Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, October 23, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

d
) $+ef %g%/"-"f/e&/-% ]<KC=<E6_88
T3h;@M=D>Eh<<=3i@C??<>DFFLCID?C;>=G;@E<=CR>@<KC<WDFFLCID?C;>==JDLLP<=BPMC??<E?;?J<QLD>>C>R :CKC=C;>C>I;MFLCD>I<WC?J?J<DFFLCID?C;>F@;I<EB@<=C>SJDF?<@6^38`NS;MM;>Q@;I<EB@<=3 U3:<=CR>jBCE<LC><=3:<=CR>RBCE<LC><=WJ<@<DFFLCIDPL<D>EDE;F?<EPO?J<SC?OS;B>ICLF@;KCE< @<I;MM<>ED?C;>=?;P<B=<EC>?J<E<=CR>@<KC<WF@;I<==3VJ<OD@<C>?<>E<E?;F@;M;?<JCRJkABDLC?O E<=CR>NW<LLkI@DG?<ED>EMDC>?DC><EPBCLEC>R=D>ELD>E=IDFC>RN?J<B=<;GJCRJkABDLC?OPBCLEC>RMD?<@CDL=N D>ED??<>?C;>?;?J<E<=CR>D>E<Y<IB?C;>;GPBCLEC>RE<?DCL=D>EDM<>C?C<=C>P;?JFBPLCID>EF@CKD?< F@;H<I?=3
S3S;>IB@@<>?Q@;I<==C>R3iJ<>DE<K<L;FM<>?F@;H<I?@<ABC@<=DB=<F<@MC?NKD@CD>I<N;@D>O;?J<@ EC=I@<?C;>D@ODFF@;KDLN?J<E<=CR>@<KC<WDFFLCID?C;>=JDLLP<=BPMC??<E?;?J<QLD>>C>R:CKC=C;>D=DFD@?;G ?J<DFFLCID?C;>G;@?J<B>E<@LOC>RF<@MC?NB=<F<@MC?NE<KCD?C;>;@<YI<F?C;>?;?J<ZPH<I?CK<:<=CR> [?D>ED@E=;@KD@CD>I<3
608

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 314

!
"
#$%&'('!

)

*
+

#

,
,

-

"

./''0

.#'0

)

.#'0

)

#$%(

2

1

3

!

.-#5(676.*8

0%'%#9-
#5/(.*8
.
00%'#$:-#66/76.*8

.
00%'#%9-#6/$76.*8

.
00%'##0
;<=>?=@A@BCDEFDGHFIJKLMFNJFO=

9
P"

9 " Q

R
S

9
#'/

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 315

"# !

$%&'()$$
**+,&-.%
&/(-0/$1$
**+,&&*
2345647879:;<=>?:@<:AB?<C:?<D4
E

F

F G

I

G

G G

J
K

G L

G G

I

J
J

J
J

J

J
J

J
I

J

!J
G

K

NH
O

J

&,/

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 316

#$
%&'(#)*#
++,-%./
$
%0'.10#)2#
++,-%%+
345675898:;<=>?;@AB@>BCD5
*E

* E
F!

F F

/
2

G
H I

F
F

G
F2

F
F
G
*2

K

G

)

L %.,M-N-*

#$
%&'(#)* #
++,-%./$
%0'.10#)2#
++,-%%+
345675848OPB@>Q>PBDPRSTT?PUSV5
W

* E
F!

F F
F

"

#X2E+

K#$
%&'(#)*#
++,-%./$
%0'.10#)2#
++,-%%+
345675878YTT;SVDZ[\T>?SQ>PB];\Q;BD>PBD]SB@^P@>A_SQ>PBD5 22

L %.,(%&-2

H)
)

`

*

F
%.,(F !
#$
%&'(#)*#
++,-%./$

%0'.10#)2#
++,-%%+
%-&

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 317

!"#$%&'()*('(+

,
-$(&%('"$)'$$(.)(#%$

/
!"*'()%&$0(1"*'()"$)'$$(.)(#%$

#00)('"$)'$$(.)(#%$

2 %&"$('"$)'$$(.)(#%$

3 %$#(#%4)#00"%()(#%4%&"('(($"$)'$$(.)(#%$

!"#$%&'()*('(+

567
87

9:
;

:<
:=
>67
9?7@

A
<
67:?7:7:

;=9

6
@:B=

:7
@
B?7<7B7CC:

C:
76B;D
?

?67
87

EF?G67

AH
<<

I=C

:J=>:
< ?K
:
:I?7669:<

D??:7C
8=?766;9<9
;D
?

:<
:=
67
87

D
?

7 B67
87

?
?7C:EF?H
<<

<7B9:<

?77C
8
=?766

;9<9
;D
?

767
87

ID??:
:

7<9D
?

?67
87

I
>

?7:7:

7:=;7

766B

<C7
;6D
??
BC
76
>=
7<9D
?

?67
87

E
LM:9ENOPQROLST?EULC7:VVIWXNNV

,
-$(&%('"$)'$$(.)(#%$

UEY
9

76Z
=

AFBCE
NE

A6[5

KD66

AEM
LNV9D66

6
79

7 A66
ID
?

D?
?766:

<7:

:
766B7
;67
9?7

77?9
7 B
?:9D66

EF?
67
87

6=9

9 @
9=76<7
=>7=:9?
=

7669

7>
=
97

B<C=:=7

NQ\\N
>
?H76
>
:

7Z76?7
97>BH
9E
WE<766]

A6[5

=;9
@

K@6
C<
EK7?9

A6[=

9D66

A6
79

6
6?7

T?
=7
9L^IXXXVJ=7:>

7:7E
PE_=
A76
DH
=:EK7?9

A6[=

9D66

A7::7
A97:
=
97
<<

I?7:9
=:B7:9
?7
D?
66B
C

?:E
PEOE`=

:U
:BKD66

EU=

<
:?7
8@?=
9:9L\XXVJ=7:>

a7
9

9

:6BD
?

7 A6[>7<
6B9D66

L<=

7C7:7IT:
76
:7
VEUb=

:7
:B9D66

<7B

6=9C7:77

>7
6
L;7?:

AI7<

<=<I7

6I7
9?
D:V
:<7B?7:7

>7
6
D
??

A6[>7<
6B9D66

AEU
>8

Bc
?

:J=
:9ID?
?<=

6=97

c7
97;=
6[

A>7
6 BD
?7CC6
7 LEAEI<
:

D7@I
7:
@
I?
C67VI7D6677>

9C:C7:7

=
:7
9
:7A7;

E
OE\EU
:BKD66

EU
77?9
:97?9:
9

769D66

?7C:
@
9

<C6

9C
9
6
@

A>7
6
>
:

LNV
:<
:C:

7 96
79

7 A66
D
?7
C:

C
9
:T

A6[=

9D66

AEd?766

6=97C7:7T:
76
:7
7
9C:<7

C:
@

>
:6
@

AI6C

AI7

AI7
97

L7<

<=<I7

6I7
9?
D:V

?7<C7:67?

A6[>7<
6B
:<=6
>7<
6B9D66

AEU7<

<=<I?c
?
?766

7 cI7
97:9:>:

A:7
:I7
9
?:7;=
6[

c
C
::7
AI7D6677>

9 C:C7:7

=
:7
9
:7A7;

E
NX^

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 318

" !#

$

%

% !

! '
"

!
$()

*
+

%

%

% !! '

!
!

(*-"*

. '

# 0
1

!

!

#
'('
/

2 #
!/
'3$

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 319

!"#$%
&
'()*')+'+,
#$-#./
)

'()*')+ +01%#$%
)

2 23456785

9:$/;<#=>?/<%
#@<#A@"@B
#
A#@$C#"$/;.$/
%D#@
<-#E<%
@<>#@$-<
F<"%#=C>
%D

<%
$.C

)#@<#A@"@
@<./$%$C
A#@<%
A>>%$#<
.
>E<--"#
C..$C%
%D=C>
%D
<%
$.C

)
9:$/;><%"A?/<%
/%
#.<>.A$-GC<>-E%D
>$;/%#<;;>"<#$%
=<

$%#@
H=F"#0
D%!#<%
<.

$-#@C%
.>E%DI$%%D

#."#)
9,$A.
#$.E>%D#@?/<%
#@"$%#%C$C

#<%"=#A%#@.<.J<%
-.$%#J-<"%D$C#.A<>>
C.-<"
K
$..D@#J

J<%
>-#J

J-<"%D$C#.A<>>
C.-<"
K$-#@D.$C%
L$$.
#$.E$-#@=C>
%DKB">C
$-
"<%#>.
<.<
K"$.
;$."@<.<
K$.<%E$#@.C%%">$

<.<
)M$
#
K"$>C/%
K"@/%E
K=<E
A%
$A
K$#@.;.$F"#$%
K$.A<>>
%$#;<.#$-<-C>>EJ%">$

;$.#$%$-#@=C>
%DK<.%$#"$%

.

$C#.A<>>
C.-<"
-$.
#./%%D>$A.
#$.E>%D#@)N@.#@A<>>;><%$-#@D.$C%
L$$.F$D
$.
=.<O
=#A%#@-.$%#.<.J-<"%D$..D@#>-#

J-<"%D$C#.A<>>
C.-<"
K<;><%=.<O>

#@<%
B
PQR-#
@<>>="$%

.
"$%#%C$C
-$.#@;C.;$

$-
#./%%D#@>$A.
#$.E>%D#@)S-#@D.$C%

L$$.A<>>;><%=.<O

BPQR-#$.D.<#.K#@>$A.
#$.E$C#.A<>>
C.-<">$"<#
">$

##$#@
.GC.

#=<"O
@<>>=#.<#
<
#@>$A.
#$.E>%D#@#$=/<
C.
-$.#@;C.;$

$-
#./%%D
<%<>>$A<=>;.$F"#$%$-#@C;;.
#$.EP
TDC.'()*')+ +J0R)
'+(

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 320

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 321

!"#$%&'(
)*+,-+.)./012345+
)*+,-+.,.622789:;878<=+
)*+,-+.-.69954431=0454+
)*+,-+.>.6?07<@3185A<5?;048A54454+
)*+,-+.B.60<3C3;875DE5F89754:754:A?451E8954+
)*+,-+.G.H:14DA8IF<970;4D730AI54:A?93CC5198:75A<51<:8AC5A<:A?15915:<83A+ )*+,-+.J.H5?:A?;15:KL:4<73?I8AI+
)*+,-+.*.M3CC0A8<=:445C;7=L:9878<854+
)*+,-+.N.O:=9:1595A<514+
)*+,-+)..O18E5@8A:A??18E5@<F130IFL:9878<854+
)*+,-+)).PC51I5A9=4F57<514+
)*+,-+),.Q3C539902:<83A4+
)*+,-+)-.R:1I5@L31C:<15<:87+
)*+,-+)>.S0<?331?8A8AI+
)*+,-+)B.S0<?33115<:874:754+
)*+,-+)G.S0<?3314<31:I5+
)*+,-+)J./5143A:7451E8954+
)*+,-+)*./5143A:74<31:I5+
)*+,-+)N.T59=978AIL:9878<854+
)*+,-+,..T548?5A<8:79:15L:9878<854+
)*+,-+,).69954431=?U5778AI0A8<4DV0A831:9954431=?U5778AI0A8<4+ )*+,-+,,.W8AI75133C39902:A9=F3<574+
)*+,-+,-.W398:7451E895L:9878<854+
)*+,-+,>.X5C231:1=0454+
)*+,-+,B.X1:A48<83A:7:A?402231<8E5F3048AI+
)*+,-+,G.Y31C07:;048A5440454+
)*+,-+,J.M3CC5198:79:AA:;84;048A54454+
)*+,-+,*./5143A:79:AA:;84907<8E:<83A+
)*+,-+,N.T5<:8754<:;784FC5A<445778AI:CC0A8<83A31Z15:1C4+ )*+,-+-..[A?3314F33<8AI1:AI54+
)*+,-+-).\1;:A[AZ77\A8<4
]^_`a_a]bcdef&g&hiic&$# jek$l$'$%&f&km!l!i%no!&#p qrj&$#'s t_ujdn%'!f&ktnni$"fe$i$#v_wx!njdn%'!%y#x$''!"#$%&$'#%(
]_z'#fei$'xd!{jif#$%&'f&k%e|!"#$l!'#f&kfdk'#%{%l!d&#x!k!l!i%no!&#%y}jfi$h!k !&f#!q$iir'jek$l$'$%&'f&kk!l!i%no!&#nd%|!"#'%&~ ap'$&{i!yfo$ivi%k!&'$#vsf&k ~ p'$&{i!yfo$ivsnd%n!d#$!'$#x$& f&fdi%'_
`_f$&#f$&#x!"xfdf"#!d%y'$&{i!yfo$ivd!'$k!&#$fi&!${xe%dx%%k'$&#x!$#v#%#x! {d!f#!'#!
#!&#n%''$ei!_
a_g&"f'!'%y"%&$"#e!#!!&#x$'"xfn#!df&kf&v%#x!dnd%l$'$%&%y#x$'#$#i!#x! nd%l$'$%&'%y#x$'"xfn#!d'xfiind!lf$i_w%#x!!
#!&##xf#f&vnd%l$'$%&%y#x$'"xfn#!d$'$&
"%&$"#$#x #f#!if#x!fnni$"fei!nd%l$'$%&%y #f#!if'xfii"%&#d%iej#fii%#x!d nd%l$'$%&'%y#x$'"xfn#!d'xfiid!of$&$&yjiiy%d"!f&k!yy!"#_ ]]b

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 322

!

"

%&

&

%

%

%
#

%

'
(

%

)*+*,

(

-%

-
-

.-

/

-
-

.-

!

'

#

%
%

%

%

'

#

1
"

!

"

1
2-
3*4*0

)

2-

4)5678984989:8;9%

0
/

<%

%

%
<<

!

/

%

%

#

%

%

8+9
89

4))>5)%

%

+ ?#
0

#

0

!

3
-
.

-

#
0

!,

.

"
0

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 323

#
$%

&'
(
'

'
)
'

'
'

+

*

'
#

/
/0
1

.
'

'$%$+

-*

.
*

.
2
&'
(
'

3 +

3
#

%4
. %

#

#+$5#+$

#+$
5#+$

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 324

!

"

#$

%
&'()

%

*

+

$+,

-$+
." /

+

0

&

12"2+
+
%
2

34

#4

6

2

' )

#3377

1 8

/

#349(.

1 8
,

:

2%

2

:

'()

;%
&<

/

=5

2

&<>&

?44

<

%
&

+

'

)

39

33. 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 325

" #
#
$#

%
!
&

#
$##

#

"

'%(
%
%) %

+ %
,'%*

%*%

-

./ 0

1 "')2

$
3

#

%
"

*

3

1

'

4 &

#

&

%
.

#

#

4 &

1

'

%

#
5

1

'

6

4 &

.0

.0

#
#

"
1

74
#

#

##&#
#

#3&

1

'

"

'

'*
1

'

5
*

7 "

1

1

%
%

#

8%
9:4:
9:4:
# #

77;

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 326

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 327

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 328

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 329

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 330

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 331

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 332

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 333

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 334

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 335

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 336

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 337

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 338
Click here for a website link to EXHIBIT A: Proposed
Changes to Title 18 (June 19, 2023 Planning and
Transportation Commission Meeting.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 339
Atachment 3
Summary and Mee�ng Minutes of Community Outreach Conducted for SingleFamily Objec�ve Design Standards.

The atached document offers an extensive overview of the results obtained from substan�al community outreach gatherings and events coordinated by both staff and consultants for the Objec�ve Design Standards for Single-Family Development project. These outreach events occurred between February 2022 and August 2023. Besides these mee�ngs, staff ac�vely collaborated with the architect peer group, ac�vely solicited input and feedback from the public at various stages of the project.

Prior to the community workshops, survey, study sessions and public hearings, staff conducted robust community outreach to encourage maximum par�cipa�on. This included social media posts on San Carlos’ Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, and Twiter accounts. Announcements about the project and workshops were made at public mee�ngs including City Council, Planning and Transporta�on Commission, and RDRC. In addi�on, the public par�cipa�on opportuni�es were promoted through the City of San Carlos’ Spotlight Newsleter, city-wide postcards and Good Living Newsleter and San Carlos’ E-no�fy (email) communica�on.

The table below outlines the community outreach mee�ngs held specifically for the Single-Family Objec�ve Design Standards project, with their corresponding summaries and mee�ng minutes included below.

Table 1 Single-Family ODS Major Outreach Milestones
Public Mee�ng/Outreach Details
1 Stakeholder Mee�ng #1 – April 19, 2022
2 Community Workshop #1 – May 4, 2022 (City-wide Postcard sent) 3 Planning and Transporta�on Commission (PTC) and RDRC Study Session – June 6, 2022 4 City-wide Community Survey #1 - February 13 to March 10, 2023 - Up to 420 people took the survey (City-wide postcard sent)
5 PTC Study Session – March 20, 2023
6 PTC Study Session - May 3, 2023
7 PTC Recommenda�on to the City Council – June 19, 2023 (City-wide postcard sent)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 340

The City of San Carlos – Objective Design Standards
Stakeholder Meeting #1
Date: 4/19/2022
Time: 1:30 PM – 2:30 PM
Location: Virtual (Zoom)
Meeting Notes
• Question: What type of development have you been doing in San Carlos, and what has been the biggest challenge?
o Residential projects (new construction and renovations). New planners at the City give incorrect answers to questions developers may have. Overall improving the design process in San Carlos would be beneficial.
o How does this differ from design guidelines? It is going to be tough to find the character. Lots of 1940s homes are being completely remodeled. Concerns about the "character of the neighborhood" but what is the actual character and how can that be objective? Not enough information for planners at the City to discern the standards. How can we ensure that the standards are not overbearing?
o San Carlos is made up of distinct neighborhoods that almost need to have their own mix of different housing types. Up on Crestview and on Cedar are basically two completely different areas. Don't put it on the designer to inform the City of the character of the neighborhood.
o Most houses and new construction are fairly eclectic.

Participants
o Tim Petersen o Jason Stewart o Una Kinsella
o Natalie Hyland o John Stewart o Lisa Wellman
o Laura Stetson (MIG) o Steven Davidovas (MIG)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 341
MIG, Inc. 2
• Question: Are clients hamstrung by difficulties related to projects in neighborhoods that
o As time moves on, the ranch houses that used to be thought of as not historic are becoming historic. Are those neighborhoods worth preserving?
o More issues with zoning regulations and difficulties with City staff interpreting the code.
o The lack of staff in San Carlos makes it difficult. Consistency of review time and comments adds time and money to reviews. o We would like to have daylight plane, FAR, and plate height requirements to prescribe good design instead of current requirements.
• Question: What particular zoning standards are difficult? o Areas of inconsistency. Difficult to get a proper interpretation of some of the standards.
o Depending on what the planner reviews, there are different interpretations: the 30% rule for second-story over first story wall.

The garage front setback must be 5 feet behind the primary façade (undefined). Is the setback measured to the face of the finish or the face of a stud? It would be good for everyone if the standards were cleaned up, so the architects and planners at the City are on the same page with no room for interpretation. Room for interpretation on "primary" façade and other similar concerns.
o We would appreciate a staff architect, and a design review should be done by design professionals.
o Porch size and requirement are too prescriptive. Some architectural styles do not use porches, so those have to go to design review (example given: Storybook Tudor)
• Question: Are lot splits happening yet?
o It has not happened in San Carlos yet, but it has happened in San Mateo. So far, the planning department lets them do whatever they want. There are no challenges so far. Splitting one large lot into two single-family lots.
o Redwood City – was told they needed 10-foot wide access to the second lot, which makes it difficult.
o Towards Carmelita, those houses are more traditional and have higher quality materials, and in the industrial area, they are cheaper homes with block walls and vinyl windows.
• Question: Is it important to preserve sameness in a neighborhood? o The impression is that the City wants the residents to be happy and have freedom, so there is a lot of wiggle room. Almost every street could be called eclectic. Easy to do any style of architecture. Allows you to build very large houses without considering the building

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 342
MIG, Inc. 3
envelope, daylight plane. Puts too much emphasis on setbacks and other restrictions.
• Question: What might be the five things that drive good design? o Controlling the plate heights
 Because the height limit is so restrictive, you end up with tall walls and lower pitch roofs that look boxy
 Allow projections and dormers
o Palo Alto example – staff architect that reviews all the projects, planners review the objective standards
 We would like more consistency in the review process
o Likes graphic examples from "Get Your House Right."
 Do this and Don't do this
o Difficulty defining architectural style sometimes
o Styles are sometimes conflicting with the standards themselves  Example – storybook Tudor that was approved which did not have a front porch, going to RDRC instead of dealing with planners
o Current guidelines are promoting bad design and require elements to be added to the design
o RDRC gets the chance to weigh in, but it's too late by the time they get there. It has been months at this point, so any changes have to be a major concern.
o Burlingame process works well – two steps
o How do we make sure that standards are not open to interpretation o Disagreement with Thomas James houses from multiple
stakeholders and lack of teeth from RDRC
• Question: Is there one thing that should be addressed or should not be?
o Pick a style and follow it to the end
o Have projects define what style they are designing in, and provide inspiration images and research into that style (some styles should only have one material, others may have 4-5), so leave it to the style and stick with it. Be careful that standards don't keep you from doing good design while still preventing bad designs.
o Have standards extend to the sides and back of the house. o Multiple participants would like to see the townhouse concept without required side setbacks. Put the houses together. o We would love to do townhouses.
o Every hurdle we jump through on the front end must be verified on the back end.
o The City's responsibility should be to ensure that projects are implemented the way they were approved.
o Colors should not be regulated.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 343
Recent changes in California law require
that every city adopt "objective design
standards" for new housing construction.

Through the application of objective
design standards, San Carlos can define
the community's design priorities and
get housing built more quickly through
streamlined review processes.

We want to hear from the community
about what contributes to good
designin your neighborhood and
how those design ideas can be
applied to future development.

Learn more at www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
Please join us May 4, 2022, at 6 PM
for a virtual community workshop
to discuss design standards
for new housing developments.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 344
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Join us for a
virtual workshop
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

PRSRT STD

US POSTAGE
PAID

HAYWARD CA
PERMIT #3335

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 345
1 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1

MEETING SUMMARY
MAY 4, 2022

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 346
2 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
• The first Community Workshop occurred on Wednesday May 4th, 2022 from 6:00pm - 8:00pm. • This workshop was held via Zoom and included an interactive discussion. • 45 people attended the first workshop.
• The meeting was recorded and the video posted on the project webpage:

INTRODUCTION
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 347
3 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
• The purpose of the Community Workshop was to provide an overview of the project goals, share the project process, explain what objective design standards are, and have an interactive discussion about the character of San Carlos related to single-family residential development. • The City team included:
• Andrea Mardesich
• Rucha Dande
• Meghan Riddlespurger
• The consultant team from MIG included:
• Laura Stetson
• Rishi Dhody
• CJ Davis
• Steven Davidovas
• The following pages summarize what was heard at the first Community Workshop.

OVERVIEW

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 348
4 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
• The virtual Community Workshop began with introductions to the project and included a short Zoom polling exercise which asked the following questions:

SUMMARY
• Approximately half of the 45 meeting attendees participated in the Zoom polling exercise.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 349
5 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
• The MIG consultant team presented the “overarching elements of neighborhoods” which was affirmed and added to by meeting attendees.

SUMMARY (CONT.)
Tree-lined sidewalks
Overarching Elements of Neighborhoods

SAFE WELL

CONNECTED
FAMILY

FRIENDLY

DIVERSE

DESIGN PEOPLE VIEWS GREEN
What are the overarching elements that contribute to the character of San Carlos’s neighborhoods?
Environmental -
Windows and
lights which are
used as well as
roof decks
Privacy for
neighbors
Encouraging
drought
tolerant
landscaping
Walkability
Greenery,
trees,
landscaping
On-street
parking
Bikeable -
micromobility
and safe
connections to
destinations
Lack of
rooftop
patios
Continuous
sidewalks
Providing
parking offstreet
Public
spaces for
sitting and
people
Green
elements:
passive
environment.
parking
spots for
every
residence
infrastructure to
support
neighborhoods -
schools, stores,
parking, parks
Wider driveways
would imply
control. Who parks
in their garage or
even driveways,
even today?
Garages for
more than
one car
should not
have on-site
parking
requirements
require
privacy
hedges or
landscaping
Mature trees
and
walkability
Prohibit roof
top decks and
patios due to
noise and light
pollution.
the same lot
coverage should
be allow
regardless of how
many units are on
a property
Sufficient light
and viewshed
w/o being
blocked by
architecture
Fire risk
from grills
Green elements,
especially
privacy hedges,
as density
increases
Interesting
architecture
- not boxy
ADA
compliance
and design
Sizes/shapes/
and building
heights
put solar
panels on
those taller
buildings
Less Parking
availability
Proportions of
lot - offset
structures
with greenery
make sure
every house
can have two
road directions
for egress
allowing
sunlight and
fresh air for
all
Large street
trees
Safety for
children
walking to
school
street lights
to
discourage
crime
Sight lines
and visibility
to those
walking

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
Objective Design Standards
Community Workshop #1
May 4, 2022
Emerging Design Elements of San Carlos Neighborhoods Emerging De General Questions
What are the
new density
rules for specific
different lot
sizes?
Allows existing
lots to have up
to four units
(main unit,
second unit,

ADU, JADU)
It depends on
the scale of the
development,
larger scale
projects require
more
Do developers
need to provide
benefits to the
community? ex.
parks
Larger
planting
strips allow
for larger
trees
Find a way
to help trees
thrive
Any new
development is
required to add
sidewalks where
there are none
Who adds
sidewalks
where they
are missing?
Overarching Elements of Neighborhoods

SAFE WELL

CONNECTED
FAMILY

FRIENDLY

DIVERSE

WALKABLE
adding
sidewalks
where they
are missing
help our climate
crisis by
encouraging
other modes of
transit
Walking
ways (no
wheels)
one-street
side parking
whenever
possible
edible curb
greenery
driveway can
accommodate
two cars
• The workshop attendees were asked the following question: What are the overarching elements that contribute to the character of San Carlos’ neighborhoods?

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 350
6 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
• The MIG team presented the “emerging design elements of neighborhoods” and asked the following question: What are the overarching design elements that contribute to the character of housing?
• Below is community input related to the design element “tree-lined sidewalks.” SUMMARY (CONT.)
Tree-lined sidewalks
Encouraging
drought
tolerant
landscaping
Walkability
On-street
parking
Lack of
rooftop
patios
Providing
parking offstreet
Green
elements:
passive
environment.
parking
spots for
every
residence
infrastructure to
support
neighborhoods -
schools, stores,
parking, parks
Wider driveways
would imply
control. Who parks
in their garage or
even driveways,
even today?
Prohibit roof
top decks and
patios due to
noise and light
pollution.
the same lot
coverage should
be allow
regardless of how
many units are on
a property
Sufficient light
and viewshed
w/o being
blocked by
architecture
Fire risk
from grills
Green elements,
especially
privacy hedges,
as density
increases
Interesting
architecture
- not boxy
Sizes/shapes/
and building
heights
put solar
panels on
those taller
buildings
Less Parking
availability
Proportions of
lot - offset
structures
with greenery
make sure
every house
can have two
road directions
for egress
allowing
sunlight and
fresh air for
all
Large street
trees
Safety for
children
walking to
school
street lights
to
discourage
crime
Sight lines
and visibility
to those
walking
adding
sidewalks
where they
are missing
help our climate
crisis by
encouraging
other modes of
transit
Walking
ways (no
wheels)
one-street
side parking
whenever
possible
edible curb
greenery
driveway can
accommodate
two cars
Front yard
Emerging Design Elements of San Carlos Neighborhoods Emerg Maintain sight
distance and
safety for
those using
sidewalks
Shading the
street, helps
with global
warming
Shaded
streets make
walking more
pleasant
Front yards
used as mu
used for wa
heavy plan
Larger
planting
strips allow
for larger
trees
Sidewalk
maintenance and
repair? Tree roots
raise the sidewalk
causing people to
trip
Find a way
to help trees
thrive
Would like to
protect
mature trees
are missing?
Incorporate
water
permeability
for sidewalks

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 351
7 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 352
8 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 353
9 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 354
10 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 355
11 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 356
12 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022
SUMMARY (CONT.)
General Questions & Comments from May 4, 2022 Workshop
What are the
new density
rules for specific
different lot
sizes?
Allows existing
lots to have up
to four units
(main unit,
second unit,

ADU, JADU)
Can you briefly
explain how various
planning efforts are
reconcile/integrated
They are all
feeding into
each other
and related.

Who takes care
of sidewalk
maintenance
and repair when
tree roots uplift
sidewalk?
Responsibility of
the property
owner - there is a
repair program
through DPW to
offset costs
It depends on
the scale of the
development,
larger scale
projects require
more
Do developers
need to provide
benefits to the
community? ex.
parks
Developer/
property owners
are responsible
lot by lot - ODS
will not address
How can we get
more utilities
undergrounded?
Flexibility in
style choice
would be
maintained
How do we
ensure all
houses don't
look the
same?
City does not
have design
guidelines for
single-family
homes. It is all in
the zoning code
What does
the City have
in place
today?
It is covered under
the ADU/JADU
ordinance already,
there are no
standard plans
currently available.

Could there be
streamlined
processes for
remodeling
garages?
Any new
development is
required to add
sidewalks where
there are none
Who adds
sidewalks
where they
are missing?
Yes, there rules.

May not remove
more than 50%
to be
considered a
remodel.

Are there
rules that limit
100%
demolish of
houses?
Those projects
may already have
been approved
under previous
regulations. Will
follow up.

Will these
standards apply
to the 808
Alameda and
other current
projects?

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 357
13 of 13 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 | MEETING SUMMARY
PREPARED BY:

ON 05-13-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY MAY 4, 2022

NEXT STEPS
CITY PROJECT WEBSITE:

CITY CONTACT: [email protected]
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
• On-going Community Engagement (April-May, 2022)
• Planning Commission/Residential Review Committee Study Session • City Council Study Session
• Sub Committee Meeting
• Summarize Existing Conditions (May-June, 2022)
• Emerging Vision and Community Feedback
• Existing Standards
• Community Survey (June-July, 2022)
• Develop Emerging Design Standards (July-August, 2022)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 358
1 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022

PLANNING COMMISSION AND RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE | MEETING SUMMARY
JUNE 6, 2022

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 359
2 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
SPECIAL MEETING #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
• The Special Meeting occurred on Monday June 6th, 2022 from 5:30pm - 8:30pm. • This workshop was held via Zoom and included an interactive discussion between the Planning Commission, the Residential Design Review Committee, and the project team. • The purpose of the joint Special Meeting Study Session was to discuss the objective design standards (ODS) and discuss the progress on the permanent SB-9 Ordinance. The special meeting provided an update, gathered input, and received public comments on the Objective Design Standards (ODS) being developed for future residential projects in San Carlos. • The meeting was recorded and the video posted on the project webpage:

INTRODUCTION
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 360
3 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
SPECIAL MEETING #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
• The Planning Commission and RDRC members
in attendance included:
• Kristen Clements, Vice Chair (PC)
• Don Bradley (PC)
• Jim Iacoponi (PC)
• Ellen Garvey (RDRC Chair)
• Eugene Sakai, AIA, LEED AP (RDRC)
• Hae Young Datwani (RDRC)

OVERVIEW
• The following pages summarize what was heard at the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) special meeting. • The City planning team and consultant team
from MIG included:
• Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner (City of San Carlos) • Rucha Dande, Associate Planner (City of San Carlos)
• Laura Stetson (MIG)
• Rishi Dhody (MIG)
• CJ Davis (MIG)
• Steven Davidovas (MIG)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 361
4 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
SPECIAL MEETING #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
• The virtual Community Workshop began with introductions to the project and included a short summary of the first community workshop which was focused on Single Family Residential ODS.

SUMMARY

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 362
5 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
• The MIG consultant team presented the “overarching elements of neighborhoods” which was affirmed and added to by meeting attendees.

SUMMARY (CONT.)
• The attendees were asked the following question: What are the overarching elements that contribute to the character of San Carlos’ neighborhoods?

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 363
6 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
• The MIG team presented the “emerging design elements of neighborhoods” and asked the following question: What are the overarching design elements that contribute to the character of housing?
• Below is input related to the design element “tree-lined sidewalks.” SUMMARY (CONT.)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 364
7 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 365
8 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 366
9 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 367
10 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 368
11 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 369
12 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022
SUMMARY (CONT.)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 370
13 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND RDRC SPECIAL MEETING | SUMMARY PREPARED BY:

ON 07-07-2022
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
MEETING SUMMARY JUNE 6, 2022

NEXT STEPS
CITY PROJECT WEBSITE:

CITY CONTACT: [email protected]
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
• Summarize Existing Conditions (July-September, 2022)
• Emerging Vision and Community Feedback
• Existing Standards
• Community Survey (July-August, 2022)
• Develop Emerging Design Standards (August-September, 2022)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 371
1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS

JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE

PLANNING COMMISSION AND

THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, June 6, 2022
5:30 PM
Conducted Remotely (ZOOM)
www.cityofsancarlos.org

APPROVED MINUTES

ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
Al Savay, Community Development Director David Roof, Chair - Excused Lisa Porras, Planning Manager Kristen Clements, Vice Chair Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner Don Bradley
Rucha Dande, Associate Planner

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Eugene Sakai, AIA, LEED AP
Hae Young Datwani
Ellen Garvey (RDRC Chair)
Jim Iacoponi - Excused

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

5. STUDY SESSION
a) Provide an update, gather input, and receive public comments on the Objective Design Standards (ODS) being developed for future residential projects in San Carlos and present on the progress, gather input, and receive comments on the permanent SB-9 Ordinance.

Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner, began the presentation.

Laura Stetson, with MIG, continued the presentation.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 372
2 Mukul Malhotra, with MIG, continued the presentation.

Sajuti Haque, Senior Management Analyst, continued the presentation.

Committee Member Sakai asked if this meeting was the time to provide comments on the draft Objective Standards. Andrea Mardesich answered that the purpose of the meeting is to get overall feedback from the community, RDRC, and Planning Commission. She explained that there will be time in the future to comment on the specific standards themselves. She said that MIG will come back with the standards and there will be a community workshop before moving through the process of RDRC, Planning Commission, and City Council.

Committee Member Sakai asked about the reference to the Urgency Ordinance on packet page 5. He asked if it is anticipated that the Urgency Ordinance will differ from the permanent ordinance in terms of the 800 square foot limit. Andrea Mardesich said that they have not proposed any changes to the number of units, so any feedback on SB 9 will be incorporated moving forward but it is not what they are specifically discussing.

Commissioner Garvey commented that she has seen people in her neighborhood install a “Tesla Roof” that has solar embedded in it. She asked if this will be an approvable roof option. Andrea Mardesich said that she is unsure, but they can do the research and see if it can be included. She said that there are also state laws that involve solar, so those will need to be followed as well. Commissioner Clements asked if zero net energy is now a statewide requirement. Andrea Mardesich said that she is unsure about the deadline, but she will find out.

Commissioner Bradley asked if they would need to repeal the General Plan due to SB 9. Lisa Porras said that the General Plan is currently being updated as part of the Housing Element cycle. She said that they are not changing the zoning designation for sites to meet the need; they are taking a comprehensive approach where one zoning district will be updated to meet the housing need so all parcels can be upzoned. She said that they will be looking at buildout and will factor in the SB 9 units as well. Lisa Porras continued that they will take a comprehensive look at this for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be a part of the Housing Element. Andrea Mardesich added that the Housing Element does not need to be completed for SB 9 units to be approved. Commissioner Clements said that because it is a new law it needs to be accommodated even if the General Plan does not specifically mention it.

PUBLIC COMMENT
David Crabbe said that this is very difficult to respond to because it is very general. He suggested that they add more houses and designs that they like so the public can rate them. He said that he agrees an 800 square-foot maximum is not enough. He said that he is looking forward to seeing SB 9 as it comes forward, but he thinks they need more visuals.

Mukul Malhotra said that the main questions that they are looking to answer are about the overarching elements that contribute to the character of San Carlos neighborhoods and the open space elements.

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Garvey commented that she likes the idea of diverse design and allowing the homeowner to build a home that has meaning to them. She said that she likes the idea of a walkable neighborhood.

Committee Member Sakai said that he appreciates the flexibility of the design standards in San Carlos.

He said that he would like to see this approach to flexibility and openness to design maintained. He said that the lack of very specific design guidelines contributes to a lot of character in the homes. He continued that he thinks walkability is important characteristic that he would like to include. Committee Member Sakai said that the ability to build a home with a single car driveway contributes to this idea of walkability.

He said that San Carlos is one of the only jurisdictions in which a porch is mandatory which he likes as well.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 373
3 Commissioner Bradley said that he wanted to compliment the planning staff and MIG for doing a good job with community workshops and outreach along with the presentation.

Committee Member Datwani asked if the requirement for a visible entrance facing the street was based on safety. She said that she also views safety as a priority. Mukul Malhotra said that there is a very clear correlation that when there are doors and windows that face the street or a public open space, increases the safety of the neighborhood. Committee Member Datwani said that she agrees with the elements outlined and also appreciates the diversity in architecture coming through the RDRC to San Carlos. She said that the diverse design will create a well-connected and open community.

Commissioner Clements said that she likes the diversity in product in San Carlos. She said that communities have to be safe and the small lot sizes help with that. She said that she likes the more compact development patterns which also attributes to the walkability. She said that sidewalks are important to make neighborhoods more like home than a city. She said that she does not think views are an important thing to protect, and she likes that things can continue to change.

Commissioner Clements said that David Crabbe left comments in the chat about walkability. She read that David Crabbe would like wide continuous sidewalks with street trees. He also mentioned undergrounding street utilities.

Commissioner Garvey said that the use of greywater was a good suggestion in the last workshop. She said she would like to support the new tree ordinance that was just adopted. She added that she supports the addition of trees and the use of greywater in landscaping.

Committee Member Datwani said that she thinks tree lined sidewalks are nice to have, but not a necessity. She said that there are many streets that do not have sidewalks. She said if they added sidewalks with street trees it could make the streets smaller and less safe. She said tree mandates could also encroach on property lines. She said that street trees should be a choice made by the homeowner with the main concern being the safety of the property and the environment. She said that she does enjoy having tree-lined streets, but it should not be mandatory.

Commissioner Clements asked if there was a way to say that street trees are desirable or required only if there is room in the street. Laura Stetson said that if there is room for interpretation it might be difficult.

She said that Public Works may already have standards for street trees that can be evaluated. Mukul Malhotra said that it is a balancing act to see if you can put the trees in only if there is space. He also said that they need to investigate trees that provide permeability and do not interfere with safety. He said that street trees can make people drive slower which contributes to safety. Andrea Mardesich said that Public Works does have standards in place for street trees. She said that right now the code talks about single family homes having a street facing tree, and this can be interpreted many ways. She said that they need to get to the outcomes they want either numerically or objectively. Commissioner Clements said that she finds it more and more important to provide shade for those that want to be outside.

Commissioner Bradley said that the state has reduced the side and rear yard setbacks to four feet. He asked if there is a way in these design standards to get the setback back to five feet. Andrea Mardesich said that the city does not have a way to make the setbacks more restrictive. She said that the laws themselves talk about the types of units that this applies to, so it is not applicable to all properties.

Commissioner Clements said that there is not room for a large garden in a small side yard, but they do have some options for planting.

Commissioner Clements said that there was a comment in the zoom chat that mentioned that SB 9 would make flag lots more common.

Commissioner Clements said that she thinks as homes could always get larger on the parcel, it is important to maintain some kind of front yard. She said that it is possible for the front yard space to be used as a place to park units. She said that if they want to encourage a family-friendly community, there should be front yards. Mukul Malhotra said that this also contributes to community and safety.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 374
4 Commissioner Bradley said that he hates to see 20 feet of pavement to park two cars in the front yard of a small lot. He said that he would like to see green front yards and not concrete front yards. Laura Stetson said that they can say how much pervious surface can be in a front yard. Commissioner Clements said that although it is not always attractive for parking to be in the front yard, it is sometimes necessary. She said that it is better if it is used with the permeable pavers or over to the side. Laura Stetson said that they should consider the code requirements for situations like these. Commissioner Clements said that she would like to be able to allow garages off of a back alleyway or behind the house if possible.

Commissioner Garvey said that at the RDRC they often hear comments from neighbors on narrow streets that they are concerned about parking on the street. She said that if the homeowner is able to meet the code using a permeable surface, and get two cars off the street, it is usually a better idea. Mukul Malhotra said that open spaces can serve different purpose at different times of the day. He said that thinking of the front yard as a flexible mixed-use space can be helpful.

Committee Member Datwani asked if the porch is required to be covered. Andrea Mardesich said that the code requires a 40 square foot porch that could be recessed or a projection. This does require some sort of roof covering unless it does not match with the design or there are other entry features. She said that nine times out of ten the porch is covered. Committee Member Datwani asked if the front porch can be enclosed. Andrea Mardesich said that a covered porch will be counted in the floor area and would likely not be counted as a porch. Committee Member Datwani said that she loves the diversity of architecture.

She said that if the porch and entrance is required to be the same for all homes, it could take away from this design flexibility. Commissioner Clements said that she agrees that the porch and entry can be different in different homes to ensure diversity of homes.

Committee Member Sakai mentioned the restriction on packet page 23 about entrances not exceeding 10 feet in height. He said that this might be overly restrictive in terms of porches because the height does not allow for roof slope. He said that the idea of porches is good, as long as there is room to design nice ones.

Committee Member Sakai commented that he questions whether these standards will ever be able to be used because of the 800 square-foot limit. He said that this is not promoting the highest, best use of the land because of the square-footage restrictions. Andrea Mardesich said that these objective design standards will not only apply to SB 9. Committee Member Sakai clarified that the applicant could either use the objective design standards on packet pages 22-24 or go through RDRC approval. Andrea Mardesich confirmed that this is true and added that these standards as written only apply to SB 9.

Commissioner Garvey echoed and supported the comment made by Committee Member Sakai regarding porch height. She said that the deemphasis of garages shifts the focus to the front door, so the porch needs to be scaled correctly as the focal point.

Committee Member Datwani asked about the four-foot setback from the side yard, and how the property would be divided and accessed. Mukul Malhotra said that the four-foot setback provides feasible access to the new units although it may not be desired. Laura Stetson said that the 800 square feet is for the unit, but the minimum lot size for a subdivision is 1300 square feet.

Commissioner Clements said that she is in favor of liberalizing the 800 square foot size.

Commissioner Garvey commented that there are often robust and tense discussions between neighbors at RDRC meetings. She said that setbacks can provide relief for houses that are quite massive. She said that setbacks can address tension with second story windows. She said that the use of setbacks is important.

Commissioner Clements read a comment that said rooftop solar is very important, and she said that it is important for people to be able to be reliant on their own solar power.

Commissioner Garvey said that higher quality materials look better and last longer. She said that she supports quality materials in the building.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 375
5 Committee Member Sakai mentioned that on page 23 there is a standard that says “all exterior building materials and colors shall be the same for all units on the property.” He said that he thinks this is restrictive and may not always be a good idea. He said that it is also restrictive to keep colors to only black white or earth tones. He said that there are a lot of quality windows and doors that are not these colors. He said that prescribing materials and colors too much could tie the hands of someone capable who could come up with something really nice without restrictions. Committee Member Datwani agreed with Committee Member Sakai and said that colors and measurements should not be so heavily restricted. Commissioner Clements said that restricting colors and materials takes away from the flexibility of the standards. She said that homeowners should have more latitude concerning what to do on their own property. Commissioner Clements said that she would like to make sure restrictions are not cost prohibitive, and recycled or alternative materials can be used.

Commissioner Bradley agreed with his colleagues about the material standards and said that quality materials are better.

Commissioner Clements clarified that these are for single family development, but it can apply to SB 9.

Mukul Malhotra said that this is true.

Committee Member Sakai asked how the development standards work in standard with these standards.

Mukul Malhotra said that these standards compliment the development standards. Committee Member Sakai said that there is some overlap between these standards. Andrea Mardesich said that this is in addition to some of the development standards, and the specific subset for SB 9 is not permanent because it will be added to one set.

Commissioner Garvey said that she supports the shielding of outdoor lighting. She said that she appreciates the direction of the light downward. Commissioner Clements seconded this comment.

Laura Stetson spoke about next steps for this project.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 pm.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 376
We invite you to take our
Design Standards Survey for
new housing developments.

The City’s effort to draft Objective Design Standards is underway. These standards will apply to single family, mixed use, and multifamily development projects no longer subject to discretionary review or public hearings.

Visit the project webpage for more
information and to take our survey:
cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 377
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Take the Design
Standards Survey
www.cityofsancarlos.org/
designstandards.

Take the survey and learn
more about the project at
Survey Closes on March 10, 2023

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 378

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Reporting results through
February 13, 2023

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
Closes March 10, 2023

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 379

RESPONDER

DEMOGRAPHICS

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 380

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 381

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 382

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 383

SINGLE FAMILY
(DETACHED)
Single family zoning is the lowest density residential zoning district type and makes up
about 2/3 of the total land area
of San Carlos.

Single family lots are typically
deep, narrow, and flat in the
central city, or can be more
spacious and atypically shaped
near or in the hillside.

Hillside properties and properties adjacent to Cordilleras or Pulgas creeks are subject to
additional requirements beyond
residential design standards
to mitigate impacts of development on creeks and riparian zones, soil erosion hazards, and
Wildfire and Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI) risks.

Parcel boundaries are approximated
Non-Residential
Mixed Use
Multifamily
Single Family
City of San Carlos
Residential Zoning Districts
Crestview Dr
Eaton Ave
Brittan Ave
Elm St
Club Dr
Melendy Dr
Beverly Dr
Alameda de las Pulgas
Holly St
Industrial Rd
El Camino Real Howard Ave
Old County Rd
San Carlos Ave
Cordilleras Ave
Cedar St
Bayshore Fwy
Arguelo Park
Burton Park
Big Canyon Park
Eaton Park
Highland Park
Heather Park
Crestview Park

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 384

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 385
• I like the use of native, drought resistant bushes in lieu of a conventional grass lawn. The lack of screening compliments the bold modern architecture. • You do not show context so relationship with neighboring structures is an unanswerable question
• Doesn't block the view from neighbor lots
• The picture does not show any other structures so what is good about the relationship is the lower density implied by the picture
• it is shelter
• none of these options really apply; e.g., I think clicking "setbacks" would imply that I like the large setback, but if anything it seems too set back? • I like the roofline and materials

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 386
• could be larger; parking / garage could be less visible, i.e., could be closer to the street and better engage with the street
• As a pedestrian commuter, the front parking configuration seems hazardous. • More greenery

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 387
• Seems short. Garage door is too prominent.
• More trees
• Less setback. Front yard is wasted
• This ultra modern structure doesn't match most homes in San Carlos, but does have some appeal.
• There’s not enough information from this picture. It looks like a nice modern house with a decent setback on a flat lot. It doesn’t match with 90% of existing homes in San Carlos style wise but it also doesn’t drastically change a neighborhood. It would fit in.
• people should be able to choose their own design but not one that is built so close to the property line or towers over the neighborhood
• see "other" above. the structure of this survey is confusing. what do any of these options mean---e.g., if I click "height", does that mean I want it shorter? or taller? I'm guessing shorter, but that's not really my preference.
• 1. I cannot see any neighboring structures; what is the relationship? 2. Set too far back. 3. Landscaping is too uniform, should include different heights and textures.

I don't like black tan bark. - But those are my preferences, they don't need to be standards.
• less prominent car storage space. nearly half of the picture is a garage. very unattractive • Too blocky and flat on the facade. Driveway/parking is too prominent and dominates the house. Entryway to is not prominent. This feels like a commuter home with no neighborhood vibe. Garage/parking should be set back from main entry and facade and articulation changed to deemphasize garage/emphasize front entry. • It feels like modern San Carlos. It’s generally appealing. • We don’t need anymore single family detached, especially single story • I guess it's fine. It looks like a lot of other houses in San Carlos.

Would you make any other improvements, or highlight any other appealing characteristics of the design? Please explain your above answer choices, or describe any additional thoughts you have about this building and/or site design:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 388

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 389
• This structure has a vintage "San Carlos" look, that has appeal too • I like that there's not much visible parking
• the small protrusions and intrusions of the window nicely break up the faces of the buolding • Once again a poor representation of the relationship to other structures

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 390
• could be larger, could have a smaller yard
• Prefer something other than grass lawn
• prefer no overhead power lines
• No apparent garage or off street parking

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 391
Would you make any other improvements, or highlight any other appealing characteristics of the design? Please explain your above answer choices, or describe any additional thoughts you have about this building and/or site design:
• Sits too far back from street. Nice landscaping and screening tree on the right. • Pavements, more bushes or fence,
• Extend the 2nd story, less setback
• Where is the parking and garage?
• the neighborhood is not pictured. does it fit?
• see "other" above. the structure of this survey is confusing. what do any of these options mean---e.g., if I click "height", does that mean I want it shorter? or taller? I'm guessing shorter, but that's not really my preference.
• Second story should have setback.
• The supreme beauty of this building is its age and sense of history. Too many of these are taken down. Aesthetically one detail that is Rarely used any more is deeply recessed stucco window openings. It’s a beautiful detail and adds so much character. • The home is two stories but more so is still on the ground floor, which can be good for privacy for renovation in existing neighborhoods
• The only thing I would change is to replace the lawn with native plant groundcover. • Remove overhead wiring and utilities
• It is a Beautiful old design but is so flat. Make the front of the building come out toward, or away from, the Main Street to make it more visually interesting and to add more coziness to the street itself • I guess it's fine. It looks like a lot of other houses in San Carlos.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 392

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 393
• it's an ugly house, but I like the porch, and I like that it engages with the street • Porch
• nice deck
• The close proximity to other buildings make this seem like a safe neighborhood.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 394
• I wish there were a way to increase size of one car garages in San Carlos. They are not very adequate and just tend to be storage sheds, meaning that more cars are parked on both sides of the street and makes for weaving down them to avoid hitting other cars head on. • make it larger and (purely my aesthetic preference) more up-to-date • More side setbacks
• As a pedestrian commuter, the front parking configuration seems hazardous.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 395
Would you make any other improvements, or highlight any other appealing characteristics of the design? Please explain your above answer choices, or describe any additional thoughts you have about this building and/or site design:
• Garage too prominent. Like the colors. Roof seems imposing without any breaks.

Could be taller with more massing breaks.
• Change windows , add more green
• Add another story, make it a duplex
• One car garage puts too many cars on the street.
• This house needs trees and landscaping to make it appealing and interesting.Trees would also help shade the house from hot sun in the summer. Trees add value to the home and neighborhood.
• the neighborhood is not pictured. does it fit?
• see "other" above. the structure of this survey is confusing. what do any of these options mean---e.g., if I click "height", does that mean I want it shorter? or taller? I'm guessing shorter, but that's not really my preference.
• More plant variation
• Roof mass at front of house is too large without articulation. Shouldn’t be able to have uninterrupted roofline facing street.
• This is pretty boxy, but it’s a vintage design from an earlier popular aesthetic. Every era has its design trends, but again, it’s important to keep homes from all design periods to emphasize a sense of history, among other things.
• Front porch is nice, but it needs a minimum depth of 6 feet to be usable and garage door is too prominent
• Add trees for shade and screening.
• I guess it's fine. It looks like a lot of other houses in San Carlos.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 396

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 397
• Nice building form with breaks in mass throughout.
• I think it's an ugly design but I'm happy if someone wants to build it. I do like that it's close to the street, and it primarily exposes a porch, not a garage door. • I like the use of drought tolerant landscaping. The height and close proximity of the building makes this sidewalk feel safe.
• newer construction

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 398
• Dislike the materials and all gray palette.
• This structure is too big for San Carlos lots and dwarfs the surrounding homes. It's beautiful, but just too big.
• Remove chimney/fireplace (no longer viable in Bay Area and thus a waste of materials and space)
• too much going on. articulation up the wazoo
• This is a McMansion and is very unappealing
• No apparent off street parking or garage
• Would need to see what it looks like relative to the other homes. Is it too tall or too large for its plot of land in San Carlos?

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 399
• I like the lack of huge garage
• This house is overbuilt on the lot.
• I like the new trees out front. The house is too large and doesn't fit into the neighborhood.

I prefer one story houses in San Carlos.
• are all the buildings this large in the neighborhood? why was it built so close to the property lines? • I like the porch. Roof variation is nice.
• Great design. Good varied setbacks and articulation of both first and second stories with main entry most prominent.
• This is too big and almost cartoonish. It evokes a feeling of a Disney fantasy suburban home. Houses like this also blow out the balance of the neighborhood. Simply put, it’s a McMansion. The only saving grace is its varied articulation. • Wide lot makes second story look larger and looms over neighborhood • I like the landscaping. There's no lawn, and the trees and shrubs will provide shade when mature.
• Beautiful building style. Love the house. Would need to see what it looks like relative to its neighbors to know if it feel overwhelming or not. On its own, it's lovely.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 400

SINGLE FAMILY
(ATTACHED)
In single-family zoned neighborhoods of San Carlos, the most common building form is a detached single dwelling unit (standalone house). Some single family lots also contain accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are either attached or detached from the main unit.

In accordance with CA law, up to four dwelling units are allowed on a single-family zoned lot. Various building forms are possible, like detached structures surrounding central courtyards or duplex/multiplex buildings.

The following images are examples of small-scale single family attached units.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 401

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 402
• Beautiful building form, recessed window/entry area with polygonal arch, great colors. • seems great! could be 1--2 stories taller. love that it opens directly to the sidewalk. • I like the potential of drought tolerant gardens by the sidewalk. The building height and short setback make this sidewalk feel safe. The connection to nearby buildings makes this look like a nice neighborhood.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 403
• at first I was going to say the parking configuration is good. but I think the entrance is raised about ground level to make room for underground parking, which is wasteful and expensive
• Too much uninterrupted building mass. Attached units should be limited in overall width to more match feel of a single family home neighborhood. • Row houses are generally not the most appealing
• No apparent off street parking or garage
• Trees needed

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 404
• This is a perfect townhome design. Could be taller to accommodate more living space.
• I'm not in favor of single homes that are attached like these. Makes for too dense a development - like the one proposed off of Alameda de las Pulgas in San Carlos (the former water company property.)
• These houses are too close together and wouldn't fit into a San Carlos neighborhood.

Looks like it is in San Francisco. Not enough shrubs to soften the buildings. • i don't know anyone who would choose attached housing over detached. no garage means lots of street parking (which is not depicted here) • see "other" above.
• Set maximum mass visible from street, both for height and width. Design and articulation with prominent front entry, no visible garages, and multiple design elements is nice.
• Too many condos in this town
• Big points for saving the existing mature trees along the street. We need to go above and beyond to save mature trees.
• Slightly raised first floor creates privacy and more usable front deck • When townhouses are built with parking in the back, nobody uses their front doors.

People don't get to know their neighbors and there is less sense of community. I've lived in complexes like these, and they're completely lacking in community. • Presumably, the parking is in the back. That is appealing however, what often happens with homes like this is that residents never come out the front because their cars are always in the back. The result is a street that is devoid of people. That’s not good. • More greenery
Would you make any other improvements, or highlight any other appealing characteristics of the design? Please explain your above answer choices, or describe any additional thoughts you have about this building and/or site design:

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 405

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 406
• great triplex! nice deck, with shrubs to separate from the sidewalk without being far or blocked
• Porch
• The front facing patios make this look like a welcoming street. The building height and short setback make this feel like a safe sidewalk.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 407
• Top floor seems awkwardly small.
• This looks like a single family home re-configured for multiple families. I am not sure how I feel about it. I think I prefer ADUs
• I wish the upper floors didn’t articulate back so far • The picture shows zero context to Parking location
• No apparent off street parking or garage
• Delete balustrade above the entry. It's out of proportion •

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 408
• Looks like a typical single family home in scale and design, but houses multiple families. Very cool. I enjoy the colors and the very large porch. • The architecture is odd. The 3rd floor room makes the building too high. • make it 1--2 stories taller. kind of a goofy design IMO but who cares? • I notice it's a duplex (or more). Nice. Roofline is kind of flat, but it does provide a balcony for one household.
• Maintains single family home appearance. Width is not too wide, so doesn’t feel like significant building mass.
• This looks like an original build from the early 20th century. On that merit alone it should be revered. That said, this is not a native style to San Carlos. There were few Craftsmen style homes here and, sadly, even fewer now. This could use a greater setback and definitely more attention to landscaping. • Large front deck and small setback create eyes on the street • This is terrific! Would love to see many of these on single family lots! They're at scale with single family homes. The front doors opening to a single broad porch makes it more likely the occupants will know each other and their neighors. • The setbacks on the third floor give this building an unappealing character. I think it would look more natural for the third story to follow the front foundation. • That is just an ugly house that has no balance.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 409

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 410
• Dog!
• dog!
• Looks like it belongs in San Francisco. No parking garage • Color
• duplex! bay window! dog! not a garage in sight!
• I like the use of drought tolerant landscaping in lieu of a conventional grass lawn. The short setback and proximity to the sidewalk make this seem like a safe street to walk on.

The close proximity to nearby structures makes this seem like a nice neighborhood.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 411
• No apparent off street parking or garage

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 412
• The bay window continued to the ground adds a lot of visual interest. Personally love the color palette. Fantastic landscaping, looks very well cared for and homey. • Cute and interesting house. Like the succulents out front because they are drought tolerant.
• adorable! could be a bit taller, but love the open front window, porch, fun color, etc.
• Concerned about accessibility of entrance; are there alternatives? • Too close to sidewalk and too close to neighboring properties. • Building without parking is foolish. This will not keep people from having cars.

On a lighter note, the dog should stay.
• Small patio and more building forward creates unpleasant atmosphere • There is a lack of contextual awareness in all of the examples which creates flaws in the survey.
• Love this one, too! Dividing an existing structure keeps the neighborhood look and feel intact and is much less resource-intensive than building from scratch. I also much prefer this architectural style, but I understand that's subjective. • For the space it is given, it's very well used. It's a beautiful home. Love the Victorian style of California. It has a wonderful charm and well balanced. It's unfortunate that it had to be built so close to its neighbors. The plots of land are pretty small here in San Carlos.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 413

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting Summary, March 20, 2022
1 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 414
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 2 Introduction
The Planning and Transportation Commission meeting occurred on March 20, 2023, at 7:00 PM.
• The workshop was held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers at 600 Elm Street.
• The meeting was recorded and posted by the City here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPHsCufhElU

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 415

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Overview
The purpose of the meeting was to review preliminary objective design standards for single-family residential development types in San Carlos. • The City team included:
– Andrea Mardesich
– Rucha Dande
– Meghan Riddlespurger
– Lisa Costa Sanders
• The consultant team from MIG included:
– Rishi Dhody
– Laura Stetson
The following pages summarize the feedback received.
3 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 416

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Public Comments
Three members from the public provided comments.
• Setbacks/Stepbacks
The existing stepback standard that creates “wedding cake” structures is preferred.
• Garage
– Going from 20 to 18 feet for garage door widths can make it difficult for seniors, people with two cars, and people with kids.
– Make sure that people can park their vehicles in their own personal property and not on the street.
• Provide examples of instances how new ODS provisions will cover gaps that have resulted in less-than-desirable results.
4 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 417

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Planning Commission Comments - Development Standards
• Identify and evaluate standards that could possibly increase the costs of development projects.
• Allow for a diversity of housing styles.
• These standards will provide clarity for residents and developers and will create an efficient process for City staff.
• Establish better processes where the City staff can approve projects without having to go to a design review meeting and make it more cost effective. • Incorporate feedback received from the architecture group. • Incorporate what compromises have worked in San Carlos and add that to a palette for what an architect can choose from.
• Make roof overhangs an option, not a requirement.
• Test ODS on modern-style buildings.
5 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 418
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 6 • Setbacks/Stepbacks
– The setbacks and second-story stepback recommendations presented at the meeting are supported.
– A 7-foot setback requirement (entire plane) will allow flexibility. • Garage and Driveways
– Support for decreasing the garage frontage, but not to the point where you cannot park two cars.
– 18-foot driveway would be supported if it can fit two cars. If it can only park one car, then it would not be supported. Allow space for the elderly, people with disabilities, and people with kids.
– Windows in garages could be a safety issue.
– Consider making the garage overhang an optional standard. – Add clarity for the garage landscaping requirement.

Planning Commission Comments – Site Planning

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 419
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 7 Porch
– Support for reducing the size of the porch to 30 square feet facing the street.
– Support for porch encroachment into the front setback. This helps engage the house more with the street.
– Add and clarify alternatives to porches.

Planning Commission Comments – Site Planning

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 420
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 8 • Articulation and Massing
– Review the articulation standards to see if they will conflict with modern designs.
– Not desirable to break up the wall plane every 15 feet; should be 25 feet.

This allows for more flexibility.
– Support for recommended setback requirements for rear balconies. – For massing, take the guidance of the architects and designers. – Side yard balconies should not be allowed for privacy concerns. • Porch
– Consider that not all architecture styles lend themselves to a large porch.

Planning Commission Comments – Building Design

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 421
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 9 • Windows
– Don’t restrict the window alignment offset. Off-setting the windows will work in some circumstances, but not all. This standard should be reevaluated, as it brings fairness considerations into question. – Windowing treatments like glazing can accomplish privacy goals. • Colors and Materials
– Hesitation about requiring two materials and two finishes. Re-evaluate. – Clarify what elements of the house will count towards the change of color requirement (e.g., roofs, window trim?).

Planning Commission Comments – Building Design

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 422
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 10 • Landscaping
– Support of low-water design for the front yard.
– Support for landscaping requirements recommended.
– Requirement to allow for pervious surface should not be reduced to more that 50% to soften the look of concrete.
• Utilities
– Restrict ground-level/overhead utilities going forward. – Better coordination with utility companies for locating the utilities. – Specify that screening is not required for solar panels.

Planning Commission Comments – Other Deatails

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 423
1 San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
March 20, 2023, 7:00 PM

APPROVED MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
David Roof
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community
Rucha Dande, Senior Planner
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner, Consultant

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS
Commissioner Garvey attended this meeting remotely pursuant AB 2449 under Just Cause.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager requested a recess due to technical difficulty.

4. ROLL CALL

5. PUBLIC COMMENT - None

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of March 6, 2023
MOTION: Approve the minutes of March 6, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting with the edits noted by Commissioner Roof.

MOVER: Kristen Clements

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 424
2 SECONDER: Jim Iacoponi
AYES: Castaneda, Roof, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS: None
ABSENT:

RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

7. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 888 Bransten (APNs 046-100-060, 270, and 280): Request for Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tree Removal Certificate, and Grading and Dirt Haul Permit for the Development of a new 105,416 square feet Research and Development Life Science Building.

Jake Garcia Consultant Planner presented the item.

Lisa Porras requested a recess due to technical difficulties.

Jake Garcia Consultant Planner continued presenting the item.

Terezia Nemeth, applicant from Alexandria Real Estate Equity Inc. introduced her company and gave the history of the item.

Niall Malcolmson, Project Architect from DGA presented the design of the item.

Commissioners asked project clarifying questions of staff.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Caller 1 Sam Herzberg expressed concern with the smokestacks. He would like to see purple pipes and window shade included, and city oversight if toxins are found in the soil to ensure remediation.

Caller 2 Debbie Baldocchi expressed concerned with the high containment biosafety labs being planned in San Carlos.

Caller 3 Jeff Maley expressed concern with the smokestacks.

Caller 4 Dimitri Vandellos shared that he liked the landscape of the building but feels the smokestacks are positioned too close to the community.

MOTION: Approve to close public comment.

MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Kristen Clements
AYES: Castaneda, Roof, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS: None
ABSENT:

RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 425
3 COMMISSION DISCUSSION
MOTION: Adopt the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 888 Bransten Road project, based on the findings and for the reasons incorporated in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff report.

MOVER: Dave Roof
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Castaneda, Roof, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS: None
ABSENT:

RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
MOTION: Approve the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tree Removal Certificate, Grading and Dirt Haul Permit, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for the development of a new 105,416 square feet building at 888 Bransten Road. (APNs: 046-100-060, 270, and 280) for the reasons incorporated in the staff report and with the conditions in the Code Compliance Certificate.

MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Kristen Clements
AYES: Castaneda, Roof, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS: None
ABSENT:

RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

8. STUDY SESSION
a. Study Session on Preliminary Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Residential Development Types
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director introduced the item.

Rucha Dande, Senior Planner thanked the community for participation and introduced Laura Stetson, and Rishi Dhody from MIG.

Laura and Rishi presented the item.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Caller 1 Debbie Baldocchi shared that the community liked the Wedding Cake style. She added that the reduction in the width of the garage would pose a problem for seniors or families with children to get in and out of the car.

Caller 2 David Tuzman emphasized the importance of Design Standards to streamline the permit process. He supported the reduction in garage door size.

Caller 3 Sonia Elkes seconded Debbie’s comment on Wedding Cake Style setbacks. She posed concerns regarding driveways and added the importance of parking in driveways versus streets.

She indicated the importance of flexibility in the landscape requirements to accommodate car parking.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 426
4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Garvey wanted to know if the consulting firm tapped into the architects that worked in San Carlos for the review of the packet.

Rucha Dande stated that the Staff met with six of the peer architects who work for residential additions and new homes and confirmed the same four questions were asked to them.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she supported the amount of setback that is proposed by the architects.

Vice Chair Clements referred to the Architect/Designer Summary – Feedback Slide and wanted to know how to marry the concept of offset windows when offset windows could create structural challenges.

Rucha Dande explained that the Staff had not vetted the feedback from the architects yet and were working on revising the recommendations.

Andrea Mardesich pointed out that there is flexibility in these standards, for example architects or homeowners may have options to choose from.

Vice Chair Clements pointed out the discrepancies between the architect’s comments and the proposal and referred to the roof overhang as an example. She wanted to know how Staff is going to manage these issues.

Rucha Dande clarified that roof overhang would be an option instead of a requirement.

Vice Chair Clements noted that in the Standards there is no mention of alternatives to porches.

Rishi Dhody clarified that they do have standards for porches and in the case if the developer does not want to have porches, they have an option to a recessed entry.

Vice Chair Clements shared her concern regarding increased housing costs due to these new standards.

Laura Stetson explained there would be options to choose from.

Andrea Mardesich added that the adoptions of these Standards would lead to reduction in cost for the planning review side because there would be lesser review, lesser hearing and faster permitting process.

Commissioner Castaneda shared her concern with the added cost due to these standards particularly for contemporary designs.

Rishi Dhody explained the difference between massing and articulation standards.

Commissioner Castaneda raised her concern regarding requiring porches and windows in the garage.

Laura Stetson explained that the window is an option only and clarified the intent of the window option as articulation.

Commissioner Roof shared that he is concerned with the strict rules on the window alignment offset. He suggested articulation to be at every 25 feet and suggested to avoid mechanical equipment to be located in the front.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 427
5 Chair Iacoponi shared that he liked the flexibility of the front porch, the proposed roof line change, and agreed with other commissioners that the side window issue is a contentious one.

He suggested that Staff to investigate past examples that have worked to address these concerns.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know if the proposal discussed any underground utility.

Laura Stetson stated that there was no underground utility requirement in the proposal.

Andrea Mardesich clarified that the current code requires all new single-family homes to underground their electric gas and cables and explained the exception process.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know based on requirement how to give variation to a long side yard with a big plane.

Rishi Dhody explained.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she would be supportive of an 18 feet driveway if two cars could park there. She found it unusual to have an overhang over a garage.

She supported reducing the porch to 30 square feet. She also echoed Commissioner Castaneda and Vice Chair Clements of the no porch option, or 3 feet recessed for certain architectural style.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know how solar panels apply to the screening requirement for rooftop utility boxes.

Andrea Mardesich clarified.

Commissioner Castaneda referred to page 29 figure 20 in the packet. She wanted to get clarification on the changes in material and changes in colors. Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know what part of the house would count as a change.

Rucha Dande noted the comment for future reference.

Vice Chair Clements commented that it is important that the Standards support different architectural styles.

Laura Stetson agreed.

Vice Chair Clements shared that she did not like cookie cutter homes, and she liked the variety in San Carlos. She shared her thoughts on garage frontage, privacy on second stories, and broken up wall pane increments.

Chair Iacoponi wanted clarity on tree size standards.

Rishi Dhody clarified the requirement.

Chair Iacoponi commented that if the acceptable species of trees could grow to that scale in a short period of time, he would move on to other questions.

Commissioner Garvey agreed that no side yard balconies should be allowed, and she liked the setback requirements for rear balconies. She is supportive of the front yard low water sustainable design. In her closing she stated she liked the draft proposal, while it is still a work in progress it does provide clarity to the homeowners, developers, and architects. Lastly, Commission Garvey stated she liked the idea that the Standards would streamline the review process and in turn homeowners would pay less fees to the City.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 428
6 Commissioner Roof stated that he liked the idea of aligning the first story if a larger set back is provided. He added that a garage frontage as a percent of building width made sense and a driveway having a narrow impervious limitation is fine. Commissioner Roof commented that the Objective Design Standards (ODS) could be strict because there is the Exception Design Review process, which gives flexibility.

Commissioner Castaneda shared that the setback and second story stepback are a good compromise. She agreed with the garage frontage as long as the decrease does not end up with a driveway that one could not park two cars. Commissioner Castaneda stated that it is not necessary or desirable to break up the massing every 15 feet, but perhaps the 25 feet is fine.

Commissioner Castaneda commented that offsetting the second story windows for privacy will work in some circumstances but not all and more work needs to be done in that area. She stated that landscape screening would be helpful.

Vice Chair Clements referred to figure nine Driveway and Garage in the proposal. She commented that she did not see a need for a 5-foot landscaping strip to the side of the driveway.

In addition, she stated that she disagrees with a caller that cars should not be parked on the streets.

Chair Iacoponi supported the proposed setback and second story stepbacks. He shared that for massing, the City should take the advice of the architects. Chair Iacoponi echoed other commissioners on the privacy on second stories challenge. He stated that he does not recommend an 18 feet driveway and shared his reasons.

Vice Chair Clements suggested that the City should make the Standards very clear for ease of reference.

Vice Chair Clements added that the City should design the ODS in a way that 80 percent of the traffic goes through this process, with very few occurrences when someone asked for a waiver to the Standards. She stated that offering options in the Standards are important. Lastly, she added that the fee schedule should steer people towards the standard process.

Rucha Dande gave an update on SB9 Units also called Infill Units. She welcomed the Commission to direct Staff for another Study Session.

9. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on recent City Council actions
Lisa Porras announced that the City Council adopted their yearly strategic objectives and Staff would send a copy to the Planning and Transportation Commission.

The City Council reappointed Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) Member Hae Young Datwani for another term. She will be on the RDRC until June 30,2026. b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports Vice Chair Clements reported that today was Commissioner Castaneda’s birthday.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she attended the Northeast Area Workshop on March 15th.

She stated that it was a good workshop, and she learned a lot.

Commissioner Castaneda shared that she also attended the Northeast Area Workshop and there were many great inputs.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 429
7 Chair Iacoponi shared that he attended the Northeast Area Workshop and was struck by the passions of the business owners in the area with the request to help them through the City’s rezoning process, to protect their rights and their businesses on those properties. He commented that there was a polar conversation about whether housing should be a feature or not a feature in the Northeast Area. Chair Iacoponi stated that he felt more work needed to be done by Staff on that topic.
c. Correspondence
Lisa Porras stated that an additional public comment via email from Debbie and Gary Baldocchi on 888 Bransten came through after the packet was published, and Commissioners were copied on it.
d. Planning Staff comments, reports and updates of current projects Lisa Porras gave the following updates:

The next Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is on April 3, 2023 with one item on General Plan Amendment due to a discovered mapping area error.

On April 17th three items will be brought forward to the PTC, the first item is Public Hearing on 1383 Laurel Street, a mixed-use project with 15 units, and second item 642 Quarry, a Plan Development Plan for a new life science development. The third item is a Study Session on the progress of the Downtown Specific Plan and the following week Staff will bring forward the Study Session to the City Council.

March 27, 2023 the City Council will take formal action to consider the PTC’s recommendation on Biosafety Levels.

Two surveys are available for community members to participate in. One is the Downtown Specific Plan, the other is the Northeast Area Specific Plan. Both surveys are available on their project websites.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 430

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting Summary, May 3, 2023
1 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 431
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 2 Introduction
The Planning and Transportation Commission meeting occurred on May 3, 2023, at 7:00 PM.
• The study session was held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers at 600 Elm Street.
• The meeting was recorded and posted by the City here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czzGEIsRykE

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 432

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Overview
The purpose of the meeting was to review revised draft objective design standards for single-family residential development types in San Carlos. • The City team included:
– Al Savay
– Andrea Mardesich
– Rucha Dande
– Meghan Riddlespurger
– Lisa Costa Sanders
– Megan Wooley-Ousdahl
• The consultant team from MIG included:
– Mukul Malhotra
– Rishi Dhody
The following pages summarize the feedback received.
3 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 433

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Planning Commission Comments – Setbacks and Second Story Stepbacks
• The MIG team presented the 7’ setback
requirement as an alternative and asked
the commissioners if we want to keep an
exception or allow by right.
• A majority of commissioners supported to
allow by right to maximize people’s
choices and streamline the process further.
• One of the commissioners preferred a 9’
setback on the second story and would
not choose the 7’ setback by right but did
not have a strong opinion about it.
4 8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 434
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 5 • The MIG team presented the proposed
and alternatives for the second story
treatment and asked the commissioners
how to regulate the percentage of second
floor projection.
• Most commissioners supported refining
the existing standard of 30% projection to
make the intent clearer.
• Thoughts on other proposed alternatives:
– Alternative 1 gives flexibility and is an easy
calculation.
– Maximum of 16’ is not flexible as
Alternative 2.
– 20% doesn’t make sense for all lots
because they vary in size.
– Support for using the size of the building
and not the lot.

Planning Commission Comments – Second Floor Projection

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 435
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 6 Planning Commission Comments – Massing & Articulation
• The MIG team presented the 25’ massing
change and 15’ articulation change and
asked the commissioners if they like the
proposed standards.
• All commissioners supported the
proposed standards for massing and
articulation.
• Commissioners appreciated the changes
that were made based on the previous
study session.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 436
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 7 • The MIG team asked the commissions if a
two-car tandem driveway configuration for
required parking when a one-car garage is
proposed should be allowed.
• All commissioners supported the
proposed standard for two-car tandem
driveways.
• Support for adding flexibility in driveway
widths and configurations.
• Support for pervious pavers adjacent to
the driveways.
• Review current standards for driveways
when they are accessed from the alley.

Planning Commission Comments – Parking

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 437
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY 8 • Appreciate that the comments from last time were incorporated. • Consider adding synthetic materials since they are cost-effective and modern. • The removal of window offset requirements was supported. • Consider the application of standards to duplexes, ADUs, Infill, and SB 9. • Support for the 1,000 square foot maximum unit size for SB9 projects. • Anticipate changes to SB9 as time goes on.
• The commission expressed a desire to be given adequate opportunity to provide feedback on standards for SB9, duplex, ADUs, and townhomes. • Consider courtesy notices for projects that go through RDRC.

Planning Commission – Other Comments

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 438

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MEETING SUMMARY Public Comments
9 One member from the public provided comments.
• Building Design
– The proposed standards are currently creating pseudo craftsman-style houses and limit other architectural styles.
– Support for the one-car garage with tandem parking.
• Overall Standards
– Need standards for duplexes and ADUs.
– As part of this ODS process, review these standards for SB9 applicability. – Gather input from RDRC.
• Provide examples of instances how new ODS provisions will cover gaps that have resulted in less-than-desirable results.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 439
San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission
Special Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
May 3, 2023, 7:00 PM

DRAFT MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT:

Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
David Roof
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director
Rucha Dande, Senior Planner
Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Principal Planner

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:14 pm.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Vice Chair Clements shared that May is affordable housing month, and in San Mateo County, the Housing Leadership Council (HLC) is hosting many events which are listed on their website:
hlcsmc.org. Vice Chair Clements encouraged everyone to check out the website and enjoy the events.

6. STUDY SESSION
a. Study Session #2 on Preliminary Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Residential Development Types
Rucha Dande, Senior Planner, introduced the item.

Mukul Malhotra, Principal at MIG, continued the presentation.

Rishi Dhody, Project Manager with MIG, continued the presentation.

Rucha Dande concluded the presentation.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 440
The commissioners asked clarifying questions of staff and the consultants regarding the presentation.

PUBLIC COMMENT
David Crabbe, an architect and resident in San Carlos, voiced concerns about the style of homes that will result from these standards. He also voiced concerns about the ODS application to ADUs, duplexes, and SB9 infill units. Andrea Mardesich responded to this comment with information on SB9.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The commissioners began by discussing Key Question 1: Setbacks and Second Story Stepbacks – do we want to keep as an exception or allow by right? After discussion, all commissioners agreed that they would prefer to allow it by right.

The commissioners then discussed Key Question 2: Second Floor Projection – how do we want to regulate the percentage of the second-floor projection? Rucha Dande and Mukul Malhotra clarified the meaning of this question. Commissioner Garvey said that she is leaning toward Alternative 1 because it is an easy calculation that allows for flexibility. Vice Chair Clements said that she is in favor of keeping the existing standards with more clarification on how this should be measured. Commissioner Roof said that he does not like the lot depth-based approach because the lots vary. He said that he thinks the percentage of building length makes the most sense to him and could be further clarified with language. Chair Iacoponi said that he does not have a strong preference, but he thinks it would be better to use a calculation of the percentage of the building rather than the lot.

The commissioners then discussed Key Question 3: Massing and Articulation – do you like the proposed standards for massing changes at every 15 feet? Rucha Dande and Mukul Malhotra clarified the meaning of this question. Chair Iacoponi asked if this standard creates an inherent conflict with the style guide. Mukul Malhotra said that there is not a conflict between the style guide and this standard. Commissioner Garvey said that she is in support of these changes. Vice Chair Clements, Commissioner Castaneda, and Commissioner Roof agreed with Commissioner Garvey. Commissioner Roof added that he would be open to even more lenient standards for the sides and rear.

Chair Iacoponi said that he is supportive of the change.

The commissioners then discussed Key Question 4: Parking – Allow a two-car tandem driveway configuration for required parking when a one-car garage is proposed? Commissioner Garvey said that she is in support of a two-car tandem driveway for a one car garage and said that she is also in support of a two-car garage. Vice Chair Clements agreed that she is in support of this and said that she strongly supports added flexibility in driveway widths and configurations. Vice Chair Clements discussed detached garages connecting to alleys with Rucha Dande and Andrea Mardesich. Commissioner Castaneda

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 441
said that she supports this standard. Commissioner Roof asked if a person could put pervious pavers over their entire yard and park five cars. Staff spoke about the different aspects of this scenario and how it would work. Commissioner Roof spoke further with staff about the requirements for paving and parking. Chair Iacoponi said that he is in support of the standard.

The commissioners then raised items that they would like to add to the discussion.

Commission Garvey was interested to know if the City envisions changing the notice requirements to a courtesy notice instead.

Commissioner Garvey asked if tree issues will be reviewed by staff and then projects will still be allowed to go through the ODS route, or if tree removals will trigger the design review. Rucha Dande said she expects staff to be able to review tree removals.

Vice Chair Clements and Commissioner Castaneda said that they would like to see modifications to the material standards so that standards for wainscoting could allow simulated or comparable synthetic materials for cost effectiveness and modernity.

Commissioner Roof and other members of the Commission spoke about SB9 and their opinions on the changes made so far.

David Crabbe commented again with concerns about the second-floor projection and permeable driveways.

Rucha Dande presented the conclusion of the presentation and spoke about next steps.

9. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on recent City Council actions – None
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports - None c. Correspondence
Andrea Mardesich said that all correspondence was provided to the Commission in the form of public comment.
d. Planning Staff comments, reports and updates of current projects Andrea Mardesich introduced Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Principal Planner for Current Planning.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 pm.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 442

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 7th, 2023
5:30 PM
San Carlos City Hall, Council Chambers
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org

DRAFT MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY
Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
Ellen Garvey
David Roof - Excused
Janet Castaneda - Excused
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Rucha Dande, Senior Planner
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner Consultant
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Akanksha Chopra,

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS
None.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Castaneda and Commissioner Roof are excused.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ricky Cruz spoke about labor standards that should be presented to the working class. He explained the standards that should be available to construction workers and apprenticeship workers, and gave reasons for these standards.

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 443
a. Approval of the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Special Meeting of May 3, 2023
b. Approval of Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of May 15, 2023.

M/S Clements/Garvey to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting. The motion passed 3-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
Noes: None
Excused: Roof, Castaneda

7. STUDY SESSION
a. Study Session Senate Bill 9 Unit Regulations
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director, introduced the study session for SB-9 housing units. She then gave background for the SB-9 unit regulations and explained the different topics for consideration.

Vice Chair Clements asked questions about flag lots and Andrea Mardesich answered. The Commissioners then discussed flag lots further.

Commissioner Garvey asked about outreach to developers about SB-9, and Andrea Mardesich explained the outreach that had been done.

Chair Iacoponi asked for clarification about basements. Andrea Mardesich described the requirements for basements and when they would be allowed. She said that basements are prohibited under the urgency ordinance.

Chair Iacoponi asked for clarification about the calculations in Table 1 and the three alternatives.

Andrea Mardesich responded.

PUBLIC COMMENT
David Crabbe said that he supports Alternative C. He spoke about flag lots and said that he thinks they should not be allowed. He said that he thinks there should be a second story setback for SB-9 units that are four feet from the property lien. He also proposed a 0 lot line on the lot split line, so that two homes can be built together.

Debbie Baldocchi thanked David Crabbe for his comments. She voiced support for a second story setback. She asked if the side setback of four feet is the same for the rear setback. She also asked if SB-9 overrides the 25-foot required setback from creeks.

Andrea Mardesich said that the four-foot setback is for both the side and the rear. She said that they are looking into whether the city can require a greater setback on the second floor if it is taller than 16 feet. Andrea Mardesich said that for the creek setback, they could theoretically have the unit closer than 25 feet from creeks, but there are certain findings that the Building Official could make that would not allow that, such as a health or safety finding.

M/S Clements/Garvey to close the Public Comment. The motion passed 3-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 444
Noes: None
Excused: Roof, Castaneda

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioner Garvey said that she is in favor of Alternative C because it gives the landowner greatest flexibility to develop the property in a way that makes sense for them and for the type of lot that they have while still keeping the lot coverage the same.

Vice Chair Clements discussed the possibility of adding an FAR limit in RS-3. Andrea Mardesich spoke about the options for setting this limit.

Vice Chair Clements and Chair Iacoponi spoke about the possibility of requiring owner occupancy of one unit. Andrea Mardesich said that under SB-9 they can require owner occupancy of one of the units only in the subdivision option.

Chair Iacoponi said that he is in favor of option C.

Andrea Mardesich asked if staff should do research on a limit for RS-3. The commissioners agreed that they would support this idea.

Chair Iacoponi asked for clarification on the floor area ratio, and Andrea Mardesich responded.

Commissioner Garvey said that she likes the idea of allowing a second story that is greater than 16 feet in height, but she also likes the idea of being able to set back the second story more than four feet, so she would appreciate more research on this to see if it can be mandated.

Vice Chair Clements said that she believes it is within their discretion to have a second story above 16 feet in height. She spoke about the possibility of neighbor disputes because of these units and voiced her perspective on what should be done.

Chair Iacoponi spoke about second stories and said that he would not support units above 16 feet without the deeper setback.

Andrea Mardesich asked if there would be interest in looking into what options there might be with basement portions of SB-9 since the current ordinance prohibits them outright. Commissioner Garvey and Vice Chair Clements said that they were interested in looking into basement options.

Andrea Mardesich asked if the Commission would be interested in allowing a maximum of two units, but in any of the configurations. The commissioners agreed that they would be in favor of this, and also agreed that they would be in favor of a zero lot line.

Chair Iacoponi said that he would like to further understand the flag lot policy and the issues around it.
b. The Planning and Transportation Commission will take a recess following the Study Session. The meeting will resume at 7:00 pm.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 445
June 26, 2023 1
San Carlos City Planning and Transportation Commission
Special Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
June 19, 2023 7:00 PM

APPROVED MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:

Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
Commissioners Absent (Excused):

Jim Iacoponi, Chair
David Roof
Staff Present:

Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner Consultant
Rucha Dande, Senior Planner
Vice Chair Clements noted that item 9a on the agenda would not be heard in the evening as she is conflicted out of that item due to living close to the subject site, and therefore there would not be a quorum to discuss it. She stated that the item will be moved to a special meeting on June 26, 2023 at 1:30 pm.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Debbie Baldocchi (Zoom) wanted to know if item 9a is Quarry Road. She objected only three members of the Commission making the decision.

Vice Chair Clements shared that she would like to encourage the City of San Carlos to observe the Federal Holiday of Juneteenth out of respect for the African American population in the country. Vice Chair Clements encouraged the City to fully observe the holiday and defer public meetings to be held on Juneteenth.

Vice Chair Clements clarified Debbie Baldocchi’s question that item 9a is not Quarry Road.

Greg Rubens explained the rules of a quorum and stated there is a quorum present this evening. He stated that the Commission could move forward with a recommendation to the City Council.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 446
June 26, 2023 2

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Special Meeting May 3, 2023
MOTION: Approve the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Special Meeting of May 3, 2023
MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Consider a Summer Recess for July 2023 and Cancel the Regular Meetings of July 3 and 17, 2023.

MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar Item 7a
MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

8. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 1532 School Street (APN: 050-162-020) PLN2022-00177 – Request for Design Review and Creek Setback Determination for a new first-story addition, second-story addition, and attached Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Jacob Garcia, Consultant Planner presented the item.

Walter Chapman, applicant, and Josh Zaroor, property owner, were available to answer questions.

Public Comment - None
MOTION: Close public comment
MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 447
June 26, 2023 8
one at 215,022 square feet and one at 192,650 square feet with six floors and one parking garage with nine floors at 642 Quarry Road (APN 046-041-038) for the reasons incorporated in the staff report and with the conditions in the Code Compliance Certificate.

MOVER: Kristen Clements
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2
Vice Chair Clements called for a 7-minute break.
c. Consider Draft Amendments to Title 18: Zoning Ordinance of the San Carlos Municipal Code for Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Development and Prepare a Recommendation for the City Council. Environmental Determination: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”) and 15060(c)(2) (Preliminary Review) and pursuant to Govt. Code section 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n).

Rucha Dande, Senior Planner, and Laura Stetson, Principal at MIG, presented the item.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Lisa Miskinis (in person) voiced concerns about 18.12.040 Excavations and Grading and chapter 18.41 Terms and Conditions.

David Crabbe (Zoom) voiced concerns about the height limitations of SB 9 units and made suggestions. He asked about zero lot lines and flag lots. He asked why they require so many color changes on a house.

Christian Vescia (Zoom) voiced concerns about removing the RDRC and the size of homes in San Carlos.

Sonia Elks (Zoom) spoke in support of increasing driveway widths.

Sandra said that she agreed with everything Christian Vescia said.

MOTION: Close public comment
MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the Objective Design Standards, and staff responded.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 448
June 26, 2023 9
Vice Chair Clements and Rucha Dande discussed zero lot lines on Small Lot Subdivisions and Urban Infill Units.

Rucha Dande asked for feedback on the first Key Question.

The Commissioners discussed and decided that they would be in support of allowing the secondfloor projection to be used for uses other than stairwells and chimneys. They discussed the possibility of requiring obscured or tall windows as mitigations to privacy concerns if the use is not a stairwell or a chimney.

Rucha Dande explained Key Question 2: requesting guidance on the proposed changes to the project review procedures.

The Commissioners discussed their concerns with the proposed project review procedures. The Commissioners agreed that they would be in support of replacing the applicant led meeting with an administrative review and written comments, with support from staff. Vice Chair Clements said that she would add language to include that notices could be mailed or delivered.

The Commissioners discussed Flag lots and Rucha Dande clarified that staff would take forward a recommendation to Council for staff to study flag lots for city-wide Urban Infill Units. Vice Chair Clements said that this was correct.

The Commissioners discussed with staff about the motion and the best path to move forward.

MOTION: Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council to introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.12 (Hillside Overlay District),

18.15 (General site Regulations), 18.16 (Planning Authorities), 18.20 (Parking and Loading), 18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review), 18.40 (Use Classification), and 18.41 (Terms and Definitions and adding a new subsection 18.23.301 (Urban Infill Units) under 18.23 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) and to have the City Council consider changes to the above listed sections to accommodate zero lot line developments under the Urban Infill Units and Small Lot Subdivision sections to create Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Development. The Planning and Transportation Commission further recommends that City Council consider directing staff to study flag lots.

MOVER: Kristen Clements
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Garvey, Castaneda, Clements
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jim Iacoponi, David Roof
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Determination of Conformity with the General Plan for the Acquisition and Disposition by the City of the properties at 1800 El Camino Real (APNs 051-379-010, 051-379-020, and 051-379- 030) and 1131-1133 Eaton Avenue (APNs 051-379-040, 051-379-050, and 051-379-060), Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65402

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 449
June 26, 2023 10
The item will be heard on June 26 1:30pm, Planning and Transportation Commission Special Meeting. Vice Chair Clements will recuse herself due to the item’s proximity to her home.

10. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on Recent City Council Actions - None
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports - None c. Correspondence
Lisa Porras confirmed, for the record, the public correspondence that came through following the packet production.
d. Planning Staff comments, reports, and updates on current projects Lisa Porras stated that on June 26, 7pm the City Council will consider three regulatory options to address biosafety levels.

Greg Rubens stated that, for the benefit of the public, listed the three biosafety level options and reminded the packet would be published on Thursday.

Lisa Porras shared that the Commission would return from the Summer recess on August 7. She added that on the agenda there would be the election of officers, a housing proposal at 549 and 575 Prospect Road, and that 501 Industrial Road, a new hotel on the corner of Industrial and Holly, may also be on the agenda to receive public comments on the Environmental Impact Report.

Lisa Porras shared that the Wheeler Plaza Parking garage now has new wall murals and wayfinding signage.

11. ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 11:03pm
Lisa Porras,
Planning Manager

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 450

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 451

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 452

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 453

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 454

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 455

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 456

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 457

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 458

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 459

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 460

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 461

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 462

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 463

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 464

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 465

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 466

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 467

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 468

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 469

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 470

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 471

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 472

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 473

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 474

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 475

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 476

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 477

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 478

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 479

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 480

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 481

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 482

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 483

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 484

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 485

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 486

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 487

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 488

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 489

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 490

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 491

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 492

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 493

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 494

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 495

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 496

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 497

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 498

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 499

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 500

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 501

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 502

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 503

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 504

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 505

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 506

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 507

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 508

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 509

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 510

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 511

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 512

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 513

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 514

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 515

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 516

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 517

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 518

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 519

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 520

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 521

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 522

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 523

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 524

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 525

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 526

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 527

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 528

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 529

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 530

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 531

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 532

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 533

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 534

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 535

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 536

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 537

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 538

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 539

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 540

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 541

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 542

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 543

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 544

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 545

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 546

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 547

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 548

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 1
Attachment 5

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS

INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS
What are zero lot line subdivisions?
Zero lot line subdivisions provide an approach to constructing homes whereby the units are built abutting a property line, usually a side property line. Typically, the lots are smaller than the conventional 5,000 to 8,000 square foot lots of detached single-family homes. By placing the unit on the property line, the subdivision designer can maximize indoor living space on an otherwise spatially constrained lot.

Townhomes, rowhouses, garden homes, and patio homes are all common types of small lot homes that can be built in a zero lot line configuration. Zero lot line homes can be attached or detached, with two or more adjacent unitssharing a common wall. Depending on site design considerations, each home site may have no yard, one yard, or two yards.

Figure 1: Zero Lot Line Lot Configurations
What is the purpose of zero lot line subdivisions?
Allowing zero lot line subdivisions as an alternative to detached single-family homes serves several purposes. Building on the property line promotes housing density and encourages context-driven infill development or redevelopment in areas with smaller lots. This can help increase overall housing production and thereby help address community-wide affordable housing needs. Zero lot line developments also diversify housing choice. Overall, zero lot line subdivisions are a potential tool to innovate single-family housing options and meet a diverse set of community needs and lifestyles.

Source: MIG

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 549

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 2
Do zero lot line subdivisions have setback requirements? Minimum setbacks between the zero lot line subdivision and adjoining properties that are more traditionally developed are required to ensure neighborhood compatibility. However, no yard or setback requirements typically are in place along alleys or between lots within the subdivision. This allows homes to be built directly along or very close to the property line.

What is the ownership arrangement for zero lot line lots? Each lot within the subdivision is owned by an individual property owner. Common lots may be created for shared open space, in which case a homeowners’ association would be required for ownership and maintenance. Also, reciprocal easements may be required for access, such as a shared driveway accessing more than one unit.

Are zero lot line subdivisions allowed in single-family zones? Whether or not zero lot line subdivisions are allowed in single-family zones (RS in San Carlos) depends upon the local jurisdiction’s zoning regulations. In California, zero lot line subdivisions largely have only been permitted in areas zoned for multi-family housing or commercial uses, not in single-family zones. The intent is to create home ownership opportunities in zones that allow more dense development.

What are the benefits of zero lot line subdivisions?
▪ By having a wall along the property line, zero lot line homes maximize indoor living space. ▪ Zero lot line subdivisions can promote a sense of community and social cohesion since neighbors are physically closer to each other and may share outdoor common spaces. ▪ Zero lot line subdivisions are not the same as condominiums; they are fee simple, meaning that owners own both the land and the structure. This allows properties to be bought and sold like conventional single-family homes, expanding single-family home ownership choices beyond standard single-family homes or condominiums at a wider range of income levels. ▪ Due to their fee simple status, zero lot line developments have lower liability and insurance rates than condominiums, often making them easier to finance. ▪ Homeowner associations are optional. A mutual maintenance and access agreement may be required for easements for shared driveways, pedestrian walkways, and utility access points.

Are there any disadvantages?
▪ Due to fire code requirements, walls along the property line might not be able to have windows. ▪ Eave and roof treatments along the lot line need to be designed to prevent runoff onto the adjacent property.
▪ The close proximity of the units might create privacy concerns. ▪ Depending upon the lot and home sizes, homeowners may be challenged if they want to build an addition or an accessory dwelling unit.

CONSIDERATIONS
While zero lot line subdivisions can help communities achieve a wide range of goals, they can also produce numerous challenges to consider. Zero lot line developments require creative approaches to spatial complexities relating to neighborhood context, site layout, building design, and outdoor living spaces.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 550

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 3
Neighborhood Context
Zero lot line homes should be similar in scale and form to nearby buildings to avoid feeling out of proportion with local context. Transitional design elements such as second story setbacks, varied rooflines, and massing can be used to provide scale reductions and visual relief.

Primary entryways should be oriented toward the right-of-way, or provide direct access to a pedestrian pathway, to encourage a strong relationship to the street. Primary entryways should also be clearly articulated to delineate public and private realms.

All yards of a subdivision abutting the right-of-way should include landscaping and amenities such as decorative fencing, uncovered patios, enhanced pedestrian pathways, garden walls, and seating areas to promote visual interest.

Figure 2 and 3: Street Fronting Entryways and Transitional Design Source: KTGY, 5112 Melrose (Hollywood, CA)
Site Layout
Lot configuration and vehicle access are typically the biggest challenges of zero lot line subdivisions due to circulation and parking requirements. Rear alleys and common driveways are often used for vehicular access. For safety purposes, pedestrian pathways should be separated from driveways whenever possible to enhance pedestrian connectivity between the right-of-way, primary entryways, and common areas.

Source: Upgraded Home

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 551

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 4
Figure 4: Zero Lot Line Development Site Plan

Building Design
Zero lot homes should be unique in design to promote visual interest, neighborhood compatibility, and exterior variation between subdivision units. Changes in dwelling orientation, primary entryways, building materials, rooflines, and façade articulation can all promote exterior individuality.

Blank wall surfaces on building façades should be avoided, especially those adjacent to a street or other public areas. This can be difficult to achieve if fire codes prohibit windows and other openings along the lot line. Textures, colors, materials, and architectural details can be used to add visual interest to the building façade.

Privacy can be enhanced by offset windows, elevated decks, and patios that do not face adjacent residences.

Figure 5: Varied Rooflines, Form and Orientation Figure 6: Varied Building Façades Outdoor Living Spaces
Source: KTGY, VITAE (Los Angeles)
Source: KTGY, Prism (Los Angeles)
Source: Modative, Small Lot Subdivision Guide (2009)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 552

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 5
Patios and rooftop decks can provide opportunities for private outdoor space, light, and air, which might otherwise be limited. Placement may be considered to ensure privacy for all residents.

Figure 7: Front Yard Landscaping Figure 8: Patios and Rooftop Decks Source: Modative, Cullen Street Art District (Los Angeles)

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS IN PRACTICE
The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County have both adopted small lot ordinances which allow for zero lot line homes. Both jurisdictions’ regulations require each residence to have a separate foundation and walls, and the County requires alternating zero lot line provisions (see diagram below). Design guidelines and standards are used in parallel with these small lot ordinances to promote compatible architecture, attractive multi-family residential districts, context-sensitive design, and sustainable environments in small lot developments. See links to these examples below.

City of Los Angeles
Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance
Small Lot Subdivision Design Standards
Los Angeles County
Compact Lot Subdivision Ordinance
Compact Lot Subdivision Design Guidelines

Source: KTGY, COVO (Los Angeles)

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 553

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 6
Figure 9: Separate Foundation between Zero Lot Homes
Source: KTGY, June Street Collection (Los Angeles)

Figure 10: Alternating Zero Lot Subdivision

Source: Los Angeles County Ordinance 2020-0032, Figure 22.04.050.G

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 554

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 7
Figure 11 and 12: Example Configurations and Regulations Source: Fort Worth, TX Municipal Code, Section 4.708
Source: Las Vegas, NV Zoning Code, Section 19.08.040.C.1.a

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 555

ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS - INFORMATION & CONSIDERATIONS August 10, 2023 8

SOURCES
Chen, J. (2022, December 7). Zero-lot-line house: Definition, advantages, drawbacks and types.

Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-lot-line-house.asp City of Los Angeles. (2018, March 22). Small Lot Design Standards - Los Angeles. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/01d4a580-f174-4a97-b144- 9b3c98616ddf/SmallLotDesignStandards.pdf
City of Los Angeles. (n.d.). Small Lot Design Guidelines. http://urbandesignla.com/resources/docs/SmallLotDesignGuidelines/lo/SmallLotDesignGuidelines.pdf Gocke, E. (2023, July 23). Zero Lot Line: 9 Things You Need To Know. Gokce Capital. https://gokcecapital.com/zero-lot-line/
Los Angeles, California: Small Lot Ordinance. HUD USER. (n.d.). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_1.html MasterClass. (2021, June 7). Zero Lot Line Homes: Pros and Cons of Zero Lot Line Houses . MasterClass. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/zero-lot-line-explained Modative. (n.d.). Small Lot Subdivision Guide. Modative Architecture. https://www.modative.com/smalllot-subdivision-guide-download Randall, S. (2021, September 4). Zero Lot Line House Plans. Upgradedhome.com. https://upgradedhome.com/zero-lot-line-house-plans/

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 556
Attachment 6
Summary of the new “Neighborhood Notification” Process
Table 1 summarizes the current process and staff’s proposed “Neighborhood Notification” process applicable for only those projects meeting the below thresholds:
• All new homes.
• For lots less than 7,500 square feet, additions that create a total of 3,000 square feet of floor area or more.
• If a project results in the destruction and removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the enclosing exterior walls.
• When the Community Development Director in their opinion determined that the public interest would better be served by referral to the RDRC.

Table 1. Current Process and Proposed “Neighborhood Notification” Process Steps Current Process Proposed Process Change or No Change (to Current Process)
Step 1. Before an
application is
submitted
Applicant holds a
Pre-Application Meeting or
mails plans.

Applicant holds a
Pre-Application
Meeting
Pre-Application
meeting is required.

Staff reviews application.

Determines application
may move forward in the
process.

Staff reviews
application.

Determines
application may
move forward in the
process.

Step 2. Application is No change
submitted
RDRC meeting is
scheduled.
(No RDRC meeting) Change
City mails a public notice to
property owners within 300’
of the site; mailed 10 days
prior to RDRC meeting.

City mails a “Notice
of Application” letter
to property owners
within 300’ of the
site.

Change – Rather than
a public notice about
the RDRC meeting,
neighbors would
receive a notice that an
application has been
submitted.

Step 3. Neighborhood
Notification
Applicant is required to
post a sign in the front yard
of the project site 10 days
prior to the RDRC meeting.

The sign must remain until
after the RDRC meeting.

Applicant is required
to post a sign in the
front yard of the
project site when the
Notice of Application
is mailed. The sign
will remain posted
until the project is
approved.

Change – Timeframe of
how long the sign
should be posted.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 557
Steps Current Process Proposed Process Change or No Change (to Current Process)
Notice is posted on City
Hall display board.

City staff posts
information about the
proposed project on
a City webpage.1
Change -
Rather than posting a
notice on the City Hall
display board, a notice
would be posted on the
City’s website.

RDRC meeting is held.

Neighbors can submit
comments before meeting
or make a public comment
during the meeting.

If a neighbor has a
concern, they can
contact the Project
Applicant or
assigned City
planner within 14
calendar days from
the ‘Notice of
Application’ is
received.

Step 4. Public Change
Comment Period
After the 14 calendar
days end, Project
Applicant provides all
comments to
assigned City
planner.

Change
Step 5. Project
Approval
RDRC approved project. A
10-day appeal period is
open.

If no comments are
received, the project
is approved.

Applicant can apply
for Building
Permit(s).

Change
If comments are
received, the City
planner will review
the comments to
determine if the
project meets the
objective design
standards and if any
changes can legally
be required in order
to meet the
standards. Applicant
makes changes, as
needed. Project is
approved. Applicant
can apply for
Building Permit(s).

Change
1 The City website currently has a “Development Projects” webpage which can be found here:
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/city_hall/departments_and_divisions/community_development/planning/d evelopment_projects.php Information about proposed single-family residential projects could be added to this webpage, or City staff could create a new webpage that focuses solely on single-family residential applications. Staff recommends only posting information about the projects reviewed under Compliance Review meeting the proposed “Neighborhood Notification” thresholds.

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 558
Steps Current Process Proposed Process Change or No Change (to Current Process)
City staff updates the
webpage to signify
project approval.

Change

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 559
If you require translation for this notice, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-802-4222.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the San Carlos City Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall – 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, on Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of hearing and considering all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation (PTC Resolution 2023-16) that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider introducing an ordinance to amend Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the San Carlos Municipal Code for the Single-Family Objective Design Standards project.

The following code sections are proposed for amendment: 18.03 (Rules of Measurement),

18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.12 (Hillside Overlay District), 18.15 (General Site Regulations),

18.20 (Parking and Loading), 18.26 (Planning Authorities), 18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review), 18.40 (Use Classification), And 18.41 (Terms And Definitions) and Addition of a new subsection 18.23.310 (SB-9 Units) under Chapter 18.23 (Standards For Specific Uses and Activities) of the San Carlos Municipal Code.

The proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code are consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element and is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “common sense exemption”. In addition, Government Code Section 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n) concludes that an Ordinance adopted to implement Senate Bill 9 is not a project under CEQA.

Agenda. The agenda and relevant materials for this item will be available for viewing online:
www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda; at the City Clerk’s Department in City Hall – 600 Elm Street; and at the San Carlos Library – 610 Elm Street, beginning October 19, 2023. Details and instructions on how to observe the meeting and address the Council will be available on the agenda.

Questions and Comments. Questions regarding the project may be directed to Rucha Dande, Senior Planner, at [email protected]. Comments may be sent via email to the City Clerk - [email protected] and the City Council - [email protected]; or mailed to the City Clerk at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070; or made in-person at the public hearing.

All persons interested in the above are hereby invited to participate in this Public Hearing and be heard. If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing.

Crystal Mui
City Clerk
Publication Date: October 12, 2023

8.a
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 560

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 - Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Sections 18.03 - Rules of
Measurement, 18.12 - Hillside Overlay District, 18.29 - Design Review, and 18.40 - Use Classifications.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 - Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Sections 18.03 - Rules of Measurement, 18.12 - Hillside Overlay District, 18.29 - Design Review, and 18.40 - Use Classifications.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact and no additional appropriation is needed for this action.

BACKGROUND:

In 2020 and again in 2022, the City Council adopted updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Ordinance to align with new state laws, and to improve processes for reviewing and approving applications. 2020 Update: The City Council fully replaced the ADU and JADU Ordinance (Section

18.23.210 of the San Carlos Zoning Title 18) with a new Ordinance, and adopted minor amendments to other relevant chapters, in response to comprehensive state law updates for ADU and JADU construction.
2022 Update: The City Council adopted several minor updates to the ADU and JADU Ordinance that were recommended based on the experiences of both staff and applicants to improve the permitting process for ADUs and JADUs.

In the fall of 2022, new state laws for ADUs and JADUs were passed and became effective January 1, 2023. Cities that do not update their Ordinance must follow state laws until an updated Ordinance is adopted. Thus, to start the process of updating the City’s ADU Ordinance, there was a PTC study session on May 15, 2023. The purpose of the study session was to review the proposed ADU Ordinance amendments and to identify any topics that needed further discussion or refinement.

On September 5, 2023, the PTC reviewed the proposed changes at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code changes. Feedback from

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 561
the PTC study session and public hearing have been considered and reflected within the proposed amendments.

In addition to the recommended of items outlined below, the PTC clarified the definition of “high quality transit” to ensure it is consistent with the state definition, and added a cubic feet metric to the “standard refrigerator” definition. The PTC also recommended allowance of ADUs both above and below detached garages, to consider sloped lots, such as those lots located in the hillside areas, and supported the amendment to allow ADUs up to the maximum floor area, but no greater than 50% of the existing primary dwelling, unless classified as a statewide exemption ADU.

ANALYSIS:

Overview of Proposed Amendments.

The 2030 General Plan Housing Element includes Goal HOU-3, which states “Assist in the Development of New Housing that is Affordable at All Income Levels,” and Action HOU-3.3, which states “Facilitate the Legalization and Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)” and JADUs. The Housing Element sets a timeframe to accomplish Action HOU-3.3. The timeframe calls for the ADU Ordinance to be updated by June 2023 and to be consistent with state laws modifying ADU requirements.

The PTC is proposing amendments to align the City’s ADU Ordinance with new state laws, to encourage ADUs and JADUs, and to “clean up” the Ordinance as described below.

The proposed amendments related to state law include the following:
• Expand the locations where ADUs and JADUs can be constructed (i.e., ADUs permitted in proposed multifamily buildings);
• Clarify design requirements;
• Limit ADU size relative to the main dwelling;
• Require interior entries for JADUs which share a bathroom with the main dwelling; • Waive ADU parking space requirements for ADUs proposed with a new multi-unit structure;
• For statewide exemption ADUs, waive front setbacks, increase height limits, and decrease second-story side setbacks; and
• Eliminate fire sprinkler requirements, since adding an ADU does not trigger fire sprinkler requirement in a primary dwelling.

Moreover, additional amendments are recommended which include the following:
• Clerical edits;
• Expand the allowable configurations for ADUs/JADUs and detached garages; • Clarify refrigerator standards;
• Add a definitions section that includes the definitions of JADUs, ADUs, and statewide exemption ADU, and public transit;
• Standardize ADU height limits; and
• Eliminate the discretionary requirement related to obstructing or raising the sill height of ADU windows on second stories.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 562
These amendments aim to streamline the permitting process, ensure compliance with state laws, provide greater clarity for property owners and developers, and reduce the barriers related to the development of ADUs and JADUs.

Impact of Proposed Amendments.

The goal of the amendments is to make the ADU Ordinance complicit with new state laws. While some of these changes may impact overall ADU policies, they are necessary to ensure that the ADU Ordinance is up-to-date and functional. These amendments also implement the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, including Goal HOU-3 of the recently adopted Housing Element.

Please see Exhibit A to the Ordinance for the full copy of the proposed Ordinance amendments to Section 18.23.210 governing the construction of ADUs and JADUs. Amendments to other relevant sections of the Municipal Code (Exhibit B to Ordinance) are also proposed for consistency in terminology and implementation.

Summaries of Proposed Amendment Sets.

Set 1: Proposed Policy-Related Amendments
The amendments summarized in Table 1 are recommended to align the ADU Ordinance with the new state Laws and respond to the input received from the PTC. The changes and clarifications aim to decrease barriers to the construction of more ADUs and JADUs. The amendments will also make the Ordinance more consistent, but may impact overall ADU or JADU policies, or their form or function. These amendments have been recommended by the PTC for Council consideration.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 563
Table 1. Proposed Policy-Related Amendments to ADU Ordinance Proposed Policy-Related Amendments
Topic 1: Detached Garages and ADUs
Recommendation 1A: Allow ADUs to be located both above and below detached garages. • Current Ordinance: ADUs may only be located above detached garages. • Rationale: The current Ordinance does not consider configurations of detached garages and ADUs on significantly sloped lots, such as those located within the San Carlos hillside. Allowing ADUs to be located below garages would provide greater flexibility in constructing ADUs on sloped lots.

Recommendation 1B: Allow ADUs above or below a detached garage to be located outside of the garage footprint.
• Background: A standard detached garage is approximately 400 square feet. • State law: Local agencies must allow at least an 800 square foot ADU. • Current Ordinance: Requires that where ADUs are included over a detached garage, the ADU footprint must remain entirely within the garage footprint. • Rationale: The current Ordinance may prevent unique footprints that better maximize the space on the lot or may encourage excessive lot coverage or excessively large garages to accommodate a fully detached ADU.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 564
Proposed Policy-Related Amendments
Recommendation 1C: When built with a detached garage, allow ADU balconies and decks to face rear and side property lines to accommodate minimum ingress and egress. • Current Ordinance: Balconies and decks for this type of ADU configuration (ADU with detached garage) can only face away from the property lines. From staff’s understanding, this requirement intends to promote privacy for neighbors.
• Background: The current Ordinance already allows decks and balconies to face necessary directions for other types of ADUs (detached freestanding or attached to main dwelling) to allow minimum safety requirements for ingress and egress.
• Rationale: This amendment would allow greater flexibility in constructing ADUs and JADUs on narrow lots.

Topic 2: Allowable JADU Locations
Recommendation 2A: Explicitly allow unenclosed crawlspaces to be converted to JADUs. • New state law: Requires that JADUs be allowed in any enclosed space of an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, including attached garages.
• Current Ordinance: The new state law and current Ordinance do not consider typical house configurations on significantly sloped lots, which often include unenclosed portions of structures that could be converted to usable floor area, and are otherwise not usable, such as crawl spaces or cantilevered covered parking areas.
• Rationale: Allowing unenclosed crawlspaces to be converted to JADUs would provide greater flexibility in creating JADUs from underutilized spaces on lots.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 565
Proposed Policy-Related Amendments
Recommendation 2B: Remove the requirement that new additions shall not contain JADUs. • New state law: Requires that JADUs be allowed in any enclosed space of an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, including attached garages.
• Current Ordinance: New state law and the current Ordinance do not address unenclosed portions of structures that could be converted to usable floor area, and are otherwise not usable, such as crawl spaces or cantilevered covered parking areas. • Further, the current requirement that new additions shall not contain JADUs creates an additional burden on applicants because if they would like to create a JADU through proposed floor area, they either need to demolish and rebuild the entire structure, or submit an application for an addition, receive approval of the application, complete construction, and then seek another building permit to “convert” the added-on floor area to JADU. • Rationale: Removing this requirement would make it easier to create JADUs.

Topic 3: ADUs Above First Stories
Recommendation 3A: Allow the height of attached ADUs to be determined by the base zoning district.
• Allowing attached ADUs to be constructed at the same allowable height as the rest of a building will better serve the architectural integrity of building and roof designs, and create more flexibility in constructing ADUs and JADUs as additions to existing multistory structures. • New state law requires a minimum allowable height of 25’ for attached ADUs. • Without making an adjustment to account for base zoning regulations, every type of development where an ADU may be proposed will have to limit the location of the ADU below 25’, which is lower than what is allowed in all residential zoning districts, and within the Hillside Overlay District. This effectively regulates an ADU more strictly than a regular upper story addition of floor area to the primary building.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 566
Proposed Policy-Related Amendments
Recommendation 3B: Strike the requirement for ADU second story windows to “be obscured or have at least 5 foot sills depending on existing and proposed conditions”? • This standard treats ADUs and their occupants differently than other types of dwelling units and their occupants by regulating views and does so in a subjective manner. • New state law has crystallized the requirement that ADUs and JADUs must be regulated by objective standards.
• Second story ADU window requirements are currently established by discretion of the director, so this requirement must be struck because it is not considered objective. • “Depending on existing and proposed conditions” is also not objective and must be struck/revised to be objective.

Topic 4: Additional Amendments
Recommendation 4: Define size for refrigerators in ADUs to be minimum 20” width, 50” height, 20” depth or 11 cubic feet.
• Current Ordinance: The Ordinance requires a "standard refrigerator," but does not formally define the dimensions. This has proven to be confusing for applicants. • Rationale: Setting a minimum refrigerator size would provide clarity to applicants.

Recommendation 5: Allow ADUs up to the maximum floor area but no greater than 50% of the existing primary dwelling, unless classified as a Statewide Exemption ADU • Current Ordinance: The Ordinance allowed ADUs to be a maximum of 850 square feet for a studio or one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for a unit that contains more than one bedroom. • Rationale: Maximum floor area limits apply to the entire lot, regardless of the type of structure.

Removing the maximum square footage requirements and allowing ADUs to utilize any remaining floor area available for the lot will allow flexibility for planning and design for both the main residence and the ADU. To ensure that ADUs remain "accessory," it is proposed that the size is limited to no more than 50% the size of the primary dwelling unit.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 567
Set 2: Proposed Amendments to “Clean Up” Ordinance
The proposed amendments, as shown in Table 2, seek to clarify requirements and make the Ordinance internally consistent. The amendments are clerical and not policy related.

Table 2. Proposed Amendments to “Clean Up” the ADU Ordinance Location of “Clean-Up” Amendments

18.23.210: Accessory and junior accessory dwelling units:

Numbers and Location Subsection
JADU Development Requirements Subsection
ADU Development Requirements Subsection
Other Clarity-Related Amendments:

Chapter 18.03 Rules of Measurement
Chapter 18.12 Hillside Overlay District
Chapter 18.29 Design Review
Chapter 18.40 Use Classifications
Set 3: Proposed Amendments to Address State Laws
The proposed amendments in Table 3 are required by California State Senate Bill 897 and Assembly Bill 2221, which were codified into law within California Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22, and 17980.12 (see Attachment 2 for summaries of SB 897 and AB 2221).

Additional amendments are recommended by the PTC to reflect requirements in existing state law (Table 4).

Table 3. Proposed Amendments Based on New State Laws
New State Law: Must amend City Ordinance to achieve minimum compliance Attached Garage Conversion to JADU:
• New state law: Clarifies that enclosed areas within an existing dwelling can be converted to JADU, including attached garages.
• Current City Ordinance and Planning Divisions’ practice already allows attached garages to be converted to JADUs.
• PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to explicitly state that City will allow attached garages to be converted to JADU to clearly comply with state law.

ADUs in Multifamily Structures:
• New state law: Requires local agencies to allow ADUs in both existing and proposed multifamily structures.
• Current Ordinance: Only allows ADUs to be converted from within existing multifamily structures.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 568
New State Law: Must amend City Ordinance to achieve minimum compliance • PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance so that ADUs are allowed within existing or proposed multifamily structures.

Fire Sprinklers:
• Previous state law: Fire sprinklers cannot be required for ADUs/JADUs if sprinklers were not required for the main unit.
• New state law: Further clarifies that fire sprinklers shall not be required for the main unit due to construction of an ADU/JADU.
• PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to reflect this requirement and strike out the fire sprinkler requirement under the Building Code requirements.

Front Setbacks:
• Current Ordinance: Allows the front setback regulation to be waived for a statewide exemption ADU only where it is demonstrated by an applicant that the front setback unduly constrains the creation of the ADU.
• New state law: Front setbacks are now included in the development requirements that must be waived for statewide ADUs. Local agencies cannot establish limits on lot coverage, floor area, open space, minimum lot size, and front setbacks that do not permit construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU.
• PTC Recommendation: Amend statewide exemption for ADU Development Standards to comply with state law.

Height:
• Current Ordinance: Allows 16’ maximum for a statewide exemption ADU (or any ADU). • The height limit has increased for certain statewide exemption ADUs:
• Detached ADU with an existing or proposed single family dwelling unit or single-story multifamily dwelling unit height maximum increased to 18’-20’ when located within one-half (1/2) mile of public transit.
• Detached ADU with an existing or proposed multifamily, multi-story dwelling unit height maximum increased to 18’ (regardless of proximity to public transit). • Detached Garage + ADU is allowed a maximum 20’ height – no change proposed. • Attached ADU height minimum increased to 25’.
• PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to reflect these height maximums, and recommends amendments offering additional height flexibility to attached ADUs.

JADU Shared Bathrooms:
• JADUs may include separate sanitation facilities from the main dwelling or may share with the main dwelling.
• Where JADUs share sanitation facilities with the main dwelling, new state law requires that an interior entry from JADU to main dwelling be provided.
• The current Ordinance does not outline a requirement for an interior entry for shared sanitation facilities.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 569
New State Law: Must amend City Ordinance to achieve minimum compliance • PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to explicitly require an interior entry from JADU to main unit where sanitation facilities are shared.

Parking Standards:
• Local agencies cannot impose parking standards on an ADU included in an application to create a new single-unit dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot. • PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance Parking Standards to include this exception.

Objective Design Standards
State law requires that local agencies may only review ADUs/JADUs using objective standards and must ministerially approve applications for building permits for statewide exemption ADUs.

The new state bills add the definition of “objective standards” to the statute: “Objective standards mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are 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 prior to submittal.”
The PTC is recommending amendments to the Ordinance to eliminate all discretionary and subjective requirements. However, new design standards are not outlined for ADUs at this time because the City is separately working to prepare objective design standards which will comprehensively address design requirements for all residential project types, including ADUs.

Table 4. Proposed Amendments Based on Existing State Laws

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 570
Existing State Law: Suggested amendments to better comply with state law Allowable ADU and JADU Locations:
• ADUs and JADUs may be constructed on lots with existing or proposed residential uses in any zoning district as well as residential zoning districts. • PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to reflect allowable ADU and JADU locations.

Second Story Setbacks:
• Interior side and rear setbacks must be reduced to minimum 4 feet to allow a statewide exemption ADU, or a JADU, as long as the unit complies with maximum height requirements and other relevant dimensional requirements.
• PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to reflect that statewide exemption ADUs in any configuration are allowed to reduce interior side and rear setbacks to a minimum or 4 feet.

Percentage of Main Dwelling:
• When building a new attached ADU or converting existing space within a primary dwelling to ADU, state law requires that the ADU may constitute no greater than 50% of the resulting floor area of the main dwelling.
• No standard currently exists in the Ordinance outlining the maximum percentage of the resulting dwelling an ADU may constitute.
• While this scenario is uncommon, in at least two conversion ADU scenarios, staff had to reference state law where the local Ordinance was silent. • PTC Recommendation: Amend the Ordinance to include this limit on ADU sizes relative to the main building. Specifically, if there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling, unless classified as a statewide Exemption ADU.

Consistency with General Plan.

The City of San Carlos Zoning Ordinance is required to be consistent with the City’s General Plan (§65860). This is one of two findings that must be made when considering amendments.

1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Basis for finding: The 2030 General Plan Housing Element includes Goal HOU-3, which states “Assist in the Development of New Housing that is Affordable at All Income Levels,” and Action HOU-3.3, which states “Facilitate the Legalization and Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)” and JADUs. The Housing Element sets a timeframe to accomplish Action HOU-3.3; the timeframe calls for the ADU Ordinance to be updated by June 2023 to be consistent with state laws modifying ADU requirements. One of the primary goals of these proposed amendments is to ensure that San Carlos’s development standards pertaining to ADUs and JADUs are consistent with state law, which is intended to expand housing opportunities by reducing barriers, better streamline approval and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs and JADUs.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 571

2. The Ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of this zoning title to promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

Basis for finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the 2030 General Plan and as such promote the location, design, and placement of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in an orderly manner while continuing to protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare.

Environmental Determination.

This project implements the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

Next Steps.

Should the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendations as proposed or with amendments, a second reading of the Ordinance would be held on November 13, 2023. Once the Council adopts the Ordinance at the second reading, the proposed amendments would become effective December 12, 2023. In addition, the City is required to submit the adopted Ordinance to the State Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. If HCD finds that any portion of the Ordinance is not consistent with state Law, then the Ordinance can be sent back to the City for changes.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Introduce an Ordinance Amending the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Sections 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.12 (Hillside Overlay District), 18.29 (Design Review), and 18.40 (Use Classifications); or

2. Do not Introduce the proposed Ordinance;

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community Development Director

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 572
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance Amendment Section 18.23.210 Exhibit B - Proposed Amendments to Other Relevant Code Sections

2. Summary of State Laws Pertaining to ADUs and JADUs

3. Planning and Transportation Commission Resolution 2023-17

4. Notice - Proof of Publication

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 573
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AMENDING THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.23.210 -

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS/JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND SECTIONS 18.03 - RULES OF MEASUREMENT, 18.12 - HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT,

18.29 - DESIGN REVIEW, AND 18.40 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS.

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby find and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, in order to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code for compliance with state law regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, to comply with Objective 3 of the 2023 Strategic Work Plan to increase housing production by adopting an updated accessory dwelling unit Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35, when amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code are found necessary, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) shall hold a public hearing to consider such changes and render its decision to the City Council as the official recommending body to the City Council on matters concerning land use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 6509, a PTC Public Hearing Notice was published on August 22, 2023 for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in the San Mateo Daily Journal; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2023 the PTC conducted a duly noticed public hearing to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the proposed amendments of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35, the PTC adopted Resolution No. PTC2023-17 recommending to the City Council adoption of zoning text amendments, and including the reasons for the recommendation, and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the applicable General Plan pursuant to Chapter 18.35.

SECTION 2:

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.27.060 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, a Public Hearing Notice was published October 12, 2023 for the Amendments to Title 18, Zoning Ordinance in the San Mateo Daily Journal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15168(e), public notice included a statement that the “project” implements the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary; therefore, no additional environmental review was required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168; and

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 574
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text were released for public review on October 19, 2023 and incorporate the recommendations of the PTC as recommended its Resolution No. PTC2023-17; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with a proposed amendments of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on October 23, 2023 in consideration of adoption of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings for the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning Ordinance relative to implementation of the 2030 General Plan and the 2023 Strategic Work Plan.

SECTION 3: The City Council makes the following additional findings:

1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Basis for finding: The 2030 General Plan Housing Element includes Goal HOU-3, which states “Assist in the Development of New Housing that is Affordable at All Income Levels,” and Action HOU-3.3, which states “Facilitate the Legalization and Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)” and JADUs. The Housing Element sets a timeframe to accomplish Action HOU-3.3; the timeframe calls for the ADU Ordinance to be updated by June 2023 to be consistent with State laws modifying ADU requirements. One of the primary goals of these proposed amendments is to ensure that San Carlos’s development standards pertaining to ADUs and JADUs are consistent with State law, which is intended to expand housing opportunities by reducing barriers, better streamline approval and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs and JADUs.

2. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of this zoning title to promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

SECTION 4: Amendment of Codes. Chapter 18.23.210 – Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units is hereby amended with the language in Exhibit A and Sections 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.12 (Hillside Overlay District), 18.29 (Design Review), And 18.40 (Use Classifications) are hereby amended with the language in Exhibit B.

SECTION 5: California Environmental Quality Act Determination. The City Council hereby finds that this project is consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 575
SECTION 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and such section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7: Publication and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption.
* * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 23rd day of October, 2023 and passed and adopted as an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
____________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:

A. Amendments to Section 18.23.210 – Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
B. Amendments to Sections 18.03 – Rules of Measurement, 18.12 – Hillside Overlay District, 18.29 – Design Review, and 18.40 – Use Classifications

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 576
1 EXHIBIT A to Ordinance
Proposed Changes to San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code include additions in blue and deletions in red.

18.23.210 Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units.

A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this section is to:

1. Provide for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of State law (California Government Code Section 65852 et seq).

2. Maintain the character of single-family residential neighborhoods in the City to the greatest extent possible.

3. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect.

B. Definitions.

1. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family dwelling unit (must contain a separate, external entrance). A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing, at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) or may share sanitation facilities with the single-family dwelling. An efficiency kitchen is required, which must include a sink and a built-in cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven, hot plate), as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and located on a single lot with a proposed or existing single-unit dwelling. It shall include a separate external entrance and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (at minimum, a sink, toilet, and

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 577
2 shower) on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling. At a minimum, the kitchen shall contain a sink, standard refrigerator, and either a built-in cooktop or range, as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.

3. Statewide Exemption ADU. A statewide exemption ADU, found in Government Code section 65852, subdivision (e), is an ADU of up to 800 square feet, 16 feet in height (18 feet near transit or when the primary dwelling has more than one story, 25 feet or the underlying zoning height limit, whichever is lower, for an attached ADU), as potentially limited by a local agency, and with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. State ADU Law requires that no lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setback or minimum lot size will preclude the construction of a statewide exemption ADU. Further, State ADU Law allows the construction of a detached new construction statewide exemption ADU to be combined on the same lot with a JADU in a single-family residential zone. In addition, ADUs are allowed in any residential or mixed uses regardless of zoning and development standards imposed in an ordinance.

4. Public Transit. A bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes.

C. B.. Land Use Regulations. Accessory dwelling units shall be a permitted use within an existing single-unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling, in residential (R) zoning districts, in mixed-use (MU) zoning districts and in any planned development (PD) zoning district where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted as part of an approved planned development plan. Junior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in the single-family (RS) zoning districts within an existing single-unit dwelling, or as part of a proposed new single-unit dwelling. Regardless of any required development standards, a minimum ADU of eight hundred square feet shall be allowed. Any ADU or JADU does not count towards the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located.

D. C. Number of Units and Location.

1. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Number and Location.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 578
3 a. Where permitted as specified in Table 18.04.020, one (1) junior accessory dwelling unit may be developed on any legally created lot and shall be located within the walls of an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. New additions to an existing residence shall not contain JADUs. Enclosed spaces within the residence, such as attached garages and crawlspaces, are considered part of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units, Number and Location.
a. Multifamily Dwelling Structures, Accessory Dwelling Units Inside an Existing or Proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the number of existing or proposed multifamily units in the building, but at least one (1) accessory dwelling unit , shall be allowed in existing or proposed multifamily dwelling structures within the portions of the structure that are not used as livable space; provided, that the unit complies with the California Building Standards Code as set forth in Title 15 for dwellings. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifamily structure. b. Multifamily Dwelling Structures, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Up to two (2) detached accessory dwelling units on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling structure.; provided, that the height of the detached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed sixteen (16) feet and has no less than four (4) foot side and four (4) foot rear yard setbacks. c. Single-Family Residential Lots or Dwellings. One (1) accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot containing an existing or proposed singleunit dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a junior accessory dwelling unit when the requirements of subsection E of this section, Development Standards, are met. Where permitted, an accessory dwelling unit may be located in any of the following places on a legally created lot:
a. Attached to an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; b. Located within the walls of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, including all or a portion of an attached garage;

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 579
4 c. Located within or added onto an existing accessory structure; d. Located over or below a legally established detached garage; e. Detached from the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure.

3. Accessory Dwelling Units, Location. Where permitted, one (1) accessory dwelling unit may be located in any of the following places on a legally created lot:
a. Attached to an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; b. Located within the walls of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, including all or a portion of an attached garage, or an existing multifamily structure;
c. Located within an existing accessory structure;
d. Detached from the existing single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure;
e. Located over a legally established detached garage.

E. D. Rental and Ownership Standards.

1. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.
b. Junior accessory dwelling units may be rented independently of the primary residence.
c. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be rented for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 580
5 d. Where a lot contains both an accessory dwelling unit and a junior accessory dwelling unit, eEither the single-unit dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be owner-occupied.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, unless permitted by State Law.
b. Accessory dwelling units may be rented independently of the primary residence.
c. Accessory dwelling units shall not be rented for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
d. For applications received prior to January 1, 2025, there is no owneroccupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units.

F. E. Development Standards.

1. Junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units shall conform to the height, setbacks, lot coverage, and any other development or supplemental standards of any applicable zoning district(s), the development standards below, other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City codes. In any case of conflict between this section and any other part of the San Carlos Municipal Code, the standards specific to this section shall take precedence.

2. Building Code Requirements. Junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable building code requirements and applicable state laws regarding ADUs and JADUs., except fire sprinklers shall not be required in a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit if they are not required for the single-unit dwelling, and fire sprinklers shall not be required for the single-unit dwelling due only to the proposed construction of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.

3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
a. Interior Requirements. Junior accessory dwelling units shall be contained entirely within the walls of a single-unit dwelling, and shall contain at least an

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 581
6 efficiency kitchen equipped with a sink, a built-in cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven, hot plate) as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets. that are of reasonable size in relation to the junior dwelling unit. New additions to an existing residence shall not contain JADUs.
b. Size Requirements. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be no larger than five hundred (500) square feet in size; and no junior accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
c. Bathroom Access. A junior accessory dwelling unit may, but is not required to, include separate sanitation facilities. If separate sanitation facilities are not provided, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall share sanitation facilities with the single-unit dwelling and shall provide a direct entry from the JADU to the main unit.
d. Entrances. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate external entrance from the primary dwelling unit. The entrance of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be located along any street-facing facade unless required to meet minimum ingress and egress requirements to the unit. unless infeasible as determined by the Community Development Director. e. Setbacks. The maximum size of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall maintain a limit in size of five hundred (500) square feet. The single-family unit first floor side and rear setbacks may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate access to a ground floor junior accessory dwelling unit, or an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the unit if it is located on the second story.
f. Architectural Compatibility. The architectural design, exterior materials and colors, roof pitch and style, type of windows, and trim details of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be substantially the same as the single-unit dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units shall satisfy applicable objective design criteria and conform to any applicable objective design guidelines of the underlying zoning district.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 582
7 g. Balconies and Openings. Balconies, decks, and open stair landings above the first floor shall not face the side property lines, except as needed to meet minimum requirements to allow ingress and egress. as determined by the Building Official.
h. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide for any additional parking and, unlike accessory dwelling units, are required to provide replacement parking for any parking displaced by their construction, including full or partial conversion of an existing garage.
i. Non-Conformities. Junior accessory dwelling units must be allowed within a single-unit dwelling, including nonconforming single-unit dwellings. A permit to construct a junior accessory dwelling unit in a nonconforming single-unit dwelling shall not require nonconforming conditions to be corrected, unless otherwise required for health and safety.

4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
a. Interior Requirements. An accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate external entrance and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling. At a minimum, the kitchen shall contain a sink, standard refrigerator (minimum 20-inch width, minimum 20-inch depth, and minimum 50-inch height or 11 cubic feet), and either a built-in cooktop or range, as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.
ba. Limits on Lot Coverage, Maximum Floor Area (MFA), Front Setbacks, and Natural State. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with lot coverage requirements, MFA, required front setbacks of the underlying zoning district, and natural state and open space requirements when applicable, as well as other applicable development standards, except that: a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of ADU floor area is exempt from the MFA requirement that applies to the RS-6 zoning district; and unless classified as a Statewide Exemption ADU per subsection c below. . an ADU of up to eight hundred (800) square feet and up to sixteen (16) feet in height and with minimum four (4) foot side and minimum four (4) foot rear yard setbacks is not

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 583
8 required to meet lot coverage standards, MFA, and floor area standards, and natural state or open space requirements (which is defined as a “statewide exemption ADU”).; front yard setbacks shall not preclude a statewide exemption ADU, and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of accessory dwelling units.
cb. Statewide Exemption ADU. Notwithstanding the development standards set forth in subsection (E)(4)(ba) of this section, if there is no alternative to constructing an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the development standards listed in subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section, one (1) or more of these development standards may be waived only to the extent necessary to allow a statewide exemption ADU of up to eight hundred (800) square feet with a maximum of sixteen (16) feet in height (except as specified in subsection (E)(4)(h) of this section), with minimum four (4) foot side and four (4) foot rear yard setbacks. The front setback requirement may be reduced to the extent necessary so as not front yard setbacks shall not to preclude a statewide exemption ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of accessory dwelling units.

The proposal must meet all other objective development standards. The applicant must also demonstrate that an accessory dwelling unit cannot be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards. dc. Entrances. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate external entrance from the single-unit dwelling.
ed. Setbacks. Except as indicated in this subsection, an accessory dwelling unit shall be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone in which the unit is to be located.

Detached ADUs. Detached accessory dwelling units must be set back a minimum of four (4) feet from rear and four (4) feet from the side property lines. Accessory dwelling units that are not classified as statewide exemption ADUs must meet the required front setback unless located within a legal, nonconforming structure.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 584
9 Conversions of Existing Living Area or Accessory Structures. No setback is required for an existing living area or an existing accessory structure converted to an accessory dwelling unit, or for a new accessory dwelling unit constructed in the same location and built to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks between an accessory dwelling unit and the single-unit primary dwelling; however, all proposals shall meet any applicable building and fire requirements. Newly constructed attached ADUs shall meet minimum four (4) feet side and four (4) feet rear setbacks on the first floor. Newly constructed ADUs on the second floor shall conform to the required setbacks of the underlying zoning district, unless classified as a statewide exemption ADU. and Newly constructed ADUs shall meet the required front setback for the main residence, unless classified as a statewide exemption ADU. Accessory dwelling units attached to the main residence, and located on the second floor shall conform to the minimum second floor setbacks for the main residence.

On reversed corner lots (as defined in Section 18.41.020), the rear setback for an attached ADU located on the second floor shall be a minimum of five (5) feet, unless classified as a statewide exemption ADU.
fe. Maximum Size. The floor area of an accessory dwelling unit not considered a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to the maximum allowable floor area permissible on the lot based on the underlying zoning district requirements, not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one (1) bedroom, and shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit that contains more than one (1) bedroom when the accessory dwelling unit meets all development standards of any applicable zoning districts, except that: conversions of garages, sheds, barns, and other existing accessory structures, either attached or detached from a single-unit dwelling, are not subject to any additional development standard, such as unit size, height, and lot coverage requirements. If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling, unless classified as a Statewide Exemption ADU. If the accessory dwelling unit does not meet all development standards of the applicable

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 585
10 zoning district, the maximum floor area permitted is eight hundred (800) square feet, regardless of number of bedrooms, subject to the provisions of subsection (E)(4)(b) of this section. No accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
gf. Architectural Compatibility. An accessory dwelling unit, whether attached or detached, shall use any combination of the following elements to maintain architectural and design compatibility between the single-unit dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling unit: architectural style, exterior materials, fenestration (windows and openings), and colors of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; however, the quality of the materials shall be the same or exceed that of the single-unit dwelling. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to any applicable objective design guidelines of the underlying zoning district.

If there is no alternative to constructing an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the objective design standards of the underlying zoning district or development standards listed in subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section, one (1) or more of these development standards and/or objective standards may be waived only to the extent necessary to allow a statewide exemption ADU. The applicant must also demonstrate that an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be constructed in accordance with applicable development or objective standards.”
hg. Balconies and Openings. Balconies, decks or open stair landings above the first floor and within ten (10) feet of a side or rear property line shall not be permitted, except as needed to meet minimum requirements to allow ingress and egress, as determined by the Building Official, but in no case shall be less than three (3) feet from the property line.

Windows above the first floor and within ten (10) feet of the property line may be required to be obscured or have at least five (5) foot sills depending on the existing and proposed conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director. ih. Maximum Height. Except as provided by Subsections (h)(i-iii) below, detached accessory dwelling units shall be no greater than sixteen (16) feet in height as measured in accordance with Section 18.03.050 (Measuring height).

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 586
11 For purposes of this section, “public transit” means a bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes.
i. A detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half (1/2) mile walking distance of public transit shall be no greater than eighteen (18) feet in height. An additional two (2) feet in height shall be permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
ii. A detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling shall be no greater than eighteen (18) feet in height regardless of proximity to public transit.
iii. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the maximum height of the underlying zoning district, or twenty-five feet, whichever is greater.
ji. Accessory dwelling units developed within an existing accessory structure on a lot with a single-unit dwelling may include an expansion of up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet beyond the existing physical structure of the accessory structure only to accommodate ingress and egress if the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for safety. Any other additions to an existing accessory structure shall comply with all other standards in effect including but not limited to setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
k. Passageway. No passageway, as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.2, shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or JADU.

Table 18.23.210(E)(4): Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards Detached ADUs Non-Statewide
Exemption
Statewide Exemption
Maximum Height (ft.) 16
18 if located within ½
mile of public transit +
2’ to match main
building roof pitch
16 18 if located within ½
mile of public transit +
2’ to match main
building roof pitch

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 587
12 18 if on same lot as a
multistory multifamily
building
20 if located above a
detached garage
18 if on same lot as a
multistory multifamily
building
20 if located above a
detached garage
Maximum Size Floor area is limited to
the Maximum Allowable
Floor Area of the
Underlying Zoning
District;
Up to 800 sq. ft. exempt
from Maximum Floor
Area of Underlying
Zoning District
No larger than 50% of
existing dwelling unit
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Maximum
Floor Area of
Underlying Zoning
District
Lot Coverage Non-exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Comply with Underlying
District
May be reduced to 0’ if
no other location is
feasible
Interior Side 1st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Street Side 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Rear 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Building Separation Defer to Building Code Defer to Building Code Balconies, Decks,
Open Stair Landings
(2nd Story and Up)
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
Attached ADUs Non-Statewide
Exemption
Statewide Exemption
Maximum Height (ft.) 25 or Underlying
Zoning District
requirement, whichever
is greater
25 or Underlying
Zoning District
requirement, whichever
is greater
Maximum Size Floor area is limited to
the Maximum Allowable
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Maximum

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 588
13 Floor Area of the
Underlying Zoning
District;
Up to 800 sq. ft. exempt
from Maximum Floor
Area of Underlying
Zoning District
No larger than 50% of
existing dwelling unit
Floor Area of
Underlying Zoning
District
Lot Coverage Non-exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Comply with Underlying
District
May be reduced to 0’ if
no other location is
feasible
Interior Side 1st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Street Side 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Rear 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District; Reverse
Corner Lots 5
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Building Separation Defer to Building Code Defer to Building Code Balconies, Decks,
Open Stair Landings
(2nd Story and Up)
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
Existing Space
Converted to ADU
(attached or
detached); or new
accessory dwelling
unit constructed in
the same location and
built to the same
dimensions as an
existing structure
Non-Statewide
Exemption
Statewide Exemption
Maximum Height (ft.) None None
Maximum Size No larger than 50% of
existing dwelling unit
800 sq. ft.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 589
14 Lot Coverage Non-exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front None None
Interior Side None None
Street Side None None
Rear None None
Building Separation Defer to Building Code Defer to Building Code Balconies, Decks,
Open Stair Landings
(2nd Story and Up)
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
ADU over Detached
Garage
Non-Statewide
Exemption
Statewide Exemption
Maximum Height (ft.) 20 None
Maximum Size Floor area is limited to
the Maximum Allowable
Floor Area of the
Underlying Zoning
District;
Up to 800 sq. ft. exempt
from Maximum Floor
Area of Underlying
Zoning District
No larger than 50% of
existing dwelling unit
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Maximum
Floor Area of
Underlying Zoning
District
Lot Coverage Non-exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
800 sq. ft.

Exempt from Lot
Coverage requirement
of underlying zoning
district
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Comply with Underlying
Zoning District
ADU: May be reduced
to 0’ if no other location
is feasible; detached
garage setback must
comply with Underlying
Zoning District
Interior Side 1st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Street Side 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 590
15 Rear 1
st Story: 4
2 nd Story: Underlying
District; Reverse
Corner Lots 5
1 st Story: 4
2 nd Story: 4
Building Separation Defer to Building Code Defer to Building Code Balconies, Decks,
Open Stair Landings
(2nd Story and Up)
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress
10; up to 3 if needed to
meet minimum ingress
and egress

5. Additional Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units Located Above or Below Detached Garages. In addition to the standards specified in subsections (E)(4)(a) through (i) of this section, accessory dwelling units that are located over or below detached garages are subject to the following additional requirements:
a. The accessory dwelling unit must meet the minimum required front setback of the zoning district in which the lot is located, unless it meets the criteria of a statewide exemption ADU. See Section 18.04.030-H for requirements to locate a detached garage in the front half of a single-familyzoned lot. b. The footprint of the accessory dwelling unit located above a garage may not extend past the footprint of the garage with the exception of stairs or entryway to access the unit. No portion of the accessory dwelling unit may be located at ground level except for stairs or an entryway to access the unit above the garage.
b. c. Balconies and decks shall not face rear and side property lines except as needed to meet minimum requirements to allow ingress and egress. c. d. The maximum height of the structure shall be twenty (20) feet as measured in accordance with Section 18.03.050 (Measuring height). d. e. Stairs or access to the accessory dwelling unit shall not encroach into any required parking area. Stairs may encroach into the parking area of a garage; provided, that the front end of a standard size automobile can fit under the stair projection. The bottom of the stairwell (including exterior finish) shall be a minimum of five (5) feet above the garage floor.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 591
16 G. F. Parking. Parking for a junior accessory dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided in compliance with the following standards:

1. Except as provided in subsection (F)(3) of this section, one (1) parking space shall be provided per accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling unit parking requirements are in addition to the parking required for the single-unit dwelling as provided in Chapter 18.20.

2. Parking spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway or in setback areas unless the Community Development Director finds that tandem parking and parking in setback areas are not feasible because of specific topographical conditions and/or other conditions that would pose a risk to health and safety. No parking may extend into a public sidewalk or right-of-way that would require walking into the street. A minimum of eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in depth is required for any uncovered parking space.

3. No parking shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit if any of the following apply:
a. The accessory dwelling unit is contained within an existing single-unit dwelling, multi-unit dwelling, or accessory structure, or proposed single-unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling.
b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half (1/2) mile walking distance of public transit. For purposes of this section, “public transit” means a bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes. c. The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant district.
d. Where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the accessory dwelling unit.
e. When a designated parking area for one (1) or more car-share vehicles is located within one (1) block of the accessory dwelling unit. f. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the parking spaces for the primary residence need not be replaced.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 592
17 4. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide for any additional parking, except that any parking displaced by their construction, including full or partial conversion of an existing garage, shall be replaced.

H. G. Utilities and Impact Fees.

1. No junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property.

2. Except as provided in subsection (G)(3) of this section, an accessory dwelling unit may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit.

3. The following accessory dwelling units shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges:
a. Junior accessory dwelling units.
b. Standard accessory dwelling units converted from interior space unless the unit is constructed within a new single-unit dwelling.

4. All utility extensions shall be placed underground if required for the single-unit dwelling.

5. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fees may be imposed on a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit that is less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size. For purposes of this section, “impact fees” includes the fees specified in Government Code Sections 66000 and 66477, but does not include utility connection fees or capacity charges.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 593
18 b. For accessory dwelling units that have a floor area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or more, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the single-unit dwelling.

I. H. . Delay of Enforcement of Building Standards.

1. Prior to January 1, 2030, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit that was built before November 25, 2020, may submit an application to the Building Official requesting that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five (5) years. For purposes of this section, “building standards” refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of California Health and Safety Code Section 17960.

2. The Building Official shall grant the application if the Building Official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the Community Development Director shall consult with the Fire Marshal and Building Official.

3. No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the City of San Carlos before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application.

4. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standards that is issued to the owner of an accessory dwelling unit built before November 25, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this section.

5. This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed. (Ord. 1584 § 4 (Exh. A), 2022)

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 594
EXHIBIT B to Ordinance
Proposed Changes to San Carlos Municipal Code Sections 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.12 (Hillside Overlay District), 18.29 (Design Review), and 18.40 (Use Classifications) of the San Carlos Municipal Code.

Proposed Amendments to Municipal Codes are in blue and deletions in red.

18.03.080 Determining floor area.

The floor area of a building is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building or other enclosed structure, measured from the outside perimeter of the exterior walls and/or the centerline of interior walls.

A. Included in Floor Area. Floor area includes, but is not limited to, all habitable space (as defined in the California Building Code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof or within lines drawn parallel to and two feet within the roof line of any building without walls. Garages in the RS-6 zoning district shall be included in floor area calculations. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.

B. Excluded from Floor Area. Floor area does not include mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building’s gross floor area; statewide exemption accessory dwelling units in accordance with Section 18.23.210; up to 800 square feet of any accessory dwelling unit; bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is thirty inches or greater; areas that qualify as usable open space; and in nonresidential buildings, areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, ramps between floors of a multi-level parking garage, and maneuvering aisles that are located below the finish grade of the property.

18.03.100 Determining lot coverage.

Lot coverage is the ratio of the total footprint area of all structures on a lot to the net lot area, typically expressed as a percentage. The footprints of all principal and accessory structures, including garages, carports, covered patios, and roofed porches, shall be summed in order to calculate lot coverage. The following structures shall be excluded from the calculation:

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 595
A. Unenclosed and unroofed decks, uncovered patio slab, porches, landings, balconies and stairways less than eighteen inches in height at surface of deck (and less than six feet including railings); B. Eaves and roof overhangs projecting up to two feet from a wall; C. Trellises and similar structures that have roofs that are at least fifty percent open to the sky with uniformly distributed openings;
D. Swimming pools and hot tubs that are not enclosed in roofed structures or decks; and E. One small, nonhabitable accessory structure under one hundred twenty square feet. Structures above quantity of one shall be included in lot coverage.

F. Statewide exemption accessory dwelling units in accordance with Section 18.23.210.

18.12.050 Development standards.

A. General Site Planning Standards. Each structure shall be located in the most accessible, least visually prominent, most geologically stable portion or portions of the site, and at the lowest feasible elevation.

Structures shall also be aligned with the natural contours of the site. Siting structures in the least prominent locations is especially important on open hillsides where the high visibility of construction should be minimized by placing structures so that they will be screened by existing vegetation, depressions in topography, or other natural features.

B. Parking Front Setback Adjustment. In order to reduce grading, required parking (including a private garage) may be located, at the discretion of the Director, as close as five feet to the street property line; provided, that portions of the dwelling and accessory structures other than the garage shall comply with the setback requirements of the base zoning district.

C. Natural State. A minimum area of twenty-five percent of the lot area plus the percentage figure of average slope, not to exceed a maximum of eighty-five percent, must remain in its natural state. This standard may be waived or reduced for lots zoned PD or developed with clustered development subject to approval by the review authority. Statewide exemption accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are exempt from natural state calculations.

18.12.060 Building design standards.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 596
A. Height Limits. A proposed structure shall comply with the setback requirements of the base zoning district and the following:

1. Overall Height Limit. The maximum overall height of a structure shall not exceed a height of thirty-five feet, measured from the lowest elevation on the site where the structure touches finished grade, to the highest point of the roof.

2. Downhill Facing Building Elevation. The building elevation facing the downslope shall have a maximum height of twenty feet from finished grade with sufficient articulation from that building face to the next highest story to minimize the visual height and bulk as viewed from the lowest finished grade. An accessory dwelling unit attached to the main building at the downhill building elevation, and classified as a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit, may be constructed with a maximum height of twenty-five feet from finished grade.

18.29.020 Applicability.

Design review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure, site, or a parking area except for:

A. Construction, reconstruction, alterations, improvements, and landscaping for a project developed in compliance with a previous design review approval; and
B. Additions of floor area within an existing building envelope not including accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units. (Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.030 Assignment of design review responsibilities.

A. Residential Design Review Committee. The Residential Design Review Committee shall conduct design review of any residential improvement in the RS districts that:

1. Results in more than three thousand square feet of floor area (including garages) and meets or exceeds the FAR thresholds identified in Table 18.29.030-A(1); and

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 597
TABLE 18.29.030-A(1): RESIDENTIAL

SINGLE-UNIT DESIGN REVIEW

THRESHOLD
Average Cross-Slope
of Project (Percent)
Floor Area Ratio
0—4.9 0.40
5—19.9 0.30
20—29.9 0.25
30+ 0.20

2. Does not require and is not a part of a project that requires approval of a use permit, variance, or other discretionary approval by the Planning Commission.

3. If an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, staff may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until staff or RDRC approves or denies the permit application to create the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create or serve the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing.

18.40.020 Residential use classifications.

A. Residential Housing Types.

1. Single-Unit Dwelling. One (1) dwelling unit located on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. This classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. Small Lot Single-Unit Development. Detached single-unit dwellings located on lots less than six thousand (6,000) square feet in area.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 598

3. Bungalow Court. Detached single-unit dwellings arranged around a common, shared courtyard that is wholly open to the street.

4. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family dwelling unit (must contain a separate, external entrance). A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing, at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) or may share sanitation facilities with the singlefamily dwelling. An efficiency kitchen is required, which must include a sink and a built-in cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven, hot plate), as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.

5. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and located on a single lot with a proposed or existing single-unit dwelling. It shall include a separate external entrance and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation (at minimum, a sink, toilet, and shower) on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling. At a minimum, the kitchen shall contain a sink, standard refrigerator, and either a built-in cooktop or range, as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 599
ADU Legislative Updates – Effective 1/1/2023
Senate Bill 897:

1. Clarifies ADU ordinances must use objective standards, and adds the definition of objective standards to the statute: an “objective standard” is a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable. Existing law provides that a local agency must ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create not more than 2 accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation of 16 feet and a 4-foot side and rear setback requirement.

2. Detached ADU height maximum increased to 18’ for properties within one-half (1/2) mile of public transit, and for lots with an existing multifamily, multistory building. Must allow an additional 2’ in height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary single-unit dwelling unit.

3. Attached ADU height maximum increased to 25’. (“A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling.”)

4. Permits for ADUs or JADUs cannot be denied for nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures elsewhere on the property, unless they pose a threat to public health and safety.

5. Must review and issue demo permits at the same time as the ADU permit. prohibit an applicant from being required to provide written notice or post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is to be replaced by an accessory dwelling unit

6. Cannot require correction if height limit or setbacks are exceeded by a proposed ADU in existing multifamily dwelling.

7. Public Transit means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

8. A high quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

9. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. It can mean a site containing any of the following:
a. An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
b. A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. c. The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

10. ADUs allowed to be included inside proposed multifamily buildings (previously only allowed to be added to existing multifamily).

11. Sprinklers cannot be required for main unit due to ADU/JADU construction.

12. This bill would provide that the construction of an accessory dwelling unit does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, except as specified. The bill would prohibit the construction of an accessory dwelling unit from triggering a requirement that fire sprinklers be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

13. This bill would also prohibit a local agency from imposing any parking standards on an accessory dwelling unit that is included in an application to create a new single-family dwelling unit or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the accessory

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 600
the application can be remedied by the applicant, if the permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.

14. The bill would require a junior accessory dwelling unit that does not include a separate bathroom to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.

Assembly Bill 2221:

1. Requires 60-day comment turnaround for all ADU applications.

2. Front setbacks are now included in the development requirements that must be waived for statewide ADUs - cannot establish limits on lot coverage, floor area, open space, minimum lot size, and front setbacks that do not permit construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU. Current ordinance mostly already addresses this but may need to be made more explicit.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 601

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 602

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 603

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Carlos City Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall – 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, on Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of hearing and considering all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation (PTC Resolution 2023-17) that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider introducing an ordinance to amend Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the San Carlos Municipal Code to update the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Ordinance.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance complies with recent state laws, to address the State’s and City’s housing goals, to facilitate construction of ADUs and JADUs, and to provide greater clarity of local regulations.

This update is consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, including Goal HOU-3 of the recently adopted Housing Element. This update is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR); no new environmental effects have been found, and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

Questions and Comments. Questions regarding the project may be directed to Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director at [email protected].

Comments may be sent via email to the City Clerk - [email protected] and the City Council - [email protected]; or mailed to the City Clerk at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070; or made in-person at the public hearing.

All persons interested in the above are hereby invited to attend this Public Hearing and be heard.

If you challenge this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk
Publication Date: October 12, 2023
If you require translation for this notice, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-802-4222.

8.b
October 23, 2023 Packet Pg. 604

San Carlos City CouncilOctober 23, 2023

San Carlos City Council
October 23, 2023