SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

sources of these rules range widely. The existing rules, moreover, do not cover all potential housing sites that the proposed standards would cover. Thus, the proposed standards threaten to run afoul of SB 330 by imposing restrictions on housing development on sites that do not currently face such restrictions.Finally,the proposed standards are often stricter than their existing counterparts, either because they revise a rule in a way that makes it more stringent or because they create an entirely new rule.These cases,too,impinge on SB 330. III. MANY OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF "OBJECTIVE"AND HENCE ARE UNENFORCEABLE The Planning Commission has correctly recognized that, going forward, design standards must be objective,not discretionary.SB 330 bars cities from"[i)mposing or enforcing design standards [...] that are not objective." (Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) renders non-objective standards unenforceable. (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).) Both SB 330 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).) Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did not take sufficient care in drafting the proposed standards to ensure they met the exacting requirements of SB 330 and the HAA.In many places,the proposed standards fall short.Ca1HDF urges the Council to carefully review all the proposed standards for objectivity, and specifically points out a few of the most egregious examples below. In the proposed Objective Design Standards for Housing Sites: • A7.8: This standard requires a minimum of fifty percent shade coverage for surface parking lots larger than ten stalls.There is no objective method for calculating"shade coverage"in the guidelines,however.This standard also says tree shade coverage is to be calculated "at maturity,' but there is no objective definition of what constitutes "maturity". These ambiguities open the door to subjective judgments by the City - precisely what SB 330 and the HAA prohibit. • B3.2: This standard requires "differing window sizes to emphasize the hierarchy of living and public spaces.""Differing window sizes"is fine,but there is no real meaning - and certainly no objective meaning, as defined in state law - to the phrase, "emphasize the hierarchy of living and public spaces." No developer will be able to 4 of 6