A. Low-rise shall mean buildings up to three (3) stories but no more than thirty-five (35) feet in height.
Clarify that these standards will apply to demolition and construction of a single-family home with an ADU (if that is the case).
p. 12: B. Surface parking areas, including driveways, shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent or sixty (60) feet of the project frontage, whichever is greater. In single-family neighborhoods they shall not occupy more than 25% of the project frontage.
As written, this standard would allow a residence with an ADU to have a 60-foot project frontage. That is unacceptable in a single-family residential neighborhood. Please add the second sentence.
p. 5: Low-Rise Buildings
Clarify whether low-rise buildings include a single-family home with an ADU. p. 16: 4 BUILDING DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE
Chapter 4 Building Design and architecture does not discuss or emphasize the need to match the existing architectural context. Comments on the Draft ODS consistently and repeatedly emphasized the neighborhoods’ desire to respect the existing architecture. Please add a discussion of architectural styles in the City, and create a standard to blend in and be compatible with the existing architectural context. At a minimum, the reader should be referred to the discussion of architectural styles in Chapter 7.
A. A combina�on of at least three (3) different colors and/or materials shall be used on each building façade, exclusive of trim and roof. For example, the combina�on could be two (2) different colors and one (1) different material. No more than six (6) colors and/or materials may be u�lized on each building façade.
Six colors/materials sounds chaotic. Should this be allowed on a minimum-size structure? Summary
1. Measure Y is the law in the City. The ODS should reflect current law.
2. More emphasis should be placed on the existing types of architecture and encouraging new infill building design to respect the existing community character.
3. The building transitions should be gradual and should be shown in illustrations.
4. The south side of 4th Avenue and the neighborhood streets from S Delaware to S Amphlett should be excluded from the ODS. These are smaller pre-war single-family homes and should be preserved.
538 of 608
Planning Commission
October 24, 2023
5. The parking on the south side of 4th Avenue should remain in front of the homes and residents should be able to back out of their driveways. New projects should respect the existing community character.
6. Each neighborhood has its own visual and physical characteristics and deserves respect. Each neighborhood could be considered a zone. We need to encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.
7. The ODS should discuss how the City will apply the ODS if there are five units of housing proposed in a 150,000 sf mixed-use project, which is common downtown.
8. Clarify whether these ODS will apply to a single-family home with an ADU or a new duplex.
9. ODS should be explicitly excluded from developer waiver and concession requests.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
cc: City Council
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
539 of 608
Aug 8, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected] Re: Draft Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Developments
Dear Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when reviewing the proposed Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Developments (the “proposed standards”), calendared as a study session, agenda item 2 at tomorrow night’s meeting. Specifically, the City must comply with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), and other state housing laws. The proposed standards as currently drafted do not adhere to these laws: many of them fail to articulate objective standards.
SB 330 bars cities from “[i]mposing or enforcing design standards [...] that are not objective.” (Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) SB 9 allows cities to impose “objective zoning [...] subdivision [...] and [...] design” standards (but not subjective standards) on SB 9 projects. In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) renders non-objective standards unenforceable in most circumstances. (See California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal. App.5th 820, 839-44 (overturning city’s denial of housing project based on design guidelines requiring “a transition or step in height” where a building is more than one story taller than its neighbors on the grounds that it was not objective).) SB 330, SB 9, and the HAA define “objective” as “being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(8); Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (a)(7); see also Gov. Code § 65852.21, subd. (i)(2) [similar language]; Gov. Code § 66411.7, subd. (m)(1) [similar language].) 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
[email protected]
540 of 608
Unfortunately, several provisions in the proposed Ordinance fall short of this requirement.
CalHDF urges the Commission to carefully review all the proposed standards for objectivity and specifically points out a few of the most egregious examples:
● Section 4.6.2 “All windows shall include detailing using at least two (2) of the following approaches consistent with the selected architectural style.” The phrase “consistent with the selected architectural style” is not objective. Overall styles are not cleanly defined, and what counts as “consistent” or inconsistent with the building’s style is in the eye of the beholder. An applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty whether their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance, and thus the ordinance is unenforceable on this point.
● Section 4.7.1 (A) “Colors: Neon colors shall be prohibited. Colors of the same color palette shall be differentiated by at least three shades.” It is not clear what counts as “the same color palette” or “three shades.” The City must draft more specific language before it can impose such rules on applicants.
● Section 4.8 (A) “Additions to existing structures shall: Be of the same architectural style as the existing building(s)” Compatibility within a style is not an objective standard, as it cannot be applied uniformly. Architectural styles, and their materials and design details, are subjectively defined and therefore cannot be enforced by the City.
● Section 7.2.3 “The visible portion shall be architecturally treated beginning at the building corner of the façade with the continuation of the same colors and materials, including a matching width and depth of structural bays used on the building facade.” The definition of “architecturally treated” is unclear and ambiguous, thus unenforceable without clarification as to that definition.
CalHDF appreciates San Mateo’s effort to review and establish objective residential standards. We remind the City, however, that it must take care to follow the law in doing so.
The current proposal needs at least a few revisions before it can be finalized and implemented in accordance with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
2 of 3
541 of 608
Courtney Welch
CalHDF Director of Investigations and Enforcement
3 of 3
542 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 2
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
August 4, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Attn: Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
[email protected]
Re: Draft Objective Design Standards
Ms Richstone,
We have reviewed the draft objective Design Standards and are disappointed by Section 3- Site Planning and Section 5 - Landscaping. On March 6, 2023, we sent the Planning Commission a letter outlining our concern that the approach to ODS in most Peninsula cities, including San Mateo, seems to be heavy on how "attractive" and "articulated" the buildings are and how much they will contribute to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, but short on strong requirements for green open spaces. We asked that the letter be forwarded to the planning staff members working on the ODS requirements so you should have received a copy. We apologize if you did not.
We have attached a copy of our March 6, 2023 letter.
While we recognize that there are conflicting needs for open space versus space for housing, quality of life for residents, as well as the City, are critical in designing these Standards. Urban trees and greenery have been shown to be important for mental health for all ages as well as for biodiversity. Where space is tight, trees provide welcome relief and high density areas should not be shortchanged on urban canopy.
Our concerns are listed here:
Section 3 - Site Planning
• Para. 3.1.1,A,A & A,B. the minimum size of the public "plazas" in the draft are much too small. A 10'X10' space is not a plaza. We recommended in our letter that there be a minimum of 15% of the total gross development as common open space and that 50% of that be accessible to the public, and the minimum dimension of a plaza or courtyard be 30' with 50% of the area to be green landscaping. We also recommend trees in as many locations as feasible because they add so much beauty, shade, and environmental benefits to an outdoor space.
• Para. A,D. The draft states that if building is < 150', no plaza is required. If a plaza is not required, we would like to see at least a landscaped 10' deep building front setback to include greenery to soften the look of the building from the street and provide relief for the sidewalk and possibly space for public 543 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 2 seating in a landscaped area (except in the downtown core where retail faces the sidewalk, the new facade should align with adjacent facades).
Section 5 - Landscaping, Open Space, and Exterior Lighting • Para. 5.1.1,A,A-E. It's not clear that any mix of the three alternatives would still require 50% minimum green landscaping. For example: Alternative B, D, and E could all be met with just hardscaping. Please clarify to ensure that green space is included.
• Para. 5.1.1,C, Common Open Space. The character of the open space is not defined (except for dog runs).
How much should be green? How much hardscape? Please refer to our letter, Para. 1. • 5.2.1. Lighting in the City has become a source of increased concern as biodiversity plummets as a result of light at night. The lighting requirements are good as far as they go, but please refer to Para. 1,9) in our letter where we also include further criteria that would be helpful to include.
The details that you are putting into these Objective Design Standards are of seminal importance and will shape the City and its quality of life for many decades. We look forward to your considering our suggestions as you finalize these very important guidelines.
Respectfully yours,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: San Mateo Planning Commission
James Eggers, Chapter Director
Gladwyn d’Souza, Chapter Conservation Chair
Ken Abreu, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Attachment: Sierra Club letter on Objective Design Standards, dated March 6, 2023 544 of 608
-----Original Message-----
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: ODS comments
Planning Commission -
I am a resident of San Mateo and have the following comments to make regarding the draft of the Objective Design Standards:
-Take cues from existing buildings in our downtown historic district, and adjacent neighborhoods - Demolition permits should not be issued before building permits -There should be a transition zone between single family residences to higher-density housing. Townhomes can provide a good transition.
Having 5-7 story buildings next to single family homes presents many problems. -Please preserve and protect our smaller homes and duplexes between 4th & 5th street, many of which are craftsman and pre-war era. These provide great options for medium and lower income families - Include visual samples of architectural styles in the ODS -Please preserve historic homes and trees as much as possible - they can’t be replaced!
Overall, I’m asking for our city planners to respect and support the existing community character of San Mateo.
Sincerely,
Frances Souza
545 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
CC: Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
Zachary Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director
Laura Richstone, Associate Planner
Christina Horrisberger, Interim City Manager
Alex Khojikian, City Manager
FROM: San Mateo Heritage Alliance
SUBJECT: Objective Design Standards - Comments
Dear Planning Commissioners,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Objective Design Standards (ODS). Our comments specifically address what is omitted from the Draft ODS, rather than what is included.
There are many cities in California in the process of completing their objective design standards, some of which may be good models for San Mateo. We have found the City of Santa Barbara has a particularly good Draft ODS published for public review on June 23, 2023. We encourage the Planning Commission and City Planning staff to review Santa Barbara’s Draft ODS (https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/ priorities-policies/housing-initiatives/design-standards). Scroll down to the green dot on the left for a link to the actual document.
San Mateo Heritage Alliance believes Santa Barbara’s recently published ODS can be an appropriate model for San Mateo because it appears to be thoughtful in its intent, comprehensive in its breadth, and detailed and specific in its content. It appears to us that they created the ODS with the intention of enhancing their community, its livability, and its sense of place while making it clear and predictable for developers. We can do the same.
This letter highlights four key components - intent, zones, building types and architectural design - which are not currently included in San Mateo’s Draft ODS, but which we believe are necessary for a successful Objective Design Standard. SMHeritage urges the City of San Mateo to incorporate these four components in a revised Draft ODS, using the comprehensive approach taken by Santa Barbara.
Intent. Santa Barbara is clear on the intent of their ODS. Every chapter in the Santa Barbara ODS has a statement about intent. Intention statements emphasize compatibility with the physical character of individual neighborhoods, diversity of housing types, pedestrian scale and walkable neighborhoods. www.smheritage.org Page 1 of 8
546 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
One section of the Architectural Design chapter states its intent as: “Santa Barbara's architecture reflects traditional design principles that contribute to a pleasant, human-scale environment. These include a clear representation of each building's relationship to the ground and sky, as well as how openings such as doors and windows establish an interface between the inside, the outside, and the building structure itself.”
Zones. San Mateo is a diverse and distinct community with diverse and distinct neighborhoods and activity zones that warrant different design considerations. Section 7 of the San Mateo ODS (Specific Plan and Area Standards) begins to address the idea of zones, but seemingly as an afterthought, and only applicable to the areas identified for the highest intensity development. Residential and transitional zones are not identified, despite the fact that the ODS appears to apply city-wide.
Building Types. The San Mateo Draft ODS doesn’t appear to consider the many existing examples of 2-24 unit ‘middle housing’ that can be found in a variety of San Mateo neighborhoods where they provide a gradual transition between single family residential and higher density areas. Instead - and without acknowledging these building types - it lumps the various configurations of duplex and courtyard housing into a single Mid-rise category, limiting the diversity and compatibility of new infill.
Architectural Design. The San Mateo Draft ODS is oddly silent on architectural styles, discussing only massing, articulation, roof form, windows, doors, materials and color. A case can be made that architectural style is perhaps the most important component of an objective design standard.
San Mateo is very fortunate to have such a vast collection of architectural styles in both residential and commercial settings. The 1989 Historic Survey Report devoted 28 pages to a discussion of architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo, information which can be used in a revised draft ODS. SMHeritage Alliance believes it is critically important to acknowledge and respect the many diverse historical styles and to also welcome well designed contemporary styles. Without the inclusion in the ODS of our diverse legacy of architectural styles which define the character and substance of San Mateo, the document becomes a bland recipe for generic building design. San Mateo can do better.
A more complete discussion of three of these items, contrasting the difference between the San Mateo and Santa Barbara Draft ODS follows in Appendix A. Again, we encourage you to please take the time to review the June 23, 2023 Draft Santa Barbara Objective Design Standards and consider using it as a model for San Mateo’s ODS. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Keith Weber, Aragon
Dianne Whitaker, North Central
Laurie Watanuki, Central
Attachments
Appendix A: Key Components Suggested for Inclusion in San Mateo’s Draft Objective Design Standards www.smheritage.org Page 2 of 8
547 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Appendix A
Key Components Suggested for Inclusion
In San Mateo’s Draft Objective Design Standards
Zones
Like most cities, San Mateo has distinctly different land use zones with distinctly different visual and architectural character. Downtown is different from its surrounding neighborhoods of older, historic homes, which are different from neighborhood commercial areas. Successful development standards reflect these character differences and the transitions between them.
The purpose of establishing different zones is to generate and support the variety and physical characteristics of existing and new pedestrian oriented, walkable neighborhoods. Santa Barbara has established five distinct zones: Neighborhood Medium, Neighborhood Large, Mixed-Use Corridor, Downtown Edge, and Downtown Core.
Within each zone, there are specific requirements about intent, building types, building form, building placement, parking, frontage, and open yards.
www.smheritage.org Page 3 of 8
548 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Building Type
The purpose of building types is to provide standards for development of individual building types while maintaining the existing and intended physical character of each zone. Building types are used to articulate size, scale and intensity according to the intent of each zone.
San Mateo identifies three building types: Low-Rise, Mid-Rise & High-Rise. By lumping San Mateo’s many distinct and diverse building types into one Low-rise category, and then lumping them together with Mid-rise and High-Rise in the Building Design and Architecture section, we are unnecessarily limiting the types of infill that can be built. Architectural variety is lost and harmonious design discouraged.
Santa Barbara has identified ten specific allowable building types, which are also applicable to San Mateo. House-scale building types include: Duplex Side-bySide, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Medium Multiplex, Duplex Court, Side Court, Medium Courtyard.
Block-scale building types include: Large Multiplex, Large Courtyard, Downtown Building. Each building type contains a description and specific requirements for number of units, building site and massing, pedestrian access, vehicle access and parking, and open yard. www.smheritage.org Page 4 of 8
Neighborhood Medium and Downtown Edge Zones
549 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
San Mateo has a very diverse collection of building types that include all ten named above. But San Mateo has not acknowledged or identified the vast array of existing examples of ‘middle housing’ that can serve as appropriate models and can help guide new development of 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 unit infill.
Excellent examples of courtyard housing compatible with their surroundings can be found in North Central, Central, Baywood and Aragon neighborhoods. Below are two visually delightful examples that fit in with their single family neighbors respectfully and seamlessly. We should take advantage of the best of our existing housing stock and structure our ODS around their best qualities. www.smheritage.org Page 5 of 8
San Mateo examples of Duplex-Stacked (3 units) and Medium Courtyard building types (24 units), Spanish Revival Style 550 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Architectural Design
What is style? “Style is more than the presence of a red tile roof or a row of classical columns,” notes San Mateo’s 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, “It includes the building’s proportions, how its volumes are put together, the treatment of its wall surfaces—the totality of how the building is assembled—plus the details of its structure and ornamentation. Underlying this is a consistent system of proportions…Specific ornamental details may assist in identifying a style, but the way they are used and how they are combined with other elements distinguishes one style from another. Classical columns appear on Italianate, Colonial Revival, and Neoclassical buildings, but in each case how they are used and the context in which they appear is completely different.” Architectural design standards further refine intended building form and physical character. Santa Barbara is often thought of as having only one style - Spanish Colonial Revival - but the city has more architectural diversity than it would appear They have identified six architectural styles that are harmonious with their distinctive built environment and represent the most prevalent existing architectural styles in Santa Barbara. There are three primary style categories - Craftsman, Mediterranean and Contemporary - each with two sub-styles. www.smheritage.org Page 6 of 8
551 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
San Mateo has a much wider diversity of existing architectural styles. The 1989 Historic Building Survey Report devotes 28 pages to a discussion of San Mateo’s many architectural styles. The report identifies the following styles prevalent in San Mateo in both residential and commercial settings.
Queen Anne Victorian / Gothic Revival
Colonial Revival / Monterey Colonial
Classical Revival
Craftsman / Cottage
Spanish Colonial Revival / Mission Revival
Tudor Revival / French Provincial
Art Deco / Streamline Moderne
Contemporary / Industrial
In the Santa Barbara ODS, each one of the styles identified is followed by a description of the style, typical characteristics, dimensions and illustrations for walls, roofs, eaves, parapets, windows, dormers, entry doors, porches, balconies, storefronts, canopies, trellises, and materials. www.smheritage.org Page 7 of 8
552 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Conclusion
San Mateo deserves the best Objective Design Standards possible. The City has a rich history and wide diversity of building types and architectural styles which can be drawn upon for inspiration and which should be reflected and expressed in the City’s ODS. San Mateo also has many distinct neighborhood zones with their own individual visual and physical character that deserve to be respected.
The intent of the ODS should be clearly expressed as promoting new infill building design that respects existing community character; uses established building types found in San Mateo; affirms and compliments the wealth of varied architectural styles; and encourages new development to be compatible and harmonious with the building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.
San Mateo Heritage Alliance strongly encourages the City of San Mateo to incorporate the above mentioned components in a revised draft ODS and seriously consider using the City of Santa Barbara’s ODS as a model for San Mateo.
www.smheritage.org Page 8 of 8
San Mateo example of Large Courtyard Building Type, Craftsman 553 of 608
From: Dashiell Leeds
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:04 PM
To: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; James Eggers ; Barbara Kelsey ; Gita Dev Mike Ferreira
; Gladwyn D'Souza
Subject: SCLP letter Re: Objective Design Standards
Ms Richstone,
We have reviewed the draft objective Design Standards and are disappointed by Section 3- Site Planning and Section 5 - Landscaping. On March 6, 2023, we sent the Planning Commission a letter outlining our concern that the approach to ODS in most Peninsula cities, including San Mateo, seems to be heavy on how "attractive" and "articulated" the buildings are and how much they will contribute to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, but short on strong requirements for green open spaces. We asked that the letter be forwarded to the planning staff members working on the ODS requirements so you should have received a copy. We apologize if you did not. Our March 6th letter is attached to this email.
Please read the attached August 4th, 2023 letter for our full comments.
Sincerely,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
email sent from account of
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
554 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 6
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 6, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Planning Commission Chair and Members
Via: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
(Please forward the attached Sierra Club letter to the Planning Staff Members working on Objective Designs Standards)
Subject: Residential Objective Design Standards for Public and Common Open Spaces and Landscaping The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
The current RHNA numbers are pushing most cities to greatly increase the housing densities in their cities. We have reviewed several draft Housing Elements to date and are concerned that under pressure to increase density, cities are minimizing the importance of well designed public and common open spaces as an essential ingredient in the livability of higher density residential developments. Many European cities are quite dense, but also include many large and small green parks, public gathering places, and well landscaped roads and promenades. These green spaces not only offer open air relief from tightly stacked units, they also provide access to open social space and nature, mitigate noise, provide natural site drainage, and absorb air pollutants.
It seems that most Housing Elements are not addressing this issue, so we are asking all cities to include very specific green open space design requirements in their Objective Design Standards or possibly in their Zoning Codes to compliment their Housing Element.
To that end, we have developed a checklist1 of items which we would like to see all cities adopt as they finalize their Objective Design Standards for 2022/23. Please review the checklist to see how your city compares and whether there are items in the list that should be incorporated into your standards. 1 This checklist is limited only to promoting the inclusion of green landscaping into the design of dense residential developments, sidewalks, and parking. It does not address Objective Design Standards for more fine-grain building design and articulation such as decks, windows, material, colors, etc. Those features should be decided on a city by city basis with emphasis on the design of ground floors, which have a significant influence on the pedestrian environment and the overall public realm.
555 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 6
1. Common Open Space
1) Exterior courtyards, roof terraces, and other common areas shall be provided within all residential developments of ten2 or more units in order to provide needed amenities that improve livability and public health.
2) At least 15% of the total gross development area shall be common open space. 3) At least 50% of ground level common open space shall be open and visible to the public as a public amenity.
4) Common open spaces, such as courtyards and gardens, shall have a minimum dimension of 30 feet from back of sidewalk and from building face to building face in each direction. 5) Common open spaces must be at ground level and include a minimum 50% of landscaped area planted in turf, trees, or plants that are water-wise and preferably native species. Private green roofs and deck areas are acceptable if they do not exceed 50% of the required common open space, meet the standards for vegetation and irrigation, and if 50% of the remaining common open space is provided at ground level.
6) A minimum of 15% of shrub size plants should be 15 gallon or larger to provide a more mature appearance and provide a more effective carbon sink upon completion of planting. 7) Provide greenscape with vegetation (not hardscape) on 30% minimum of outdoor space sufficient to mitigate noise, heat, wind, and feel park-like. 8) Preserve all mature existing trees (10" diameter trunk at 3' above grade or larger) on site3. 9) If provided, exterior lighting at all common open spaces with lighting focused downward, no more than 2500 Kelvin, with bi-level lighting with motion sensor.4 10) A minimum of three of the following activating features shall be incorporated into common open spaces:
a. Fixed or movable seating
b. Picnic style tables
c. Shade trees or shaded canopy
d. Outdoor kitchen equipment
e. Children’s play equipment
f. Public art or interactive art, such as life-size chess game g. Water feature
h. Other unique people-centered features
11) Provide 30' minimum setback from freeway right of ways in order to provide a vegetative barrier that preserves existing trees and shrubbery and adds a minimum of 24" box trees at 30 foot minimum spacing and large 15 gallon shrubs, preferably native plants. The goal is to reduce highway pollution and noise in order to reduce adverse health impacts on the neighborhood. 2 Exact number to be determined by each city
3Mature trees are more effective carbon sinks, provide shade, reduce the heat island effect, and provide more health and ecological benefits than smaller, newly planted trees.
4Bi-level lighting maintains lighting at a low level unless motion activated. This is beneficial for energy conservation, biological diversity, and dark sky at night.
556 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 3 of 6 12) Where a property abuts a creek or shoreline, the minimum setback from the historic high water level should be 25 feet2, larger is preferred. Landscaped swales shall be placed to retain runoff and no drainage shall be directed into the waterway.
2. Sidewalks
1) Minimum sidewalk width shall be 10 feet along building frontages. 2) Plant street trees in tree wells5 at least 3 feet in diameter, with pedestrian gratings to protect roots.
3) Sidewalks shall include street furniture, artwork, and other amenities to activate the pedestrian realm.
3. Building and Block Size
1) Block sizes establish the scale and character of the community and can help break the visual impact of long building walls, create connected pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, and contribute to urban greening.
2) Blocks greater than 400 feet in length shall be broken midblock with a landscaped publicly accessible deep courtyard, pocket park, street, arcade, or paseo. 3) The minimum width of a midblock break shall be 20 feet and shall include landscaping and lighting, and activating features (as described above) where appropriate. 4) No individual building shall be greater than 200 feet in length. 5) Lot coverage for higher density buildings (40 units per acre or larger) shall not exceed 75%, with the remainder allotted to open space.
6) Building facades facing streets or public open spaces shall have landscaped entrances to residential units or street-facing retail to enliven the streetscape. No blank walls shall be allowed at ground level.
7) Building facades for residential buildings shall be setback a minimum 10' from property line or back of sidewalk, whichever is closest to the building facade, to allow adequate space to plant trees and landscaping to visually buffer the building facade and reduce noise impacts from the street.
4. Parking
1) A minimum of 15% of all surface parking lots shall be landscaped. 2) Parking stalls shall include shade elements such as trees, vine-covered trellises or overhead solar panels.
5 Soil at tree wells needs to be loosened where subgrade has been compacted so tree roots have good amended soil to grow.
They also need to have a watering tube that goes down about 3 feet to provide water lower down to encourage deep root growth. Include a condition of approval requiring monitoring of trees for 5 years, and rehab of the site with a replacement tree for those that are not thriving after 5 years.
557 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 4 of 6 3) Parking lots shall be located to the rear or interior of the block and shall not be located between the sidewalk and the building frontage facing the street. 4) Access to parking lots or structures shall be located along side streets or alleys. 5) Parking lots should be made of permeable pavement where subsoil conditions permit.
Respectfully yours,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: James Eggers, Chapter Director
Gladwyn d’Souza, Chapter Conservation Chair
EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED
PEDESTRIAN STREET
558 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 5 of 6 EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED PASEO
EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED
SIDEWALK SETBACK
559 of 608
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 6 of 6 EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED
COURTYARD
EXAMPLE: BUILDING SETBACK FROM SIDEWALK WITH LANDSCAPED MID-BLOCK COURTYARD 560 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
TO: Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
CC: Christina Horrisberger, Community Development Director Zachary Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director
Laura Richstone, Associate Planner
Drew Corbett, City Manager
Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
Planning Commission
FROM: San Mateo Heritage Alliance
SUBJECT: Objective Design Strategies - New development projects in and around Downtown Dear Ms. Sandhir,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance understands Planning staff will begin working on revising historic preservation related documents, ordinances and design standards in 2024. It is a process that may take several years to complete. In the meantime, there are a large number of planning applications in the entitlement process that will be approved without benefit of those revised documents.
It is this interim period before the historic preservation and infill guiding documents are completed that is of much concern to us. As we stated in our letter to you of June 6, 2023, we are concerned that if the current review process continues without intervention the result, according to the City’s’ GP Alternative Analysis, “could affect the integrity of the buildings and historic district, and result in development incompatible with the existing historic fabric.”
It is for this reason that the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is suggesting incorporating timeless design principles as objective design standards for project review. The timeless design principles outlined on the following pages are objective in that they are measurable, verifiable and knowable to all parties. We believe these timeless design principles are consistent with the City’s existing General Plan, Zoning Code, Downtown Design Guidelines and the new Multifamily/Mixed-use Objective Design Standards.
We also believe that if implemented immediately they will result in infill projects of higher quality design.
As always, San Mateo Heritage Alliance stands ready to work with the City of San Mateo to make our Downtown and our City a better place in which to live and work. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Keith Weber, Aragon
Dianne Whitaker, North Central
Laurie Watanuki, Central
Attachments:
Appendix A: Objective Design Principles
Appendix B: Urban Design Considerations
Appendix C: Searching for Visual Delight
www.smheritage.org Page 1 of 10
561 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix A
Suggested Objective Downtown Design Principles
Timeless Design Principles
Timeless design principles have been around for over 4,000 years, since the time of Roman architect Vitruvius. One of the great things about timeless design principles is that they are flexible and scaleable.
The basic way of composing a building facade is applied as successfully on a one story building as it is on a 12 story building. It is an organizational composition flexible enough to accommodate any architectural style.
Timeless design principles have four simple elements of composition:
• Simple, Tripartite Facade
• Base/Middle/Top
• Vertically Aligned Openings
• Window Height and Width
www.smheritage.org Page 2 of 10
562 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Rule of Thirds
The rule of thirds in building composition can be traced as far back as Vitruvius. The idea is that the best way to insert breaks in form and plane is to divide the building into three primary masses. Each element on a facade should be about a third of the size of the bigger element it’s nested in. Here are three ways to break a horizontal mass into three segments:
Vertical composition also has three elements - a base, a middle and a top. Much like a column has a base, a shaft and a capital. In this way it is anthropomorphic and composed like the human body. The three elements can be distinguished using bands, cornices, or with changes in materials and/or colors. www.smheritage.org Page 3 of 10
563 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Windows
Traditionally, windows are inset somewhat from the surface of the wall, allowing us to see the depth of the wall. The more thickness we can see, the sturdier the wall looks. Many contemporary buildings look like they’re only an inch or two thick. A window reveal of at least 4” is recommended.
The aspect ratio of the windows is important. Windows should be taller than they are wide. Structurally, it’s easier to span a short distance than a long one. Humans are taller than we are wide, so there’s an anthropomorphic element as well. A 6 foot high by 3 foot wide window gives us a sense of scale: when we look at a wall and see a pattern of objects that roughly scale to ourselves, we can easily understand the proportion of the building.
Lastly, the windows should be aligned vertically, acknowledging the natural force of gravity and allowing the load of a building to transfer on to the floor or wall below. www.smheritage.org Page 4 of 10
564 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Putting it all Together
Here’s what you get when you put all these elements together: 1) building mass divided into thirds, both vertically and horizontally, and 2) windows that are taller than wide and stacked vertically. Simple and elegant. Appendix C includes some examples of recently completed buildings in San Mateo and other communities that demonstrate how these principles work when applied to real buildings.
Overall Best Practices:
1. Timeless forms that avoid ‘fast fashion’ trendy design themes.
2. Quiet background buildings that don’t scream for attention.
3. Simple massing that doesn’t try to replicate a city skyline in a single structure.
4. Uniform application of quality cladding material such as brick. www.smheritage.org Page 5 of 10
565 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix B
Urban Design Considerations
Downtown San Mateo
Building Setbacks, Daylight Planes and Street Walls
Upper floor setbacks determined by daylight planes can be very useful if used properly and judiciously.
In San Mateo, as elsewhere, the idea is to maintain the prevailing street wall height in the historic district.
This is a worthwhile and appealing goal. But in San Mateo, it limits the street wall to 35 - 40 feet in most of downtown. We also have a maximum building height allowance of 55 feet in most of downtown that can grow to 75 feet with state density bonuses. Accommodating a street wall height of 35 feet and a building height of 55 -75 feet in the same building envelope inevitably results in an awkward and clumsy architectural composition.
SMHeritage suggests that Planning reexamine the current daylight plane policy in terms of its applicability and flexibility, specifically with regard to infill development (see Redwood City’s 2011 Downtown Plan as one example). We believe there are more than a few instances where a full height street wall would result in more elegant architecture and better urban design.
There are other ways to address higher building heights in and around the Downtown. One might be to allow the street wall of infill buildings to be 1/1/2 - 2 times the average street wall height of nearby buildings. Another might be to step-down building height towards lower height buildings, rather than setting back upper floors away from the street. The bottom line is that the current daylight plane policy should be reevaluated and revised to better serve our urban design and historic preservation goals.
Special Corner Treatments - Plazas and Towers
Plazas, if done right, can be magical places. They can be quiet and dignified or grand and dazzling. But not every building corner needs one. “Busy or calm, functional or symbolic, there is one thing a plaza should never be: an urban non-event,” urban planner Richard Hedman warns. “Yet, all too many of the so-called plazas built are just that. Instead of contributing to the enrichment of the city, unsuccessful plazas add to its fragmentation and dilution and rather than enlarging the opportunities for public enjoyment they merely consume space.” You may notice that the two newest corner plazas in San Mateo (at 5th & Claremont and 4th & Railroad) are always empty. No one sits there, no one gathers, they are functionally dead spaces.
Now that two full blocks of B Street are closed to traffic, San Mateo has created a large public plaza and gathering place. Sacrificing more building corners for tiny plazas that are likely to go unused seems unnecessary. www.smheritage.org Page 6 of 10
566 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
SMHeritage believes a much better urban design solution are corner towers, a traditional corner treatment that has been used for centuries. Corner towers signal important corners, call attention to important buildings, and direct our eyes upward to the ornamentation and architectural detailing of the upper building floors. The corner towers on the Merkel Building and the Wursthall restaurant building are visual delights to be appreciated and admired by all who pass by. Let’s start looking up and use corner towers as an important urban design element.
Other Considerations
Project Design Review
During this interim phase it is more critical than ever to engage the services of a qualified historic preservation architectural firm to review all proposed Downtown development projects for compatibility, visual continuity, and the application of timeless design principles.
Demolition Permits
The premature demolition of Block 21 and the project applicant’s request for a 2-year extension of project approval highlights a critical flaw in San Mateo’s permitting process. Although procedural and not directly associated with urban design, demolition without assurance of project completion has a very negative effect on our urban environment.
Destruction without construction damages the fabric of our community.
If demolition permits were issued at the same time as building permits, it would avoid unsightly weed filled vacant lots. In these uncertain times, there is no assurance that even with an extension, that the project will ever move forward. Block 21 could be vacant for many years, much like the vacant parcel and former gas station at Third and El Camino. It would benefit the community if demolition permits were tied to building permits. www.smheritage.org Page 7 of 10
567 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix C
Searching for Visual Delight
Vitruvius identified three elements necessary for a well designed building: firmness, commodity and delight. Firmness or physical strength secured the building's structural integrity. Commodity or utility provided an efficient arrangement of spaces and mechanical systems to meet the functional needs of its occupants. And delight, the aesthetic quality associated with the goddess Venus, imparted style, proportion, and visual beauty.
Which of the following 18 recently constructed or proposed buildings do you think embody all three elements? Which impart a feeling of delight or visual beauty? What design qualities do you find most and least attractive? Can you identify which buildings use timeless design principles? Which buildings do you think might have the most compatibility and visual continuity with Downtown San Mateo? Which buildings seem to demonstrate a cohesive architectural composition and quality design? And lastly, how do you think we can ensure these qualities of firmness, commodity and delight are part of every new building proposed for San Mateo?
Column A Column B
San Mateo, built San Mateo, approved
San Mateo, proposed San Mateo, proposed
www.smheritage.org Page 8 of 10
568 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Charleston, NC, built San Mateo, approved
Redwood City, built San Mateo, proposed
Redwood City, built San Mateo, proposed
Portland, OR, built San Mateo, under construction
Column A Column B
www.smheritage.org Page 9 of 10
569 of 608
SAN MATEO
HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Mountain View, built San Mateo, built
Los Angeles, built San Mateo, proposed
Portland, OR, built San Mateo, proposed
Column A Column B
www.smheritage.org Page 10 of 10
570 of 608
November 20, 2023
RE: Objective Design Standards
Dear Mayor Lee and Members of City Council,
These are comments we would like to include:
1. We would like to ensure more local scrutiny of the homes on the south side of 4th Avenue by excluding this street in the ODS. In the mid 1980’s a series of single family Craftsmen homes on 4th and 5th Avenue were proposed for demolition for a new 5-story development. These 6 homes were all saved from demolition and restored beautifully into move-in condition and there are 6 families living in them now. Lot accumulation is our main concern along the south side of 4th Avenue and north side of 5th Avenue. We have an outdated 1989 building survey and the neighborhoods do not have the preservation tools such as Historic or Conservation Districts to protect the pre-war homes in the traditional neighborhoods.
2. We appreciate that you recognized the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture in our area, but these particular blocks in the Gateway are all Craftsmen architecture. We would like to see the residential architectural style in the Gateway changed to Craftsmen from the recommended Spanish Colonial Revival, since there are 65 Craftsmen style homes on the south side of 4th, and along 5th Avenue. We also have other Craftsmen style developments which include: Fire Station 24, Humboldt Square town homes, The Metropolitan Apartments, and the Gateway Commons Condos. We would like to see the Spanish Colonial Revival style remain for the mixed use projects in the Gateway since they complement one another.
3. How do you plan to incorporate the neighborhoods into the ODS? Each neighborhood has it’s own characteristics and could be a separate zone like the City of Santa Barbara Objective Design Standards. The Santa Barbara ODS could serve as a model for San Mateo.
4. In reference to the detached ADU’s with single family homes in R1 and R2 zoned neighborhoods, the ADU Handbook does not require compatible architecture with the primary unit and the Detached ADU. We would like to see the detached ADU’s be of similar architecture, materials, finishes, and roof designs with the primary unit for design compatibility. This probably has been addressed in the ODS, and we would like to see this architectural compatibility addressed in the ADU Handbook as well.
5. Three years is a long period of time to revisit the Objective Design Guidelines again. The Duplex Design Guidelines is also an excellent resource. Will you incorporate this into the ODS eventually? We would like to see duplex projects that are compatible in architectural style, size and mass, and blend into the existing neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Michael Weinhauer
Maurine Killough
David Light
Francie Souza
Laurie Watanuki
Michelle Maccarra
1 571 of 608
572 of 608
2 we believe that it would be entirely appropriate to hold a special hearing to consider these important new City-wide standards.
On-going Concerns
As shown in the attached prior comment letter, we have a number of concerns. To name one ongoing concern, we simply do not understand the meaning and significance of Section 7.3.4, as previously communicated:
This standard has the potential to drastically affect buildings facing Laurel Creek. Will it only apply to units facing the creek or will it preclude the construction of units that do not face the creek because they cannot include windows facing the creek? Because the application is unclear and subject to judgement, it is, therefore, subjective.
We also re-emphasize our previously submitted comments, all of which seem likely to affect housing costs and, ultimately, yield:
example. The Santa Barbara Objective Design Review has gone through a more exhaustive public review process (identified here: https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/priorities-policies/housing-initiatives/design-standards ), including a 6-month public comment period from June 26, 2023 until December 31, 2023 to allow time to run test fits and for the public to provide comments.
573 of 608
3 574 of 608
4 We did not see any revisions to the version of the ODS published as part of the City Council packet. We understand that staff may be considering additional revisions, but we are uneasy that we have not seen a written version to review.
Additional Concerns
Our own process has been iterative and we have additional comments after further conversations with professionals in the industry.
1. Section 4.6.5.D -- Garage Doors
The ODS states: "For projects with ten (10) or more residential units, individual garage doors shall not face a public street but shall be oriented towards an alley or private street/ driveway internal to the project.”
For most infill projects, this is infeasible in most cases or would require a significant reduction of buildable area to accommodate an alley or private street. We recommend deletion.
2. Section 2.2 – Applicability
We also remain somewhat unclear on the implications for the Hillsdale Shopping Center redevelopment project. We previously explained the rationale for requesting that the variety of overlapping zoning code provisions, specific plans, master plans, and other City planning documents that already apply to the Hillsdale Shopping Center vicinity (see page 53) continue to control, rather than adding another layer of ODS to the site. We request that Section 2.2 discussing applicability is clarified (with new text in red) as follows to reflect the other entitlement documents that should control in the event of a conflict with the ODS:
D. In the event of any internal conflict within this document between citywide standards and standards applicable to a specific plan area, the specific plan area standards shall apply (as reflected in a master plan, planned development or other similar entitlement).
Conclusion
As discussed above, we continue to have several concerns regarding individual design standards in the ODS. Our team endeavors to program development that will be consistent with objective standards, but we are concerned it will be impossible to do so given the 80+ pages of new standards. We request that the City Council provide additional time and process to deliberate on these standards, and thoughtfully consider what is a reasonable new layer of standards that will affect housing design, costs and processing.
We thank you for your additional time and consideration of this important topic. 575 of 608
5 Sincerely,
David Bohannon
Cc: Laura Richstone ([email protected])
Zach Dahl ([email protected])
Manira Sandhir ([email protected])
Mazarin Vakharia ([email protected])
Planning Commission ([email protected]) John Ebneter ([email protected])
Seema Patel ([email protected])
Adam Nugent ([email protected])
Martin Wiggins ([email protected])
Margaret Williams ([email protected])
Amourence Lee ([email protected])
Lisa Diaz Nash ([email protected])
Adam Loraine ([email protected])
Rob Newsom, Jr. ([email protected])
Rich Hedges ([email protected])
Chelsea Maclean ([email protected])
Kohar Kojayan ([email protected])
576 of 608
Exhibit A
November 13, 2023 ODS Comment Letter
577 of 608
578 of 608
Hillsdale area should continue to apply to the project instead of new, non-targeted requirements. In fact, most of the Hillsdale-specific requirements in the ODS originate from the currently-controlling planning documents, notably the Hillsdale Station Area Plan, which provides additional guidance and context. Future redevelopment of the Hillsdale Shopping Center is currently in development consistent with the Hillsdale Station Area Plan, which specifies other standards and guidelines in greater detail and with more optionality to allow for a high-quality development program that suits the City’s needs and market demands. The Owners are also already in the process of developing even more detailed ODS-type development standards for any redevelopment that accomplishes the same goals as the ODS, tailored to the unique needs of the Hillsdale area, and would be included as conditions to any future project approval. This is consistent with the “master plan” requirements imposed by several existing planning documents (for example, see General Plan 2030 p. II-63, Hillsdale Station Area Plan p. 64). Therefore, the Owners request that the ODS include that the Hillsdale area is exempt in Section 2.2 where the ODS specifies its applicability in different circumstances.
Accordingly, we request that the following be included as a new subsection H to Section 2.2:
H. These Objective Design Standards shall not apply in the Hillsdale Station Area, where existing standards and guidelines in existing specific plans and other planning documents already provide comprehensive design coverage. Further, any future redevelopment of the the Hillsdale Shopping Center is required to include master plan-level design standards analogous to these Objective Design Standards.
2. Section 2.3 – Building Types & Number of Stories
As currently provided, the ODS differentiates between “Mid-rise” buildings as four (4) to seven (7) stories and no more than ninety (90) feet in height, and “High-rise” buildings as eight (8) or more stories and more than ninety (90) feet in height. While these heights are entirely appropriate, we recommend modifying the number of stories to allow up to eight stories for “Mid-rise” buildings and to designate “High-rise” buildings to include nine (9) or more stories, and update references to the number of stories associated with each building type throughout the ODS. This is consistent with widely-applicable building code requirements for construction types and maximizes potential housing production. It is also consistent with Planning Commissioners’ comments during their October 24, 2023 meeting.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 2.3:
These standards establish regulations for three general building types: low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings, defined below:
A. Low-rise shall mean buildings up to three (3) stories but no more than thirty-five (35) feet in height.
B. Mid-rise shall mean buildings between four (4) and seven (7) eight (8) but not more than ninety (90) feet in height.
579 of 608
C. High-rise shall mean buildings eight (8) nine (9) or more stories or more than ninety (90) feet in height.
D. Where a standard within this document does not specify building type, the standard shall apply to all building types.
3. Section 3.1.2 – Pedestrian Paseos
The current draft ODS includes detailed requirements for the dimensions and amenities of pedestrian paseos. We strongly support design efforts to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and circulation, but recommend scaling back the scope of these requirements to accommodate other amenities that serve the same purposes, such as modest skybridges to connect structures over paseos across multiple levels of active space.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 3.1.2:
If provided, pedestrian paseo(s) shall:
A. Be open to the sky and connect to public sidewalks (i.e., paseos shall not dead end), except to allow design features such as sky bridges or elevated walkways.
B. Have a minimum twelve (12)-foot width, as measured from building face to adjacent building face for low-rise buildings.
C. Have a minimum twenty (20)-foot width, as measured from building face to adjacent building face for mid-rise and high-rise buildings.
D. Provide a minimum eight (8)-foot-wide public pedestrian access easement within the required minimum paseo width for pedestrian access.
E. Provide pedestrian scale lighting along the length of the paseo. Such lighting shall be mounted not higher than twelve (12) feet,that meets the latest Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommended values, and beis directed downward or havehas a light cap.
F. Pedestrian paseos shall include at least three (3)two (2) of the following pedestrian amenities every twenty (20)thirty (30) linear feet:
1. Bench(es) 5. Cafè
2. Shade structure(s) 6. Textured, multi-colored, or patterned pavement
3. Tree(s) consistent with the City
Landscape Ordinance
7. Public art
4. Water feature or water fountain 8. Decorative overhead lighting
4. Section 3.2.1.B – Project Frontage for Parking
580 of 608
The ODS currently limits surface parking areas or driveways from occupying not more than twenty-five percent (25%) or sixty (60) feet of project frontage, whichever is greater. Because there may be unique circumstances for some uses where a greater proportion of project frontage will be necessary for surface parking or driveways, we request that this requirement be eliminated. Instead we anticipate that the separate screening requirement satisfies the intent to screen parking from public view and activate the street experience.
Accordingly, we recommend that the following language should be removed from Section 3.2.1:
Where vehicles are visible from a public right-of-way (i.e. surface parking lots or rooftop garages), the following standards shall apply:
A. Parking areas shall not be established within any required front setback area.
B. Surface parking areas, including driveways, shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent or sixty (60) feet of the project frontage, whichever is greater.
C.B. Parking areas shall be screened from view from the adjacent primary street with a three (3)-foot-high textured or patterned block wall that is capped, or a landscape hedge, or combination of the two. If a wall is used, the wall shall be treated with a graffiti-resistant coating.
D.C. Chain link or vinyl fencing shall be prohibited as a screening material for parking, lightwells, and utility structures/equipment.
5. Chapter 4 – Massing and Articulation Requirements Generally The ODS includes a wide variety of massing and articulation requirements, some of which are discussed further below. Such requirements can restrict flexibility of design and use, as do several provisions in the draft ODS. To rectify these issues, we strongly support the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and encourage the City Council to adopt those recommendations. Specific additional recommendations follow.
6. Section 4.1.1 – Blank Walls
Currently, the ODS limits blank walls to a limit of twenty (20) feet in length on all stories. While this is reasonable on walls facing streets, it would unintentionally impact design on off-street walls. We recommend revising this section to limit the prohibition on blank walls greater than twenty (20) feet in length to street-facing walls.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revision to Section 4.1.1:
Blank walls that face a public street shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length on all stories.
7. Section 4.1.4 – Qualify minimum change between planes and minimum façade portions for massing breaks
581 of 608
Section 4.1.4 requires that structures of three (3) or more stories must follow the rule of thirds and divide the structure into at least three primary masses. In addition to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, we also recommend providing clear flexibility to determine the width of the primary masses, and not to require each to be exactly one-third of the structure. Such a requirement could unintentionally constrict potential uses and design programs. Instead, the standard could include a minimum percentage of overall façade length (i.e., require the minimum width of each primary mass to be at least 20% of the overall façade length). In addition, this requirement should also specify a minimum two (2) feet change in plane between each massing break to assure that the breaks are more than perfunctory.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 4.1.4 and the removal and/or replacement of Figure 21:
Structures of three (3) or more stories (measured from existing grade) shall follow the rule of thirds in which a structure is be divided into at least three primary masses., where each primary mass is separated by at least a two (2) foot minimum change in plane between each massing break, and where each primary mass shall contain a minimum width consisting of at least twenty (20) percent of the overall façade length.Possible ways to break a horizontal mass into three elements are illustrated below.
8. Section 4.1.6.B – Wall Planes
The ODS includes a variety of options for wall plane treatments, including horizontal and vertical wall plane changes and flat plane variations. The ODS requires “at least one (1) of the following wall plane treatments shall be incorporated into the building design as described below,” but does not specify if a single wall plane treatment is required on the horizontal and vertical wall planes and flat planes, or only one wall plane treatment is required on either horizontal or 582 of 608
vertical wall planes or flat planes. We advise the later. For context, horizontal wall plane changes can pose significant challenges for residential development.
Accordingly, we request the following revision to the initial requirement of Section 4.1.6.B:
B. Wall Planes. At least one (1) of the following wall place treatments on either the horizontal wall plane, vertical wall plane, or flat planes shall be incorporated into the building design as described below.
9. Section 4.1.6.B.3.a – Flat Plane Variation
The ODS as drafted requires at least four (4) of a provided list of design elements every twenty (20) to forty (40) feet of horizontal street frontage of building façade. We recommend reducing this requirement in order to avoid overly complicated and busy façades to a minimum of three (3) (or lower) design elements per frontage segment.
Accordingly, we recommend revising the first sentence of subsection (a) of Section 4.1.6.B.3 as follows:
a. For every twenty (20) to forty (40) feet of horizontal street frontage, the building façade design shall change in detailing to create distinct building segments. This change in detailing shall include at least four (4)three (3) of the following:
10. Section 4.2.1.A – Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial Wall Glazing The ODS currently requires seventy-five percent (75%) of ground floor wall to be glazed in mixed-use developments. We recommended using a linear-foot basis instead to provide greater flexibility for larger structures with more complex and demanding ground floor usage needs to support diverse uses above the ground floor.
Accordingly, we recommend revising Section 4.2.1.A as follows:
A. At least seventy-five (75)sixty (60) percent of the ground floor commercial wall arealinear street frontage shall be glazed.
11. Section 4.6 – Windows & Doors Generally
The draft ODS includes a variety of standards for windows and doors, and the Planning Commission provided numerous well-considered revisions at their October 24, 2023 meeting.
We agree with and recommend approval of the Planning Commission’s changes, and recommend one additional change below.
12. Section 4.6.1.C.3 – Curtain walls and upper-floor window size As drafted, the ODS imposes requirements on all windows and doors except curtain wall windows, and includes that “Windows, bays, doors, arches, and balconies must be equal in size 583 of 608
or smaller than the element they are aligned with on the floor below.” First, the exemption for curtain wall windows should encompass window walls and storefronts. Second, the upper-story window size limit is overly-restrictive. While it is appropriate for certain architectural styles and scale—most notably Spanish-style single-family residences—it prohibits many other architectural styles for single-family homes and is inappropriate for larger-scale buildings, in particular multifamily and mixed-use residential development. Anecdotally, few of the mixed-use mid-rise buildings shown in the draft ODS comply with this requirement.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 4.6.1.C and the removal of Section 4.6.1.C.3:
C. Window and Door Size. The following shall apply to all windows and doors except for curtain wall windows, window wall, and storefront.
1. Windows, bays, and doors shall be vertically oriented, rectangular, and taller than they are wide.
2. For non-residential uses, vertical window elements shall be maintained through proportionality and divided lights.
3. Windows, bays, doors, arches, and balconies must be equal in size or smaller than the element they are aligned with on the floor below.
4. Where wider glazed openings are desired use, ganged or group windows, subject to the following:
a. Grouped windows shall have a minimum of three (3) inches of building façade surface between them
b. Ganged windows shall have a mullion between them
13. Section 4.7.1.C – Materials Quality
Consistent with the concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission, we recommend removing the standard for minimum material life expectancies. Life expectancies cannot be readily calculated for many construction materials, including some of the most durable (cut stone) because they do not have a pre-determined lifespan. As a result, this standard is of little practical effect and should be removed.
Accordingly, we request the removal of Section 4.7.1.C.:
C. Quality. Durable architectural materials and finishes with a minimum life expectancy of fifty (50) years and roofing with a minimum life expectancy of thirty (30) years shall be used on the exterior of the buildings.
14. Materials: Table 2A and Table 2B
584 of 608
A broad range of construction materials should be allowed for projects in the City. This provides greater flexibility to adapt project design to changing materials costs and new technologies. It enables more sustainable design and is critical to controlling the price of housing development.
We recommend the following changes to Tables 2A and 2B:
Table 2A:
Material Notes
Brick Including brick veneer
Concrete
Stone
Stucco True stucco only (Lime or Portland
Cement); excluding synthetic stucco and
Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS)
Plaster Verified for exterior use only
Fiber Cement Panel
Glass
Tile
Rammed Earth Low-rise only
Wood siding Shingle, Clapboard, Panel
Metal Excluding corrugated metal
Wood Plywood allowed only as accent; not a
main material
Precast concrete
Glass Fiber Cement Panels
Ceramic
Porcelain
Terracotta
Building Base
Brick
Concrete
Stone
Metal
Ceramic Tile
Metal Excluding aluminum and corrugated
metal
Wood Plywood allowed only as accent; not a
main material
Fiberglass composite
Glass
Porcelain
Terracotta
585 of 608
Table 2B:
Material Notes
Window Frames
Wood Excluding plywood
Metal Excluding corrugated metal
Fiberglass
Composite
Vinyl
Roofing Materials
Composite, asphalt, and fiberglass shingle
Clay and concrete tile
Slate
Green roofs
Solar shingles
Colored metal/natural copper
Single-ply roof membranes
15. Section 5.1.1.B – Private balconies and open space
This ODS section contains requirements for private open space for individual residential units, including balconies. With respect to the balcony requirements, we request further explanation of the meaning of “open” as applied to glass guardrails, and also request further guidance on if 50% clear glass and 50% obscured glass can be used for guardrails.
With respect to enclosed ground-floor open spaces, we recommend that the ODS allow a greater range of enclosure materials, including steel or aluminum fencing, as well as stainless steel or cable enclosures. Allowing a greater range of materials will provide projects with better flexibility to adapt to unique contexts and provide better products for residents.
Accordingly, we recommend the following additions to Section 5.1.1.B:
B. Private Open Space for Individual Units
1. The fronts and sides of balconies shall consist of obscured glass, slats, or partially transparent grating or railing that is at least fifty (50) percent open.
2. Enclosed private ground-floor open spaces fronting a public street and/or sidewalk shall have an enclosure between three (3) and four (4) feet in height.
Enclosure materials shall be limited to the following:
a. Walls of a color and material(s) that match those used for the main building(s)
b. Wrought iron, steel, or aluminum fencing
c. Glass
d. Wood
e. Stainless steel
586 of 608
f. Cable
16. Figure 7.1 – Location of Hillsdale Station
Figure 7.1 maps the various specific plan areas in the City, but also locates Hillsdale Station at its old location prior to the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project and the construction of the new Hillsdale Station, completed in 2021. We recommend relocating Hillsdale Station as indicated in this figure to its current location.
17. Section 7.2.1.B.2 – Build-to-Lines for corner parcels The ODS currently requires that for corner parcels, buildings must be built to the required street setback for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the side street property frontage. While we recognize that this serves important planning and urban design goals in general, it does not apply well to long buildings with large floorplates, and can impact the commercial viability of such projects by interfering with efficient floorplate design strategies. In turn, this can impact the viability of housing production on floors above. As a result, we recommend limiting the scope of this requirement by either cabining this requirement to apply only to building frontages less than a specific length, or to establish a maximum required property length at the required setback.
We recommend the follow revision to Section 7.2.1.B.2:
B. Build-to-Lines
1. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total property line frontage along El Camino Real shall be occupied by buildings built to the required setback line.
Building(s) may be set back up to a maximum of twenty (20) feet behind the build-to line to provide a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, plaza, outdoor seating, outdoor dining, or landscape area or any combination thereof.
2. For corner parcels, the building shall be built to the required street side setback for a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the side street property frontage.For parcels with greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet of side street frontage, buildings shall not be required to be built along the side street at a length greater than seventy-five (75) feet.
18. Section 7.2.1.C – Frontage Features
Here, the ODS requires one of a specified list of ground floor elements to be provided as a function of property frontage along El Camino Real. We applaud the City’s effort to design standards that will activate the streetscape, and recommend adding “canopies” of all materials to this list as an outgrowth of the existing “awnings” and “trellises” currently listed.
We request the following addition to Section 7.2.1.C:
587 of 608
C. Frontage Features. For each twenty-five (25) feet of building frontage along El Camino Real, at least one (1) of the following ground floor elements shall be included (can be multiple instances of one [1] element):
1. Arcades
2. Awnings (no wider than a structural bay)
3. Trellises
4. Canopies (of all materials)
5. Residential entry porch
19. Section 7.2.2.A – Curb Cuts
This section limits curb cuts to one (1) “per development” along El Camino Real. We recommend amending this provision to “per building” in recognition that there will be multi-building developments constructed along El Camino Real, and individual buildings may require individual curb cuts to accommodate required loading zones and other services necessary for each building within the development.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revision to Section 7.2.2.A:
A. Curb Cuts. Curb cuts along El Camino Real shall be prohibited if alley or secondary frontage is available. A maximum of one (1) curb cut along El Camino per developmentbuilding is permitted.
20. Section 7.3.1.A.1 – Setbacks
In the Hillsdale Station Area, the ODS currently requires setbacks from the curb along El Camino Real to create at least twenty (20) feet combined effective sidewalk. We recommend that this be amended to include that setbacks include curb cuts and cut outs for bus stops, out of recognition that both currently exist and will be required in the future along El Camino Real in the Hillsdale Station Area.
Accordingly, we request the following addition to Section 7.3.1.A.1:
1. Buildings shall be set back from the back of curb along El Camino Real to create at least twenty (20) feet of combined effective sidewalk, including curb cuts and cut outs for bus stops.
21. Section 7.3.2.A.2.B – Ground floor parking
This section currently provides that if structured parking is included within a mixed-use building, a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the ground floor may be dedicated to parking. This limitation should be softened or removed because it would severely reduce the commercial viability of multifamily residential development, including affordable housing development. 588 of 608
Instead, we recommend applying the same screening requirements in Section 7.3.2.B to ground floor parking, which could include requirements for specified materials, art installation, or other requirements to improve the streetscape experience.
Accordingly, we request the following revision to Section 7.3.2.A.2.B:
2. Vehicle parking shall be prohibited in front setback areas and along primary and secondary street frontages
a. If a parking garage is an individual building part of a project of a project, retail, or other active uses, such use shall occupy the ground-floor space of that parking garage along at least ninety (90) percent of the frontage of El Camino Real, at a minimum depth of forty (40) feet.
b. If structured parking is within a mixed-use building, a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the ground floor may be dedicated to parking.The parking screening requirements provided in Section 7.3.2.B shall apply to ground floor parking in a mixed-use building.
22. Section 7.3.4 – Laurel Creek views
The ODS requires in this section that all residential units and residential units in a mixed-use development in the Hillsdale Station Area must have at least one (1) window facing Laurel Creek.
We recommend eliminating this requirement. It is not practical for all of the units across the Hillsdale area to face the creek. Even on properties adjacent to the creek, imposing this requirement would limit building configurations and reduce the density and total units that could be developed on adjacent properties.
Accordingly, we recommend the deletion of Section 7.3.4:
All residential units and residential units of mixed-use development shall have at least one (1) window that faces the creek.
23. Section 7.6.2.A.1 – Building Design & Articulation
This section requires that all upper-floor residential units facing local streets include at least one (1) outdoor deck, balcony, or bay window. We recommend removing this requirement. It is impractical for smaller units with less street-facing frontage, increases costs and makes it more difficult to provide affordable housing, and mandates a very specific, uniform aesthetic on all local streets contrary to the vision expressed in the ODS renderings, where it is unlikely that any of the buildings shown comply with this requirement. If the Council decides not to remove this requirement, it should be reduced to apply to only 25% of units facing local streets.
Accordingly, we recommend the following deletion from Section 7.6.2:
589 of 608
1. All upper-floor residential units facing local streets shall include at least one (1) of the following:
a. Occupiable outdoor deck designed as usable space
b. Balcony
c. Bay window
24. Section 7.6.2.A.2 – Façade Elements
This section requires street-facing facades to include at least three (3) of six (6) listed façade elements. We recommend reducing this requirement to two (2) elements, as the guidance we have received indicates that requiring three (3) elements will lead to unnecessarily busy, aesthetically-limited building façades.
Accordingly, we request the following revision to Section 7.6.2.A.2:
2. All building facades visible from a public street or public area shall include at least three (3)two (2) of the following across the entire façade:
a. Trellises
b. Arcades
c. Awnings
d. Balconies
e. Belt courses along sill lines
f. Capped parapets
25. Section 7.6.3 – Landscaping & Open Space
While this requirement imposes new open space requirements on large-scale development, there are already requirements in the General Plan Update that have been subject to rigorous testing and community consultation. Accordingly, we recommend removing this requirement as redundant and relying on the General Plan Update requirements.
Accordingly, we request the following deletion of Section 7.6.3:
For mixed-use developments of at least three (3) acres of site area or an entire block, a publicly accessible park or plaza of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of fifty (50) feet for any side, shall be developed within the central portion of the site.
We thank you for your time and your consideration and your efforts on the ODS. 590 of 608
Sincerely,
David Bohannon
Cc: Zach Dahl ([email protected])
Manira Sandhir ([email protected])
Mazarin Vakharia ([email protected])
Planning Commission ([email protected]) John Ebneter ([email protected])
Seema Patel ([email protected])
Adam Nugent ([email protected])
Martin Wiggins ([email protected])
Margaret Williams ([email protected])
City Council ([email protected])
Amourence Lee ([email protected])
Lisa Diaz Nash ([email protected])
Adam Loraine ([email protected])
Rob Newsom, Jr. ([email protected])
Rich Hedges ([email protected])
Chelsea Maclean ([email protected])
591 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 20 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-4679 File ID: 23-8196 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2023
SUBJECT:
Community Flood and Storm Protection Initiative – City-Owned Parcels RECOMMENDATION:
Designate the City Manager as the City's ballot representative and provide direction whether the City Manager should vote on the Community Flood and Storm Protection fee for 98 City-owned parcels subject to the fee, and if so, whether the City Manager should vote “yes” or “no.”
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Proposition 218 requirements, the City of San Mateo (City) is currently in the balloting phase for the proposed Community Flood and Storm Protection fee, during which property owners within the City are provided an opportunity to vote as to whether they support a property-related fee to generate dedicated, ongoing revenue for operating, maintaining, and improving the City’s storm drainage system. The balloting phase follows the protest phase, during which a majority of property owners subject to the proposed fee did not protest its imposition.
A total of 28,994 parcels would be subject to the proposed fee and each property owner is allowed one vote per parcel owned. At the November 6, 2023 City Council meeting, during Council reports and announcements, the City Council asked staff to bring forward this item for Council Consideration this evening. The City owns 98 parcels subject to the proposed fee, each of which entitles the City to a vote on the measure. The total cumulative fee for the 98 parcels would equate to $4,795.76 monthly ($57,549.12 annually) in Fiscal Year 2024-25. This proposed fee, as authorized by Council, may increase by a maximum of 3% annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the region. According to SCI Consulting Group, the City’s contractor for the balloting phase, all of their clients have opted to participate in voting on City-owned parcels.
The cities are listed below:
Agency Participation in
Voting
City of Alameda Yes
City of Berkeley Yes
Town of Moraga Yes
City of Sacramento Yes
City of Davis Yes
City of Los Altos Yes
City of Cupertino Yes
Staff seeks guidance from the Council on whether the City as a property owner should vote on the 98 ballots for Cityowned parcels, and if directed to vote, whether it be in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Community Flood and 592 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Storm Protection Fee. Should the Council direct that the City participate and vote, Staff recommends the Council designate the City Manager as the City’s representative to act on the 98 ballots for City-owned parcels.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The annual fee for the all 98 City-owned parcels in FY 2024-25 will be $57,549.12. Should the ballot measure pass, staff will determine an appropriate funding source.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
None
STAFF CONTACT
Jimmy Vo, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7319
593 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 21 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-5141 File ID: 23-8149 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Police Department
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2023
SUBJECT:
Public Employee Pension Reform Act-180 Day Waiting Period Waiver Request – Police Department RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to waive the Public Employee Pension Reform Act 180-day waiting period to hire retired annuitant Michelle Licata for a critically needed position.
BACKGROUND:
Assembly Bill 340, the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2013 also known as PEPRA, was signed into law on September 12, 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013. PEPRA created Government Code Section 7522.56, which requires public agency retirees to wait 180 days after retirement before returning to work for a public agency. This waiting period can be waived should the City Council determine it is critical to fill the specific position. Therefore, this request is before Council for approval at this time.
Michelle Licata, Records Specialist II for the Police Department is set to retire November 30, 2023 after 25 years of service.
The tasks performed by the Records Unit are critical to the operation of the Police Department and require intricate knowledge of procedures relating to compliance with laws pertaining to record release and retention. The Records Unit has had unexpected turnover in the last year, with Records Specialists promoting to different positions in the Department or leaving law enforcement. Because of this, half of the fulltime Records Specialists are recent hires still in training. The training for Records Specialists can take up to a year to ensure employees are well versed in all policies, processes, legislature, and Government Codes relating to their duties. Michelle has been relied on for her institutional knowledge of the legal obligations pertaining to the Unit. She is the primary trainer for new Records Specialists. Having a period of overlap of service for Ms. Licata and her successor will allow for adequate knowledge transfer and training while preventing a significant gap in coverage of critical aspects of the workload. When Michelle retires the Unit will only have one Records Specialist and one Senior Records Specialist capable of training three employees.
The services needed from Ms. Licata include more than training her replacement; the primary need for her return is to assist in the completion of critical projects. Prior to her retirement, Ms. Licata was engaged in several projects related to specialized support of the Police Department including digitizing all warrants; working with the Courts to recall erroneous warrants; and updating the Public Records Act request process to streamline record release. These projects will be completed within the next year, and it is essential that Ms. Licata continue to provide her expertise to these critical projects. It is anticipated that Ms. Licata would be required to return January 6, 2024, and would in no case work more than 20 hours per week.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are sufficient funds in the Police Department operating budget to cover this expenditure. 594 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
STAFF CONTACT
Ed Barberini, Chief of Police
[email protected]
(650) 522-7600
Kelly O’Keefe, Police Technical Services Administrator
[email protected]
(650) 522-7709
595 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ 2023
WAIVING THE 180 DAY SIT-OUT PERIOD FOR A RETIRED ANNUITANT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted AB 340 in order to implement comprehensive pension reform through the enactment of the California Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA); and WHEREAS, PEPRA applies to all public employers that participate in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) on or after January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 7522.56, as enacted in PEPRA, requires newly retired persons to sit out for at least 180 days before returning to work for an employer in the same retirement system in which they receive a retirement allowance; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 7522.56, as enacted in PEPRA, requires newly retired persons to sit out for at least 180 days before returning to work for an employer in the same retirement system in which they receive a retirement allowance; and
WHEREAS, an exception can be made if the City Council certifies that the nature of the employment and the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position and the 180 days has not yet passed; and WHEREAS, Michelle Licata (Licata) has been employed by the City for approximately 25 years and serves as a Records Specialist for the Police Department; and WHEREAS, Licata will retire from City service on November 30, 2023, and will not be accepting a retirement incentive upon retirement; and
WHEREAS, Licata has extensive knowledge of the complex work required in the Records Unit of the Police Department; and it is critical that she train her replacement in the many intricacies of this work supporting the Department; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department is currently in the midst of several critical projects which require the continued participation and expertise provided by Licata including digitizing all warrants; working with the Courts to recall erroneous warrants; and updating the Public Records Act request process to streamline record release. It is essential that Licata continue to provide her expertise to these critical projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:
1. This action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
2. The City Council certifies that the employment of Michelle Licata is necessary to provide critically needed duties, and the 180 day sit-out period, pursuant to Government Code section 7522.56 has not yet passed.
3. Michelle Licata shall be employed as a Police Records Specialist II at $38.74, the current hourly base rate for that position, and no other compensation or benefits shall be provided. 596 of 608
4. Michelle Licata shall work on a temporary and sporadic basis, depending on the needs of the Police Department, but shall not work more than 960 hours.
5. Michelle Licata is authorized to be hired as a retired annuitant pursuant to this Resolution from January 6, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
6. Michelle Licata has certified in writing that she did not, during the 12-month period preceding the reemployment date of January 6, 2024, receive unemployment insurance arising from prior employment with the City.
7. This Resolution was adopted at a properly noticed public meeting and was not placed on the consent calendar, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56(F)(1).
8. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. 597 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 22 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 21-4678 File ID: 23-8141 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2023
SUBJECT:
Municipal Code Clean Up Amendments for San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.35 “Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance” – Ordinance Introduction
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.35, “Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance” to Update the Title and Code References in Preparation for Enforcement Beginning January 1, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 20 million tons of organic debris goes into landfills in California every year. As this material decomposes, it releases methane (a potent greenhouse gas), accounting for 20% of the state’s methane gas emissions. In September 2016, SB 1383 (Lara) titled “California's Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act” was passed and established statewide methane gas emission reduction targets. SB 1383 is the largest waste diversion legislation passed in the last thirty years and the most innovative climate change legislation ever. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our soil, reduce the impact of drought and wildfire, and increase the life of landfills.
Regulations to implement SB 1383 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 18981 et seq.) were adopted on November 3, 2020. SB 1383 regulations require each jurisdiction in California to provide organic collection services to all residents and businesses, establish an edible food recovery program, conduct public education and outreach about the mandates, purchase recycled and recovered organic products to create an organics circular economy, monitor compliance and conduct enforcement, maintain records, and report to CalRecycle.
SB 1383 regulations also required jurisdictions to establish enforceable requirements for organic waste generators, haulers, and other entities subject to City authority by January 1, 2022. More information regarding SB 1383 regulations can be found online at www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/.
On December 6, 2021, the City adopted San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 7.35, titled "Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance” (Ordinance) in compliance with SB 1383. SB 1383 allows the City to designate a public or private entity to fulfill some of its SB 1383 regulatory responsibilities via contracts or written agreements. The City has executed agreements with both the County of San Mateo and South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) to assist in implementation and compliance. The City also has a franchise agreement with Recology San Mateo County.
Pursuant to SB 1383, and SMMC Section 7.35.130(h)-(i), an education period for non-compliance with the Ordinance was established from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023, and since then the City has been engaged with our partners Recology San Mateo County, Rethink Waste, and the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability to provide a robust public education and outreach campaign including on-site visits, bill inserts, phone calls, emails, and letters. This has been 598 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
a successful campaign; however, many residential and commercial accounts are out of compliance. Enforcement, which is mandated by the legislation, including the potential imposition of penalties, begins on January 1, 2024.
In a recent review of the Ordinance, staff has found a few references in SMMC Section 7.35.130 "Enforcement" which require updating prior to January 1, 2024, to ensure effective enforcement of the Ordinance. In addition, this amendment makes a minor correction to the title of the Ordinance to ensure consistent formatting within the SMMC. A copy of the proposed amendments to Ordinance is attached hereto as Attachments 1 (clean version) and 2 (redlined version).
Based on the above, staff recommends the City Council approve introduction of the proposed amendments to SMMC Chapter 7.35.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no corresponding budget impact with the amendment of the Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City Council finds that the City’s amendment of the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance does not require further environmental review because 1) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the activities described in this Ordinance are entirely within the scope of a program Environmental Impact Report prepared by CalRecycle concerning the SB 1383 Regulations (PEIR) and the PEIR adequately described the activities described in this Ordinance; and 2) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and 15162, no conditions exist necessitating supplemental or subsequent environmental review. Additionally, this action is categorically exempt from CEQA as it is an action taken to protect the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments
Att 2 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments – Track Changes
STAFF CONTACT
Jack Johnson, Waste Management Supervisor
[email protected]
6505227346
599 of 608
CITY OF SAN MATEO
DRAFT ORDINANCE
Amending Chapter 7.35, “Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance” of the San Mateo Municipal Code
WHEREAS, the State of California passed Senate Bill 1383 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), the Shortlived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, which requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations to reduce organic waste; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle has finalized implementing regulations by revising Chapter 12 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants) of Division 7 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (SB 1383 Regulations); and WHEREAS, the SB 1383 Regulations require a 50 percent reduction of organic waste by 2020 from 2014 baseline levels and a 75 percent reduction by 2025, and further require the recovery by 2025 of at least 20 percent of currently disposed of edible food for human consumption; and WHEREAS, the SB 1383 Regulations require cities, counties, and special districts providing solid waste collection services to adopt and enforce an implementing ordinance or other mechanism by January 1, 2022 that includes the regulation of waste haulers and generators of organic waste and edible food, as well as enforcement provisions and penalties for violations; and WHEREAS, the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) developed a Model Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance for its member agencies to utilize; and WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo adopted the “Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance” (Ordinance) on December 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance provides for an education period for non-compliance from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance provides for enforcement to begin on January 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Ordinance’s enforcement section are necessary to correct certain code references prior to enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The title of Chapter 7.35 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows: "Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction”.
Section 2. Section 7.35.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
7.35.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as the "Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction" ordinance and may be so cited and commonly referred to in this Chapter as the "Ordinance." 600 of 608
Section 3. Section 7.35.130 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
7.35.130 Enforcement
(a) Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute grounds for issuance of a Notice of Violation and assessment of a fine by the Jurisdiction Enforcement Official, Designee for Edible Food Recovery, or representative. Enforcement Actions under this ordinance are issuance of an administrative citation and assessment of a fine. The City’s procedures on imposition of administrative fines are hereby incorporated in their entirety, as modified from time to time, and shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforce this ordinance and any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this ordinance, except as otherwise indicated in this ordinance. (b) Other remedies allowed by law may be used, including civil action or prosecution as misdemeanor or infraction. The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may pursue civil actions in the California courts to seek recovery of unpaid administrative citations. The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may choose to delay court action until such time as a sufficiently large number of violations, or cumulative size of violations exist such that court action is a reasonable use of the City’s or Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s staff and resources.
(c) Responsible Entity for Enforcement
(1) Enforcement pursuant to this ordinance may be undertaken by the Jurisdiction Enforcement Official, which may be the city manager, city attorney, or their designee, or combination thereof, or Designee for Edible Food Recovery.
(A) Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) and Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for Edible Food Recovery provisions) will interpret ordinance; determine the applicability of waivers, if violation(s) have occurred; implement Enforcement Actions; and, determine if compliance standards are met.
(B) Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) and Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for Edible Food Recovery provisions) may issue Notices of Violation(s). (d) Process for Enforcement
(1) Jurisdiction Enforcement Officials or Designee for Edible Food Recovery and/or their Designee will monitor compliance with the ordinance randomly and through Compliance Reviews, Route Reviews, investigation of complaints, and an Inspection program (that may include Remote Monitoring).
Section 7.35.120 establishes Jurisdiction’s and Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s right to conduct Inspections and investigations.
(2) The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may issue an official notification to notify regulated entities of its obligations under the ordinance. (3) For incidences of Prohibited Container Contaminants found in containers, the City or its Designee will issue a Notice of Violation to any generator found to have Prohibited Container 601 of 608
Contaminants in a container. Such notice will be provided via a cart tag or other communication immediately upon identification of the Prohibited Container Contaminants or within 30 days after determining that a violation has occurred. If the City or its Designee observes Prohibited Container Contaminants in a generator’s containers on more than two (2) consecutive occasion(s), the City or its Designee may assess contamination processing fees or contamination penalties on the generator provided by law.
The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery will issue a Notice of Violation to any Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator found to have Edible Food in any waste container or to any Food Recovery Organization or Food Recovery Service found to have Edible Food recovered from a Tier One or Tier Two Edible Food Generator in a waste collection container which has not been documented by a notice of significant spoilage as required in this Ordinance. Such notice will be provided by email communication immediately upon identification of the violation or within three (3) calendar days after determining that a violation has occurred. If the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery observes Edible Food in a Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, or Food Recovery Organization, or Food Recovery Service waste container on more than two (2) consecutive occasion(s), the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may assess an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to the Edible Food Recovery penalties provisions contained in this Ordinance, on the Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, or Food Recovery Service. (4) With the exception of violations of generator contamination of container contents addressed under Section 7.35.130(d)(3), the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery shall issue a Notice of Violation requiring compliance within 60 days of issuance of the notice. (5) Absent compliance by the respondent within the deadline set forth in the Notice of Violation, the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for the Edible Food Recovery provisions) may commence an action to impose penalties via an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to its Administrative citation and fine procedures.
For the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, the Designee for Edible Food Recovery may commence an action to impose penalties, via an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to the Edible Food Recovery penalties provisions contained in this Ordinance and/or Title 1 of the San Mateo Municipal Code.
Notices shall be sent to “owner” at the official address of the owner maintained by the tax collector for the City or if no such address is available, to the owner at the address of the dwelling or Commercial property or to the party responsible for paying for the collection services, depending upon available information
(e) Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations
The penalty levels for violations unrelated to the Edible Food Recovery requirement are as follows:
(1) For a first violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $100 per violation. 602 of 608
(2) For a second violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $200 per violation. (3) For a third or subsequent violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $500 per violation.
(f) Compliance Deadline Extension Considerations
The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may extend the compliance deadlines set forth in a Notice of Violation issued in accordance with Section 7.35.130 if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the respondent that make compliance within the deadlines impracticable, including the following:
(1) Acts of God such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and other emergencies or natural disasters;
(2) Delays in obtaining discretionary permits or other government agency approvals; or, (3) Deficiencies in Organic Waste recycling infrastructure or Edible Food Recovery capacity and the City is under a corrective action plan with CalRecycle pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18996.2 due to those deficiencies.
(g) Appeals Process
Persons receiving an administrative citation containing a penalty for an uncorrected violation may request a hearing to appeal the citation. A hearing will be held only if it is requested within the time prescribed and consistent with the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s procedures in the City’s or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s codes for appeals of administrative citations. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery will appoint a hearing officer who shall conduct the hearing and issue a final written order. (h) Education Period for Non-Compliance
Beginning January 1, 2022 and through December 31, 2023, the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for edible food generator and food recovery organization and service requirements) may conduct Inspections, Remote Monitoring, Route Reviews or waste evaluations, and Compliance Reviews, depending upon the type of regulated entity, to determine compliance, and if the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery determines that Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance, it shall provide educational materials and/or, for the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, training to the entity describing its obligations under this ordinance and a notice that compliance is required by January 1, 2022, and that violations may be subject to administrative civil penalties starting on January 1, 2024.
(i) Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
603 of 608
Beginning January 1, 2024, if the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (Designee for Edible Food determination only for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Commercial Edible food generator and food recovery organization and service requirements) determines that an Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance with this ordinance, it shall document the noncompliance or violation, issue a Notice of Violation, and take Enforcement Action pursuant to Section 7.35.130, as needed.
Section 4. Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, sections 15168, 15162, and 15308, this action does not require further environmental review because 1) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the activities described in this Ordinance are entirely within the scope of a program Environmental Impact Report prepared by CalRecycle concerning the SB 1383 Regulations (PEIR) and the PEIR adequately described the activities described in this Ordinance; and 2) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and 15162, no conditions exist necessitating supplemental or subsequent environmental review. Additionally, this action is categorically exempt from CEQA as it is an action taken to protect the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.) Section 5. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 6. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.
Section 7. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption. 604 of 608
Chapter 7.35
Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance
7.35.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as the "Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction” Oordinance" and may be so cited and commonly referred to in this Chapter as the "Ordinance."
7.35.130 Enforcement
(a) Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute grounds for issuance of a Notice of Violation and assessment of a fine by the Jurisdiction Enforcement Official, Designee for Edible Food Recovery, or representative. Enforcement Actions under this ordinance are issuance of an administrative citation and assessment of a fine. The City’s procedures on imposition of administrative fines are hereby incorporated in their entirety, as modified from time to time, and shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforce this ordinance and any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this ordinance, except as otherwise indicated in this ordinance. (b) Other remedies allowed by law may be used, including civil action or prosecution as misdemeanor or infraction. The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may pursue civil actions in the California courts to seek recovery of unpaid administrative citations. The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may choose to delay court action until such time as a sufficiently large number of violations, or cumulative size of violations exist such that court action is a reasonable use of the City’s or Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s staff and resources. (c) Responsible Entity for Enforcement
(1) Enforcement pursuant to this ordinance may be undertaken by the Jurisdiction Enforcement Official, which may be the city manager, city attorney, or their designee, or combination thereof, or Designee for Edible Food Recovery. (A) Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) and Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for Edible Food Recovery provisions) will interpret ordinance; determine the applicability of waivers, if violation(s) have occurred; implement Enforcement Actions; and, determine if compliance standards are met.
(B) Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) and Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for Edible Food Recovery provisions) may issue Notices of Violation(s). (d) Process for Enforcement
(1) Jurisdiction Enforcement Officials or Designee for Edible Food Recovery and/or their Designee will monitor compliance with the ordinance randomly and through Compliance 605 of 608
Reviews, Route Reviews, investigation of complaints, and an Inspection program (that may include Remote Monitoring). Section 7.35.12014 establishes Jurisdiction’s and Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s right to conduct Inspections and investigations. (2) The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may issue an official notification to notify regulated entities of its obligations under the ordinance. (3) For incidences of Prohibited Container Contaminants found in containers, tThe City or its Designee will issue a Notice of Violation to any generator found to have Prohibited Container Contaminants in a container. Such notice will be provided via a cart tag or other communication immediately upon identification of the Prohibited Container Contaminants or within 30 days after determining that a violation has occurred. If the City or its Designee observes Prohibited Container Contaminants in a generator’s containers on more than two (2) consecutive occasion(s), the City or its Designee may assess contamination processing fees or contamination or other penalties on the generator provided by law.
The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery will issue a Notice of Violation to any Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator found to have Edible Food in any waste container or to any Food Recovery Organization or Food Recovery Service found to have Edible Food recovered from a Tier One or Tier Two Edible Food Generator in a waste collection container which has not been documented by a notice of significant spoilage as required in this Ordinance. Such notice will be provided by email communication immediately upon identification of the violation or within three (3) calendar days after determining that a violation has occurred. If the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery observes Edible Food in a Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, or Food Recovery Organization, or Food Recovery Service waste container on more than two (2) consecutive occasion(s), the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may assess an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to the Edible Food Recovery penalties provisions contained in this Ordinance, on the Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, or Food Recovery Service.
(4) With the exception of violations of generator contamination of container contents addressed under Section 7.35.13015(d)(3), the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery shall issue a Notice of Violation requiring compliance within 60 days of issuance of the notice. (5) Absent compliance by the respondent within the deadline set forth in the Notice of Violation, the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for the Edible Food Recovery provisions) may commence an action to impose penalties via an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to its Administrative citation and fine procedures.
For the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, the Designee for Edible Food Recovery may commence an action to impose penalties, via an administrative citation and fine, pursuant to 606 of 608
the Edible Food Recovery penalties provisions contained in this Ordinance and/or Title 1 of the San Mateo Municipal Code.
Notices shall be sent to “owner” at the official address of the owner maintained by the tax collector for the City or if no such address is available, to the owner at the address of the dwelling or Commercial property or to the party responsible for paying for the collection services, depending upon available information
(e) Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations
The penalty levels for violations unrelated to the Edible Food Recovery requirement are as follows:
(1) For a first violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $100 per violation. (2) For a second violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $200 per violation. (3) For a third or subsequent violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $500 per violation.
(f) Compliance Deadline Extension Considerations
The City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery may extend the compliance deadlines set forth in a Notice of Violation issued in accordance with Section 7.35.130 Section 15 if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the respondent that make compliance within the deadlines impracticable, including the following:
(1) Acts of God such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and other emergencies or natural disasters;
(2) Delays in obtaining discretionary permits or other government agency approvals; or, (3) Deficiencies in Organic Waste recycling infrastructure or Edible Food Recovery capacity and the City is under a corrective action plan with CalRecycle pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18996.2 due to those deficiencies.
(g) Appeals Process
Persons receiving an administrative citation containing a penalty for an uncorrected violation may request a hearing to appeal the citation. A hearing will be held only if it is requested within the time prescribed and consistent with the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s procedures in the City’s or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery’s codes for appeals of administrative citations. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. The City or its Designee for 607 of 608
Edible Food Recovery will appoint a hearing officer who shall conduct the hearing and issue a final written order.
(h) Education Period for Non-Compliance
Beginning January 1, 2022 and through December 31, 2023, the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (for edible food generator and food recovery organization and service requirements) may conduct Inspections, Remote Monitoring, Route Reviews or waste evaluations, and Compliance Reviews, depending upon the type of regulated entity, to determine compliance, and if the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery determines that Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance, it shall provide educational materials and/or, for the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, training to the entity describing its obligations under this ordinance and a notice that compliance is required by January 1, 2022, and that violations may be subject to administrative civil penalties starting on January 1, 2024.
(i) Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
Beginning January 1, 2024, if the City or its Designee for Edible Food Recovery (Designee for Edible Food determination only for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Commercial Edible food generator and food recovery organization and service requirements) determines that an Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance with this ordinance, it shall document the noncompliance or violation, issue a Notice of Violation, and take Enforcement Action pursuant to Section 7.35.13015, as needed. 608 of 608