Historic buildings at issue in lot split talks in San Mateo

The Planning Commission was concerned that eligible historical buildings were included in the ordinance instead of just approved ones, citing potential misappropriation to prevent SB 9 developments. SB 9 does not apply to historic properties and could be used to ensure specific historical neighborhoods remain the same. The ordinance addresses different historic property preservation definitions in the city’s municipal code and the general plan, leading to confusion in past development proposals. Under the ordinance, historic buildings are eligible on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, the Downtown Historic District contributor buildings, or documented in a historic resources report. The municipal code did not include provisions for buildings identified through a historic resources report. While the city determines eligibility, it is creating guidelines so outside consultants can produce their documents to be peer-reviewed by staff.

Commissioner Seema Patel said it could lead to someone obtaining a historical report from anyone that prevents a property owner from using SB 9.

“I think it seems simpler if the definition is tied to whether or not the properties are actually listed on a historic register,” Patel said. “That way, if a property owner wants their property to be protected, they can get a historic evaluation.”

Commissioner Martin Wiggins was uncomfortable that anyone with the resources could create a report to make buildings eligible because they found someone willing to write it. He cited a project proposal at 415 Fairfax Ave. that called for demolishing a single-family home in the Baywood neighborhood and creating a larger home and ADU on-site. The process received neighborhood resistance over building height and design concerns. Some residents petitioned the city to make the development site and Baywood neighborhood a historical resource that would make demolition impossible. The Planning Commission found the neighborhood and home were not a historic district and that the proposal met all design standards.

“I recently observed a process with 415 Fairfax that we don’t want to repeat,” Wiggins said.

“My worry is whole neighborhoods of a certain type get eliminated or excluded out of being eligible for SB 9,” Commissioner Adam Nugent said. “Similar to Woodside claiming they are a mountain lion habitat.”

SB 9 requires cities to allow at least two units per split lot and gives local flexibility to allow up to four dwelling units per split lot, consisting of two main units, an accessory dwelling unit, and a junior accessory dwelling unit. The state law went into effect in January and requires ministerial approval for most SB 9 projects, along with objective zoning and design standard. Cities cannot apply any standard that would stop the construction of two units up to 16 feet tall, up to 800 square feet in size and at least 4 feet from the rear and side property lines. However, it can exercise local control on projects beyond those measures.

The proposed ordinance stuck with previous council direction to keep in line with state requirements around limits of urban lot splits, sticking with a maximum of two dwelling units per lot. For unit size, the council said any units bigger than 800 square feet, the minimum allowed under state law, are subject to city discretionary review. The council wants demolition limits to 50% of exterior walls for more design flexibility and to send courtesy notices to immediate neighbors of projects.

For two-unit developments, the maximum building heights for attached units will be 24 feet to the top plateline and 32 feet to the roof peak, while detached units will be 16 feet to the top plateline and 24 feet to the roof peak, aligning with city ADU standards. The minimum setback will be 4 feet for side and rear yards. Short-term rental units will not be allowed. Urban lot splits will have the same setbacks, unit size, parking, building heights and demolition limits. Lot split sizes must be equal and at least 1,200 square feet. Applicants must also reside in one of the units for at least three years. Interim objective design standards are in place until the council sets permanent standards. The attached units must be the same architectural style, colors and materials, while second-story structures must be set back at least 2 feet.

The Planning Commission asked that demolition limits be increased to 100% with ministerial approval if it meets objective design standards, eased restrictions of unit size even if it exceeds the floor area ratio, and that a 10-foot access pass is only required for fire access and parking.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102