guidelines Consistent With The Changes To Title 9 Of The Emeryville Municipal Code Recommendation
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council review the attached materials and (1) waive first reading and introduce the proposed ordinance amending the Planning Regulations in Title 9 of the Emeryville Municipal Code, and (2) adopt the draft resolution amending the Emeryville Design Guidelines.
Background
Since 1969, California has required that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet housing goals. On January 1, 2018, a new State law, Senate Bill (“SB”) 35, went into effect limiting the City’s ability to require certain multifamily and mixed-use residential development proposals to comply with subjective standards, regulations, and criteria. Under SB 35, multifamily and mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds of their square footage designated for residential uses, and in which a minimum of 50% of the total units in the development are affordable, may undergo streamlined review and the City’s ability to deny or reduce the density of these projects is limited, as long as the projects comply with “objective development standards.” State law generally defines such standards as those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that are uniformly verifiable by a benchmark or criterion known prior to application submittal.
On December 20, 2019, the City was awarded an SB 2 Planning Grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development for preparation of such objective development standards. In June of 2020, the City issued a Request for Proposals, resulting in the selection of Lexington Planning as the consultant for the project and the City Council authorized the execution of a contract with Lexington Planning on September 15, 2020. Since then, staff has been working with the consultant to review current documents, conduct stakeholder meetings, and develop the attached changes to the Planning Regulations and the Emeryville Design Guidelines (referred to as “Design Guidelines” in the remainder of this report).
The goal of developing objective development standards is to express the residential development standards in Emeryville's plans, regulations, and guidelines as measurable, “yes-or-no” standards. These objective development standards are intended to be used to evaluate those projects for which State laws limit the City to ministerial review only (meaning that the review does not involve any independent, subjective judgement), or for which State laws otherwise limits the City’s scope of review.
Initial Input
Before beginning extensive work on developing objective standards and updating the Design Guidelines, study sessions were held with both the Planning Commission and City Council. The feedback from these meetings provided critical direction in revising the Planning Regulations and Design Guidelines.
The Planning Commission held a study session on April 22, 2021 to review an Issues and Options Paper discussing requirements and opportunities to streamline the development review process for multifamily and mixed-use residential projects requiring ministerial approval to comply with State law. The Commission’s comments included the following:
objective standards can be too restrictive and should allow for variety and innovation; the standards should include environmental requirements (specifically, implementation of the Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan, complete streets, energy efficiency, and pedestrian and bicycle friendliness); the standards should consider neighborhood impacts (such as shadows) and include building design details addressing glare and bird safety; and the standards should reflect what makes a “great housing project.” The Commissioners expressed appreciation for the detailed review and concern that their limited time to review the topic was not sufficient to provide direction. It was suggested that a special meeting be held that focused solely on the topic of objective standards. As a result, a special meeting was held on Thursday, June 17, 2021.
Prior to the Planning Commission’s special meeting, on May 18, 2021, a City Council study session on the same topic was held with a more focused presentation than the Planning Commission received at their April 22, 2021 study session. The City Council provided feedback on objective standards that largely focused on how projects interface with public space (landscaping, open space, public art, and discards/garbage storage) and ensuring the general functionality of a project (delivery areas, bike facilitates, and bike parking). The City Council also suggested that residential demolition projects have an objective standard, such as the expense of preservation being compared to the expense of demolition; and that all projects include environmental objective standards, such as building materials, bird safety standards, and requiring residential projects to have 100% electric infrastructure. When asked if the City Council would like to hold a joint special study session with the Planning Commission to discuss objective standards, the City Council declined, indicating that this study session combined with follow-up meetings provided them with adequate opportunities for feedback.
The June 17, 2021 Planning Commission special meeting focused on the question “What aspects of design are important to you, and would you want addressed in the objective standards?” The Commission discussion included what makes good design, from public realm improvements and how the building meets the sidewalk, to site planning, massing, articulation and design details. There was a strong desire that the objective standards not lead to housing projects that all look the same, and that the standards not be too prescriptive.
There was general consensus about the importance of the public realm, including the sidewalk, landscape areas and street trees, and street furniture such as lighting and benches. Commissioners opined that building design should seamlessly integrate with the sidewalk area and offer opportunities for engagement through seating, artwork, landscaping, or other design elements. Commissioners agreed that the Greenway is an extraordinary example of the successful implementation of design standards. Commissioners also agreed that projects should underground utilities along the project street frontages. Some Commissioners expressed concerns about locating individual unit entrances on busy streets, such as Powell Street.
In terms of on-site improvements for project sites, there was general support for sustainability, both building efficiency and alternative travel modes (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle access and facilities). There was general support for usable open space for tenants and green space at the interface of the private and public realm to the greater community. Some Commissioners expressed a preference for native plantings.
In terms of building design, there was general consensus about the need for articulation and a desire for variety in architectural styles. It was stated that uniqueness can be generated through innovative designs, architecture that reflects historic and site context, public art, and secret pathways. Some Commissioners expressed a desire to study shadows, parking, and privacy impacts to neighbors and existing properties when new buildings are proposed.
There was a desire for standards to protect from undesirable conditions, such as long, unvaried façades and rooflines. Additionally, there was support for windows being recessed and detailed. There was not strong interest in regulating building materials. Commissioners also expressed caution not to make standards, such as the current family-friendly guidelines, too onerous for below-market rate projects.
DISCUSSION
In addition to incorporating the feedback provided at initial study sessions, in an effort to clearly delineate objective regulations from subjective review, subjective language in the Planning Regulations was either made objective or moved to the Design Guidelines. Proposed changes to the Planning Regulations reviewed by the Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Committee (“BPAC”), Transportation Committee, Planning Commission and City Council during Summer 2023 are summarized below under “Summary of Changes to the Planning Regulations.” Likewise, all items in the Design Guidelines that were objective, or could be made objective, are proposed to be relocated to the Planning Regulations. Changes to the Design Guidelines that were reviewed by the BPAC, Transportation Committee, Planning Commission and City Council during Summer 2023 are summarized below under “Summary of Changes to the Design Guidelines.” Summary of Changes to the Planning Regulations
Section 9-3.404: specifies the location of the Neighborhood Retail Overlay Zone.
Section 9-4.202: includes modifications that simplify and clarify language pertaining to height and bulk.
Section 9-4.202(f)(1) and (2) are new sections that provide requirements for vertical and horizontal articulation.
Table 9-4.204(e) (Community Benefits and Bonus Points): is modified to simplify the Public Open Space point calculation, and add a new category (8) for Designing Convertible Parking Garages for Adaptive Reuse.
Section 9-4.301: includes modifications to make the determination of corner lots objective and add features allowed in required yards.
Table 9-4.301(a) (Minimum Setbacks): is modified to simplify setback requirements.
Section 9-4.302: simplifies and clarifies court requirements.
Section 9-4.303: simplifies and clarifies open space requirements, and adds Public Park Requirements that addresses the implementation of “Other Park Opportunities” identified in the General Plan and Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan.
Section 9-4.406: includes specifics about off-street parking in the RM zone and curb cut restrictions on San Pablo Avenue and 40th Street.
Section 9-4.408: includes updates and clarifications to the bicycle parking requirements to address ongoing concerns brought up at BPAC about bicycle parking design and requirements.
Section 9-4.504: now specifies that stormwater management measures may count toward landscaping requirements, but not towards common open space requirements.
Section 9-4.507: includes language clarifying from which views roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened.
Section 9-4.508: is a new section that specifies when utility undergrounding is required.
Section 9-4.602: now directly references the documents entitled “Emeryville Water Efficient Landscape Prescriptive Requirements for Smaller Landscapes” and “Emeryville Water Efficient Landscape Prescriptive Requirements for Larger Landscapes.” Section 9-4.703: adds language specifying requirements related to pedestrian access.
Section 9-4.704: is modified to reference the document entitled “Guide to Requirements for a Discards Collection Plan for New and Remodeled Projects,” making the language in the section redundant, necessitating the removal of subsection (b).
Section 9-4.706: is a new section that contains specifications for residential windows.
Section 9-4.707: is a new section that requires that all projects comply with applicable requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
Section 9-4.708: and Table 9-4.709(a): are new and contain public improvements, specifically addressing sidewalks, largely relocated from the Design Guidelines.
Section 9-4.803: now includes specific language about applicable distances of bird-safe requirements from plants and water features.
Article 12 of Chapter 5 (Preservation of Structures): now incorporates references to California Government Code Section 66300(d)(2)(F)(vi) (SB 330) so that “protected units” require City Council approval for demolition, whereas non-protected units may be demolished without City Council approval. Subsequently, Section 9-5.1206(b)(2) has an additional finding that Council must make for the replacement of protected residential units: d. The circumstances described in California Government Code Section 66300(d)(2)(A) through (D) apply to the project.” These provisions generally relate to replacement of protected units and fair treatment of their occupants.
Section 9-5.1402, for the applicability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) now explicitly refers to State Law, stating “Should any provisions of these regulations be determined inconsistent with State law requirements for accessory dwelling units, State law shall prevail.” This provision is necessary because, in recent years, State law regarding ADUs has changed nearly every year.
Section 9-5.2004: is now expanded, incorporating the Family Friendly Design standards from the Design Guidelines that have been made objective.
Section 9-5.2008: the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) section has been simplified. Previously, a study was required, and the section suggested that various TDM options “may” be included. Now, projects are required to include measures chosen by the applicant from a menu of options.
Section 9-5.2009: Multi-Unit Residential Design and Amenities is a new section largely incorporating previously subjective statements from the Design Guidelines.
Section 9-7.304: is a new section that explicitly includes Objective Design Review under the category of Zoning Compliance Review: “As part of zoning compliance review, any multi-unit residential development application that requires exterior modifications or new construction shall be subject to objective design review per Section 9-7.404(a). Also, if the project meets the contribution requirements of Section 3-2.403, then public art requirements shall apply.
Section 9-7.404(a): is a new section explaining how Objective Design Review operates in conjunction with Zoning Compliance Review.
Section 9-7.404(a): for new construction of residential units, Minor Design Review was previously only available for single- or two-unit developments. Section 9-7.404(a)(2) expands this to include “New construction or alteration of Multi-Unit residential uses with fewer than 10 units.” Section 9-7.404(a)(6) is modified to be consistent with Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) designations of “small” and “large” landscaping projects.
Section 9-7.407: now includes clarification to major and minor design review findings and adds a new finding in subsection (d) regarding objective standards “The project is consistent with objective standards, including but not limited to standards listed in Section 9-7.1604(a).” Article 16 of Chapter 7: is a new article explaining Ministerial and Discretionary Approvals, and includes a cross-referenced list of objective standards that apply to all projects.
Chapter 8 of Title 9: some existing terms have been updated in the definitions section of the Planning Regulations (Section 9-8.206(m) Floor Area; 9-8.216(xx) Public Open Space), and new definitions have been added (Section 9-8.215(a) Objective Design Review; Section 9-8.215(j) Open Space, Public).
Summary of Changes to the Emeryville Design Guidelines
All items in the Design Guidelines that were objective, or could be made objective, were moved to the Planning Regulations. Consequently, only subjective design guidelines remain. As part of the review process, some design guidelines were removed, or language was modified. This was done to provide clarity, remove redundancies, and improve the efficiency and user-friendliness of the document. Once finalized, a checklist of all the design guidelines will be created for applicants to fill out and submit as part of the application process. Changes reviewed by the BPAC, Transportation Committee, Planning Commission and City Council during Summer 2023 included:
The addition of six new design guidelines pertaining to bicycle lockers (B-6), Bicycle Facilities (B-7), Convertible Parking Structure Design (B-9), Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting (G-23), Kitchen Cabinets (G-23), and Multi-Unit Corridors (J-9).
Reducing the size of the Design Guidelines from 237 guidelines to 150. In addition to the reasons stated above, 6 of the 87 removed guidelines were redundant with the Planning Regulations, including several from the Sign and Family Friendly sections (which have mostly been made objective and moved to the Planning Regulations).
Updated pictures with captions explaining their content and stating which guideline(s) that the picture is related to. The updated photos use examples almost exclusively from Emeryville, highlighting projects and features already in place throughout the city.
Committee, Commission and Council Reviews
Responses to comments are indicated in italics in the discussion below.
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
At their June 5, 2023 meeting the BPAC reviewed the proposed modifications to the bicycle parking regulations (Section 9-4.408), the public improvements section of the Planning Regulations (Section 9-4.708); Design Guidelines sections related to pedestrians and bicycles, and proposed Guidelines for Bicycle Parking in the Public Right of Way. The BPAC unanimously recommended the City Council approve the proposed changes with the following modifications:
include installation requirements for outdoor bike racks (included in the Guidelines for Bicycle Parking in the Public Right of Way); add a design guideline recommending the consideration of adding a cross bar to staple racks to accommodate a wider variety of bicycles (incorporated into horizontal parking requirements in Section 9-4.408(c)(1)a.i.); and include adaptive bicycles in the description of Large Bicycles (included in Section 9-4.408(f)(7).
Additionally, the BPAC agreed with staff’s recommendation of developing a guidelines document for the installation of bike racks in the public right of way, to be referenced in the Planning Regulations.
Transportation Committee
On June 20, 2023, the Transportation Committee reviewed the same documents as the BPAC at their meeting earlier in June. There was no public comment. The Committee recommended:
adding a regulation that retail and commercial areas be required to provide parking spaces for large bikes (Section 9-4.408(c)(1)g. applies to all projects, including retail and commercial areas);and more clearly define a minimum amount of large bicycle parking spaces required for retail locations (Section 9-4.408(c)(1)g. now clarifies that “In projects that require more than four, but fewer than 10 bicycle parking spaces, a minimum of one large bicycle parking space must be provided).
The Committee unanimously voted in support of the objective standards with the above changes.
Planning Commission Study Session
On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission held their third study session related to objective standards. The Commission made suggestions for:
minor revisions to family-friendly unit dimensions and pet amenity areas (Figure 9-5.2004(a) is now consistent with Section 9-5.2009(3)iv; Section 9-5.2009(e)7) now includes both indoor and outdoor areas for pet amenities); and recommended that horizontal articulations standards apply only above the ground level (Section 9-4.202(f)(2) updated to state this).
The Commission also expressed interest in revisiting the standards over time to assess their effectiveness. There were no public comments on this item.
City Council Study Session
On July 5, 2023, the City Council held their second study session to review objective standards. The City Council asked questions about the process and applicability of objective standards. The Council also made the following recommendations:
Section 9-4.406(c)(3): add a prohibition on new curb cuts on Shellmound Street (Shellmound Street was assessed in detail by staff; Shellmound Street has been added to the list of streets where new curb cuts are prohibited). 9-4.704(a): requested that any requirements related to discards be included for Council’s review (the Requirements for Discards Collection Plans document is included as Attachment 2 to this report). 9-4.706: add requirement of double paned windows on residential development to address noise impacts (subsection (d) added to include requirement for double-pane windows). 9-5.2004: add a requirement for ceiling fans in every bedroom (subsection (c)6) has been added to include requirement for ceiling fans in every bedroom). 9-5.2009: require mail rooms be secured, locked with electronic digital/fobbed access, include parcel lockers, and require security cameras (subsection (a) has been modified to include these items). 9-5.2009: require entry ways to have button activated doors (after assessing options with the Building Division, this item was not added as actuated doors cannot typically be used for fire exits and can create security problems, additionally, a future study session on accessibility is expected to address this topic).
Additionally, Council noted that Section 9-5.1206(b)(2) doesn’t protect naturally occurring affordable housing not covered by California Government Code Section 66300. To address this concern and to provide clarity to Article 12 of Chapter 5:
Section 9-5.1206 has been restructured so that all findings for significant structures are under subsection (a), and all findings for residential units are under subsection (b); Permits under Section 9-5.1206 are no longer processed as conditional use permits, but rather “Preservation Permits”, which are required to be notified in the same way as conditional use permits; Preservation of significant structures and demolition for the purpose of public safety (for both significant structures and residential units) is approved by the Community Development Director, whereas demolition for other purposes is approved by City Council Subsection (b)(1)ii. has been added to require the applicant to state the reason for the proposed demolition and provided evidence that it is more expensive to rehabilitate the existing building/s than to rebuild. This evidence must be evaluated and verified by a third party that has been approved by the Chief Building Official, at the applicant’s expense.
Subsection (b)(1)b. has been added stating that “if a unit is defined as a Protected Unit, per California Government Code Section 66300, the City Council shall approve the replacement based on the requirements of California Government Code Section 66300, and the findings required by subsection a. above.” Subsection (b)(1)c. has been added to address the replacement of units with rent levels that are less than fair market value but not captured under California Government Code Section 66300; Planning Commission Public Hearing
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Planning Regulations and Design Guidelines amendments at their regular meeting on October 26, 2023. No public comment was received. After initial clarifying questions on public outreach and demolition of significant structures, the Commission discussed the requirement of providing elevators that accommodate large or cargo bicycles and orientation of ground floor residential units. After a robust discussion, the Commission recommended the following changes to Section 9-4.408(c)(2)(d) and Section 9-4.703:
The underline and the strike out are original proposed revisions to the Sections and the italics are the added language recommended by the Commission. 9-4.408(c)(2): Standards of Bicycle Parking: Location
d. Bicycle parking shall be located on the ground floor unless a ramp that is at least six feet (6’) wide is provided, or an elevator is provided that is large enough to accommodate a large bicycle. If all the required large bicycle parking spaces are provided on the ground floor and other standard bicycle parking is provided on the upper floors, then an elevator shall be provided to accommodate standard bicycles. Bicycle parking may be provided inside a building provided it is easily accessible from a building entrance and a bicyclist does not have to use stairs to reach it. 9-4.703 Pedestrian Access.
(b) Residential uses (Ground-Floor Entrances). To the extent feasible, tThe front doors of exterior ground floor residential dwelling units and Live/Work Units which are adjacent to the public-right of way shall be oriented to the public sidewalk. Where units can only be accessed from the interior of a site, a pedestrian walkway shall connect to a public sidewalk. Entrances facing a public right-of-way shall be emphasized with a projection, such as a porch or stoop, or recessed, with a minimum depth of five feet and a minimum width of six feet. Such a porch or stoop that complies with the requirements of Section 9-4.303 may apply towards private open space requirements.
With the above two changes the Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the modifications to the Planning Regulations and the Design Guidelines.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments to the Planning Regulations and the Design Guidelines are not a “project” pursuant CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) because the Regulations and Guidelines are organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; the amendments will simply install or amend design standards for future construction. Even if the amendments were considered to be a project, they would be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the “common sense exemption” at CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that their adoption alone would have a significant effect on the environment. Any future project that relied on the Planning Regulations and Design Guidelines would require its own CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of the proposed amendments to the Planning Regulations and the Design Guidelines has no direct fiscal impact.
STAFF COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC
The proposed amendments to the Planning Regulations and the Design Guidelines have been reviewed at meetings of the BPAC, Transportation Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council as outlined above.
Conclusion
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the objective development standard through two separate but related actions. First, staff recommends the City Council adopt the first reading of the draft ordinance amending the Planning Regulations at Title 9 of the Emeryville Municipal Code. Second, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution amending the Design Guidelines, consistent with the proposed changes to the Planning Regulations.
PREPARED BY: Navarre Oaks, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Miroo Desai, Planning Manager
Approved and Forwarded to the
City Council of the City of Emeryville:
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Attachments
Ordinance Amending the Planning Regulations including Exhibit A: Redlines of the Proposed Amendments Requirements for Discards Collection Plans
Resolution Amending the Emeryville Design Guidelines
Exhibit A - Clean version of the proposed revised Emeryville Design Guidelines Matrix of proposed changes to the Emeryville Design Guidelines Guidelines for Bicycle Parking in the Public Right of Way Adoption of Objective Standards
City Council Meeting | November 21, 2023
City of Emeryville
CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM